The Hephaestus (C-store Prometheus skin) gamma section 'prongs' (for lack of a better word) are see through from the 'top' when separated. This just looks horrible when looking at the section from anywhere above it.
Ok sorry, i will take back the "horrible" and call it medicore with a smile.
But i will never like, nor approve in any way shape of form of the texture work, where everything overlaps, when you zoom in and window locations make no sense at all.
In explonation: Windows overlapping with the bumpery of the normal map (it is not smooth) and even some of the larger scale textures in itself making no sense, where they are located on the hull.
Sorry if i have not found anymore specific errors to fix or brought any pictures with me.
This is a good thread, i fully approve of it and i hope it will be kept to stay alive.
Thanks.
Shhh don't complain about the textures or they'll nerf the zoom again so we can't see it. >.<
The Hephaestus (C-store Prometheus skin) gamma section 'prongs' (for lack of a better word) are see through from the 'top' when separated. This just looks horrible when looking at the section from anywhere above it.
Something that has always bugged me about the Galaxy class model, in every episode of TNG that I remember, the impulse engines on the saucer are always off/dark except when the saucer is seperated. Normally the ship is propelled only by the central impulse engine on the secondary hull.
Something that has always bugged me about the Galaxy class model, in every episode of TNG that I remember, the impulse engines on the saucer are always off/dark except when the saucer is seperated. Normally the ship is propelled only by the central impulse engine on the secondary hull.
That changed partway through the run. I can't remember during which series the change took effect, but eventually the saucer impulse exhausts were lit up like the central exhaust.
That changed partway through the run. I can't remember during which series the change took effect, but eventually the saucer impulse exhausts were lit up like the central exhaust.
Late DS9/Voyager, once they moved over to CGI fully they just left the engine glow on all the time. To be fair though, there might have actually been a good reason for them doing that during the Dominion War.
Late DS9/Voyager, once they moved over to CGI fully they just left the engine glow on all the time. To be fair though, there might have actually been a good reason for them doing that during the Dominion War.
I would guess (story wise) that it would be because initiating a re-heat of those engines would take too long for them to be used as emergency thrust in a "just in case" situation. FX wise it was probably just an aesthetics decision.
Something that has always bugged me about the Galaxy class model, in every episode of TNG that I remember, the impulse engines on the saucer are always off/dark except when the saucer is seperated. Normally the ship is propelled only by the central impulse engine on the secondary hull.
That changed partway through the run. I can't remember during which series the change took effect, but eventually the saucer impulse exhausts were lit up like the central exhaust.
yah, TNG didn't use the saucer engines just all the time as in STO. I think it would be cool if we could manually turn them on/off. I know, not now, but in the future. Hopefully other ships will have their own lil perks like this. And no, not just a graphics feature, but a performance as well. perhaps we could choose to have the saucer impulse drive on/off at the cost of some sort of resource/power/etc. On would mean more maneuverability+speed, off would mean possibly more power available to weapons/engines? idk, just a though. it gets weird to see all this power just coming out of nowhere. and having extra power overflowing in one system should automatically overflow into another system that isnt maxed out. if picard ordered EP to Weapons when they were already at full power, surely a phaser relay would have burned out
in addition, I fail to see how a BoP warp core can compete with a Galaxy warp core. way I see it, BoPs have far more speed/turn rate, and weapon power already. and with all those nick-nacks on shields, warp power doesnt mean alot. I think ship size really needs to be a determining factor in what type of power output a ship has.
Id also like to see hopefully in the future the ability to modify a ship's warp core. say, for more Dmg, Shields, or just overall power... even adding a built in slipstream drive might be nice, as they did in Voy. Shoot, i'd luv to even see it where we can eject the warp core if a torpedo damages it or something. that would be epicly realistic. the explosion could be like a bomb. damaging anything within a range of it. obviously with just impulse drives, a warp-core-free ship would be severely underpowered, but im sure its worth it to stay alive rather than exploding along with the core [PS. as of now, no matter how hard of a torpedo hit a ship takes, the warp core Always seems to remain in tact... i never got that. in Voy, DS9 particularly, warp cores were pretty fragile and easy to damage. in this game they are invulnerable. hopefully this will change]
i kno im straying greatly from the topic, but also Id like to point out that in ST, cloak cores could be damaged. in this game even a full spread of quantums wont scratch a cloak device. I hope this gets changed. its pathetic to see a ship thats bleeding left and right leaving a trail of smoke just cloak like nothing. in all of the series, even a little bump could knock the cloak offline for a bit.
yeh, i kno. just a game. prolly will never be realistic compared to ST, but I'm glad for what we have.
Not sure if this is the place, but I've notice that the added Borg fx from the borg set doesn't do anything with the Borg engine 'armor/cage' that normally sits on the right nacelle, when the player is in gamma mode of the Prometheus.
I'm not noticing a dramatic difference, any where. It helps if you take pictures from similar angles with adequate lighting.
Maybe it's the shuttle's name and base of operation designation? Also the ridge across the top is "broke" harder where the original has more of a soft radius. But that is just nit picking.
if you look at the photo from the remastered series, the height of the fairing is larger at the back than the front. in the model for STO its constant, they have taken the height from the back and used it all the way through leaving it too big at the front.
The shuttle name in the right place would be nice too
if you look at the photo from the remastered series, the height of the fairing is larger at the back than the front. in the model for STO its constant, they have taken the height from the back and used it all the way through leaving it too big at the front.
The shuttle name in the right place would be nice too
I think what I want most of all is to know what you mean by "fairing" Something on the flanks? Bow? Aft? The Gunwales? The winglets to which the nacelles are attached?
I see what's being suggested. I peeked at my Star Fleet Technical Manual (the one by Franz Joseph). The roof of the Type-F Shuttlecraft displays a slight incline as you look from the bow toward the aft. So this creates the illusion that the two sides that raise above the roof are shorter in the bow. Clearly, this was a stylistic decision for the TV model. It's so slight as to not indicate any reason/function.
So the Art Dept could lower the aft roof slightly on the in-game model. Or design raised sides to display lower toward the bow. Either would offer the stylistic effect.
I think what I want most of all is to know what you mean by "fairing" Something on the flanks? Bow? Aft? The Gunwales? The winglets to which the nacelles are attached?
the curved component of the walls of the shuttle craft at the top, "gunwhales" possibly
I see what's being suggested. I peeked at my Star Fleet Technical Manual (the one by Franz Joseph). The roof of the Type-F Shuttlecraft displays a slight incline as you look from the bow toward the aft. So this creates the illusion that the two sides that raise above the roof are shorter in the bow. Clearly, this was a stylistic decision for the TV model. It's so slight as to not indicate any reason/function.
So the Art Dept could lower the aft roof slightly on the in-game model. Or design raised sides to display lower toward the bow. Either would offer the stylistic effect.
yup you have it... when i was younger i always assumed that this was for "areo-dynamics" :>
I see what's being suggested. I peeked at my Star Fleet Technical Manual (the one by Franz Joseph). The roof of the Type-F Shuttlecraft displays a slight incline as you look from the bow toward the aft. So this creates the illusion that the two sides that raise above the roof are shorter in the bow. Clearly, this was a stylistic decision for the TV model. It's so slight as to not indicate any reason/function.
So the Art Dept could lower the aft roof slightly on the in-game model. Or design raised sides to display lower toward the bow. Either would offer the stylistic effect.
So is the overhead lower at the bow or higher? I'm guessing higher, as you're saying the gunwales are shorter at the bow than at the aft, but I don't want to just assume.
=edit=
Nevermind, I see. I've added this picture to the front page indicating that the dotted line in the side shot is the roofline.
So is the overhead lower at the bow or higher? I'm guessing higher, as you're saying the gunwales are shorter at the bow than at the aft, but I don't want to just assume.
=edit=
Nevermind, I see. I've added this picture to the front page indicating that the dotted line in the side shot is the roofline.
The gunwales at the bow should be smaller in height above "the roof" of the shuttle, I think at the stern they are the right size,
sitting behind my conny in game drives me mad seeing those i don't know why, but above all other flaws that it has, that one irks me the most atm.. maybe its the 1:350 model i've sitting on my desk beside the monitor and needs its Nacelles decaled still, i dunno, but hot dang its driving me mad!
i'll go shutup now.
Edit: oh yeah, and the outboard isn't supposed to be litup on the Conny refits, me thinks that was a miranda thing...
this has to have been mentioned by now (to many pages! needs a summerize/cleanup me thinks!)
The summary is on page 1. Typically the first page you should read so you understand the gist of the rest of the thread.
I have added the constitution's inboard fins to the front page, but had to sacrifice some punctuation to fit it in. Was able to turn a url into a tiny.cc url, but had to trim some periods to fit the rest in.
Can someone go through the list and tell me if anything has been fixed so it can be removed from the list?
hey, something I just noticed during play, and I'm not sure if its been noted in this thread, but the defiant bridge ship status panel is skewed. http://imgur.com/a/utRMp
Comments
Shhh don't complain about the textures or they'll nerf the zoom again so we can't see it. >.<
Added
Fixed.
That changed partway through the run. I can't remember during which series the change took effect, but eventually the saucer impulse exhausts were lit up like the central exhaust.
Late DS9/Voyager, once they moved over to CGI fully they just left the engine glow on all the time. To be fair though, there might have actually been a good reason for them doing that during the Dominion War.
I would guess (story wise) that it would be because initiating a re-heat of those engines would take too long for them to be used as emergency thrust in a "just in case" situation. FX wise it was probably just an aesthetics decision.
yah, TNG didn't use the saucer engines just all the time as in STO. I think it would be cool if we could manually turn them on/off. I know, not now, but in the future. Hopefully other ships will have their own lil perks like this. And no, not just a graphics feature, but a performance as well. perhaps we could choose to have the saucer impulse drive on/off at the cost of some sort of resource/power/etc. On would mean more maneuverability+speed, off would mean possibly more power available to weapons/engines? idk, just a though. it gets weird to see all this power just coming out of nowhere. and having extra power overflowing in one system should automatically overflow into another system that isnt maxed out. if picard ordered EP to Weapons when they were already at full power, surely a phaser relay would have burned out
in addition, I fail to see how a BoP warp core can compete with a Galaxy warp core. way I see it, BoPs have far more speed/turn rate, and weapon power already. and with all those nick-nacks on shields, warp power doesnt mean alot. I think ship size really needs to be a determining factor in what type of power output a ship has.
Id also like to see hopefully in the future the ability to modify a ship's warp core. say, for more Dmg, Shields, or just overall power... even adding a built in slipstream drive might be nice, as they did in Voy. Shoot, i'd luv to even see it where we can eject the warp core if a torpedo damages it or something. that would be epicly realistic. the explosion could be like a bomb. damaging anything within a range of it. obviously with just impulse drives, a warp-core-free ship would be severely underpowered, but im sure its worth it to stay alive rather than exploding along with the core [PS. as of now, no matter how hard of a torpedo hit a ship takes, the warp core Always seems to remain in tact... i never got that. in Voy, DS9 particularly, warp cores were pretty fragile and easy to damage. in this game they are invulnerable. hopefully this will change]
i kno im straying greatly from the topic, but also Id like to point out that in ST, cloak cores could be damaged. in this game even a full spread of quantums wont scratch a cloak device. I hope this gets changed. its pathetic to see a ship thats bleeding left and right leaving a trail of smoke just cloak like nothing. in all of the series, even a little bump could knock the cloak offline for a bit.
yeh, i kno. just a game. prolly will never be realistic compared to ST, but I'm glad for what we have.
petet
Or have them turn on when the saucer separates on the Galaxy Refit. Which would fit early TNG canon.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I'm not noticing a dramatic difference, any where. It helps if you take pictures from similar angles with adequate lighting.
sorry you cant see the difference i can...:D
Maybe it's the shuttle's name and base of operation designation? Also the ridge across the top is "broke" harder where the original has more of a soft radius. But that is just nit picking.
You're safe to pick nits in this thread, that's its entire purpose of being.
The shuttle name in the right place would be nice too
I think what I want most of all is to know what you mean by "fairing" Something on the flanks? Bow? Aft? The Gunwales? The winglets to which the nacelles are attached?
So the Art Dept could lower the aft roof slightly on the in-game model. Or design raised sides to display lower toward the bow. Either would offer the stylistic effect.
the curved component of the walls of the shuttle craft at the top, "gunwhales" possibly
yup you have it... when i was younger i always assumed that this was for "areo-dynamics" :>
So is the overhead lower at the bow or higher? I'm guessing higher, as you're saying the gunwales are shorter at the bow than at the aft, but I don't want to just assume.
=edit=
Nevermind, I see. I've added this picture to the front page indicating that the dotted line in the side shot is the roofline.
The gunwales at the bow should be smaller in height above "the roof" of the shuttle, I think at the stern they are the right size,
The roof slopes from bow to stern, that's why the gunwales look taller in the rear: The hull at the stern is lower than the hull at the bow.
yes thats correct
That is why I posted that picture on the front page to demonstrate the canted upper hull and fantail.
the Constitution Refit does NOT have inboard fins on the back of the Nacelles...
i've at least 4 model kits of these suckers, and its in the referances linked on the first page.
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20A/IMG_1885.JPG
http://www.mutara.net/Christies/detail%20models/Enterprise%20A/IMG_2056.JPG
sitting behind my conny in game drives me mad seeing those
i'll go shutup now.
Edit: oh yeah, and the outboard isn't supposed to be litup on the Conny refits, me thinks that was a miranda thing...
The summary is on page 1. Typically the first page you should read so you understand the gist of the rest of the thread.
I have added the constitution's inboard fins to the front page, but had to sacrifice some punctuation to fit it in. Was able to turn a url into a tiny.cc url, but had to trim some periods to fit the rest in.
Can someone go through the list and tell me if anything has been fixed so it can be removed from the list?
http://imgur.com/a/utRMp