has anyone ever considered doing separate threads for each of the ships?
I'm just thinking that it would be more effective if, we could feedback with the devs in a more organized and easy to update manner, for each individual ship. it will let them find a specific ship, see its posted issues, and maybe make a list to fix them with.
Well some people already started making ships threads on this formn and on the shipyard but ya it would be more easier if the devs made an all out ship thread which we can discuss about each ship in there own threads.
if someone would help us make the threads individually, I would help petition the devs to sticky them for us.
I would also offer my help with the late 23rd century ones, I'm fond of those, as I was actually in TWOK the movie as an extra. I was in the red shirt scenes dyeing in a hallway, I'm the guy blown up and set on fire, during the nebula battle if you wanna check my work. blink and you will miss me.
if someone would help us make the threads individually, I would help petition the devs to sticky them for us.
I would also offer my help with the late 23rd century ones, I'm fond of those, as I was actually in TWOK the movie as an extra. I was in the red shirt scenes dyeing in a hallway, I'm the guy blown up and set on fire, during the nebula battle if you wanna check my work. blink and you will miss me.
Well might as well ask the devs instead to to stick the ship posts that have been made already and maybe change the title.
Bear in mind that this thread existed many moons before the Art of Star Trek Online sub-forum was made available. We were lucky enough to see Angelsilhouette's thread get stickied in here to keep discussion going about the starship models. Clearly, a hot topic year round. See the post numbers for the thread?:cool: I don't think that anyone would be upset if a new thread pertaining to specific starships appear in addition to this one? For example, we see newer players discussing Excelsior in more detail in another thread this week. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.
Bear in mind that this thread existed many moons before the Art of Star Trek Online sub-forum was made available. We were lucky enough to see Angelsilhouette's thread get stickied in here to keep discussion going about the starship models. Clearly, a hot topic year round. See the post numbers for the thread?:cool: I don't think that anyone would be upset if a new thread pertaining to specific starships appear in addition to this one? For example, we see newer players discussing Excelsior in more detail in another thread this week. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.
I agree. There were many times when I had considered creating several ship specific, and even tier specific threads; however, I felt rather lucky to get this thread stickied, so I didn't want to push my luck trying to pester the devs to sticky over a dozen threads for individual ships.
Now that the Sao-Paulo class escort has been revealed and the new Pulse Cannons are buzzing about... I have a question for Logan or someone else.
The original argument against a canon Defiant-class was the Polygon, Triangle, Circle, Octagon, Square, Rectangle, etc (or whatever they call it) count.
The Sao Paulo obviously has a lot more detail than a canon Defiant would have. So I'm assuming that the artifact count is now a moot point. Can we get an ETA for a canon Defiant?
Now that the Sao-Paulo class escort has been revealed and the new Pulse Cannons are buzzing about... I have a question for Logan or someone else.
The original argument against a canon Defiant-class was the Polygon, Triangle, Circle, Octagon, Square, Rectangle, etc (or whatever they call it) count.
The Sao Paulo obviously has a lot more detail than a canon Defiant would have. So I'm assuming that the artifact count is now a moot point. Can we get an ETA for a canon Defiant?
best to ask in the sto formn under "want to see what......" caplogan pops in time to time in there.
good to know. Anyway will the devs ever get around to sorting out the ships. To me seeing a ship that looks like its counterpart but it doesn't. Accuracy here people!
Has anyone noticed that on the sovereign class in the front of the nacelles that it does not move around, the red part, as it does in all the movies, that one of the reasons i loved the it. On the tos consitution (spelling) its front part of the nacelles moves around why not on the sovereign class and that it does not look like the refit from nemesis at least?
well all CapnLogan have to do is add the sovereign nemesis neck to the optional. add the escape pods to the engineering hull and add the right windows config and hull skin and widen it too and there we should have descent sov :rolleyes: but am guessing CapnLogan already done that and dose not want to share with us. hehe (just kidding logan)
Not sure if this has been spotted or if its some kind of localised issue but the alignment of the phaser lance and the unit behind the bridge of the galaxy-x is starting to bug me
Not sure if this has been spotted or if its some kind of localised issue but the alignment of the phaser lance and the unit behind the bridge of the galaxy-x is starting to bug me
Have been toying with the idea of buying the venture just for the sake of it looks to not have this issue...
the lance on the right ( that is the left one if your looking at the ship from the rear) is closer to the edge. :rolleyes: Whoever the artists are seems to me they are doing a half the job.
One thing I never understood about sto is that the ships don't look are accurate to their latest counterparts from the shows and movies e.g. the sovereign in my signature.
Has anyone bothered to poke Logan about the new skin for the Intrepids being horribroke when combining the old pylons with it? I mean, 'holy carp on a dorf, that's broke' bad.
1 - forward torpedos launcher are too high (firing in our own hull)
2 - aft beam banks incorrectly located (even worst if you have the borg console visual enabled) The aft banks are seen in the upper rear part of the hull but when you use the beam banks the ship is firing from the upper rear part of the saucer close/from the escape pods.
3 - The saucer seems to have two impulse engines but there are no impulse trail or visual effect from the aegis/breen engine sets.
Couple things I noticed the other day for the good Captain to look at.
1. T3 Nebula - It has no Impulse Engines. I don't see a red contrail behind it or notice any red impulse engine anywhere. I also could not see where the torpedo launchers are.
2. Luna Class - The whole back end (or maybe the whole ship) seems like it could use some love. The textures look pretty low quality compared to new ships. Also the rear shuttle bay looks way too plain. I can't really see that the round section are shuttle bay doors.
3. General comment - Could we look at getting the dual beam arrays to fire from the collimiter rings on some of the big saucer ships? I was just watching an episode of Voyager the other day and they fired a double beam style shot and it just came out of the upper hull colimiers. It looked awesome. Galaxy, Nebula, and Voyager could all use this. Heck, any Federation ship with upper hull collimiters would look better.
1. T3 Nebula - It has no Impulse Engines. I don't see a red contrail behind it or notice any red impulse engine anywhere. I also could not see where the torpedo launchers are.
As Nebula arrived in STO, to everyone's surprise, the impulse engines are hidden by design. As in the design of the television model itself. While it does look out of place it's actually interpreted correctly. Since the engines behave differently there wouldn't be a red trail.
I was hoping for the Magellen saucer (option for T5 Nebula) to display standard impulse engines as an option for player's. Especially if a +1 Nebula is introduced at t3 in the future.
Just purchased a vigilant class and when my ship warp's out the nacelles have this blue line when warping as if it was a galaxy or sovereign etc nacelle. Instead just the back should glow when warp out.
And the infamous window "TypeX", "Type X" incompatability bug makes a triumphant return once more.
Exploration Retrofit Venture (possibly also Exploration, but NOT refit):
Galaxy/Monarch use "TypeX" naming convention.
Venture uses "Type X".
The Neck chooses which convention to use. All opposing convention parts will defer to Type1/Type 1.
LRSV Retrofit Bellerophon (possibly also LRSV and LRSV Refit):
Intrepid/Cochrane/Discovery use "TypeX" naming convention.
Bellerophon uses "Type X".
The Hull chooses which convention to use. All opposing convention parts will defer to Type1/Type 1.
Bugreported on Holodeck: [15:46] Successfully submitted ticket ID #1,222,220.
Meanwhile..
Venture saucer - see-through hole at top middle back if kitbashing.
Bellerophon broken right pylon angling (Bellerophon pylon angled too low, hull too high) has been fixed on Tribble (for Retrofit at least, don't know if also for LRSV and Refit)
I'm wondering about the space (or lack thereof) on the first page and whether or not I should cull a lot of the "never going to be fixed" issues from it to fit the new ones.
Indeed. A lot of the canon inconsistencies could also be culled from the list, as they're either pointless or not beefy enough to provoke a Cryptic response.
Comments
Well some people already started making ships threads on this formn and on the shipyard but ya it would be more easier if the devs made an all out ship thread which we can discuss about each ship in there own threads.
I would also offer my help with the late 23rd century ones, I'm fond of those, as I was actually in TWOK the movie as an extra. I was in the red shirt scenes dyeing in a hallway, I'm the guy blown up and set on fire, during the nebula battle if you wanna check my work.
Well might as well ask the devs instead to to stick the ship posts that have been made already and maybe change the title.
You're welcome.
And yes, I was myself considering remaking the thread entirely back then as well.. To reserve at least six posts or something.
I agree. There were many times when I had considered creating several ship specific, and even tier specific threads; however, I felt rather lucky to get this thread stickied, so I didn't want to push my luck trying to pester the devs to sticky over a dozen threads for individual ships.
The original argument against a canon Defiant-class was the Polygon, Triangle, Circle, Octagon, Square, Rectangle, etc (or whatever they call it) count.
The Sao Paulo obviously has a lot more detail than a canon Defiant would have. So I'm assuming that the artifact count is now a moot point. Can we get an ETA for a canon Defiant?
best to ask in the sto formn under "want to see what......" caplogan pops in time to time in there.
The good Cap't is know to pop in here as well.
peter
good to know. Anyway will the devs ever get around to sorting out the ships. To me seeing a ship that looks like its counterpart but it doesn't. Accuracy here people!
Logan has been in here more often than not. Supposedly he frequents the first page to get a list of errors that need repair or updating.
Cool. I have left loads of messages in here but he seems to return people messages in the other formn.
I didn't send him one six pack.
>.>
who's fuzzy?
/10char
http://i.imgur.com/SclQJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZWy5r.jpg
Have been toying with the idea of buying the venture just for the sake of it looks to not have this issue...
the lance on the right ( that is the left one if your looking at the ship from the rear) is closer to the edge. :rolleyes: Whoever the artists are seems to me they are doing a half the job.
One thing I never understood about sto is that the ships don't look are accurate to their latest counterparts from the shows and movies e.g. the sovereign in my signature.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/bop-docked.jpg
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/bop-side.gif
Im a little disturbed that this ship hasnt gotten a full revamp, its got 2 iterations in game and is the most iconic Klingon ship ever.
2 - aft beam banks incorrectly located (even worst if you have the borg console visual enabled) The aft banks are seen in the upper rear part of the hull but when you use the beam banks the ship is firing from the upper rear part of the saucer close/from the escape pods.
3 - The saucer seems to have two impulse engines but there are no impulse trail or visual effect from the aegis/breen engine sets.
Couple things I noticed the other day for the good Captain to look at.
1. T3 Nebula - It has no Impulse Engines. I don't see a red contrail behind it or notice any red impulse engine anywhere. I also could not see where the torpedo launchers are.
2. Luna Class - The whole back end (or maybe the whole ship) seems like it could use some love. The textures look pretty low quality compared to new ships. Also the rear shuttle bay looks way too plain. I can't really see that the round section are shuttle bay doors.
3. General comment - Could we look at getting the dual beam arrays to fire from the collimiter rings on some of the big saucer ships? I was just watching an episode of Voyager the other day and they fired a double beam style shot and it just came out of the upper hull colimiers. It looked awesome. Galaxy, Nebula, and Voyager could all use this. Heck, any Federation ship with upper hull collimiters would look better.
Thanks for the great work!
Duncan
As Nebula arrived in STO, to everyone's surprise, the impulse engines are hidden by design. As in the design of the television model itself. While it does look out of place it's actually interpreted correctly. Since the engines behave differently there wouldn't be a red trail.
I was hoping for the Magellen saucer (option for T5 Nebula) to display standard impulse engines as an option for player's. Especially if a +1 Nebula is introduced at t3 in the future.
Exploration Retrofit Venture (possibly also Exploration, but NOT refit):
Galaxy/Monarch use "TypeX" naming convention.
Venture uses "Type X".
The Neck chooses which convention to use. All opposing convention parts will defer to Type1/Type 1.
LRSV Retrofit Bellerophon (possibly also LRSV and LRSV Refit):
Intrepid/Cochrane/Discovery use "TypeX" naming convention.
Bellerophon uses "Type X".
The Hull chooses which convention to use. All opposing convention parts will defer to Type1/Type 1.
Bugreported on Holodeck: [15:46] Successfully submitted ticket ID #1,222,220.
Meanwhile..
Venture saucer - see-through hole at top middle back if kitbashing.
Bellerophon broken right pylon angling (Bellerophon pylon angled too low, hull too high) has been fixed on Tribble (for Retrofit at least, don't know if also for LRSV and Refit)
What do you think, Jes?