How about the enterprise from the 2009 movie? she was sleek; i could see that in the c-store or ship req
Cryptic has not rights to this ship.
They cannot use anything from that movie, it's a bit of a miracle they can actually reference stuff like Nero's rampage and his and Spock's disappearance from this universe, probably because that was in the comics but not the film.
Also Abrams decided not to call his movie "Star Trek XI", but only "Star Trek" because he wanted to stress that it is seperate from the rest of Star Trek.
For better or worse, whether we like that or not, we should respect that and keep contents from his Trek seperate, just like he wants it.
Meh on the Sovereign, lets talk Prometheus here! She's been overdue for fixing since the game launched!
And i wonder where CapnLogan has been hiding lately, haven't really seen much trace of him or his miracle work.
And actually, the 6ft Galaxy model did have the name "Enterprise" below the torpedo launcehrs at one point.
Meh on the Sovereign, lets talk Prometheus here! She's been overdue for fixing since the game launched!
And i wonder where CapnLogan has been hiding lately, haven't really seen much trace of him or his miracle work.
And actually, the 6ft Galaxy model did have the name "Enterprise" below the torpedo launcehrs at one point.
However, the 6ft Model did recieve a paintjob for "Generations" so what probally happened is that the name below the torpedo launcher was lost when it was repainted.
Since the Christies photo's represents the model in its final form.
You could say that both are correct and neither is wrong.
However, the 6ft Model did recieve a paintjob for "Generations" so what probally happened is that the name below the torpedo launcher was lost when it was repainted.
Since the Christies photo's represents the model in its final form.
You could say that both are correct and neither is wrong.
Well it could be said that Starfleet changed its regs and during a regular maintenance visit, the name was removed from the stardrive section.
That said, I've added it into the Galaxy class section which put me over the limit for characters in post #2, so I had to snip little bits here and there until it fit.
So I am once again asking for anyone to give me a heads up on anything I can remove from the lists. Posts 1 and 2 are absolutely full to bursting, so I can add nothing else for those groups.
Yes, the registry is still missing there. I did notice the inconsistency regarding the ship's name below the torpedo launcher. As was rightly pointed out, it was probably painted over during the production of Generations. A shame, if you ask me.
Another thing, and a bit of a personal request, I'd love for the Galaxy's saucer impulse engines to be shaped correctly. They should be closer to a trapezium, rather than the sort of capsule shape that they are at the moment. To me it looks odd that the neck engine was given the correct shape, but the saucer engines not.
Another thing, and a bit of a personal request, I'd love for the Galaxy's saucer impulse engines to be shaped correctly. They should be closer to a trapezium, rather than the sort of capsule shape that they are at the moment. To me it looks odd that the neck engine was given the correct shape, but the saucer engines not.
Well it could be said that Starfleet changed its regs and during a regular maintenance visit, the name was removed from the stardrive section.
That said, I've added it into the Galaxy class section which put me over the limit for characters in post #2, so I had to snip little bits here and there until it fit.
So I am once again asking for anyone to give me a heads up on anything I can remove from the lists. Posts 1 and 2 are absolutely full to bursting, so I can add nothing else for those groups.
I believe that the point below can be removed from the Galaxy's list. The bays were adjusted a while ago by CapnLogan and they seem right now.
"Shuttle bays 2 & 3 positioned incorrectly, not wide enough. See above side by side."
I was also thinking about the torpedo launcher ship name thing... It makes sense to for the ship's name to be there for when the stardrive section isn't connected to the saucer, otherwise it wouldn't have the name anywhere.
I believe that the point below can be removed from the Galaxy's list. The bays were adjusted a while ago by CapnLogan and they seem right now.
"Shuttle bays 2 & 3 positioned incorrectly, not wide enough. See above side by side."
I was also thinking about the torpedo launcher ship name thing... It makes sense to for the ship's name to be there for when the stardrive section isn't connected to the saucer, otherwise it wouldn't have the name anywhere.
All of those use the "old" Pre-Logan model as reference.
If some of them are still a problem then they need to be re-posted with new reference images.
Fantastic catches guys. Though I still have a funny feeling about those shuttle bays. If the game ever lets me back in, I'll see if I can't get a side by side together to compare them.
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.
Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.
This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.
Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.
This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
Isn't that the "inferior" 4ft model those comparisons are based on?
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.
Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.
This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
I really must urge you to use the model shots listed in the galaxy section as reference. Drawings and cartoons will not suffice as canon references.
The Defiant deflector section angle needs adding to that list, it is very very off. It has been listed here and referenced better than I could so I wont add shots or snything, but its not on the main list and it needs to be
The Defiant deflector section angle needs adding to that list, it is very very off. It has been listed here and referenced better than I could so I wont add shots or snything, but its not on the main list and it needs to be
It's also been referenced on the front page with an overlay as well as with over/under shots.
i think one thing that would enhance ship appearance overall is adding the darker (blackish) patches in the engine housings.. for example if you look at the galaxy and sovvy bussard collectors, they are more red and some dark. in the game it is more red and white. the same goes for most impulse engines. in trek, it seems common to use black traces to contrast/enhance reds. just a thought
i think one thing that would enhance ship appearance overall is adding the darker (blackish) patches in the engine housings.. for example if you look at the galaxy and sovvy bussard collectors, they are more red and some dark. in the game it is more red and white. the same goes for most impulse engines. in trek, it seems common to use black traces to contrast/enhance reds. just a thought
i can go on and on with references on ships. suffice it to say, it applies to most all fed ships and probably klingon ships too
Ummm perhaps you should use more accurate reference sources.
At least two images there are of fan made 3D models which invalidates them as a reference, the the in-game ship models your showing there are no longer "current".
The ships do not look like that anymore in game.... at all.
I still have a funny feeling about those shuttle bays. If the game ever lets me back in, I'll see if I can't get a side by side together to compare them.
I think that the shuttle bays might still look a little small because of the neck being a touch too wide/misshapen. The sides of the aft neck are a bit thick, for example.
I also found these images from "Encounter At Farpoint" and "The Arsenal Of Freedom" respectively that both show the 6-footer Galaxy having the ship's name below the forward torpedo launcher. These don't necessarily need to be added to the list. I'm putting them here more out of interest.
re check my post.. i updated and edited that post after i saw yours... but in any case.. you can see that the nacelle bussard collectors have not changed since then.
I think the issue with the bussard collectors is that the actual model was a darker, translucent red lit from behind, while the in game are something else. Whatever it is, it's a very light red, then lit up, or something. Doesn't look terrible, but not quite the same. Not a detail I'm about to get worked up about, though.
Hey guys, just wanted to point something out about the Galaxy that has bugged me ever since I joined STO. Around the top of the Saucer section, STO seems to have added an extra "ring" around the bridge. according to a very accurate pic (one I wish was identical to the STO version of the galaxy) the only "ring" is the phaser array, nothing else.
Via this somewhat crude, but effective pic below. i circled (or chicken-scratched, if u will) the differences between the 2.
Another thing to point out is that the entire ship seems a bit "boxy" compared to the picture on the right... it'd be awesome to see perfectly round curves rather than bits of lines put together...
Hey guys, just wanted to point something out about the Galaxy that has bugged me ever since I joined STO. Around the top of the Saucer section, STO seems to have added an extra "ring" around the bridge. according to a very accurate pic (one I wish was identical to the STO version of the galaxy) the only "ring" is the phaser array, nothing else.
Via this somewhat crude, but effective pic below. i circled (or chicken-scratched, if u will) the differences between the 2.
Another thing to point out is that the entire ship seems a bit "boxy" compared to the picture on the right... it'd be awesome to see perfectly round curves rather than bits of lines put together...
Use "canon" reference sources please.
3rd Party 3D models are not valid as reference.
Use "canon" reference sources please.
3rd Party 3D models are not valid as reference.
If you say so. Regardless of where it came from, the fact is the galaxy on the right is more accurate aligning with the one from AGT. Plus, I'd rather have Cryptic telling me that that a "3rd party" if you will...
Aside from that, I see your logic. Here is a pic from the episode, and it looks nearly identical to the one I posted above on the right.
Comments
Cryptic has not rights to this ship.
They cannot use anything from that movie, it's a bit of a miracle they can actually reference stuff like Nero's rampage and his and Spock's disappearance from this universe, probably because that was in the comics but not the film.
Also Abrams decided not to call his movie "Star Trek XI", but only "Star Trek" because he wanted to stress that it is seperate from the rest of Star Trek.
For better or worse, whether we like that or not, we should respect that and keep contents from his Trek seperate, just like he wants it.
On that note, here is a new side-by-side comparison of the STO model and Canon reference.
http://alexraptor.com/images/PromGamma.jpg
"Missing registry beneath nacelles on struts."
It's a minor point, but the ship's name is missing from the sides of the neck, just below the torpedo launcher:
http://i.imgur.com/oaAcF.jpg
There is no ship name beneath the torpedo launcher:
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20D/IMG_1872.JPG
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20D/IMG_1977.JPG
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20D/IMG_2021.JPG
Please utilise the Christie's auction shots for detail references. ^.^
However, the game refuses to load for me right now so I cannot check. Is it missing the registry suffix from the main shuttle bay?
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20D/IMG_2018.JPG
I can't wait to see the Sovereign getting fixed:cool:
And i wonder where CapnLogan has been hiding lately, haven't really seen much trace of him or his miracle work.
And actually, the 6ft Galaxy model did have the name "Enterprise" below the torpedo launcehrs at one point.
Its the "6ft model - side view"(since the site does not allow hotlinking to images)
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/galaxy1.htm
Ah, I see that, now.
(imgur firefox plugin ftw.
However, the 6ft Model did recieve a paintjob for "Generations" so what probally happened is that the name below the torpedo launcher was lost when it was repainted.
Since the Christies photo's represents the model in its final form.
You could say that both are correct and neither is wrong.
Well it could be said that Starfleet changed its regs and during a regular maintenance visit, the name was removed from the stardrive section.
That said, I've added it into the Galaxy class section which put me over the limit for characters in post #2, so I had to snip little bits here and there until it fit.
So I am once again asking for anyone to give me a heads up on anything I can remove from the lists. Posts 1 and 2 are absolutely full to bursting, so I can add nothing else for those groups.
Yes, the registry is still missing there. I did notice the inconsistency regarding the ship's name below the torpedo launcher. As was rightly pointed out, it was probably painted over during the production of Generations. A shame, if you ask me.
See here for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/bFh6o.jpg
Can't add it. See my last post, quoted above.
I believe that the point below can be removed from the Galaxy's list. The bays were adjusted a while ago by CapnLogan and they seem right now.
"Shuttle bays 2 & 3 positioned incorrectly, not wide enough. See above side by side."
I was also thinking about the torpedo launcher ship name thing... It makes sense to for the ship's name to be there for when the stardrive section isn't connected to the saucer, otherwise it wouldn't have the name anywhere.
All of those use the "old" Pre-Logan model as reference.
If some of them are still a problem then they need to be re-posted with new reference images.
Fantastic catches guys.
Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.
1:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/CaptainWallis/Untitled.png Showing the registry missing from the main shuttle bay, along with the missing plasma vents on the struts.
2:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/CaptainWallis/Untitled1.png This shows the deflector overbite that is missing from the current model.
3:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/CaptainWallis/Untitled3.png Neck needs thinning out a little and RCS thrusters need adding on secondary hull.
4:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/CaptainWallis/Untitled2.png And finally, this shows the gap that we have at the moment which should not be there along with the indentation missing from the rear of the ship.
This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
Isn't that the "inferior" 4ft model those comparisons are based on?
I really must urge you to use the model shots listed in the galaxy section as reference. Drawings and cartoons will not suffice as canon references.
It's also been referenced on the front page with an overlay as well as with over/under shots.
galaxy references:
http://www.st-wiki.com/images/6/6f/Gal_slide2.jpg-voyager "timeless"
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/galaxy/galaxy-4ft-bloodlines.jpg -TNG "bloodlines"
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070609070522/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b4/Galaxy_class_navigational_deflector.jpg TNG "the loss"
http://www.siwiak.com/archives/asdb/images/galaxy/galaxy11.jpg -ds9 "Sacrifice of Angels"
compared to ingame: made my me today
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac242/wfs5519/screenshot_2011-03-06-19-40-32.jpg
sovereign references:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sovereign/sovereign-shuttlebay-firstcontact.jpg and http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontacthd/firstcontacthd0249.jpg
^^^(i would love to see these hull decals/details at some point. nice and clean)
http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/images/sov/in5.jpg
ingame: made by me today
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac242/wfs5519/screenshot_2011-03-06-19-44-22.jpg
..while im on the sovvy.. the default dark colors for the saucer should extend to the impulse engines, and pan partially behind the lounge area in back of the bridge module (as shown in the first on screen shot above). in game it does not.
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac242/wfs5519/screenshot_2011-03-06-20-00-58.jpg
prometheus:
http://www.ccdump.org/images/ablativearmor.jpg
i can go on and on with references on ships. suffice it to say, it applies to most all fed ships and probably
klingon ships too: EDIT- it appears to be the case: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Vor%27cha_firing_forward_disruptor.jpg
Ummm perhaps you should use more accurate reference sources.
At least two images there are of fan made 3D models which invalidates them as a reference, the the in-game ship models your showing there are no longer "current".
The ships do not look like that anymore in game.... at all.
I think that the shuttle bays might still look a little small because of the neck being a touch too wide/misshapen. The sides of the aft neck are a bit thick, for example.
I also found these images from "Encounter At Farpoint" and "The Arsenal Of Freedom" respectively that both show the 6-footer Galaxy having the ship's name below the forward torpedo launcher. These don't necessarily need to be added to the list. I'm putting them here more out of interest.
http://i.imgur.com/v1868.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kmbco.jpg
That second one also shows the 6-footer's deflector quite nicely. That's what the STO one should look like, ideally.
http://media.curse.com/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/127284/News/sto_screen_101709_70.jpg
http://screenshots.stoarchive.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/screenshot_2010-07-27-22-28-11.jpg
Those two images certainly are not up to date.
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac242/wfs5519/screenshot_2011-03-06-19-44-22.jpg
http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac242/wfs5519/screenshot_2011-03-06-19-40-32.jpg
these, however are. they were made today during my proof edits.
re check my post.. i updated and edited that post after i saw yours... but in any case.. you can see that the nacelle bussard collectors have not changed since then.
Via this somewhat crude, but effective pic below. i circled (or chicken-scratched, if u will) the differences between the 2.
Galaxy Comparison Picture
Another thing to point out is that the entire ship seems a bit "boxy" compared to the picture on the right... it'd be awesome to see perfectly round curves rather than bits of lines put together...
Use "canon" reference sources please.
3rd Party 3D models are not valid as reference.
If you say so. Regardless of where it came from, the fact is the galaxy on the right is more accurate aligning with the one from AGT. Plus, I'd rather have Cryptic telling me that that a "3rd party" if you will...
Aside from that, I see your logic. Here is a pic from the episode, and it looks nearly identical to the one I posted above on the right.
"Canon" Galaxy Dreadnought
Notice that the only "ring" is the phaser array. nothing else.