CapnLogan is already aware of the different coloured bridge (I saw another thread about it and saw his reply).
Which post are you replying to?
And just to continue from my last post, does any have a exteneded version of nemesis which features the true ending of the movie which we see the beloved enterprise e leave space dock and fly away, if it does it the true refit version? What i found out it the enterprise e had a small refit done as it is mentioned it had before nemesis and after insurrection but a major refit was done which would have introduce the true design of the sovereign class orignally designed by john eaves as stated be him that he manage to redesign it.
Qutoed from memory alpha: "According to John Eaves, the Enterprise-E was to have been retrofit at the end of Star Trek Nemesis but due to budgetary reasons and script changes the Enterprise was only seen being repaired in dry dock. "For the end of the film the badly destroyed and damaged E is being rebuilt in space-dock. This is where the opportunity was given to really fix all the lines and flow to match the roots of where the original drawing had left off. Not too often does one gets the chance to rework a beloved piece of art, and I was so happy to get the chance regardless of how minor the changes were."
"The drawings were done and to be seen as the E leaves the space-dock at the end of Nemesis, with what we were hoping to get approval on being the new aztec patterned paint job, that was so prominent with all the preceding variations of the Enterprise. As production went on, it was becoming clear that Nemesis was going to be the last of the TNG movies and thus, the E would fly no more. Very sad thoughts, and I was so hoping to at least to get to see that final version fly off into space Budget and script changes kept the E in the bay under repair so all that exists of the big finish only exists on paper as a bunch of plans"
It is very much worth mentioning, for those using head-on screenshots as a critical point of reference, that a screenshot from the bow is drastically different from an orthographic head-on.
Why?
Lens mechanics with cameras, both real and CGI.
The length of the lens plays a major part in perspective. A short lens (in abstract terms, a camera sitting directly in front of you) is going to make everything close to the camera too large, and everything in the distance smaller.
A long lens (Again, in abstract terms, a camera sitting a long way from you) will 'flatten' everything so depth of perspective is crushed. This is why in some head-on shots, the Sovereign has a very shallow engineering hull while in others it has an almost Excelsior-like 'plunge' that is quite deep.
An orthographic plan of the bow will typically be rendered with a long lens from great distance, as it removes all perspective distortions and leaves nothing more than 'true' lines of geometry, which are essential when constructing the profile of the vessel in 3D space.
With this in mind, remember that this shot:
...Is far more accurate than this one
...Even though that second shot looks more 'natural' that is what you would expect to see in the 'real world'.
I'll ask this question again as i have asked this more the once in the past with no one giving me a answer other then moving on to another topic. rather have something said then nothing.
Did John eaves, creator of the sovereign class, make the final phase refit? i know thee is a blueprint around but is the anything else?
I'll ask this question again as i have asked this more the once in the past with no one giving me a answer other then moving on to another topic. rather have something said then nothing.
Did John eaves, creator of the sovereign class, make the final phase refit? i know thee is a blueprint around but is the anything else?
Suricata might know this is he or she is around.
He is around, and no, the refit model was never made, he just drew up the blueprints of it. The mian difference was the secondary hull, which was made to look more like the original concepts of the Enterprise-E. I'd absolutly love to see it in game as a refot version of the Soveriegn, just like I'd loved to see the NX class refit by Doug Drexler as well :-)
Angel, another shot for your OP. Turns out the Defiant had a mood light just under the warhead pod / nav deflector. Also took a cleaner shot of the ship's dorsal light.
He is around, and no, the refit model was never made, he just drew up the blueprints of it. The mian difference was the secondary hull, which was made to look more like the original concepts of the Enterprise-E. I'd absolutly love to see it in game as a refot version of the Soveriegn, just like I'd loved to see the NX class refit by Doug Drexler as well :-)
DEVS ARE YOU READING THIS PUT THE "FINAL PHASE SOVEREIGN REFIT" INTO STO AS EITHER A SKIN OR NEW SHIP PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! which nx class refit by droug D? Do you mean there is a refit of the nx class out there!?
Sprint01 doesn't the defints in game have that light underneath which looks great, its one of the reasons why i like the defiant.
Sprint01 doesn't the defints in game have that light underneath which looks great, its one of the reasons why i like the defiant.
Afraid not, the Tactical Escort skins are bland and darkened. They really need some sort of accent lighting. Every single other Starfleet ship in the game has accent lighting, except for the Tactical Escorts.
Angel, another shot for your OP. Turns out the Defiant had a mood light just under the warhead pod / nav deflector. Also took a cleaner shot of the ship's dorsal light.
Can barely see the light there, are you sure it's not just illumination from DS9? Any better shots of it?
Added the other picture to the appropriate section. TY
the screen shot in question takes place at around 1:35 into the video. The lights come on and the ship begins to back off from the docking ring
But at 1:20 and 1:55 there are two fly bys showing the ventral bow, neither of which have any illumination. That leaves me feeling that the illumination you are seeing under the bow at 1:35 is from DS9, itself.
Those lights only appear to be on when the ship is docked at DS9 (perhaps some type of docking lights). The way the shadows are cast makes it appear like its coming from the ship itself (also the shots were filmed used seperate models, so the lights must of been on the Defiant model).
But at 1:20 and 1:55 there are two fly bys showing the ventral bow, neither of which have any illumination. That leaves me feeling that the illumination you are seeing under the bow at 1:35 is from DS9, itself.
It's from the ship, the Defiant has a list of inconsistencies as long as my arm, the accent lights among them.
Beam weapons: The TOS Constitution's phaser banks prove that we do not need hugely fat beams to represent our weapons fire. Can the other beams be narrowed to be more like the TOS Connie's beams?
Banks instead of strips: The Miranda and Constitution are firing out of non-canonical phaser strips instead of the banks that remained standard on them long into the NG era. (See pics below in the appropriate section.)
lol you started this thread. And nothing has been done to sort out the beams since you made this thread which was while and the devs had more than enough time to sort this out. :mad:
Looks are one of the most important parts of the game, its up thereand it can't be hard can it?
AND it's not as if it would be a difficult change to make. All of the effects: The glow spots on the engines, the trails they leave behind, the beams, many of the gas clouds (ex: anomalies) are all flat sprites. 2D textures that either always orient to face the camera or are intersected with perpendicularly oriented sprites to create a semi-3D visual (Engine trails).
To thin out the beams, all it would take would be to... well... thin out the texture. The beams seem to essentially be nothing but broad, (animated) transparent texture sprites with the beam effect painted down the centre. (or twin beams in the case of the NCC-1701 phasers). That can't be more than a 10 minute job for a skilled artist. The only reason I can see for them not to be changed is because no one plays the squeaky wheel about it, CapnLogan doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the beams and the people who do have the authority just couldn't be @r$3d to do it or actually like the fat beams.
In fact, if they broadened the canvas, they could probably add lightning bolt style weapon effects. Not the constant stream like anti-proton beams, but huge arcing bolts of electricity that could go from ship to ship *WHAMMO!* Every time it fires. Instead of a sustained beam, you just see repeated lightning strikes from one ship to another.
for a month or tow of free game play, I'd be willing to throw the beam textures thru Photoshop & thin them out.
peter
There was one player who used to make texture mods for things like (LCARS) consoles, (No) engine trails and (no) nebulae, but s/he got frustrated with rules changes and took down the site where s/he was hosting them. The mods weren't exactly approved, but they weren't modifying gameplay and the devs were taking a very cautious but permissive stance on their use.
Forward Torpedo launchers are aiming right at the underside of the Saucer, a few recommendations to correct this issue http://i.imgur.com/SS9PD.jpg
Issues with the spine of the Discovery, the Andromada (Default) Pattern is incomplete, Canon hard point is on the shuttle bay door and the lines of the Discovery Hull don't match the Discovery saucer as well as it could http://i.imgur.com/H35ao.jpg
Forward Torpedo launchers are aiming right at the underside of the Saucer, a few recommendations to correct this issue http://i.imgur.com/SS9PD.jpg
Issues with the spine of the Discovery, the Andromada (Default) Pattern is incomplete, Canon hard point is on the shuttle bay door and the lines of the Discovery Hull don't match the Discovery saucer as well as it could http://i.imgur.com/H35ao.jpg
You should have seen the ship name and registry before. It was kind of crazy looking.
I was able to get the nav light issue in, but no room for the rest. If you can find any issues listed on the front page that have been fixed, do let me know so that I can remove them and add the other two discovery issues.
You should have seen the ship name and registry before. It was kind of crazy looking.
I was able to get the nav light issue in, but no room for the rest. If you can find any issues listed on the front page that have been fixed, do let me know so that I can remove them and add the other two discovery issues.
It is very much worth mentioning, for those using head-on screenshots as a critical point of reference, that a screenshot from the bow is drastically different from an orthographic head-on.
Why?
Lens mechanics with cameras, both real and CGI.
The length of the lens plays a major part in perspective. A short lens (in abstract terms, a camera sitting directly in front of you) is going to make everything close to the camera too large, and everything in the distance smaller.
A long lens (Again, in abstract terms, a camera sitting a long way from you) will 'flatten' everything so depth of perspective is crushed. This is why in some head-on shots, the Sovereign has a very shallow engineering hull while in others it has an almost Excelsior-like 'plunge' that is quite deep.
An orthographic plan of the bow will typically be rendered with a long lens from great distance, as it removes all perspective distortions and leaves nothing more than 'true' lines of geometry, which are essential when constructing the profile of the vessel in 3D space.
With this in mind, remember that this shot:
...Is far more accurate than this one
...Even though that second shot looks more 'natural' that is what you would expect to see in the 'real world'.
Besides the nacelles being too low I have also noticed in-game and from your images the engineering section is too thin, lol.
And i doubt the bottom pick it whta you will see in real life because it looks nothing like the sovereign class in the moive or pictures made by John Eaves and as for real-life , I WISH.
Besides the nacelles being too low I have also noticed in-game and from your images the engineering section is too thin, lol.
And i doubt the bottom pick it whta you will see in real life because it looks nothing like the sovereign class in the moive or pictures made by John Eaves and as for real-life , I WISH.
They aren't my images - I was commenting on those posted by someone else.
Comments
Which post are you replying to?
And just to continue from my last post, does any have a exteneded version of nemesis which features the true ending of the movie which we see the beloved enterprise e leave space dock and fly away, if it does it the true refit version? What i found out it the enterprise e had a small refit done as it is mentioned it had before nemesis and after insurrection but a major refit was done which would have introduce the true design of the sovereign class orignally designed by john eaves as stated be him that he manage to redesign it.
Qutoed from memory alpha: "According to John Eaves, the Enterprise-E was to have been retrofit at the end of Star Trek Nemesis but due to budgetary reasons and script changes the Enterprise was only seen being repaired in dry dock. "For the end of the film the badly destroyed and damaged E is being rebuilt in space-dock. This is where the opportunity was given to really fix all the lines and flow to match the roots of where the original drawing had left off. Not too often does one gets the chance to rework a beloved piece of art, and I was so happy to get the chance regardless of how minor the changes were."
"The drawings were done and to be seen as the E leaves the space-dock at the end of Nemesis, with what we were hoping to get approval on being the new aztec patterned paint job, that was so prominent with all the preceding variations of the Enterprise. As production went on, it was becoming clear that Nemesis was going to be the last of the TNG movies and thus, the E would fly no more. Very sad thoughts, and I was so hoping to at least to get to see that final version fly off into space Budget and script changes kept the E in the bay under repair so all that exists of the big finish only exists on paper as a bunch of plans"
http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-evolutions-of-the-uss-midway-cv-41-and-the-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-e/#000015
http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-evolutions-of-the-uss-midway-cv-41-and-the-uss-enterprise-ncc-1701-e/final-e-small/
i do apologise for this obsession, I really would like to know and see if the "final phase refit" actual exisit other than the link above.
Why?
Lens mechanics with cameras, both real and CGI.
The length of the lens plays a major part in perspective. A short lens (in abstract terms, a camera sitting directly in front of you) is going to make everything close to the camera too large, and everything in the distance smaller.
A long lens (Again, in abstract terms, a camera sitting a long way from you) will 'flatten' everything so depth of perspective is crushed. This is why in some head-on shots, the Sovereign has a very shallow engineering hull while in others it has an almost Excelsior-like 'plunge' that is quite deep.
An orthographic plan of the bow will typically be rendered with a long lens from great distance, as it removes all perspective distortions and leaves nothing more than 'true' lines of geometry, which are essential when constructing the profile of the vessel in 3D space.
With this in mind, remember that this shot:
...Is far more accurate than this one
...Even though that second shot looks more 'natural' that is what you would expect to see in the 'real world'.
Did John eaves, creator of the sovereign class, make the final phase refit? i know thee is a blueprint around but is the anything else?
Suricata might know this is he or she is around.
He is around, and no, the refit model was never made, he just drew up the blueprints of it. The mian difference was the secondary hull, which was made to look more like the original concepts of the Enterprise-E. I'd absolutly love to see it in game as a refot version of the Soveriegn, just like I'd loved to see the NX class refit by Doug Drexler as well :-)
DEVS ARE YOU READING THIS PUT THE "FINAL PHASE SOVEREIGN REFIT" INTO STO AS EITHER A SKIN OR NEW SHIP PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! which nx class refit by droug D? Do you mean there is a refit of the nx class out there!?
Sprint01 doesn't the defints in game have that light underneath which looks great, its one of the reasons why i like the defiant.
Afraid not, the Tactical Escort skins are bland and darkened. They really need some sort of accent lighting. Every single other Starfleet ship in the game has accent lighting, except for the Tactical Escorts.
Can barely see the light there, are you sure it's not just illumination from DS9? Any better shots of it?
Added the other picture to the appropriate section.
I couldn't find a better pictured, but here is the video the SSs are taken from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0803OMBre8
the screen shot in question takes place at around 1:35 into the video. The lights come on and the ship begins to back off from the docking ring
But at 1:20 and 1:55 there are two fly bys showing the ventral bow, neither of which have any illumination. That leaves me feeling that the illumination you are seeing under the bow at 1:35 is from DS9, itself.
It's from the ship, the Defiant has a list of inconsistencies as long as my arm, the accent lights among them.
e.g. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100224114236/memoryalpha/en/images/e/ed/USS_Enterprise-E_engages_Borg_at_001.jpg
Already represented.
I see no difference between the phaser beams on holodeck or tribble or is this not a "next change" point?
Already represented on the first page of this thread, with all of the other issues I can fit into the first few posts.
AND it's not as if it would be a difficult change to make. All of the effects: The glow spots on the engines, the trails they leave behind, the beams, many of the gas clouds (ex: anomalies) are all flat sprites. 2D textures that either always orient to face the camera or are intersected with perpendicularly oriented sprites to create a semi-3D visual (Engine trails).
To thin out the beams, all it would take would be to... well... thin out the texture. The beams seem to essentially be nothing but broad, (animated) transparent texture sprites with the beam effect painted down the centre. (or twin beams in the case of the NCC-1701 phasers). That can't be more than a 10 minute job for a skilled artist. The only reason I can see for them not to be changed is because no one plays the squeaky wheel about it, CapnLogan doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the beams and the people who do have the authority just couldn't be @r$3d to do it or actually like the fat beams.
In fact, if they broadened the canvas, they could probably add lightning bolt style weapon effects. Not the constant stream like anti-proton beams, but huge arcing bolts of electricity that could go from ship to ship *WHAMMO!* Every time it fires. Instead of a sustained beam, you just see repeated lightning strikes from one ship to another.
peter
There was one player who used to make texture mods for things like (LCARS) consoles, (No) engine trails and (no) nebulae, but s/he got frustrated with rules changes and took down the site where s/he was hosting them. The mods weren't exactly approved, but they weren't modifying gameplay and the devs were taking a very cautious but permissive stance on their use.
Ship name and Registry are too close to the floodlight http://i.imgur.com/7Bbcu.jpg
Misaligned and missing Nav lights on saucer http://i.imgur.com/ZHlLe.jpg
Forward Torpedo launchers are aiming right at the underside of the Saucer, a few recommendations to correct this issue http://i.imgur.com/SS9PD.jpg
Issues with the spine of the Discovery, the Andromada (Default) Pattern is incomplete, Canon hard point is on the shuttle bay door and the lines of the Discovery Hull don't match the Discovery saucer as well as it could http://i.imgur.com/H35ao.jpg
You should have seen the ship name and registry before. It was kind of crazy looking.
I was able to get the nav light issue in, but no room for the rest. If you can find any issues listed on the front page that have been fixed, do let me know so that I can remove them and add the other two discovery issues.
Thanks,
I decided to take a look at the Intrepid model that CapnLogan updated recently, Teir 4 only right now but the Teir 5 version should be patched soon(tm) http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=3743729&postcount=2920
Error this has fixed are,
Missing dorsal depressions http://i.imgur.com/9t7LQ.jpg
Aft Ventral phaser strips misplaced http://i.imgur.com/e7SmJ.jpg
Missing fantail markings and Aft airlock doors http://i.imgur.com/vqTGO.jpg
I will keep my hawk eyes out of any others that mite have been fixed.
Nice, I was wondering when those fixes were going live. I thought they were still in limbo.
=edit=
Added everything but the name/registry being too close to the flood light, as that is more of an individual taste issue than an actual error.
Besides the nacelles being too low I have also noticed in-game and from your images the engineering section is too thin, lol.
And i doubt the bottom pick it whta you will see in real life because it looks nothing like the sovereign class in the moive or pictures made by John Eaves and as for real-life , I WISH.
They aren't my images - I was commenting on those posted by someone else.