I feel the best visual interaction the devs could have used with DS9 would have been to restrict the instancing to maybe 5 ships with a choreographed docking animation that would prompt you to dock when approaching the station. Selecting yes to dock would have the game take over the ship and manoeuvre it to physically dock with the station whilst it does a background load of the interior so you can immediately appear at one of the docking rings after the docking is complete.
And I would would have dearly loved for them to have used the actual Earth Space Dock from the films, with a similar docking procedure, except your ship would fly into the station instead of physically docking with it. ^.^
=edit=
The reason I used Merzo's size chart is because of the grid in the background and because the grid is identical in size to Suricata's size chart and the properly scaled ships match across both charts.
I feel the best visual interaction the devs could have used with DS9 would have been to restrict the instancing to maybe 5 ships with a choreographed docking animation that would prompt you to dock when approaching the station. Selecting yes to dock would have the game take over the ship and manoeuvre it to physically dock with the station whilst it does a background load of the interior so you can immediately appear at one of the docking rings after the docking is complete.
And I would would have dearly loved for them to have used the actual Earth Space Dock from the films, with a similar docking procedure, except your ship would fly into the station instead of physically docking with it. ^.^
=edit=
The reason I used Merzo's size chart is because of the grid in the background and because the grid is identical in size to Suricata's size chart and the properly scaled ships match across both charts.
We've been over this in other threads, but the size of DS9 is about as consistent as the size of the BoP throughout the series.
Basically, the station size varies so much in sfx shots that the current size of the station actually falls within the upper-range.
I've been flying a VoQuv of late, just posting to register my irritation about its deflector dish or more accurately its lack of one... I hate that all my deflector powers originate from the center of the model.
I've been flying a VoQuv of late, just posting to register my irritation about its deflector dish or more accurately its lack of one... I hate that all my deflector powers originate from the center of the model.
All Klingon ships effectively have this issue. The scan and tractor beams either emit from the nose or from th ecentre of the ship, even though the only Klingon vessel that has what is believed to be some form of sensor dish at the front is the Vor'Cha - and frankly that's debatable since it could be any number of things.
In actual fact, the only Klingon vessel we've seen emit a tractor beam or sensor beam is a Bird of Prey in DS9 which actually emits it from the bulge on its belly - so its highly probable that the same devices are in similar places on the rest of the KDF fleet as well.
But then the tractor beam on Fed ships also seems to emit from the deflector dish even though they all had tractor emitters in various other places - and the fact that the tractor beams require the deflector science skills and deflector component really shows that Cryptic have absolutely no basic knowledge of Star Trek tech, which is a shame.
Tractor beams should have been an additional component, as should a warp matrix (the entire warp core, plasma conduits and warp coils in the nacelles).
Frankly Cryptic should have played Star Trek: Starship Creator - it may well be a poor game by all regards, but what it does well is example a large selection of components to setup when building a Trek ship.
I'd much rather just have the deflector skills coming out of the nose instead of the 0,0,0 setup we have now for the VoQuv. Using the nose works fine for all the other KDF ships. Seriously, just having emitter effects poking out any part of the model because the origin point is in the interior looks terrible.
I'd much rather just have the deflector skills coming out of the nose instead of the 0,0,0 setup we have now for the VoQuv. Using the nose works fine for all the other KDF ships. Seriously, just having emitter effects poking out any part of the model because the origin point is in the interior looks terrible.
So, from trying out the Excelsior on Tribble, it appears there have been no changes to the model we've seen in drydock for the past couple weeks.
There are still the issues with the windows being wrong. I can see an artist placing windows across the front hull above the deflector, b/c otherwise it's a pretty large empty space that would make some sort of sense for windows to be there*, but windows on the nacelles?!? THAT'S gotta take some work. Not even sure how that one snuck out.
The shuttlebay door lines seem oriented wrong.
Also, the big section on top of the nacelles seems like it should be glowing blue like most other warp nacelles, but instead it's solid hull plating and whatever the secondary color is
*I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like the navigational deflector is either too low or too small or a combination of both.
Even by the standards of the shot u provided DS9 is still smaller in the show than it is in game. I mean I parked my Galaxy r next to the lower pylon just as in that shot and the pylon is HUGE. I get they made it this big for "effect" but it's totally immersion breaking, not to mention it makes for a bad screenshot .
Also, the big section on top of the nacelles seems like it should be glowing blue like most other warp nacelles, but instead it's solid hull plating and whatever the secondary color is
*I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like the navigational deflector is either too low or too small or a combination of both.
Does the game Excelsior use phaser strips or canonical banks like the model above has?
AHH... I think I see what's going on here. There are actually some subtle changes between the original NX Excelsior and the refit Excelsior models beside the slapping on of extra pieces...
The secondary hull windows above the navigational deflector are not there on the original NX Excelsior, and that model does have a larger navigational deflector cavity than the refit models.
In the STO models, perhaps to make it easier for modeling both the T3 and T5 versions, they both use the same base hull structures, which includes not only the front hull windows, but also the same smaller deflector cavity as the refit. The game model is designed to be able to just slap on the extra ridge around the deflector for the T5 version.
With the announcement of the ENT J and NX 01 coming I just want to BEG that they please have moving Bussard collectors. The NX 01 had spinning Bussard collectors and the ENT J was meant to as seen in the vid here 9 minutes and 19 secs in http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/category/ent/enterprise-j/
The Sovereign had moving animation in its Bussard collectors in the movies which sadly didn't make it in game so hopefully these ships will get them.
At first I thought the deflector was too small/ too low. But, truthfully, that Excelsior in spacedock pick shows that there is a lot of hull betweeen the neck and the deflector.
At first I thought the deflector was too small/ too low. But, truthfully, that Excelsior in spacedock pick shows that there is a lot of hull betweeen the neck and the deflector.
I think it also has to do with the colored line/strip near the top of the secondary hull not being there in-game, it helps break up the height of the hull.
Having played around with the T3 Excelsior, I'm bothered by the photon tubes being placed within those forward, dorsal openings. I could be mistakan, but those square indention's weren't clearly defined. But I recall assumptions that small support craft sat behind small doors there? Technically, the photon tubes are those smaller holes to either side of the secondary hull. Which made it into the design but aren't being used. Below that row of forward windows?
I'm not really fond of the beam hardpoints on the front edge of the saucer either. While that style is typical of original STO designs, they are just out of place on the older cruiser styles. Granted that isn't the Art Department's decision to put them there. I hated seeing my dual phaser fire from the edges instead of an upper or lower phaser strips. If a decision were made to shift phaser from the saucer edge, it would free the artists to remove those entirely. Which would, IMO, improve the visual style of the starship. Those short phaser strips as opposed to the 23rd century banks don't bother me at all. I see it as a starship design modified for 25th century standards.
I also found the nacelle windows a bit out of place. I thought to myself, 'what a weird place for an observation lounge.' We know from TNG that the Galaxy nacelles were large enough to house a support room of some kind. Enterprise did this again later. Though these rooms were located deep enough to not have windows.
Having played around with the T3 Excelsior, I'm bothered by the photon tubes being placed within those forward, dorsal openings. I could be mistakan, but those square indention's weren't clearly defined. But I recall assumptions that small support craft sat behind small doors there? Technically, the photon tubes are those smaller holes to either side of the secondary hull. Which made it into the design but aren't being used. Below that row of forward windows?
The Excelsior fired torpedoes from the secondary hull in Star Trek VI, however the Enterprise-B's MSD showed torpedo launchers situated in those openings on the neck.
Thank you, Amosov. I hadn't gotten a good look at the particular Master Situation Display for the Enterprise-B. But it wouldn't be the first time those productions didn't literally translate the models.
I was just looking at the opening close-up's of Sulu's Excelsior (watched my ST: VI dvd) as it approaches camera. And, indeed, those are the photon tubes on the secondary hull. They are just tighter and more recessed into the hull than, say, the TMP's Constitution or the Miranda's of the period. I also compared that with the close-up to that Christie's Auction link above? IMO, as displayed upon the model, those openings come into line-of-sight conflict with the lower sensor array of the saucer. And aren't, IMO, good choices for photon tubes. The openings on the dorsal look like they have some form of hatch cover. At least they do to me. Which may be where the small craft docking port idea sprung from amongst some aficionados. The dorsal of the Excelsior has always been a bit of a mystery. Since its all beveled and no windows to speak of.
Having played around with the T3 Excelsior, I'm bothered by the photon tubes being placed within those forward, dorsal openings. I could be mistakan, but those square indention's weren't clearly defined. But I recall assumptions that small support craft sat behind small doors there? Technically, the photon tubes are those smaller holes to either side of the secondary hull. Which made it into the design but aren't being used. Below that row of forward windows?
I'm not really fond of the beam hardpoints on the front edge of the saucer either. While that style is typical of original STO designs, they are just out of place on the older cruiser styles. Granted that isn't the Art Department's decision to put them there. I hated seeing my dual phaser fire from the edges instead of an upper or lower phaser strips. If a decision were made to shift phaser from the saucer edge, it would free the artists to remove those entirely. Which would, IMO, improve the visual style of the starship. Those short phaser strips as opposed to the 23rd century banks don't bother me at all. I see it as a starship design modified for 25th century standards.
I also found the nacelle windows a bit out of place. I thought to myself, 'what a weird place for an observation lounge.' We know from TNG that the Galaxy nacelles were large enough to house a support room of some kind. Enterprise did this again later. Though these rooms were located deep enough to not have windows.
What forward dorsal openings?
Also, I'm disappointed to find out that the beams aren't firing from the phaser banks on the top and bottom of the saucer. : /
The blue details within the ribbed dorsal there? The in-game T3 (and likely the T5 also?) has weapon hard points placed in these spots for the photons. I don't believe them to be weapons mounts on the real model. From a strictly forward view of the real model, that dorsal area is somewhat obscured by the lower saucer sensor array. So I'm suggesting that weapon's hard points don't belong there. The photon tubes are actually those small recessed area's just forward of the Federation pennant. That is where the torpedoes launch from on Sulu's Excelsior during the final battle of Star Trek VI. But the in-game model doesn't appear to use them.
Just to be sure DS9 hadn't taken creative license on the Lakota (which would be our T5), I re-watched Paradise Lost tonight. The Lakota is only depicted as using its phaser's against the Defiant. I suppose I would need to scan across the massive fleet battles used in the final Dominon battle's to see if those Excelsior's had indicated anything contrary to ST: VI.
another one i found.. for the luna variants: the sol and polaris both missing shuttle bays i think the sol could benefit best by a luna type shuttle bay, personally
The blue details within the ribbed dorsal there? The in-game T3 (and likely the T5 also?) has weapon hard points placed in these spots for the photons. I don't believe them to be weapons mounts on the real model. From a strictly forward view of the real model, that dorsal area is somewhat obscured by the lower saucer sensor array. So I'm suggesting that weapon's hard points don't belong there. The photon tubes are actually those small recessed area's just forward of the Federation pennant. That is where the torpedoes launch from on Sulu's Excelsior during the final battle of Star Trek VI. But the in-game model doesn't appear to use them.
Ah, I see my confusion. Dorsal refers to the back or upper surface of an animal or object, so I was looking on the top deck of the saucer instead of the neck, I'm sorry.
Ah, I see my confusion. Dorsal refers to the back or upper surface of an animal or object, so I was looking on the top deck of the saucer instead of the neck, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry for any confusion. Since more contemporary designs just don't bother with the component, that label has fallen into dis-use. I'm accustomed to my stockpile of fan-based starship blueprints. Over time, the generally accepted term for the "neck" between primary and secondary hull of a heavy cruiser configuration was 'dorsal". I honestly don't know what else to call it.
I'm sorry for any confusion. Since more contemporary designs just don't bother with the component, that label has fallen into dis-use. I'm accustomed to my stockpile of fan-based starship blueprints. Over time, the generally accepted term for the "neck" between primary and secondary hull of a heavy cruiser configuration was 'dorsal". I honestly don't know what else to call it.
I think "neck" is the standard term for that area. Dorsal = on the top centerline, Ventral = on the bottom centerline.
Aft torpedoes seem to be launching out of the forward launchers instead of from above the ventral cargo/shuttlebay amidships, as shown on this MSD
The Excelsior fired torpedoes from the secondary hull in Star Trek VI, however the Enterprise-B's MSD showed torpedo launchers situated in those openings on the neck.
I think "neck" is the standard term for that area. Dorsal = on the top centerline, Ventral = on the bottom centerline.
Aft torpedoes seem to be launching out of the forward launchers instead of from above the ventral cargo/shuttlebay amidships, as shown on this MSD
Now I see what Amasov meant. I hadn't seen that Enterprise-B MSD in many years. It suggests that it carries 4 forward torpedo launchers. And 2 (or just 1 maybe) in the aft. That MSD suggests 2 launchers in the forward-neck (like the in-game model) and 2 on the forward secondary hull as shown on the real models. IMO, since we are unlikely to see two photon tubes - let alone 4 - fire simultaneously from the front, those two hardpoints should still be moved down to the secondary hull. Looking over the game model, I see small enough hardpoints to fit those openings.
But that just is my personal aesthetic. Does anyone else concur?
Now I see what Amasov meant. I hadn't seen that Enterprise-B MSD in many years. It suggests that it carries 4 forward torpedo launchers. And 2 (or just 1 maybe) in the aft. That MSD suggests 2 launchers in the forward-neck (like the in-game model) and 2 on the forward secondary hull as shown on the real models. IMO, since we are unlikely to see two photon tubes - let alone 4 - fire simultaneously from the front, those two hardpoints should still be moved down to the secondary hull. Looking over the game model, I see small enough hardpoints to fit those openings.
But that just is my personal aesthetic. Does anyone else concur?
Personally I'd like to see the torpedoes launch from random tubes, forward or aft. And when firing HYT or Torpedo Spread, I'd love to see more than just one tube get some play. I'm launching multiple torps, why are they all coming from one tube?
(As an example, the Avenger has 10 forward tubes. 2 actually work, and 4 torpedo tube textures on each side of the saucer. I'd love to see the spreads launch a single torpedo from each tube.)
Comments
Yeah, the massive size of K7 and DS9 really do break immersion for me. I'd love it if they fell in with this size chart
http://imgur.com/8wbxu.jpg
I feel the best visual interaction the devs could have used with DS9 would have been to restrict the instancing to maybe 5 ships with a choreographed docking animation that would prompt you to dock when approaching the station. Selecting yes to dock would have the game take over the ship and manoeuvre it to physically dock with the station whilst it does a background load of the interior so you can immediately appear at one of the docking rings after the docking is complete.
And I would would have dearly loved for them to have used the actual Earth Space Dock from the films, with a similar docking procedure, except your ship would fly into the station instead of physically docking with it. ^.^
=edit=
The reason I used Merzo's size chart is because of the grid in the background and because the grid is identical in size to Suricata's size chart and the properly scaled ships match across both charts.
We've been over this in other threads, but the size of DS9 is about as consistent as the size of the BoP throughout the series.
Basically, the station size varies so much in sfx shots that the current size of the station actually falls within the upper-range.
An example of what I'm talking about... http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060711025249/memoryalpha/en/images/1/13/NebulaDS9-2.jpg
All Klingon ships effectively have this issue. The scan and tractor beams either emit from the nose or from th ecentre of the ship, even though the only Klingon vessel that has what is believed to be some form of sensor dish at the front is the Vor'Cha - and frankly that's debatable since it could be any number of things.
In actual fact, the only Klingon vessel we've seen emit a tractor beam or sensor beam is a Bird of Prey in DS9 which actually emits it from the bulge on its belly - so its highly probable that the same devices are in similar places on the rest of the KDF fleet as well.
But then the tractor beam on Fed ships also seems to emit from the deflector dish even though they all had tractor emitters in various other places - and the fact that the tractor beams require the deflector science skills and deflector component really shows that Cryptic have absolutely no basic knowledge of Star Trek tech, which is a shame.
Tractor beams should have been an additional component, as should a warp matrix (the entire warp core, plasma conduits and warp coils in the nacelles).
Frankly Cryptic should have played Star Trek: Starship Creator - it may well be a poor game by all regards, but what it does well is example a large selection of components to setup when building a Trek ship.
Works for me
added
There are still the issues with the windows being wrong. I can see an artist placing windows across the front hull above the deflector, b/c otherwise it's a pretty large empty space that would make some sort of sense for windows to be there*, but windows on the nacelles?!? THAT'S gotta take some work. Not even sure how that one snuck out.
The shuttlebay door lines seem oriented wrong.
Also, the big section on top of the nacelles seems like it should be glowing blue like most other warp nacelles, but instead it's solid hull plating and whatever the secondary color is
*I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like the navigational deflector is either too low or too small or a combination of both.
Even by the standards of the shot u provided DS9 is still smaller in the show than it is in game. I mean I parked my Galaxy r next to the lower pylon just as in that shot and the pylon is HUGE. I get they made it this big for "effect" but it's totally immersion breaking, not to mention it makes for a bad screenshot .
Here's a Galaxy docked in the show http://www.st-wiki.com/images/7/76/Gal_slide5.jpg http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050614230915/memoryalpha/en/images/6/66/Galaxy_class_docked_at_DS9.jpg
Here's my ship docked http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Wilv79/STO/screenshot_2010-08-13-01-24-06.jpg
As you can see, in game the upper pylon is bigger than my saucer which is not the case in the show.
The deflector array does seem too small:
http://imgur.com/bui5t.jpg
http://imgur.com/hRm3j.jpg
However I'm fine with the top of the nacelles not glowing, as it fits in with what we saw on screen most of the time:
http://imgur.com/sQPD0.jpg
http://imgur.com/0dG5y.jpg
http://imgur.com/sUDNJ.jpg
http://imgur.com/9lOFI.jpg
http://imgur.com/EcBDh.jpg
Don't forget we have actual hi res model shots on the first page.
Ex 1: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Lakota/IMG_1724.JPG
Ex 2: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Lakota/IMG_1723.JPG (Dig the decal)
Ex 3: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Lakota/IMG_1728.JPG (Check the nacelle registry and UFP text and fantail ship identification sans "USS")
Ex 4: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Lakota/IMG_1729.JPG (And another "Lakota" on the keel, facing aft. Where is the shuttle bay supposed to be? That little silver thumbnail on the fantail?)
Ex 5: http://www.mutara.net/Christies/Lakota.html
Does the game Excelsior use phaser strips or canonical banks like the model above has?
AHH... I think I see what's going on here. There are actually some subtle changes between the original NX Excelsior and the refit Excelsior models beside the slapping on of extra pieces...
The secondary hull windows above the navigational deflector are not there on the original NX Excelsior, and that model does have a larger navigational deflector cavity than the refit models.
In the STO models, perhaps to make it easier for modeling both the T3 and T5 versions, they both use the same base hull structures, which includes not only the front hull windows, but also the same smaller deflector cavity as the refit. The game model is designed to be able to just slap on the extra ridge around the deflector for the T5 version.
The Sovereign had moving animation in its Bussard collectors in the movies which sadly didn't make it in game so hopefully these ships will get them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53362963@N03/4929120518/
TheLaughingMan-JK
I did some looking last night into this. The windows are from the Lakota variant. See also:
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/enterprise-b
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/excelsior
At first I thought the deflector was too small/ too low. But, truthfully, that Excelsior in spacedock pick shows that there is a lot of hull betweeen the neck and the deflector.
I think it also has to do with the colored line/strip near the top of the secondary hull not being there in-game, it helps break up the height of the hull.
I'm not really fond of the beam hardpoints on the front edge of the saucer either. While that style is typical of original STO designs, they are just out of place on the older cruiser styles. Granted that isn't the Art Department's decision to put them there. I hated seeing my dual phaser fire from the edges instead of an upper or lower phaser strips. If a decision were made to shift phaser from the saucer edge, it would free the artists to remove those entirely. Which would, IMO, improve the visual style of the starship. Those short phaser strips as opposed to the 23rd century banks don't bother me at all. I see it as a starship design modified for 25th century standards.
I also found the nacelle windows a bit out of place. I thought to myself, 'what a weird place for an observation lounge.' We know from TNG that the Galaxy nacelles were large enough to house a support room of some kind. Enterprise did this again later. Though these rooms were located deep enough to not have windows.
The Excelsior fired torpedoes from the secondary hull in Star Trek VI, however the Enterprise-B's MSD showed torpedo launchers situated in those openings on the neck.
I was just looking at the opening close-up's of Sulu's Excelsior (watched my ST: VI dvd) as it approaches camera. And, indeed, those are the photon tubes on the secondary hull. They are just tighter and more recessed into the hull than, say, the TMP's Constitution or the Miranda's of the period. I also compared that with the close-up to that Christie's Auction link above? IMO, as displayed upon the model, those openings come into line-of-sight conflict with the lower sensor array of the saucer. And aren't, IMO, good choices for photon tubes. The openings on the dorsal look like they have some form of hatch cover. At least they do to me. Which may be where the small craft docking port idea sprung from amongst some aficionados. The dorsal of the Excelsior has always been a bit of a mystery. Since its all beveled and no windows to speak of.
What forward dorsal openings?
Also, I'm disappointed to find out that the beams aren't firing from the phaser banks on the top and bottom of the saucer. : /
The blue details within the ribbed dorsal there? The in-game T3 (and likely the T5 also?) has weapon hard points placed in these spots for the photons. I don't believe them to be weapons mounts on the real model. From a strictly forward view of the real model, that dorsal area is somewhat obscured by the lower saucer sensor array. So I'm suggesting that weapon's hard points don't belong there. The photon tubes are actually those small recessed area's just forward of the Federation pennant. That is where the torpedoes launch from on Sulu's Excelsior during the final battle of Star Trek VI. But the in-game model doesn't appear to use them.
Just to be sure DS9 hadn't taken creative license on the Lakota (which would be our T5), I re-watched Paradise Lost tonight. The Lakota is only depicted as using its phaser's against the Defiant. I suppose I would need to scan across the massive fleet battles used in the final Dominon battle's to see if those Excelsior's had indicated anything contrary to ST: VI.
All my beams came from the phaser banks on the saucer when I fire, it's really cool looking if you load up the ship with the TOS Constitution phasers
Ah, I see my confusion. Dorsal refers to the back or upper surface of an animal or object, so I was looking on the top deck of the saucer instead of the neck, I'm sorry.
Ah! Excellent. Though I feel the dual beam banks should definitely fire from the phaser emitters, too.
I'm sorry for any confusion. Since more contemporary designs just don't bother with the component, that label has fallen into dis-use. I'm accustomed to my stockpile of fan-based starship blueprints. Over time, the generally accepted term for the "neck" between primary and secondary hull of a heavy cruiser configuration was 'dorsal". I honestly don't know what else to call it.
I think "neck" is the standard term for that area. Dorsal = on the top centerline, Ventral = on the bottom centerline.
Aft torpedoes seem to be launching out of the forward launchers instead of from above the ventral cargo/shuttlebay amidships, as shown on this MSD
Now I see what Amasov meant. I hadn't seen that Enterprise-B MSD in many years. It suggests that it carries 4 forward torpedo launchers. And 2 (or just 1 maybe) in the aft. That MSD suggests 2 launchers in the forward-neck (like the in-game model) and 2 on the forward secondary hull as shown on the real models. IMO, since we are unlikely to see two photon tubes - let alone 4 - fire simultaneously from the front, those two hardpoints should still be moved down to the secondary hull. Looking over the game model, I see small enough hardpoints to fit those openings.
But that just is my personal aesthetic. Does anyone else concur?
Added
Personally I'd like to see the torpedoes launch from random tubes, forward or aft. And when firing HYT or Torpedo Spread, I'd love to see more than just one tube get some play. I'm launching multiple torps, why are they all coming from one tube?
(As an example, the Avenger has 10 forward tubes. 2 actually work, and 4 torpedo tube textures on each side of the saucer. I'd love to see the spreads launch a single torpedo from each tube.)
http://imgur.com/UMUrI.jpg
http://imgur.com/vvsdp.jpg
http://imgur.com/VlEy2.jpg
http://imgur.com/iZ9Pp.jpg