Anyone notice a design flaw on the Ranger?

theraven2378

The bridge is at the same level of the torpedo launcher on the roll bar. On a practical level that roll bar either needs to be raised a bit or the bridge module lowered.

captkelly31

About as bad a design flaw as how some SF ships have the saucer section blocking the bussard collectors. That and the Comet class pylons.

theraven2378

captkelly31#5645 wrote: »

About as bad a design flaw as how some SF ships have the saucer section blocking the bussard collectors. That and the Comet class pylons.

Traditionally the bussard collectors on the nacelles are both the height of the saucer on the older generations of ships, on newer classes like the Defiant for example they are to the side of the hull in the nacelle housing.

Pylons look fragile and they need to be thicker

autumnturning

I'm amused by the Nebula.

The main shuttlebay on the saucer is blocked by the HUGE PYLON smack dab in the middle immediately aft of the door.

There are escape pods on the rear dorsal surface of the saucer which if launched upwards would immediately impact into the underside of the gigantic triangle kite a few scant deck levels above. They're not so much "life pods" as they are "demolition derby" pods.

theraven2378

And the classic let's put the bridge right in the line of fire on the top of the ship, we've seen bridge strikes and they are not pleasant for the occupants.

alexraptorr

theraven2378 wrote: »

captkelly31#5645 wrote: »

About as bad a design flaw as how some SF ships have the saucer section blocking the bussard collectors. That and the Comet class pylons.

Traditionally the bussard collectors on the nacelles are both the height of the saucer on the older generations of ships, on newer classes like the Defiant for example they are to the side of the hull in the nacelle housing.

Pylons look fragile and they need to be thicker

Incorrect, Bussard collectors have always been unobstructed since the original Enterprise.

artan42

alexraptorr wrote: »

theraven2378 wrote: »

captkelly31#5645 wrote: »

About as bad a design flaw as how some SF ships have the saucer section blocking the bussard collectors. That and the Comet class pylons.

Traditionally the bussard collectors on the nacelles are both the height of the saucer on the older generations of ships, on newer classes like the Defiant for example they are to the side of the hull in the nacelle housing.

Pylons look fragile and they need to be thicker

Incorrect, Bussard collectors have always been unobstructed since the original Enterprise.

Ambassador. The Galaxy kind of. A couple of the kitbashes. Not all have full clearance.

undedavenger

artan42 wrote: »

alexraptorr wrote: »

theraven2378 wrote: »

captkelly31#5645 wrote: »

About as bad a design flaw as how some SF ships have the saucer section blocking the bussard collectors. That and the Comet class pylons.

Traditionally the bussard collectors on the nacelles are both the height of the saucer on the older generations of ships, on newer classes like the Defiant for example they are to the side of the hull in the nacelle housing.

Pylons look fragile and they need to be thicker

Incorrect, Bussard collectors have always been unobstructed since the original Enterprise.

Ambassador. The Galaxy kind of. A couple of the kitbashes. Not all have full clearance.

They are BELOW the saucer, still unobstructed. And kitbashes really can't count. i don't even buy into most of them as legit designs.

artan42

Both are partially obstructed by the saucer. And Kitbashes do count. They're canon ships whether you think they're legitimate or not.

The Norway from First Contact has similarly obscured bussard collectors. The Steamrunner has them so low they're cut into the saucer (obviously this leaves them unobstructed fully).

Then there's the Excelsior

​​

angrytarg

autumnturning wrote: »

I'm amused by the Nebula.

The main shuttlebay on the saucer is blocked by the HUGE PYLON smack dab in the middle immediately aft of the door.

There are escape pods on the rear dorsal surface of the saucer which if launched upwards would immediately impact into the underside of the gigantic triangle kite a few scant deck levels above. They're not so much "life pods" as they are "demolition derby" pods.

I don't think that's a problem. The shuttlebay isn't some sort of starfighter catapult, shuttles can easily manoeuvre between the pylon and the shuttlebay. I'm not sure how STO has it, but I checked on my Nebula desk model, shouldn't be a problem.

The escape pods, though - I don't know how manoeuvreable those are ​​

theraven2378

angrytarg wrote: »

autumnturning wrote: »

I'm amused by the Nebula.

The main shuttlebay on the saucer is blocked by the HUGE PYLON smack dab in the middle immediately aft of the door.

There are escape pods on the rear dorsal surface of the saucer which if launched upwards would immediately impact into the underside of the gigantic triangle kite a few scant deck levels above. They're not so much "life pods" as they are "demolition derby" pods.

I don't think that's a problem. The shuttlebay isn't some sort of starfighter catapult, shuttles can easily manoeuvre between the pylon and the shuttlebay. I'm not sure how STO has it, but I checked on my Nebula desk model, shouldn't be a problem.

The escape pods, though - I don't know how manoeuvreable those are ​​

They have guidance thrusters, as soon as they detach from the hull, the thrusters kick in and divert the pod away from the ship.

turbomagnus

True; in "First Contact", we see escape pods detaching from the -E, re-orienting themselves and forming up before they begin the descent to Earth, so it's safe to assume that there's some kind of thrusters to allow them to move away from the ship's destruction and/or to avoid debris that would be usable to avoid pylons, mission pods, nacelles and the like.

Personally, my thing has always been windows on ships like the Caitian Atrox and Odyssey variants where the windows are on the inside side of dual pylons. Look at the hanger sections of the Atrox and the neck of the Odyssey; there are windows where the only thing anyone could see looking out them is across to the other hanger bay or the other side of the neck. What's up with those?

crypticarmsman

autumnturning wrote: »

I'm amused by the Nebula.

The main shuttlebay on the saucer is blocked by the HUGE PYLON smack dab in the middle immediately aft of the door.

There are escape pods on the rear dorsal surface of the saucer which if launched upwards would immediately impact into the underside of the gigantic triangle kite a few scant deck levels above. They're not so much "life pods" as they are "demolition derby" pods.

The Nebula Class has the ULTIMATE design flaw - no Impulse Engines (at least none visible)

turbomagnus

crypticarmsman wrote: »

autumnturning wrote: »

I'm amused by the Nebula.

The main shuttlebay on the saucer is blocked by the HUGE PYLON smack dab in the middle immediately aft of the door.

There are escape pods on the rear dorsal surface of the saucer which if launched upwards would immediately impact into the underside of the gigantic triangle kite a few scant deck levels above. They're not so much "life pods" as they are "demolition derby" pods.

The Nebula Class has the ULTIMATE design flaw - no Impulse Engines (at least none visible)

Good thing the game isn't WYSIWYG, then.

iconians

I like the design flaw in the Tempest Patrol Escort. There are escape pods directly on the saucer that if ever launched, would collide directly with the ship's warp nacelles.​​

trillbuffet

Sometimes the mistakes one perceives will be a part of something that is cherished lol

Looking at some of these pictures of the ships even though vast majority of my characters are KDF I'd still get the federation ones if they weren't so high priced. At the least there should be some sliding scale based on the ingame economy(the dilithium exchange is pretty much a state of the game in its own rights). Just figured I'd throw that out there with the flaws and the huge price tags to buy the flaws ya know

theraven2378

I find it comical with the Ranger, every forward torpedo spread becomes a game of russian roulette for the bridge crew.

velrenn

Well, a forward spread would reasonably be a menace to the whole saucer.

I guess targeting systems could create a dead zone in the spread for safety, but that wouldn't be tactically effective in a lot of situations (on the other hand, hitting the saucer would be even less effective).

theraven2378

velrenn wrote: »

Well, a forward spread would reasonably be a menace to the whole saucer.

I guess targeting systems could create a dead zone in the spread for safety, but that wouldn't be tactically effective in a lot of situations (on the other hand, hitting the saucer would be even less effective).

Maybe the forward launcher tubes are angled to fire upwards at an angle instead of dead head on. Maybe worth asking Cryptic's ship designer about.

turbomagnus

theraven2378 wrote: »

Maybe the forward launcher tubes are angled to fire upwards at an angle instead of dead head on. Maybe worth asking Cryptic's ship designer about.

"The Ranger Temporal Battlecruiser's weapon hardpoints are Working As Intended. Pay no attention to rumors of self-inflicted bridge shots resulting in sudden decompression and death, even if they are true. Everything is Working As Intended!"