plz note that i use the engine trails OFF mod from http://www.sto-advanced.com/
it only replaces the texture from the trails with a transparent one, it does not affect the red blops you are seeing.
plz note that i use the engine trails OFF mod from http://www.sto-advanced.com/
it only replaces the texture from the trails with a transparent one, it does not affect the red blops you are seeing.
What are you reporting, here, other than the offset dreadnought impulse glows?
Speaking of Textures, any idea when the "warped" saucer textures on the Sovereign are getting fixed?
Because it is quite a large eye-sore at the moment.
This is more of a nit-pick, but would it be possible to get rid of the cake topping bridge on the Maelstrom class, or atleast redesign it? It just looks weird, and out of place. http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad279/HappyGlenn/333.jpg
This is more of a nit-pick, but would it be possible to get rid of the cake topping bridge on the Maelstrom class, or atleast redesign it? It just looks weird, and out of place. http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad279/HappyGlenn/333.jpg
Not a bad idea. It should be a sunken bridge like the Defiant, IMO.
This is more of a nit-pick, but would it be possible to get rid of the cake topping bridge on the Maelstrom class, or atleast redesign it? It just looks weird, and out of place. http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad279/HappyGlenn/333.jpg
Not a bad idea. It should be a sunken bridge like the Defiant, IMO.
The defiant breaks many molds that Roddenberry / Matt Jeffries created. One such was that the bridge should be the highest point on the ship. Having a visible bridge superstructure is one of many traditional features that honours the memories of Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries.
Both nacelles need to be remodeled / repositioned in accordance with the studio model - 12(FIXED!)
Yeah, though from those images the raised section that contains the bridge also looks too tall as well. And the nacelle cowling's need to be more in line with the top half of the main hull.
The defiant breaks many molds that Roddenberry / Matt Jeffries created. One such was that the bridge should be the highest point on the ship. Having a visible bridge superstructure is one of many traditional features that honours the memories of Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries.
I agree, but I just feel that something more fitting the design of the "class" should used. The bridge structure as it is, doesn't seem right.
I do not see why you countine to press the issue, its quite clear the colors the B'rel should have.
The Studio model and the CGI models all have green dorsal feather patterns of every Bird of Prey ever created.
This is true. As there are no actual canon references to coloured dorsal feather patterns, I've added it to the canon discrepancies section for the B'rel.
I'm going to say this again, but it seems you're not getting it.
Hard canon says the B'Rel is a 350m Bird of Prey.
Soft canon says the B'Rel is a 110m Bird of Prey and presumes that 90% of the BoPs you've seen on-screen are B'rel.
Soft canon also says that the B'Rel can, and does, have the tops of the wings painted red/brown, as demonstrated in such soft canon as STar Trek: Birth of the Federation, Star Trek: Armada, Star Trek Armada 2, etc etc.
STO is soft canon. It therefore only has a duty to maintain soft canon.
As it stands, the ability to paint the B'Rel's top feather decals is only gained by selecting a specific pattern. The default "none" pattern on those wings prevents you from being able to paint those top feather decals. By your definition, that means the B'Rel is alreayd fulfilling your need for any kind of canon.
Changing the B'Rel's wings therefore requires selecting a pattern - and by selecting a pattern you're already moving away from canon - so if you're now going to say that picking such a pattern on the B'Rel is a canon inconcistancy then you're now going to have to say the same thing about every other pattern on every single ship within STO.
If thats what you want then fine, do that, but I garuntee its not going to be changed. STO ships have pattern choices to give players a degree of customisation. The devs are maintaining a degree of canon by allowing players to chose not to use a pattern.
If, however, you're asking for one of the patterns to be changed so that it only paints the lowe wing - or better yet changed so that one colour paints the lower and the other colour paints the upper - then thats fine, and I too would like to see that added.
But using any argument of canon is as inaccurate as your claim portains to be.
I'm afraid your the one who just does not seem to get it.
Al BoP's in Star Trek are virtually all the same studio model, and that is all that matters.
What they have done in other Star Trek games is completely irrellevant.
I'm afraid your the one who just does not seem to get it.
Al BoP's in Star Trek are virtually all the same studio model, and that is all that matters.
The studio model is irrelevant. This is about colour schemes, and every time that model was re-used, and eventualy replaced by a full CG model, those colours change. The fact that, so far, the top feathers have not been painted is inconsequential. At no point is there any confirmation in canon, as in a Klingon specificaly saying, that it has to be green - it is therefore open to interpretation.
Frankly this is the same as the argument over Bird of Prey wing positions where people are saying "canon says wings should be down for combat" or "canon says wings should be up for cruise". The only thing canon says for certain is that both fo those are possible wing positions, not that they are fixed in stone cold requirements.
What they have done in other Star Trek games is completely irrellevant.
What other Star Trek games do is very relevant.
The B'Rel class being a small 110m Bird of Prey is soft canon. All other games comprise soft canon. If other games have had the B'Rel with red/brown feathers on the top of the wings, then they have adjusted soft canon to say that is possible.
STO is soft canon. STO is using the soft canon virsion of the B'Rel. STO is therefore free to use the same soft canon colour rules that the other games have introduced into the franchise's lore.
I really don't see why that is hard to grasp.
If you want the B'Rel class to follow strict canon then you're going to have to ask for all colours to be removed, since the B'Rel in rascals was completly green, and for the B'Rel to be made 350m in size - roughly the same size as the Hegh'ta - because THAT is what the "canon" B'Rel class looks like.
But if you want to get off the canon bandwagon, and look at this realisticaly, then you'll see these three things:
1) STO is set in 2409. Klingon paint schemes for all of their ships, including BoP's, has regularly changed. There is no reason why it can't have changed again.
2) Setting the pattern on the B'Rel's "pylons" to "none" removes any customisation options from the wing's feather decals already.
3) The only way to colour those top feathers is to use a specific pattern - only 2 or 3 of them allow it - and those patterns are just as canon inconsistant as all the other patterns on all the other STO ships. The same patterns on the B'Rel also change the colour of the grey motor clamps, add diagnal lines to various places on the hull, and even allow you to paint over 60% of your ship in bright red - point being that it isn't supposed to be canon accurate, its supposed to be an option for a player to use.
Define what you are asking for - are you asking to prevent those featheres from being changed with ALL patterns, or are you asking for it to be just green when set to default? If you're asking for the former, that won't happen, its part of the scope and intent of ship patterns. If you're asking for the latter, then that is already in place and your entire argument is therefore moot.
What i am asking for is that the Dorsal feather pattern be locked to the main hulls color, I.E non customizable.
Only the Ventral pattern should be customizable.
The studio model is very much relevant, all the work the ship artists do on making new ships and improving them are based on studio model's and CGI, including the color patterns which the Sovereign and Excelsior class ships are prime examples of.
This is an error which should be fixed, end of story.
I admit I was a bit irritated to see that it wasn't possible to replicate the classic "orange-red" pattern on the ventral side of the wings (the available colours don't quite match), but I've settled for a blood red pattern that I feel looks just as good. As for the colours showing up on both sides of a wing ... not sure on that one. I pretty much settled for what we have now, although I'd like the option for a canon variant for comparison. Might be solvable by allowing a second set of wings for customization so that people can choose. I imagine a pair of wings without the mirrored colours on the dorsal side would allow for more interesting paintjobs (-> stripes).
What keeps bothering me on the BoP are the windows on the main hull (makes it look larger than it should be) and the "split" neck that should be a single armoured corridor. Currently it looks as if people would have to crawl through the neck if they want to get from the main body to the bridge and back. And of course that strange new pair of engines that got added. Other than that, I've really grown to love the model.
What i am asking for is that the Dorsal feather pattern be locked to the main hulls color, I.E non customizable.
This is an error which should be fixed, end of story.
STO customisation works on the concept of patterns, and most of those patterns are not intended to be canon. So some B'Rel patterns allowing the player to paint the Dorsal feathers is NOT an error, it is the intended purpose, and frankly if you couldn't paint those feathers in at least one of those patterns than THAT should be on the bug report.
Starfleet ships have two ways of maintaining cannon for ship customisation - by setting the patterns to "none", or on some ships by setting it to "Default". The Default pattern on the Sovereign, for example, adds the correct black decal that is present on the Enterprise E (though the player can obviously change it to a different colour).
For Klingon ships, the only way to maintain a canon look is to keep the pattern options to "none". When the B'Rel has the "none" pattern on the pylons, the dorsal feathers cannot be customised - they remain green.
So unless there are colours on those dorsal feathers while the pattern option is set to "none" then there is no error.
The fact of the matter is that some players are going to want to paint their B'Rel's feathers. They aren't as restrictive on canon as you are - this why the patterns are there in the first place. That isn't going to change, its working as intended.
STO customisation works on the concept of patterns, and most of those patterns are not intended to be canon. So some B'Rel patterns allowing the player to paint the Dorsal feathers is NOT an error, it is the intended purpose, and frankly if you couldn't paint those feathers in at least one of those patterns than THAT should be on the bug report.
Starfleet ships have two ways of maintaining cannon for ship customisation - by setting the patterns to "none", or on some ships by setting it to "Default". The Default pattern on the Sovereign, for example, adds the correct black decal that is present on the Enterprise E (though the player can obviously change it to a different colour).
For Klingon ships, the only way to maintain a canon look is to keep the pattern options to "none". When the B'Rel has the "none" pattern on the pylons, the dorsal feathers cannot be customised - they remain green.
So unless there are colours on those dorsal feathers while the pattern option is set to "none" then there is no error.
The fact of the matter is that some players are going to want to paint their B'Rel's feathers. They aren't as restrictive on canon as you are - this why the patterns are there in the first place. That isn't going to change, its working as intended.
THAT is end of story.
You of course know all this because you are secretly a Cryptic Dev. :rolleyes:
"None" also removes color from the Ventral side, which is "not" Canon.
although I'd like the option for a canon variant for comparison. Might be solvable by allowing a second set of wings for customization so that people can choose. I imagine a pair of wings without the mirrored colours on the dorsal side would allow for more interesting paintjobs (-> stripes).
As I've been saying, this is a matter of the choices available via the Pattern options.
What keeps bothering me on the BoP are the windows on the main hull (makes it look larger than it should be)
I noticed this last night as well. Its only really the windows on the lower section thats throwing it off as there's about 2 or 3 rows of them down there.
Of course that opens the debate of how many decks the B'Rel has, but if we're assuming the B'Rel is 110m in length then it can fit around 5 decks - which just happens to fit with a DS9 episode where "Deck 5" is mentioned.
Assuming it has the 5 decks, Deck 4 would be the primary deck which includes the bridge, the neck corridor, and the main bulk of engineering etc in the main hull. Deck 3 is the upper buldge in the main hull, and Deck 1 and 2 would be stacked in the two buldges either side. Deck 5 is therefore the lower buldge - the part of the B'rel that current has 2 or 3 rows of lights :P
If you do the calculations, using the basis of the B'Rel being 110m in length, it works out that it can fit those 5 decks with each deck being around 1.8-2m in height - which happens to fit with the heights we've seen in the shows, so 5 decks in that layout is quite pheasable.
You of course know all this because you are secretly a Cryptic Dev. :rolleyes:
"None" also removes color from the Ventral side, which is "not" Canon.
I know all of that because that is how every single ship in STO works and the devs have said many times why it works that way. Its no secret.
As far as removing the ventral feather colouring - you could certainly argue that as being the error, though we have definitely seen B'rel-sized Birds of Prey with completly green wings, so technicaly its still canon as-is.
What you're asking for is for the B'Rel to recieve a Default pattern for the pylons that only colours the ventral feather patterns. Likewise the same default pattern could correctly colour the tube that partialy encircles the head, as well as other parts of the ship.
I agree, but I just feel that something more fitting the design of the "class" should used. The bridge structure as it is, doesn't seem right.
The Maelstrom's bridge does seem a bit high, or maybe the windows are stretched out? It could be that I'm comparing them to the deck below, which are on a curved part of hull.
I admit I was a bit irritated to see that it wasn't possible to replicate the classic "orange-red" pattern on the ventral side of the wings (the available colours don't quite match), but I've settled for a blood red pattern that I feel looks just as good. As for the colours showing up on both sides of a wing ... not sure on that one. I pretty much settled for what we have now, although I'd like the option for a canon variant for comparison. Might be solvable by allowing a second set of wings for customization so that people can choose. I imagine a pair of wings without the mirrored colours on the dorsal side would allow for more interesting paintjobs (-> stripes).
What keeps bothering me on the BoP are the windows on the main hull (makes it look larger than it should be) and the "split" neck that should be a single armoured corridor. Currently it looks as if people would have to crawl through the neck if they want to get from the main body to the bridge and back. And of course that strange new pair of engines that got added. Other than that, I've really grown to love the model.
Awesome, thanks!
I've added: "Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster." to the first page. Not sure what you mean about split neck, though.
I would like to say that I like the additional engines on the B'rel refit, as it makes it look just different enough to be a refit without looking so different as to be a different ship.
I would prefer a thicker neck, though. Was the studio model like that?
I would like to say that I like the additional engines on the B'rel refit, as it makes it look just different enough to be a refit without looking so different as to be a different ship.
I would prefer a thicker neck, though. Was the studio model like that?
There are links to the studio models on the first page.
It does look funny, yes. Reminds me of a space trucker.
I've added: "Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster." to the first page. Not sure what you mean about split neck, though.
I think Valias is referring to the fact that the B'rel appears to have the primary neck, and a second seperated beam below it, with these two neck sections essentialy being split by a sizable gap - so it looks likes its got a neck and some kind of seperated support beam which is obviously incorrect.
I would like to say that I like the additional engines on the B'rel refit, as it makes it look just different enough to be a refit without looking so different as to be a different ship.
Those are supposed to be nacelles and not impulse engines I believe, but I must admit that I also kind of like them being on the refit even if they aren't canon.
As is stated on the first thread, the entire engine array is wrong anyway. It should have a red glowing section on the top and bottom, with the middle portion seperated by a green beam with a glowing yellow strip. The two red portions are impulse engines and the glowing yellow strip is the warp nacelle. Ignoring for the moment the fact that yellow strip is completly missing, I think this engine setup goes partway to explain why the two little nacelles were added... its because of the warp trails.
If you think about it, if they had the warp nacelle placed properly, firstly the Klingon red warp trail would obviously be the wrong colour - and I am willing to bet that is faction-fixed (i.e. all klingons have to have red trails). Additionaly, because the impulse engines (there are technicaly two) are possitioned above and bellow the warp nacelle, you'd either have 3 virticaly stacked red trails, or one very big very thick trail .. either of which would likely look odd.
Willing to bet that is specificaly why they added the two little nacelles in order to explain why there are three red trails.
Of course none of the above would be an issue if they actually added an option to turn off the trails .. the game looks so much better without them imo :P
I think Valias is referring to the fact that the B'rel appears to have the primary neck, and a second seperated beam below it, with these two neck sections essentialy being split by a sizable gap - so it looks likes its got a neck and some kind of seperated support beam which is obviously incorrect.
Yup, the primary neck is too thin and the gap too large.
Plus there are supposed to be parts that kind of "clamp" around the tube.
Also in regards to deck lights (windows), there is a brilliant fan-made Bird of Prey model that really shows what a Bird of Prey should look like all lit up:
All of those windows ARE built into the original model, but for whatever reasons were never lit. So if we're going to have lit deck lights they should look exactly the same as the fan-made model linked above, as those the actual canon BoP windows. You'll note that there actually aren't that many since the BoP is a military vessel.
Well you can even see a couple of them lit up on the studio model shot there.
Though its a bird hard to make it because the pic was probally taken with a flash.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apgAVc_yv-s&hd=1
plz note that i use the engine trails OFF mod from http://www.sto-advanced.com/
it only replaces the texture from the trails with a transparent one, it does not affect the red blops you are seeing.
What are you reporting, here, other than the offset dreadnought impulse glows?
Fixed. Should show up in the next patch or two.
Speaking of Textures, any idea when the "warped" saucer textures on the Sovereign are getting fixed?
Because it is quite a large eye-sore at the moment.
Removed from first page
CaptLogan acknowledged it here, but that was over three months ago.
And the red decals on the Sovereign nacelles and sides of engineering hull.
Not a bad idea. It should be a sunken bridge like the Defiant, IMO.
The defiant breaks many molds that Roddenberry / Matt Jeffries created. One such was that the bridge should be the highest point on the ship. Having a visible bridge superstructure is one of many traditional features that honours the memories of Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries.
Any update on fixing the Defiant's bow?
And thanks for these Defiant fixes:
Yeah, though from those images the raised section that contains the bridge also looks too tall as well. And the nacelle cowling's need to be more in line with the top half of the main hull.
I agree, but I just feel that something more fitting the design of the "class" should used. The bridge structure as it is, doesn't seem right.
I'm going to say this again, but it seems you're not getting it.
Hard canon says the B'Rel is a 350m Bird of Prey.
Soft canon says the B'Rel is a 110m Bird of Prey and presumes that 90% of the BoPs you've seen on-screen are B'rel.
Soft canon also says that the B'Rel can, and does, have the tops of the wings painted red/brown, as demonstrated in such soft canon as STar Trek: Birth of the Federation, Star Trek: Armada, Star Trek Armada 2, etc etc.
STO is soft canon. It therefore only has a duty to maintain soft canon.
As it stands, the ability to paint the B'Rel's top feather decals is only gained by selecting a specific pattern. The default "none" pattern on those wings prevents you from being able to paint those top feather decals. By your definition, that means the B'Rel is alreayd fulfilling your need for any kind of canon.
Changing the B'Rel's wings therefore requires selecting a pattern - and by selecting a pattern you're already moving away from canon - so if you're now going to say that picking such a pattern on the B'Rel is a canon inconcistancy then you're now going to have to say the same thing about every other pattern on every single ship within STO.
If thats what you want then fine, do that, but I garuntee its not going to be changed. STO ships have pattern choices to give players a degree of customisation. The devs are maintaining a degree of canon by allowing players to chose not to use a pattern.
If, however, you're asking for one of the patterns to be changed so that it only paints the lowe wing - or better yet changed so that one colour paints the lower and the other colour paints the upper - then thats fine, and I too would like to see that added.
But using any argument of canon is as inaccurate as your claim portains to be.
Al BoP's in Star Trek are virtually all the same studio model, and that is all that matters.
What they have done in other Star Trek games is completely irrellevant.
The studio model is irrelevant. This is about colour schemes, and every time that model was re-used, and eventualy replaced by a full CG model, those colours change. The fact that, so far, the top feathers have not been painted is inconsequential. At no point is there any confirmation in canon, as in a Klingon specificaly saying, that it has to be green - it is therefore open to interpretation.
Frankly this is the same as the argument over Bird of Prey wing positions where people are saying "canon says wings should be down for combat" or "canon says wings should be up for cruise". The only thing canon says for certain is that both fo those are possible wing positions, not that they are fixed in stone cold requirements.
What other Star Trek games do is very relevant.
The B'Rel class being a small 110m Bird of Prey is soft canon. All other games comprise soft canon. If other games have had the B'Rel with red/brown feathers on the top of the wings, then they have adjusted soft canon to say that is possible.
STO is soft canon. STO is using the soft canon virsion of the B'Rel. STO is therefore free to use the same soft canon colour rules that the other games have introduced into the franchise's lore.
I really don't see why that is hard to grasp.
If you want the B'Rel class to follow strict canon then you're going to have to ask for all colours to be removed, since the B'Rel in rascals was completly green, and for the B'Rel to be made 350m in size - roughly the same size as the Hegh'ta - because THAT is what the "canon" B'Rel class looks like.
But if you want to get off the canon bandwagon, and look at this realisticaly, then you'll see these three things:
1) STO is set in 2409. Klingon paint schemes for all of their ships, including BoP's, has regularly changed. There is no reason why it can't have changed again.
2) Setting the pattern on the B'Rel's "pylons" to "none" removes any customisation options from the wing's feather decals already.
3) The only way to colour those top feathers is to use a specific pattern - only 2 or 3 of them allow it - and those patterns are just as canon inconsistant as all the other patterns on all the other STO ships. The same patterns on the B'Rel also change the colour of the grey motor clamps, add diagnal lines to various places on the hull, and even allow you to paint over 60% of your ship in bright red - point being that it isn't supposed to be canon accurate, its supposed to be an option for a player to use.
Define what you are asking for - are you asking to prevent those featheres from being changed with ALL patterns, or are you asking for it to be just green when set to default? If you're asking for the former, that won't happen, its part of the scope and intent of ship patterns. If you're asking for the latter, then that is already in place and your entire argument is therefore moot.
Only the Ventral pattern should be customizable.
The studio model is very much relevant, all the work the ship artists do on making new ships and improving them are based on studio model's and CGI, including the color patterns which the Sovereign and Excelsior class ships are prime examples of.
This is an error which should be fixed, end of story.
What keeps bothering me on the BoP are the windows on the main hull (makes it look larger than it should be) and the "split" neck that should be a single armoured corridor. Currently it looks as if people would have to crawl through the neck if they want to get from the main body to the bridge and back. And of course that strange new pair of engines that got added. Other than that, I've really grown to love the model.
Awesome, thanks!
STO customisation works on the concept of patterns, and most of those patterns are not intended to be canon. So some B'Rel patterns allowing the player to paint the Dorsal feathers is NOT an error, it is the intended purpose, and frankly if you couldn't paint those feathers in at least one of those patterns than THAT should be on the bug report.
Starfleet ships have two ways of maintaining cannon for ship customisation - by setting the patterns to "none", or on some ships by setting it to "Default". The Default pattern on the Sovereign, for example, adds the correct black decal that is present on the Enterprise E (though the player can obviously change it to a different colour).
For Klingon ships, the only way to maintain a canon look is to keep the pattern options to "none". When the B'Rel has the "none" pattern on the pylons, the dorsal feathers cannot be customised - they remain green.
So unless there are colours on those dorsal feathers while the pattern option is set to "none" then there is no error.
The fact of the matter is that some players are going to want to paint their B'Rel's feathers. They aren't as restrictive on canon as you are - this why the patterns are there in the first place. That isn't going to change, its working as intended.
THAT is end of story.
You of course know all this because you are secretly a Cryptic Dev. :rolleyes:
"None" also removes color from the Ventral side, which is "not" Canon.
As I've been saying, this is a matter of the choices available via the Pattern options.
I noticed this last night as well. Its only really the windows on the lower section thats throwing it off as there's about 2 or 3 rows of them down there.
Of course that opens the debate of how many decks the B'Rel has, but if we're assuming the B'Rel is 110m in length then it can fit around 5 decks - which just happens to fit with a DS9 episode where "Deck 5" is mentioned.
Assuming it has the 5 decks, Deck 4 would be the primary deck which includes the bridge, the neck corridor, and the main bulk of engineering etc in the main hull. Deck 3 is the upper buldge in the main hull, and Deck 1 and 2 would be stacked in the two buldges either side. Deck 5 is therefore the lower buldge - the part of the B'rel that current has 2 or 3 rows of lights :P
A good example of how the decks might stack in the B'Rel are shown in this fan-made plan: http://www.strekschematics.utvinternet.com/cutaways/jackillcut/bopcutaway.jpg
If you do the calculations, using the basis of the B'Rel being 110m in length, it works out that it can fit those 5 decks with each deck being around 1.8-2m in height - which happens to fit with the heights we've seen in the shows, so 5 decks in that layout is quite pheasable.
I know all of that because that is how every single ship in STO works and the devs have said many times why it works that way. Its no secret.
As far as removing the ventral feather colouring - you could certainly argue that as being the error, though we have definitely seen B'rel-sized Birds of Prey with completly green wings, so technicaly its still canon as-is.
What you're asking for is for the B'Rel to recieve a Default pattern for the pylons that only colours the ventral feather patterns. Likewise the same default pattern could correctly colour the tube that partialy encircles the head, as well as other parts of the ship.
That is far more likely to get done.
The Maelstrom's bridge does seem a bit high, or maybe the windows are stretched out? It could be that I'm comparing them to the deck below, which are on a curved part of hull.
It does look funny, yes. Reminds me of a space trucker.
I've added: "Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster." to the first page. Not sure what you mean about split neck, though.
I would like to say that I like the additional engines on the B'rel refit, as it makes it look just different enough to be a refit without looking so different as to be a different ship.
I would prefer a thicker neck, though. Was the studio model like that?
There are links to the studio models on the first page.
I think Valias is referring to the fact that the B'rel appears to have the primary neck, and a second seperated beam below it, with these two neck sections essentialy being split by a sizable gap - so it looks likes its got a neck and some kind of seperated support beam which is obviously incorrect.
Those are supposed to be nacelles and not impulse engines I believe, but I must admit that I also kind of like them being on the refit even if they aren't canon.
As is stated on the first thread, the entire engine array is wrong anyway. It should have a red glowing section on the top and bottom, with the middle portion seperated by a green beam with a glowing yellow strip. The two red portions are impulse engines and the glowing yellow strip is the warp nacelle. Ignoring for the moment the fact that yellow strip is completly missing, I think this engine setup goes partway to explain why the two little nacelles were added... its because of the warp trails.
If you think about it, if they had the warp nacelle placed properly, firstly the Klingon red warp trail would obviously be the wrong colour - and I am willing to bet that is faction-fixed (i.e. all klingons have to have red trails). Additionaly, because the impulse engines (there are technicaly two) are possitioned above and bellow the warp nacelle, you'd either have 3 virticaly stacked red trails, or one very big very thick trail .. either of which would likely look odd.
Willing to bet that is specificaly why they added the two little nacelles in order to explain why there are three red trails.
Of course none of the above would be an issue if they actually added an option to turn off the trails .. the game looks so much better without them imo :P
Yup, the primary neck is too thin and the gap too large.
Plus there are supposed to be parts that kind of "clamp" around the tube.
http://www.happinessismandatory.com/misc/Models/AMT_ST_3Piece_Adversary_set_bop/Reference_Pictures/Reference_Studio_Bird_of_Prey2.jpg
They should be perminantly lit.
Also in regards to deck lights (windows), there is a brilliant fan-made Bird of Prey model that really shows what a Bird of Prey should look like all lit up:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=11496
All of those windows ARE built into the original model, but for whatever reasons were never lit. So if we're going to have lit deck lights they should look exactly the same as the fan-made model linked above, as those the actual canon BoP windows. You'll note that there actually aren't that many since the BoP is a military vessel.
Though its a bird hard to make it because the pic was probally taken with a flash.