Pretty much asking any dev what the title states. I know a few ships have gotten a revisit and a touch up. Never really understood why this ship was released looking so far from what it is suppose to and the mesh error between the nacelles has never been addressed. Eaglemoss got it spot on in their model so wondering if we are ever going to see something like that in game.
0
Comments
Also it's in-universe an imitation made by Starfleet and not produced by the original ship builders.
My character Tsin'xing
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
https://ibb.co/gduikU
https://ibb.co/dDq0X9
https://ibb.co/nyJnC9
https://ibb.co/dWapQU
https://ibb.co/cvkHC9
https://ibb.co/f628Kp
https://ibb.co/dRZYkU
Unless the original USS Dauntless were to show up as an NPC ship, it would make more sense for the one in-game to be slightly different to the canon one. Your Chief Engineer could even comment on the slight inaccuracies if they saw the original.
Avo" yes. wasnt holos though it was particle synthesis. suppose to be realer then holograms.
Tyler if I remember correctly they found the PB in the delta quadrent reasonable to say it could have specified shape.
Alcy: it was the same size as the one in game.
I don't see Waldo anywhere. Or did the circles have a different purpose? If so, I couldn't detect any anomalies between the circled areas.
Mozz: You could demonstrate that with a side by side of all 3 from multiple angles. As it stands, you provided juxtaposed angles without any demonstrable comparison. Not convincing at all.
That's all I can see.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
as for the starfleet imitation? it is hard to call an imitation to the real thing that never actually existed. in effect the imitation is the canon source, so in the end you aren't really making a case since you are complaing about a ship that is the canon source.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
https://postimg.cc/image/5xksa56p9/ https://postimg.cc/image/byih7b125/ <-- Missing phaser strips and misshaped hull...In fact there are no phaser strips anywhere on the ship.
https://postimg.cc/image/hzg64gvf1/ <-- Mesh misplacement this is on both sides of the nacelle
https://postimg.cc/image/ybq7tmha5/ <-- Proper dauntless frame *ignoring the red tipped nacelles.
https://postimg.cc/image/471r8ep3h/ <-- in game dauntless frame
Salaz: again its a mesh error. As in the mesh was not properly laid so it looks visibly disconnected. a side by side would not show that as its a GAME mesh error. reference images provided
https://postimg.cc/image/x9g1bg159/
https://postimg.cc/image/8g6hau7v1/
Rattler: No, the ship is the right size.
Mirror: the producers of Ent confirmed a while ago it was a dauntless class ship being used by the bed. As with every ship as we see it in trek its in STO no matter what semantics argument is used the Dauntless should be no different. Personally its my favorite trek ship.
Indeed. I've seen errors on the old T5 Nova, for instance, but the Dauntless still looks fine to me. Wouldn't mind a screen-accurate bridge for it, though; but I suppose that ship has sailed a long time ago.
i couldn't care less about this "semantics" BS you propose and alledge, provide your proof and make your case.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
My character Tsin'xing
I wasn't referring to the ship itself. Just the warp field grills. You know... the blue glowy bits on the nacelles?
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Mirror: welp thanks for commenting but if you don't care you can go. Don't let the airlock hit you on the way out.
Rattler" Ah now I see what you mean. Do you think they need to be smaller?
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Rattler: Im not seeing the difference but I like that you like it as is
And you're welcome.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode