test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Starships: Model errors, issues and feedback

1373840424360

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Any chance while you're working on the Intrepid, good Cap'n, the underside of the Nacelles can get the registry number as seen on the voyager model?

    http://www.st-bilder.de/gallery/raumschiffe/foederation/intrepid/intrepid-671.html
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    I just realised that when you go to http://www.st-bilder.de/gallery/modelle/sternenflotte.html when you are looking at their tiny images, you can click the little save button and open the full sized raw images using your image viewing program of choice. I'd like to think that that's a new feature, but It's probably something that was there the entire time and I was just too thick to notice.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Any chance while you're working on the Intrepid, good Cap'n, the underside of the Nacelles can get the registry number as seen on the voyager model?

    http://ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/voyager2.jpg

    Can't link to ex-astris images.

    Here you go:

    8xocV.png


    =edit=
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Good links. I don't know if I'll be able to do the impulse engines like that without blowing my budgets away... I'll see what my tri-counts look like after removing the extra rows from the bottom of the saucer.


    Just realised what you meant. Good luck! :D

    Also, what about adding the registry to the landing pad, like in the pic I posted? And the different coloured area on the pad and bulkhead around the door?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    I've been holding out on you. A pet peeve of mine has cropped up in game. The windows on the Nebula and Galaxy variants at T4 and T5 have some warped window issues. Annoying, but I rarely look under the ship (but when I do...). This appears to be on the shared saucer component.

    T4 Advanced Research Science Vessel Retrofit (Magellan Variant)
    http://i.imgur.com/4TYuR.jpg

    T5 Exploration Cruiser Retrofit (Monarch Variant)
    http://i.imgur.com/DPBDo.jpg



    Oh, and if you ever get a chance:
    http://i.imgur.com/uXSov.jpg (angel, note I moved this one to imgur... haven't moved any of my other ones yet)
    I know it needs a lot of love to bring it in line, but someday... I hope...


    And CapnLogan, if you're spending your lunch breaks doing polish fixes, you let me know. I will buy you lunch (you know, one time... I'm not made of money!)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Yes Sovvy will get decals... Conny will get fixes too... I can't paint myself in to a corner and say when though.


    concerning Cryptic ships with no decals - they will probably get 'em eventually but it's low priority.

    If many of the ships will one day be getting their decals is their any chance we can also get an option to not display them? One of the reasons Ive been a big fan of the cryptic ships is their lack of decals.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    If many of the ships will one day be getting their decals is their any chance we can also get an option to not display them? One of the reasons Ive been a big fan of the cryptic ships is their lack of decals.

    Actually that would be a great idea; if I may expand further. We could have a couple options, since cannonly we have seen a few different decals.
    TOS-Era: http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/amt/images/amt_609_decals.jpg
    TNG-Era: http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/pl/images/pl_enterprise_decal.jpg
    DS9/VOY-Era: http://drexfiles.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/defiant-markings-master-int-converted.jpg
    VOY Endgame (my personal fav): http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media/images/200511/voy-271-admiral-janeways-shuttle/320x240.jpg
    STO-Era: ??
    None

    I do realize it is more work, but it would allow everyone to have their ship decal-led the way they want it to be.

    peter
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Ultimately I'd like to give options to turn off both decals and fleet logos. This tech is low priority, but it's something I'd like.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    the intrepid door being removed above the rear torp launchers makes it look lop sided...

    this detail reference should help:

    http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=88819&d=1299018226
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    wfs5519 wrote: »
    the intrepid door being removed above the rear torp launchers makes it look lop sided...

    this detail reference should help:

    http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=88819&d=1299018226

    indeed. I'll see what i can do next time I mess with the Intrepid. Feel free to re-build the list of inconsistencies on the front page... it could literally never end until I make a perfect replica of a studio model but I only have 7.5k triangles to work with. ;( Gotta spend 'em wisely.

    As of right now, every time I add something I have to find other areas to take something away from in order to keep the ship in budgets. you know... real-time-online game environments and all :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    As of right now, every time I add something I have to find other areas to take something away from in order to keep the ship in budgets. you know... real-time-online game environments and all :(

    /bacon

    Just blame Canada. Its what I do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    A question Capn, something I'm sure has been asked...but that's a lot of pages to read. Is it possible to eliminate, or at least reduce the visibility of the weapon hard points (red dots) on the models? They really do break the flow of some lovely models.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    wfs5519 wrote: »
    the intrepid door being removed above the rear torp launchers makes it look lop sided...

    this detail reference should help:

    http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=88819&d=1299018226

    hey, jsut a out of the topic question here. Where that little guy is standing, what is it?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    indeed. I'll see what i can do next time I mess with the Intrepid. Feel free to re-build the list of inconsistencies on the front page... it could literally never end until I make a perfect replica of a studio model but I only have 7.5k triangles to work with. ;( Gotta spend 'em wisely.

    As of right now, every time I add something I have to find other areas to take something away from in order to keep the ship in budgets. you know... real-time-online game environments and all :(

    Maybe remove the aditional polygons from the underside of the Intrepid saucer where the registry is (since this is not how the Intrepid was anyway), this would free up some polygons for adding the extra detailing?

    As for the Miranda class engines, maybe remove the extra struts on the Toerpedo launchers (that wern't in the series), this should free up a few more polygons to model the bussard collecters on the engine?

    Sometimes making low polygons models is harder than making ultra-high polygon models!!
    RAJ_2011 wrote:
    hey, jsut a out of the topic question here. Where that little guy is standing, what is it?

    That is the rear EVA hatch (an airlock for the crew to get to the outside of the ship)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    The Miranda needs the extra struts in case people give it the Centaur pylons. If those struts were absent, nothing then would hold the rollbar to the saucer.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Zoberraz wrote: »
    The Miranda needs the extra struts in case people give it the Centaur pylons. If those struts were absent, nothing then would hold the rollbar to the saucer.

    Hmm, thats a shame, as its one of the things that annoyed me about the Miranda model in the game, I supose the only fix (which is more systm intensive) would be for the game to see what saucer is been used and then choose between 2 varaints of the pylons, one with the struts and one without, although this doesn't effect the poly count to much, it does mean more models would need to be stored for some ships.

    Saying that, if they did have a few ship models that had extra peices to compensate for bad fitting pieces, it could mean ships like teh Steamrunner could be modeled properly into the game :-)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Something about the Galaxy class model has irritated the heck out of me for a while, which is the forward slope of the front part of the neck. It bends upwards at too high an angle above the deflector. Here's a comparison.

    gal1a.png

    The slope of the neck should continue on from the deflector and not bend.

    There's also a problem with the engineering hull. It's too wide at the rear. It should taper off more towards the nacelle pylons. This is what it should look like.

    galaxyunderside.png

    I don't have an ingame comparison pic, but I know it's too fat towards the rear. It's currently more like an oval when it should be narrower like a teardrop.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Ultimately I'd like to give options to turn off both decals and fleet logos. This tech is low priority, but it's something I'd like.

    Can you explain what kind of tech is required here? I would think you could just create a "None" "decal" that is actually just an invisible/clear label with not coloration. There's already character tech to not have a fleet logo on our arm so I'm curious as to why there's no tech for this for starships and what is required. Just seems counter-intuitive that there's more tech required for less stuff to be on my ship :P
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Some things I'm fixing today:

    Discovery saucer cutting off edges of long names

    Intrepid - grills behind Bussard collector are no longer glowy red, but silver
    - removed name from underside of saucer
    - corrected the aft phaser strips b eneath shuttle bay
    - removed the extra opening on the spine of the saucer
    - i removed the weapons hardpoints from the saucer... all nodes will still fire from where they were... but hte hardpoints are gone now.
    -fixed the shape of the cowling around the aft shuttlebay
    -added the running strips to the shuttle bay entrance
    -added the indentations on the spine of the secondary hull

    Cochrane - no shuttlebay fixed

    Cochrane - horrible stretching on saucer fixed

    This is all I have time for on this series of ships for now.... I'd do more but i really must move on if I want to do more fixes to other ships as well later in my schedule. This ate my lunch break today :)

    Considering how this thread is reminiscient of a Hydra (cut off one head it sprouts 2 more) I'm sure I'll be back for more Intrepid series fixes later on.

    *I don't know when these fixes will get patched in... within a month for sure.

    I realize I'm somewhat late to the game, but I wanted to thank you, Capn, again, for doing this for us.

    Very much appreciated.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Yes, Thomas The Cat and I just sat down a few minutes ago and went over the list... we iddn't get to this yet because it'll take a bit more time than I have today. It's a fix I'm aware of though and I'll get to it when I have a spare hour.

    *Angel - I'll try to squeeze those in when I get the time to re-work the "bowl" :)

    Also don't forget the starboard ventral green running light on the saucer! Which doesn't exist right now. :)

    EDIT: Whoops; someone beat me to it. Apologies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    indeed. I'll see what i can do next time I mess with the Intrepid. Feel free to re-build the list of inconsistencies on the front page... it could literally never end until I make a perfect replica of a studio model but I only have 7.5k triangles to work with. ;( Gotta spend 'em wisely.

    As of right now, every time I add something I have to find other areas to take something away from in order to keep the ship in budgets. you know... real-time-online game environments and all :(

    Logan, is there any chance that Cryptic could "ever" be persuaded to produce an optional HD package?
    A addon pack that features High Definition textures and extremely high poly and high detail models?

    Because I know some MMO's out there have gone down the route of extra content packs for those people with killer rigs that can use them, games such as LOTRO and AoC.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    I have a problem with game play in that when I try turning my ship it immediately turns back and won't go in the direction I want. Also with my characters when moving them they suddenly jump to a different room even if I do nothing. Another problem is when I get a message to go to the ss azura for instance I either click ok or the F and nothing happens. What do I do? I have cleared out the cache and the registry files, un-installed and re-installed the game did I miss anything?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    jccanada wrote:
    I have a problem with game play in that when I try turning my ship it immediately turns back and won't go in the direction I want. Also with my characters when moving them they suddenly jump to a different room even if I do nothing. Another problem is when I get a message to go to the ss azura for instance I either click ok or the F and nothing happens. What do I do? I have cleared out the cache and the registry files, un-installed and re-installed the game did I miss anything?

    You're in the wrong thread. This is for model errors. You should try the technical support forum instead.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Hravik wrote:
    A question Capn, something I'm sure has been asked...but that's a lot of pages to read. Is it possible to eliminate, or at least reduce the visibility of the weapon hard points (red dots) on the models? They really do break the flow of some lovely models.

    I've removed many of them from the intrepid. Turns out it was demanded by CBS that if a weapon fire from our ships in game it must fire from a weapon hardpoint. The quick and easy solution to this in early pre-production was to make little hardpoints that we could attach anywhere on the ship without doing too much damage to the aesthetics... well

    it backfired and they look bad and everybody hates them. So as time goes forward, when I go in and touch a ship I'm going to try to remove them... this means I"ll have to either model in newer, more appealing hardpoints, or just make many weapons fire from a single place etc. you get the point... basically it'll be a lot of re-working but I'll do my best.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Logan, is there any chance that Cryptic could "ever" be persuaded to produce an optional HD package?
    A addon pack that features High Definition textures and extremely high poly and high detail models?

    Because I know some MMO's out there have gone down the route of extra content packs for those people with killer rigs that can use them, games such as LOTRO and AoC.

    As of right now I'll have to say no, this will never happen. The way I see it, we'll never have enough staff to do this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Oh well, a pity though that STO or MMO's in general dont support or enable modding.
    Seen some fantastic stuff created by trek modding communities over the years, even basic model replacement mods that are pretty awesome.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    While on the subject of hard points, and this might not be your department & not really a ship error. Is there any plans to get the phaser effects to "warm up" first as seen in the shows like here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc#t=01m45s
    Basically I'm referring to the effect where the beam goes around the bank 1st & then shoots out

    peter
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    I've removed many of them from the intrepid. Turns out it was demanded by CBS that if a weapon fire from our ships in game it must fire from a weapon hardpoint. The quick and easy solution to this in early pre-production was to make little hardpoints that we could attach anywhere on the ship without doing too much damage to the aesthetics... well

    it backfired and they look bad and everybody hates them. So as time goes forward, when I go in and touch a ship I'm going to try to remove them... this means I"ll have to either model in newer, more appealing hardpoints, or just make many weapons fire from a single place etc. you get the point... basically it'll be a lot of re-working but I'll do my best.

    What about sinking some development time into 'Hard Strips' instead of Hard Points?

    Same idea, except coded so that a phaser charge is seen to build quickly from A ---> B down the hard strip. These strips could be placed along cannon phaser strip locations as much as is it fits. They could even be lengthened in size to fit larger strips?

    Sounds like it would mean adding an extra 'casting' animation to the hard strip for phasers but it would be better than having a phaser beam suddenly fire out from inside the hull.

    Food for thought perhaps, if not already thrown in the pot.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    Edited. Question has already been asked :eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    PerRock wrote: »
    While on the subject of hard points, and this might not be your department & not really a ship error. Is there any plans to get the phaser effects to "warm up" first as seen in the shows like here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZbCNexctc#t=01m45s
    Basically I'm referring to the effect where the beam goes around the bank 1st & then shoots out

    peter

    Oh my god .. that would be so awesome ... but i think i would be much more glad, if Logan can remove 3 Firepoints on 1 phaser stripe.

    Look at the Sovereign, Aft firing stripes. If you have more than 2 Beam Arrays it looks really ridiculous.. all 3 beams firing from the same point and it looks, that 1 great beam will split into 3 O.o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2011
    CapnLogan wrote:
    Turns out it was demanded by CBS that if a weapon fire from our ships in game it must fire from a weapon hardpoint. The quick and easy solution to this in early pre-production was to make little hardpoints that we could attach anywhere on the ship without doing too much damage to the aesthetics... well

    it backfired and they look bad and everybody hates them. So as time goes forward, when I go in and touch a ship I'm going to try to remove them... this means I"ll have to either model in newer, more appealing hardpoints, or just make many weapons fire from a single place etc. you get the point... basically it'll be a lot of re-working but I'll do my best.

    1. You're doing a GREAT job with the sitiatuion that you have been given! Keep up the good work!

    2. I just can't wrap my head around why CBS would demand a Hard Firing Point for the ships instead of more appropriate/canon appearances, other than the possability of the disclaimer "This games Starship weapons, don't fire from the correct fire locations of Canon ships. Therefore, the game is, in no way, Canon!" Thus providing them a Covariant/Regenarative/Adaptive shield from the over zealous Fandom Fleet.

    3. You mentioned newer model firing points as a possible solution to the problem. Have you thought of (which I am very sure you have already) incorperating the firing points AS part of the Material skins, basically covering the darker portion of the point in the with the ship colors? (Simply put as covering the Ugly blemish/black and red pimple firing point with "Makeup") Or is the Hard Points that CBS wanted HAD TO BE obviously visable?

    4. In the future could we see the possablity to choose where the Hard points could be at exactly on our ships? Maybe be able to in the Ship Tailor select from numerous preselcted/designed locations on said ship, to place your limited number of weapons And be able to designate which weapon fires from which hard point but keeping the Forewad/Aft restriction in place? While torpedo weapons would make sense to have permanently fixed locations that are approprite to the "Most Canon" location on the ship, ie neck for cruisers, weapons pod for miranda, etc. , it could allow for "Most Canon" or personal taste firing location for beams and cannons. It could allow the the Defiant captains to place their Dual cannon firing points next to each other to at least give them the "Quad Cannons" appearance they often request.
This discussion has been closed.