test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› The Art of Star Trek Online

Starships: Model errors, issues and feedback

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited July 2014 in The Art of Star Trek Online
Credit to -Jes- for the initial effort, the first section is a direct quote:
-Jes- wrote:
Ok, I'm hoping to make a catalogue here of known STARSHIP MODEL issues. This means anything from phasers shooting out from nowhere, to clipping textures, visual glitches and Canon inconsistencies.

PLEASE, post ONLY if you have any NEW info on issues or inconsistencies any ship might have, as posting info already found here will only hamper my efforts to update this thread.

If you are only here to flame or whine or otherwise argue semantics, PLEASE GTFO NOW!

Please utilise http://imgur.com/ (pictures) and http://tiny.cc/ (pages) when submitting info to help keep the bloat down on the front page posts.


Federation:


Tier 0

Centaur has windows and escape pods on Impulse Engines

Canon Inconsistencies:
  • Constitution:
    • Reference Aft hull and ventral saucer sensor domes not lit on in game model
    • Windows on nacelle pylons in incorrect location.
    • Windows on in game model do not match canon
  • Miranda: Studio model shots
  • NX-01Replica:

Tier 1





Tier 2

  • Heavy Escort:
    • Oslo strut does not attach well to the Zephyr nacelle, causing the nacelle to clip with the saucers
    • Oslo: Rear turrets all firing from port hardpoint
    • Oslo, and Zephyr are missing shuttle bays and phaser strips are wrong or missing


    Akira: side by sides

    The following is a partial list. View the full list of errors HERE
    1. The dorsal phaser arrays do not extend far enough around the saucer, the ventral phaser arrays are broken up into four strips, two along the darkened indentations between the rim and the bulge and two much smaller ones are on either side of the weapon pimple.
    2. Missing Starfleet decals from ventral saucer bulge
    3. Dorsal hull decals missing the ship registry
    4. Aft shuttle bays 1 & 2 are too small; the doors are the incorrect shape and are not numbered
    5. Central shuttle bay / Cargo doors missing.
    6. There is a little nodule jutting out beneath the landing platform at the aft of the saucer that should not be there.

  • Research Science Vessel:


  • Heavy Cruiser:


Tier 3



  • Exploration Cruiser:

    Enterprise D model reference shots from Christie's auction
    • Celestial ship name "obscuring" windows (flickering). Suggest moving the name down to just above the registry, possibly following the same parabola.
    Canon Inconsistencies:

    Galaxy:
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567…60

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Tier 4



    Tier 5

    • Fleet Escort:
      • Dervish Saucer: Flickering lights on underside.
      • When using the maelstrom hull, the fleet escorts' nacelles clip with the saucers in most configurations, especially when using the Gryphon pylons
      • Deflector texture not large enough, gaps showing around the sides.
      • Maelstrom: All escape pods on the upper rear section of the ship are completely blocked, by either the nacelles, and the centre pylon
      • Hermes:
        • Obscured / Uneven nacelle registry 1 2
        • Floating nacelle registry

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Starfleet Shuttles
    • Sovereign Captain's Yacht / Quantum Torpedo Turret:
      • IT'S ENORMOUS! (Playability means nothing when it destroys immersion. You may as well have made it a centaur class or a wireframe model.)

    • Delta Flyer:
      • It's enormous, too.
      • Nacelles not extending / retracting during warp out / in

    • Class F
      • Also enormous
      • Shuttle name should be written in cursive/script at a jaunty angle at the bow
      • Shuttle pet has the Galileo 2's designation but is missing the Galileo 2 name on the bow
      • While the gunwales do remain level from bow to stern, the hull between them should slope down from fore to aft, represented by the dotted line in the side view in this picture.


    Klingon:
      Most Canon Klingon ship designs in STO appear to be scaled 'against' Federation ships, and as such aren't even close to Canon scale.
      [*]Most canonical Klingon ships have bright fore and aft facing spotlights that are missing in STO.
      [*]Where Is the K'Vort cruiser?
      [*]Several ships have nacelles / wing tips that hang outside of the slipstream tunnel
      [*]Suggest renaming "Saucer" with "Command Module" "Bridge Module" or simply "Head" inside of ship customisation screen.


      Tier 0:


      D12 / B'rel BoP:       (Studio model reference) 1 2

      Canon Inconsistencies:
      This is one of the most iconic Klingon ships, full stop, yet it has an egregious lack of detail. This is not only sad, but absolutely shameful on Cryptic's part. As seen throughout the series and films, the classic Bird of Prey ranges from 51 metre scouts to 600+ metre cruisers and is the work horse of the Empire. This style should absolutely have its detail increased; the level of detail should, at the very least, match the Season 2 detail updates on the Galaxy, Intrepid, Comet, and Nomad. Not only should the texture and model be fixed and fixed well, there should be a classic Bird of Prey in every tier.
      • Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster.
      • Dorsal feather pattern should match the primary colour of the hull
      • Suggest a pattern be created that separates the feather patterns from the rest of the hull (colour / pattern wise) so they remain distinct.
      • Serious and shameful lack of detail on the warp engines.
      • Too many windows
      • Missing forward facing spotlights at the base of the wings



      Tier 1:


      [*]Quldun BoP:
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      This ship uses the Enterprise series warship design that, for all intents and purposes, is older than the D12 Bird of Prey seen in Star Trek II - IV (Retired because they were likely to be as dangerous to their own crew as their enemies). It seems unlikely that it would be superior to the D12 / B'rel styled Tier 0 Bird of Prey.

      [*]K'Tanco class battlecruiser:
      Multiple engine exhausts: 2 on the wings, and 4 on the main hull. The two on the wings do not leave contrails and the two in the centre of the hull are over-under but the exhaust contrails are side by side.

      [*]Somraw Class Raptor
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      Impulse exhausts should be Indigo / Violet



      Tier 2:


      [*]Norghi BoP:
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      This is an ENT series-based model, a design older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey mentioned previously, sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier 1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.

      [*]K't'inga Class:
      Model reference shots. 1 2

      Canon Inconsistencies:
      D7 Template
      • Impulse engine placement needs polish per remastered TOS, or removed entirely as the original TOS never displayed any at all.
      • Struts need outer exhaust vents.
      • Fleet Logo should be moved from the center portion of the engineering hull to the outer portion.
      • Add aft torpedo tube to mirror the one from the bow to make the in-game model more complete if the slot exists for it.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Tier 3:
      • Vor'cha Battlecruiser:

        Canon Inconsistencies:
        Huge side by side studio model / in game model comparison. (Note that in several places, multiple rows of windows have been replaced with a single row, making the ship appear much smaller.)
        • Missing logo on base of wings
        • Missing rack-style texture on the square (red) plasma vents on nacelles
        • Angle of logo on the top of wings is facing the wrong direction - it should be facing the same direction as the nacelles, not facing away from the nacelles
        • The shape of the wings are wrong - they are too straight at the back and curve at too shallow of an angle at the front - the wings should also place the nacelles far more lower compared to the hull

        Tor'Kaht costume issues:

      • Ki'Tang BoP:
        Canon Inconsistencies:
        This is an ENT series-based model (making it older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey seen in ST II - IV), sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier 1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.
        Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship used in the series in roles that, within the STO tier structure, would span nearly every tier?

        Tier 4/5:


      • Hegh'Ta BoP:
        This ship has several pairs of cannon hardpoints: Wing-tip cannons, mid-wing cannons, mid-line cannons and on the bow.

        Out of those 8 weapon hardpoints only the wing-tip cannons do anything.

        Using various weapons combos:
        • 3 DHCs and 1 torp forward: all 3 cannons fire from the wing-tips.
        • 2 DHCs, 1 torp and 1 DBB: Both cannons and the DBB fired from the wing-tips.
        • 2 DHCs, 1 torp and 1 DBA: Both cannons fire from the wing-tips. The beam array fires from various points, none of them cannon barrels.
        • When activating Cannon Rapid Fire, the mid-wing cannons receive activation FX but never fire.

        This affects all similarly designed Birds of Prey.
      • There are 4 engines but only the pods on struts up above the main hull leave trails
      • Windows on command module side extend into what looks like a door or an armour plate, with one window placed directly on the "seam"
      • Wing-mounted cannons still have torpedo launcher graphics attached to them. This has been partly dealt with by "hiding" the upper side of the swivels behind an additional model element, but the lower sides still have this issue. Additionally, this texture is also present on the cannons' barrels. Would it be possible to just exchange it with the alternative skin version of the launcher texture (i.e. yellow torpedo launcher = red cannon barrels; red torpedo launcher = yellow barrels)?


        Canon Inconsistencies:
        • This is an ENT series-based model (once again, older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey seen in ST II - IV), sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.
          Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship used in the series in roles that, within the STO tier structure, would span nearly every tier?
        • Starfleet style escape pods line the keel. Not exactly Klingon, and never seen in any of the series. (Error also exists on Haj BoP.) (Note circled clipping issues)


      • D12 / B'rel BoP: (Studio model reference) 1 2
      • missing phaser strip on starboard aft ventral wing. (There is a phaser strip on port aft ventral wing)

        Canon Inconsistencies:
        This is one of the most iconic Klingon ships, full stop, yet it has an egregious lack of detail. This is not only sad, but absolutely shameful on Cryptic's part. As seen throughout the series and films, the classic Bird of Prey ranges from 51 metre scouts to 600+ metre cruisers and is the work horse of the Empire. This style should absolutely have its detail increased; the level of detail should, at the very least, match the Season 2 detail updates on the Galaxy, Intrepid, Comet, and Nomad. Not only should the texture and model be fixed and fixed well, there should be a classic Bird of Prey in every tier.
        • Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster.
        • Dorsal feather pattern should match the primary colour of the hull
        • Suggest a pattern be created that separates the feather patterns from the rest of the hull (colour / pattern wise) so they remain distinct.
        • Serious and shameful lack of detail on the warp engines.
        • Too many windows
        • Missing forward facing spotlights at the base of the wings

      • Negh'Var Battlecruiser:
        Reference pictures:
        (Requests exist to use the DS9 model as it is the Prime time-line as opposed to the alternate "All good things" anti-time variant)

        Canon Inconsistencies:

      • Starfleet style escape pods line the keel. Not exactly Klingon, and never seen in any of the series.
      • Missing weapon nacelles on the keel
      • Hull is not "chunky" enough - the entire vessel should be a LOT taller overall, giving it a far greater height
      • Curve of the wings is wrong, it should be straighter on the front
      • Wings need to be about twice as thick
      • The vertical curve of the wing should be a little less steep
      • There are three indented squarish-sections missing on the front of the wings - The concept art lists them as impulse intakes
      • The bulge on the underneath of the head section should be thicker and more rounded
      • There is an additional box missing from the bulge on the underneath of the head
      • There is a fore-firing torpedo launcher at the front of each missing weapon nacelle (they look like giant BoP torpedo launchers) - the weapon mount point for the existing forward torpedo launcher should be moved, and should be replaced by one on each of the new weapon nacelles - the actual pike currently being used as the torpedo launcher is either the main disruptor or a docking probe
      • The triangular mission pod at the top-rear of the ship needs to be about twice is big


      • Vo'Quv
        • Scanning graphic comes from centre of model instead of any place sensible.

      • Orion Marauder


      Romulan:


      D'Deridex Warbird: Christie's model shots
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      Massively underscaled. It is supposed to be (at least) one KILOMETER long, larger than even a Galaxy Class. (available data varies from 1.042km to 1.353km)


      Norexan / Mogai Escort: (John Eaves reference shots)
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      • It's name: It's most commonly known as the Valdore-Type, or the Norexan-Class (from the TCG. Mogai is fom the Titan novels released after the TCG and is less well known)
      • Possible Scaling issue. (not confirmed) - According to the film's ship scale sheet, it should be 604 metres in length
      • Weapon nacelles on the tip of the wings in game are to small and they are not used. Weapons fire in game comes from the tip of the warp nacelles.
      • The ventral support structure is all straight lines in game, not curved like its supposed to be.
      • The nose section in game is all wrong, not angular and sharp and indented, but roundish and the lower part is bulging outwards


      Romulan BoP:
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      Model used is that of the Romulan warship seen in Enterprise which may not fit all that well in STO. (Though the new OP quite likes it. :3 )


      Jem'Hadar

      Battle Cruiser: (Memory Alpha Reference)
      Canon Inconsistencies:
      Aft Impulse engines missing.



      Miscellaneous:

      Doomsday Machine:
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      I was going to throw this on the old thread, but saw this. Props to AngelSilouhette for carrying the torch.

      It's been mentioned that the Sovereign may be getting some love next. On a particularly slow day at work (today) I stumbled across this post on the Drex Files. Good reference stuff.

      http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/1701-e/#more-15798

      On a side note, this is the "First Contact" Enterprise. There were some minor changes for Nemesis. I personally like the First Contact version better.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Adding in some of the Capn's updates:
      CapnLogan wrote:
      I've completed my overhaul of the Defiant.

      -Saucer/Hull
      Now tapers upward on the lower front section
      Now has a recessed area where the forward dish array "head" nestles into nicely
      Additional detail has been cut in with geometry, and re-mapped to give more accurate and interesting look
      "Ladder" area the top/rear hull is now modeled to correctly reflect the design
      Central bridge area atop the hull is now modeled correctly
      The cylinders atop the hull are now properly recessed into the body of the hull and mapped properly
      Cut geo in around "stanchion" are where torps will fire from


      -Forward dish array "head"
      Completely re-modeled with all correct shapes and angles
      Lower portion now has the cool tubes and connection pieces modeled in\
      Added the extra little windows to this area too

      Some love has been given to other areas to give a more accurate and cool look, such as details on the nacelles etc. and correctly placed and modeled firing nodes.

      Here's the screenies of the updates:

      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_001.jpg?t=1276640322
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_002.jpg?t=1276640321
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_003.jpg?t=1276640321
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_004.jpg?t=1276640322

      Hope you all enjoy!

      My next endeavor will most likely be the Sovereign since I've been hearing a lot of complaints about it (this is ANOTHER model that I didn't make but will be fixing LOL) and I've brought to my bosses attention that I've been hearing a lot of complaints about the TOS Constitution so maybe that'll happen soon too. I'll keep this thread informed on what fixes will be coming up next, but I can't make any promises about priority or timelines.


      And some shots of the new Long Range Science Vessels
      CapnLogan wrote:
      hope these links work:

      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid2.jpg?t=1276193963
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid3.jpg?t=1276193963








      Valiant797 wrote: »
      I was going to throw this on the old thread, but saw this. Props to AngelSilouhette for carrying the torch.

      It's been mentioned that the Sovereign may be getting some love next. On a particularly slow day at work (today) I stumbled across this post on the Drex Files. Good reference stuff.

      http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/1701-e/#more-15798

      On a side note, this is the "First Contact" Enterprise. There were some minor changes for Nemesis. I personally like the First Contact version better.

      Excellent reference shots! :D I'll add these to the Sovereign section. :)
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      T1 Miranda & T2 Constitution class.

      Phaser strips should be removed completely from the models and replaced with the proper phaser emitter/banks to fire from.
      Mainly because having phaser strips on ships originally designed with banks in mind just looks wierd and interrupts the flow of the hull design, and canonly the miranda and constitution always did have wide firing arcs.

      http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Majestic,_firing_phasers.jpg
      http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Alexraptor wrote: »
      T1 Miranda & T2 Constitution class.

      Phaser strips should be removed completely from the models and replaced with the proper phaser emitter/banks to fire from.
      Mainly because having phaser strips on ships originally designed with banks in mind just looks wierd and interrupts the flow of the hull design, and canonly the miranda and constitution always did have wide firing arcs.

      http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Majestic,_firing_phasers.jpg
      http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg

      Updated the appropriate sections and modified the overall look of the list.

      If it's too busy or hard to read, please do provide me feedback. :)
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Went through the previous incarnation of the Starship Model errors and issues thread and updated the current version with issues listed after -Jes- discontinued updating.

      If I've missed anything please do let me know.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but I'll drop them in as I haven't seen them on the list.

      A couple of texturing issues with the Noble

      1. Saucer, Starboard side - The 3rd row of windows from the edge of the saucer are broken and incomplete. While the flickering from them isn't as noticeable as it is with other vessels, such as the error with the Dervish saucer, there are numerous instances of window flicker across all tiers.

      Noble Saucer Windows

      2. Saucer, Starboard side - Staying on this side and moving to the front, there is a visible texture error with the ship name and registry number. The raised section on which it's applied causes it to partly snap off. It looks fine on the port side though.

      Noble Registry - Name

      Prometheus Pylons

      The pylons look more or less spot on if you look at them from above or below, however, side on they look somewhat poor with how they attach to the hull, so a bit of smoothing and tweaking in that area mightn't hurt.

      Prometheus, Starboard

      Prometheus, Port
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      When Cerberus (upper) nacelles are used with Hephaestus or Prometheus (upper) pylons, there is a visible gap at some angles. The pylons simply need to be moved down a little bit so that they connect with the pylons better.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Ultrawave wrote: »
      Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but I'll drop them in as I haven't seen them on the list.

      A couple of texturing issues with the Noble

      1. Saucer, Starboard side - The 3rd row of windows from the edge of the saucer are broken and incomplete. While the flickering from them isn't as noticeable as it is with other vessels, such as the error with the Dervish saucer, there are numerous instances of window flicker across all tiers.

      Noble Saucer Windows

      2. Saucer, Starboard side - Staying on this side and moving to the front, there is a visible texture error with the ship name and registry number. The raised section on which it's applied causes it to partly snap off. It looks fine on the port side though.

      Noble Registry - Name

      Prometheus Pylons

      The pylons look more or less spot on if you look at them from above or below, however, side on they look somewhat poor with how they attach to the hull, so a bit of smoothing and tweaking in that area mightn't hurt.

      Prometheus, Starboard

      Prometheus, Port
      hurleybird wrote: »
      When Cerberus (upper) nacelles are used with Hephaestus or Prometheus (upper) pylons, there is a visible gap at some angles. The pylons simply need to be moved down a little bit so that they connect with the pylons better.

      Added to the list. :)
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      I am not sure if it is a real problem, but when selecting the "Orion" pattern the complete part of the hull gets slightly colored with the first selected color. For example if you select yellow and choose Orion for the saucer, the saucers hull looks slightly yellowish. If you select blue, it would have a blue touch.
      Because of that it is somewhat difficult to mix Orion with another pattern, since the hull colors simply don't match.


      You can see what I mean on this shot:
      http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ppw-lsi3uglAE06thXAqBjw8yslGblRhccuCwbeJ4PPuDcEmlWmp2wc7zqvv5ozVIZa2qcSJbMUVjWp_F48KQ-A/USS%20Simarillion%201.jpg?psid=1
      The hull section uses Orion pattern and looks clearly blueish compared to the saucer section.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Hi i posted a ist on the old version, i've updated my reply to include screen shot but i will include it here too.

      The TOS beam as well as being fat, can fire at certian angles through the hull and due to its oversie the if you look down on the saucer while the beam fires from under it will seem of the beam, and vice versa if u looking up from underneath.

      the Nimbus lights up quite nicely using dual plasma beams, if i tried different weapons maybe it would give a multi colour affect / using single beams fom the aft slot has no affect on the ship.

      *not tested yet fore single beams or other types of dual beams.

      the version of the Niumbus i use is a mix of different parts, i will add them later, but now the screen shots.

      first 3 in this folder show the ToS beam, ln one im looking down on the ship while it fires at a target below, giving a red circle on my saucer section. the other 4 show how the Nimbus lights up.

      Screen shots
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      One thing I've noticed on the Hephaestus model is the the pylons are neither straight or consistently curved.

      They look like a wave when viewed from behind.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      HMS_Indomitable wrote:
      Hi i posted a ist on the old version, i've updated my reply to include screen shot but i will include it here too.

      The TOS beam as well as being fat, can fire at certian angles through the hull and due to its oversie the if you look down on the saucer while the beam fires from under it will seem of the beam, and vice versa if u looking up from underneath.

      the Nimbus lights up quite nicely using dual plasma beams, if i tried different weapons maybe it would give a multi colour affect / using single beams fom the aft slot has no affect on the ship.

      *not tested yet fore single beams or other types of dual beams.

      the version of the Niumbus i use is a mix of different parts, i will add them later, but now the screen shots.

      first 3 in this folder show the ToS beam, ln one im looking down on the ship while it fires at a target below, giving a red circle on my saucer section. the other 4 show how the Nimbus lights up.

      Screen shots

      Most of those screenshots don't really give any evidence of model or texture errors.

      In the case of the TOS Enterprise, why use anything but its phaser banks?

      In the case of the Nimbus firing beams that seem to change shape shortly after firing, that is not a starship model error.

      DKeith2011 wrote:
      One thing I've noticed on the Hephaestus model is the the pylons are neither straight or consistently curved.

      They look like a wave when viewed from behind.

      If you can, host a picture of that on tinypic or imgur for us.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Great thread, this and the original. Glad to see so many errors in one place.

      I will say, however, that Miranda class ships are generally modular, and it's not inconceivable that they would have minor variations from canon (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Miranda_class#Design_variants). We are 30 years ahead of the latest canon version of the Miranda, so they would probably get upgrades of some sort.

      Same basic idea applies to some of the other canon items listed. A lot of them involve windows... ships can have different window types, do these errors apply to all window types, or just the ones used on screen? (I mean: most ships on screen have rectangular thing windows, but we can choose to put round ones on our ships. Are the round window placements also incorrect?)

      Speaking of windows, maybe the in game Nova class just has the lights turned off?

      Also, the "canon" inconsistencies between steamrunner and zephyr don't really apply, in my opinion. Although the Zephyr is an updated steamrunner, it's still a different class.

      Anyways, sorry to nitpick a little, I'm just curious about these things. Great thread, I approve!
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Felderburg wrote: »
      Great thread, this and the original. Glad to see so many errors in one place.

      I will say, however, that Miranda class ships are generally modular, and it's not inconceivable that they would have minor variations from canon (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Miranda_class#Design_variants). We are 30 years ahead of the latest canon version of the Miranda, so they would probably get upgrades of some sort.

      Same basic idea applies to some of the other canon items listed. A lot of them involve windows... ships can have different window types, do these errors apply to all window types, or just the ones used on screen? (I mean: most ships on screen have rectangular thing windows, but we can choose to put round ones on our ships. Are the round window placements also incorrect?)

      Speaking of windows, maybe the in game Nova class just has the lights turned off?

      Also, the "canon" inconsistencies between steamrunner and zephyr don't really apply, in my opinion. Although the Zephyr is an updated steamrunner, it's still a different class.

      Anyways, sorry to nitpick a little, I'm just curious about these things. Great thread, I approve!

      Appreciated, but I must refer you to the first post:
      -Jes- wrote:
      Ok, I'm hoping to make a catalogue here of known STARSHIP MODEL issues. This means anything from phasers shooting out from nowhere, to clipping textures, visual glitches and Canon inconsistencies.

      PLEASE, post ONLY if you have any NEW info on issues or inconsistencies any ship might have, as posting info already found here will only hamper my efforts to update this thread.

      If you are only here to flame or whine or otherwise argue semantics, PLEASE GTFO NOW!

      If you want to argue that you think the ships look better flawed or that detail can be ignored and sloppiness and lazy modelling accepted and excused for a difference in the time frame then here is not the place for it. Take it to another thread and point out how wrong our list of contributors are in wanting fixes.

      Don't forget to read back into the previous version of this thread and see where CapnLogan, the ship dev, agrees with everyone listed in the credits of the Klingon error post and calls the work of his predecessors sloppy and poor (to paraphrase).
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Sorry, I was just curious. I really only skimmed both posts, since they were fairly long. Like I said, I approve of the list!
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Felderburg wrote: »
      Sorry, I was just curious. I really only skimmed both posts, since they were fairly long. Like I said, I approve of the list!


      Appreciated and understood. No hard feelings.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      I like the Long Range Science Vessel changes but the Impulse engines look wrong on the Intrepid model.

      Compare:
      http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070309074855/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9b/USS_Voyager_docked_at_DS9.jpg
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Omega_X wrote:
      I like the Long Range Science Vessel changes but the Impulse engines look wrong on the Intrepid model.

      Compare:
      http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070309074855/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9b/USS_Voyager_docked_at_DS9.jpg
      http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963

      Added as: Impulse engines should be taller, same colour as the hull, and have 4 slots instead of 3. Shuttle runway markings missing from fantail.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      I noticed an odd glitch... could be my graphics settings, but it doesn't seem to happen on other ships.

      One of the Star Cruiser nacelle sets, when viewed from far away, glitches like crazy. The nacelles seem to flip, and become red where they should be blue. Images of far and near: http://img62.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=screenshot2010062021482.jpg
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Felderburg wrote: »
      I noticed an odd glitch... could be my graphics settings, but it doesn't seem to happen on other ships.

      One of the Star Cruiser nacelle sets, when viewed from far away, glitches like crazy. The nacelles seem to flip, and become red where they should be blue. Images of far and near: http://img62.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=screenshot2010062021482.jpg

      I've never seen that one happen to my Star Cruiser. Cropped and hosted here, let us know what video card you have and a general summary of your graphic settings and I'll add it to the main post.

      That looks like Nomad saucer nacelles and pylons with an Emissary hull. Not so sure of the pylons, though, which are they?
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      did you catch this one?

      http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=161966
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      AngelSilhouette wrote: »
      I've never seen that one happen to my Star Cruiser. Cropped and hosted here, let us know what video card you have and a general summary of your graphic settings and I'll add it to the main post.

      That looks like Nomad saucer nacelles and pylons with an Emissary hull. Not so sure of the pylons, though, which are they?

      ATI Radeon 3200 HD

      I just have the regular graphics settings bar open, it's at the "recommended" level (one less than maximum). I can glance around the advanced settings if you want.

      By the way, this was not my star cruiser, it was another player's, so I don't know anything at all about the parts, sorry :/
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Felderburg wrote: »
      ATI Radeon 3200 HD

      I just have the regular graphics settings bar open, it's at the "recommended" level (one less than maximum). I can glance around the advanced settings if you want.

      By the way, this was not my star cruiser, it was another player's, so I don't know anything at all about the parts, sorry :/
      wfs5519 wrote: »
      did you catch this one?

      http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=161966

      Added to the appropriate sections.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      Added pics of the upcoming Nomad fixes, including the new shuttle bay. (External)
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      wow the sovereign is a total mess, especially when you look at the comparison pics from the front, back, and sides ... the deflector is way too big (well i think it is the right size, just big compared to the undersized body) ..., the body/hull is too narrow, the saucer is shaped too thick around the edge, the nacelle pylons are too curved, the torpedo module under the hull is too small, the nacelles are totally blocked by the saucer, and so many other points that are messy.. the saucer seems too flat under the bridge module too.. just a mess lol

      "[*]Overall geometry of the ship is incorrect. Here are some side by side comparison pics: 1 2 3 4"
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      wfs5519 wrote: »
      wow the sovereign is a total mess, especially when you look at the comparison pics from the front, back, and sides ... the deflector is way too big (well i think it is the right size, just big compared to the undersized body) ..., the body/hull is too narrow, the saucer is shaped too thick around the edge, the nacelle pylons are too curved, the torpedo module under the hull is too small, the nacelles are totally blocked by the saucer, and so many other points that are messy.. the saucer seems too flat under the bridge module too.. just a mess lol

      "[*]Overall geometry of the ship is incorrect. Here are some side by side comparison pics: 1 2 3 4"

      It is a total mess, I dont know why the devs are so busy fixing the Nomad and Comet when we have this...Sovereign monstrosity flying around...its terrible! I hope they do this ship justice..cause it really needs a ton of work.
    • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
      edited June 2010
      they are planning on fixing it next. they probly saved the worst one for last simply because of that reason... i would. I noticed the akira is a mess too.
    This discussion has been closed.