There is no such thing as a 5 minute fix. The easiest fix for a ship takes at least 2 hours. From fetching the files, to investigating the issue, to problem solving the issue, to fixing the issue, to testing to make sure you didn't break 50 things, to checking in the issue, to writing up what the issue was and what you fixed.
There is a reason that seemingly simple things still exist. Making games is much more complicated then most want to accept.
@crypticquack Didn't want you to think i was being rude or anything. My 5 minute remark is based off of my experience with other games, obviously i have no idea how the internal development is done but just with my own experience in other engines something like missing an option like the Ar'Kif and B'rel where there isn't anything that has to be fixed or created, it's there, just missing, usually are easy and quick fixes.
But again i didn't mean any offense. At least the arkif and b'rel issues still shouldn't be that tough compared to many of the other ones. I don't expect a fix to the mogh and emblem issues anytime soon as with all my knowledge I'm at a complete loss for how that could happen.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
@crypticquack Didn't want you to think i was being rude or anything. My 5 minute remark is based off of my experience with other games, obviously i have no idea how the internal development is done but just with my own experience in other engines something like missing an option like the Ar'Kif and B'rel where there isn't anything that has to be fixed or created, it's there, just missing, usually are easy and quick fixes.
But again i didn't mean any offense. At least the arkif and b'rel issues still shouldn't be that tough compared to many of the other ones. I don't expect a fix to the mogh and emblem issues anytime soon as with all my knowledge I'm at a complete loss for how that could happen.
No offense was taken! : ] Having fine folks like you contribute meaningfully to this thread is priceless. I just often see 'quick fix' or 'should be quick' or 'really easy' applied to many things that are anything but that and I am trying to get as much info out there so you players can get a better grasp on what is happening on our end.
I wish simple fixes didn't take as much time as they do, but our ship system has to be incredibly complex to support our gameplay.
Nick "Crypticquack" Quackenbush
33.33% of the STO Ship Art team.
100% of the new guys on the STO Ship Art team.
I definitely can appreciate that fact, and I understand that is particularly true of extremely detail-intensive work... like remodeling and texturing an iconic ship like the Galaxy or the B'rel. All the more reason that I (and others) are very grateful to you for encouraging threads such as this.
Thanks for dropping by and fighting the good fight for improving the look of some of the launch-era ships, crypticquack. If there's any way that we can make this feedback more useful/usable by the ship art team, please let us know.
I do have one request, can you separate requests from bugs? Or at least note if the bullet point is a request vs. a bug?
Nick "Crypticquack" Quackenbush
33.33% of the STO Ship Art team.
100% of the new guys on the STO Ship Art team.
No offense was taken! : ] Having fine folks like you contribute meaningfully to this thread is priceless. I just often see 'quick fix' or 'should be quick' or 'really easy' applied to many things that are anything but that and I am trying to get as much info out there so you players can get a better grasp on what is happening on our end.
I wish simple fixes didn't take as much time as they do, but our ship system has to be incredibly complex to support our gameplay.
Evidently. Crazy the amount of work to do for something that seems so simple.
I do have one request, can you separate requests from bugs? Or at least note if the bullet point is a request vs. a bug?
I meant to bring this up earlier, a lot of the stuff on the front page is just asking for better models, though i think we can all agree that more screen accurate ships is awesome, those are not bugs and no where near as urgent.
Everything that's a bug should be bright and easy to see, maybe simply just put:
BUG
in front of everything that is a bug to point them out. I think most of us would agree that we'd much rather have bug fixes worked on before updating models.
No offense was taken! : ] Having fine folks like you contribute meaningfully to this thread is priceless. I just often see 'quick fix' or 'should be quick' or 'really easy' applied to many things that are anything but that and I am trying to get as much info out there so you players can get a better grasp on what is happening on our end.
I wish simple fixes didn't take as much time as they do, but our ship system has to be incredibly complex to support our gameplay.
I do have one request, can you separate requests from bugs? Or at least note if the bullet point is a request vs. a bug?
My issues are kind of both bug/glitch/broken code and an issue of the battle of lack of immersion + the game is made as a dual faction system with one faction that basically joins which ever side they want to be on.
My first issue this is one that is not a request lol Well in a way it is a request because the KHG uniform for many races and genders just are broken and do not work while I never expected a quick fix but not sure how long you have been at cryptic but in 3-4 months from now is the 2 year anniversary of it being broken. That is how long this issue has gone on and it basically spread to all these lobi costumes and such and even spread to the fed side to some degree but not as bad.
The other issue is being there are 3 or more people than there was when they said there just was not enough artists to push out Klingon stuff or stuff for races absorbed into the Empire. Then when we are given stuff like the newest bops that are Tier 1 c-store ships if I am correct the costume of one of them is available to the c-store b'rel but not to the fleet b'rel.
I guess in all when it comes to the KDF though we know since star trek was never about them specifically like the federation. So I myself know most of the stuff being made money on will be federation but when you have people playing something else that you guys have attracted people too there should be some level of consistency so they do not get left behind.
To note most of the studio model references that have been listed, like the Christie's Auction pictures, have been based on the original six foot model.
When making the remastered TNG they updated some shots with a new CGI Enterprise-D, based on the form of the six foot model but with the added details from the four foot version. This shot from Unification for example shows the the differences:
I did remember one detail missing from the underside of the head on the Romulan D'deridex-class warbird. Missing from the in-game model is a series of "stepped deck" like details under the head and behind the "beak" section of the D'deridex warbird. I tried to find clear images but it's been pretty difficult to locate good ones; here's what I came up with:
The Chimera, Peghqu' and the Daeinos do some minor transformations when they warp in and out of a system but these changes do not appear in sector space when traveling with warp speed. I know it's just a minor thing but it's a little sad that we never get a good look on what they look like in this mode.
There is an error when using the Negh'Var hull with the Qu'Daj wings. There is a set of windows that appear on the Negh'Var wings, but are actually associated with the hull piece. Hence when you use the Qu'Daj wings, the windows are floating in space.
Also there is a long standing problem with the Dhael warbird hull, which is set at an angle such that the ship constantly tilts forwards. You can see the impulse trails come out at an angle, and the ship does a buggy front flip when warping in and out.
whatinblueblazes thanks for this thread and thank you for connecting it with my own on the K't'inga.
This way it will not be forgotten.
I actually would like to thank you, since your awesome thread was what pushed me over the edge to do this. I don't think it would've been forgotten regardless, but every little bit helps!
Hopefully this thread will give the ship art team a good resource for bug-squashing and the correction of model errors.
It's my (longer term) hope that this might lead to the remodeling and retexturing of at least some of the more iconic ships in the game, in the vein of the Gallant and Vigilant class models. I know that's a nontrivial amount of work, so I'm not holding my breath in the near term... but if Cryptic sees that this is important to enough players, we might see a couple redone models included with each season or .5 update. At least, that's what I can hope!
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who's contributed so far. Go forth, and spread the word!
Would it be worth mentioning that the Scimitar warbird is considerably bigger than its onscreen counterpart. Going by the size chart created for Nemesis by John Eaves:
I would absolutely love it if the Scimitar was downsized a bit. Easily my favorite Reman/Romulan ship, But it absolutely needs to be reduced in size, it feels like it's roughly 20% too large.
The Jem'hadar Dreadnought, it's much too small. It was mentioned in Deep Space Nine that it's supposed to be twice the size of the galaxy, and that the defiant class was able to maneuver between the main body and the command decks. The game model isn't even big enough to properly hold jem'hadar attack ships that are supposed to launch from the main hangar.
The D'deridex is also feeling a little under scaled. It should be roughly the size of the Jem'hadar dreadnought. The ship doesn't quite have the presence that it carried in ST:TNG. I was really disappointed when the ship finally became playable, all those years of waiting, and the ship ended up being smaller than the Scimitar lol.
I'm not sure if it's a GFX issue but It appears on a few ships, that the colour Scheme options don't work as expected. (I expect my Ship to be painted in those colour, not Black/Grey)
I'm not sure if it's a GFX issue but It appears on a few ships, that the colour Scheme options don't work as expected. (I expect my Ship to be painted in those colour, not Black/Grey)
Notice that the Yellowstone image is pre-Season 9. I occasionally test the ships.
This is a glitch that's been in the game a while. If you want to color customize your ships, hit a template or randomize button first - then colors will properly show. It's annoying, but there is a decent work around for it. Colors don't 'apply' until you randomize or load a template.
1. MODEL ERROR: Off-kilter Galaxy/Nebula/Galaxy-X nacelles.
So I don't think anyone's ever noticed this, but the Galaxy/Nebula/Galaxy-X nacelles have had this particular model oddity since before the Galaxy appearance revamp ages ago.
It might be hard to notice at first, but the nacelles' blue glowy bits don't line up with the rest of the nacelle, it kind of veers upwards to the top of the nacelle a bit the closer it gets to the front. It's easier to notice if you compare the position and shape of the buzzard with the front ends of the blue bits (if there's a technical term for this part of the nacelle, I could use a reminder =P).
However, looking at it again, it's also possible the rest of the nacelle is off a bit and angled weird, with the blue glowy line actually at close-to-proper angle with the rest of the ship.
Here's a pic with straight black horizontal lines to highlight this:
It basically seems as if the nacelle droops half-way through going towards the front, but the blue glowy line separately remains relatively straightened out.
Regardless, the nacelles are definitely off-kilter a bit by themselves. Been bugging me for years now, personally.
As a separate note, the Galaxy nacelles themselves are missing the little RCS thruster details at the back of the nacelles, as seen here.
I was trying to find more official shots of the Galaxy shooting model(s) nacelles from a profile view for better reference, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of them that I can find, but here's one (can also vaguely make out the RCS thrusters on the nacelles here too).
Edit: Though found this shot from the old starships models errors thread. There's still the possible differences between the two main shooting models, but can't find any good nacelle comparisons for those, though the CGI model for the remastered series release would be a better reference if anyone could find clear profile shots of it's nacelles.
The next issue I want to add to this is one of the Avenger's misplaced firing points for beam arrays.
There's no phaser strip or emitter where it's firing from that I can tell and it fires from the center of the ship where it has almost no clearance to fire normally anyway. It typically happens when firing at targets above position of the firing Avenger.
I believe this issue was mentioned early on sometime after the Avenger came out, but I'll reiterate it here to add to this list.
Prometheus (MVAE console), Odyssey and Galaxy-X Dreadnought - BUG - Gets "stuck" in separation modes at times. This can either result in you being stuck in a separation state or a non-separation state.
When this happens, the toolbar button can be clicked. Appropriate sound effects play, and in the case of saucer separation, gas is visibly vented. However, the mode remains as-is, and the button remains clickable.
This can occur when attempting to separate the saucer (Ody, Gal-X), launch the Aquarius (Ody), or enable any MVAE mode. This has happened since at least 2012, and I suspect it may also happen for the Galaxy-R, but I have never observed this behavior.
Note that this is a somewhat sporadic bug, and used to be fairly common. I do not know if there have been any direct improvements or not. I suspect there MIGHT be a problem in the client in terms of the logic to track what separation mode you are in, though I have observed this behavior on three different computers with three separate STO installations, and at two different Internet connections, so I am fairly certain it is not unique to my computers or setups.
Fantastic feedback, everybody. Thank you for the additional contributions. They've all been noted in the master list. Particular thanks to those who've provided images, since I know those can be a pain to capture. Those are essential to our cause, however, so please keep them coming!
If I might give you all a mission, I am looking for model error and bug feedback for the Assault Cruiser, all makes and models. While I think we can all agree that she could use a facelift, I think that's more likely to happen if we demonstrate actual bugs first.
I would also be indebted to any Klingon players who could help me out with their various and sundry ship costume errors.
Well, at least in my experience, the Assault Cruiser doesn't have many 'bugs'. It's just an old model and texturing job. Most of it's errors are things like the name and registry on the wrong place on the saucer, no pennants or decals anywhere on her, the windows on the indention under the saucer get really hard to see at certain angles.
And on the type six skin using the Sovereign saucer, there are strange 'lights' on the registry on the lower saucer. Like windows are there, but not there at the same time.
The only real assault cruiser bug I know of is you can glitch the Regent nacelles into having the port nacelle get stuck with the type 6 skin. Hitting randomize fixes it, though.
In my opinion, the Assault Cruiser and her skins just need some TLC - no real major 'bugs and errors'.
There is another issue with the Sovereign-class variant of the Assault Cruiser; namely that there were alterations between each film appearance. I doubt Cryptic would want to make slight variations for just the Sovereign, so we'd need a consensus on which version should be the baseline. Personally I'd go with the Nemesis version, since it's the last time we saw the ship class on screen.
Has anybody yet mentioned the horrible "flat disc" effect on the Constitution Refit and Miranda class ships? They are ugly as sin and look disgusting. The real saucer had a concave curve and sweep going up and back down as it moved outward. In here? Just a flat slab-of-ham type of disc that they they stick a cone on top and bottom. Super low poly stuff, like from the days of Wing Commander and TIE Fighter. Not worthy of the recent decade's standards of 3D modelling.
See here for the example of how the underside sweeps up. A large ring on the underside of the saucer was used for equipment and machinery. It wasn't crew space. This area was about half a deck high only, and then the curve of the saucer went back out, making a second deck ring on the outer edge.
An added detail missing from the Galaxy-class would be RCS thruster placements on the upper and lower aft sections of the warp nacelles, on the outside and inside facing sides:
Comments
@crypticquack Didn't want you to think i was being rude or anything. My 5 minute remark is based off of my experience with other games, obviously i have no idea how the internal development is done but just with my own experience in other engines something like missing an option like the Ar'Kif and B'rel where there isn't anything that has to be fixed or created, it's there, just missing, usually are easy and quick fixes.
But again i didn't mean any offense. At least the arkif and b'rel issues still shouldn't be that tough compared to many of the other ones. I don't expect a fix to the mogh and emblem issues anytime soon as with all my knowledge I'm at a complete loss for how that could happen.
Agreed.10chars
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Aaaaand I've updated the feedback accordingly. Thanks, amosov78 and psycoticvulcan.
No offense was taken! : ] Having fine folks like you contribute meaningfully to this thread is priceless. I just often see 'quick fix' or 'should be quick' or 'really easy' applied to many things that are anything but that and I am trying to get as much info out there so you players can get a better grasp on what is happening on our end.
I wish simple fixes didn't take as much time as they do, but our ship system has to be incredibly complex to support our gameplay.
33.33% of the STO Ship Art team.
100% of the new guys on the STO Ship Art team.
I do have one request, can you separate requests from bugs? Or at least note if the bullet point is a request vs. a bug?
33.33% of the STO Ship Art team.
100% of the new guys on the STO Ship Art team.
Evidently. Crazy the amount of work to do for something that seems so simple.
I meant to bring this up earlier, a lot of the stuff on the front page is just asking for better models, though i think we can all agree that more screen accurate ships is awesome, those are not bugs and no where near as urgent.
Everything that's a bug should be bright and easy to see, maybe simply just put:
BUG
in front of everything that is a bug to point them out. I think most of us would agree that we'd much rather have bug fixes worked on before updating models.
My issues are kind of both bug/glitch/broken code and an issue of the battle of lack of immersion + the game is made as a dual faction system with one faction that basically joins which ever side they want to be on.
My first issue this is one that is not a request lol
The other issue is being there are 3 or more people than there was when they said there just was not enough artists to push out Klingon stuff or stuff for races absorbed into the Empire. Then when we are given stuff like the newest bops that are Tier 1 c-store ships if I am correct the costume of one of them is available to the c-store b'rel but not to the fleet b'rel.
I guess in all when it comes to the KDF though we know since star trek was never about them specifically like the federation. So I myself know most of the stuff being made money on will be federation but when you have people playing something else that you guys have attracted people too there should be some level of consistency so they do not get left behind.
(Top) Replacement Four foot model; (Bottom) Original Six Foot Model.
(Left) Original Six Foot Model; (Right) Replacement Four Foot Model.
To note most of the studio model references that have been listed, like the Christie's Auction pictures, have been based on the original six foot model.
When making the remastered TNG they updated some shots with a new CGI Enterprise-D, based on the form of the six foot model but with the added details from the four foot version. This shot from Unification for example shows the the differences:
Original shot (four foot model)
New shot (six foot CGI based model)
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
Absolutely. I will revise and maintain the list accordingly.
In-game model for reference.
TV Show reference.
Studio model reference.
"Ships of the Line" calendar reference.
Size comparison design sketch reference.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
We now only need to get it stickied...
Also there is a long standing problem with the Dhael warbird hull, which is set at an angle such that the ship constantly tilts forwards. You can see the impulse trails come out at an angle, and the ship does a buggy front flip when warping in and out.
Yeah, because that never happens. :rolleyes:
*cough*BFAW*cough*
This way it will not be forgotten.
I'd like to add another bug to your list:
the Norgh Bird of Prey is missing any window options right now.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img638/8463/ikskhodos.jpg
It used to have them
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff116/RSNWickedInsoxicated/Star%20Trek%20Online/Klingon/Klingon_Bird-of-Prey_Norgh.png
so I'd consider this a bug and not intentional.
I actually would like to thank you, since your awesome thread was what pushed me over the edge to do this. I don't think it would've been forgotten regardless, but every little bit helps!
Hopefully this thread will give the ship art team a good resource for bug-squashing and the correction of model errors.
It's my (longer term) hope that this might lead to the remodeling and retexturing of at least some of the more iconic ships in the game, in the vein of the Gallant and Vigilant class models. I know that's a nontrivial amount of work, so I'm not holding my breath in the near term... but if Cryptic sees that this is important to enough players, we might see a couple redone models included with each season or .5 update. At least, that's what I can hope!
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who's contributed so far. Go forth, and spread the word!
Ship size reference #1
It shouldn't be bigger than the D'deridex-class warbird:
Ship size reference #2
Ship size reference #3
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
The Jem'hadar Dreadnought, it's much too small. It was mentioned in Deep Space Nine that it's supposed to be twice the size of the galaxy, and that the defiant class was able to maneuver between the main body and the command decks. The game model isn't even big enough to properly hold jem'hadar attack ships that are supposed to launch from the main hangar.
The D'deridex is also feeling a little under scaled. It should be roughly the size of the Jem'hadar dreadnought. The ship doesn't quite have the presence that it carried in ST:TNG. I was really disappointed when the ship finally became playable, all those years of waiting, and the ship ended up being smaller than the Scimitar lol.
Fleet Chimera: http://steamcommunity.com/id/MikeSharpeWriter/screenshot/3334098878998446255
Yellowstone Player Shuttle: http://steamcommunity.com/id/MikeSharpeWriter/screenshot/594789945426126708
Notice that the Yellowstone image is pre-Season 9. I occasionally test the ships.
This is a glitch that's been in the game a while. If you want to color customize your ships, hit a template or randomize button first - then colors will properly show. It's annoying, but there is a decent work around for it. Colors don't 'apply' until you randomize or load a template.
Now to business...
BUGS
Bellerophon
That's the ones I can think of that aren't mentioned yet off the top of my head.
So I don't think anyone's ever noticed this, but the Galaxy/Nebula/Galaxy-X nacelles have had this particular model oddity since before the Galaxy appearance revamp ages ago.
It might be hard to notice at first, but the nacelles' blue glowy bits don't line up with the rest of the nacelle, it kind of veers upwards to the top of the nacelle a bit the closer it gets to the front. It's easier to notice if you compare the position and shape of the buzzard with the front ends of the blue bits (if there's a technical term for this part of the nacelle, I could use a reminder =P).
However, looking at it again, it's also possible the rest of the nacelle is off a bit and angled weird, with the blue glowy line actually at close-to-proper angle with the rest of the ship.
Here's a pic with straight black horizontal lines to highlight this:
It basically seems as if the nacelle droops half-way through going towards the front, but the blue glowy line separately remains relatively straightened out.
Regardless, the nacelles are definitely off-kilter a bit by themselves. Been bugging me for years now, personally.
As a separate note, the Galaxy nacelles themselves are missing the little RCS thruster details at the back of the nacelles, as seen here.
I was trying to find more official shots of the Galaxy shooting model(s) nacelles from a profile view for better reference, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of them that I can find, but here's one (can also vaguely make out the RCS thrusters on the nacelles here too).
Edit: Though found this shot from the old starships models errors thread. There's still the possible differences between the two main shooting models, but can't find any good nacelle comparisons for those, though the CGI model for the remastered series release would be a better reference if anyone could find clear profile shots of it's nacelles.
2. BUG: Misplaced Avenger beam array firing position.
The next issue I want to add to this is one of the Avenger's misplaced firing points for beam arrays.
There's no phaser strip or emitter where it's firing from that I can tell and it fires from the center of the ship where it has almost no clearance to fire normally anyway. It typically happens when firing at targets above position of the firing Avenger.
I believe this issue was mentioned early on sometime after the Avenger came out, but I'll reiterate it here to add to this list.
When this happens, the toolbar button can be clicked. Appropriate sound effects play, and in the case of saucer separation, gas is visibly vented. However, the mode remains as-is, and the button remains clickable.
This can occur when attempting to separate the saucer (Ody, Gal-X), launch the Aquarius (Ody), or enable any MVAE mode. This has happened since at least 2012, and I suspect it may also happen for the Galaxy-R, but I have never observed this behavior.
Note that this is a somewhat sporadic bug, and used to be fairly common. I do not know if there have been any direct improvements or not. I suspect there MIGHT be a problem in the client in terms of the logic to track what separation mode you are in, though I have observed this behavior on three different computers with three separate STO installations, and at two different Internet connections, so I am fairly certain it is not unique to my computers or setups.
If I might give you all a mission, I am looking for model error and bug feedback for the Assault Cruiser, all makes and models. While I think we can all agree that she could use a facelift, I think that's more likely to happen if we demonstrate actual bugs first.
I would also be indebted to any Klingon players who could help me out with their various and sundry ship costume errors.
And on the type six skin using the Sovereign saucer, there are strange 'lights' on the registry on the lower saucer. Like windows are there, but not there at the same time.
The only real assault cruiser bug I know of is you can glitch the Regent nacelles into having the port nacelle get stuck with the type 6 skin. Hitting randomize fixes it, though.
In my opinion, the Assault Cruiser and her skins just need some TLC - no real major 'bugs and errors'.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
See here for the example of how the underside sweeps up. A large ring on the underside of the saucer was used for equipment and machinery. It wasn't crew space. This area was about half a deck high only, and then the curve of the saucer went back out, making a second deck ring on the outer edge.
See here:
http://danielgovier.com/minecraft/2013/06/saucer_decks.jpg
I know the issues with the bridge area shape, the nacelles, and the struts have been mentioned. I didn't see anybody mention this egregious mistake.
The funny part is the TOS Constitution already has an upsweep curve, though far too subtle:
http://screenshots.stoarchive.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/screenshot_2010-02-04-19-24-52.jpg
The same error is at work with the Miranda class saucer underside.
I wanted to list this because it makes an elegant, curved, sweeping frame look ugly, flat, and bland. All in the hopes of eventually improving it.
EDIT: Forgot to include a reference link. Fixed.
Enterprise-E Nemesis CGI Model.
And the added torpedo/phaser placements on added for that film:
Enterprise-E added detail sketch.
An added detail missing from the Galaxy-class would be RCS thruster placements on the upper and lower aft sections of the warp nacelles, on the outside and inside facing sides:
RCS thruster detail #1
RCS thruster detail #2
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
Model Error for you: http://imgur.com/iNVUglO The Thunderchild's saucer's phaser arrays overlap some escape pods.