test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Starships: Model errors, issues and feedback

1515254565760

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Do the Devs actually look at this thread, I bet not!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Cmdr_Funke wrote: »
    Do the Devs actually look at this thread, I bet not!

    They do look at at it, or at least Capt. Logan did. However Cryptic doesn't spend much money (and hence dev time) redeveloping models in game. So while the list it long, they do tend to glance at it & a dev on occasion will tweak stuff, usually in their spare time.

    peter
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Good to hear, I hope all the money I spent on Lock Box keys will help in this effort, I promise, more Trekkies will join STO if these accuracies were addressed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Cmdr_Funke wrote: »
    Good to hear, I hope all the money I spent on Lock Box keys will help in this effort, I promise, more Trekkies will join STO if these accuracies were addressed.

    100% agree with this, even the star trek legacy ships look better. No offence to the devs they have done a great job but it seems as if they are not using the latest game engine etc.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    RAJ_2011 wrote:
    100% agree with this, even the star trek legacy ships look better. No offence to the devs they have done a great job but it seems as if they are not using the latest game engine etc.

    Indeed, I played alot of Legacy before STO's launch. The Enterprise-A in that game was spot on, all the ships really, and STO ship still can't hold a candle to the ship from Legacy today, and it's almost ten years old. http://www.ign.com/images/games/star-trek-legacy-pc-794733/1763605 ; even the damage to locations, as you receive the damage, STO still doesn't do, don't get me started on the "whole ship starts burning all around" at 70% hull strength.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Cmdr_Funke wrote: »
    Indeed, I played alot of Legacy before STO's launch. The Enterprise-A in that game was spot on, all the ships really, and STO ship still can't hold a candle to the ship from Legacy today, and it's almost ten years old. http://www.ign.com/images/games/star-trek-legacy-pc-794733/1763605 ; even the damage to locations, as you receive the damage, STO still doesn't do, don't get me started on the "whole ship starts burning all around" at 70% hull strength.

    And there is Bridge Commander which is still going on. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    The spinal lance on the Galaxy-X is still off center. It really hurts the eye. How much work can it be to reposition the lance and the section above the shuttle bay?

    I would be willing to suspend new content for a month so all the issues concerning starship models and some major bugs in the missions could be corrected.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    I'd just like to see DS9 get it's missing windows. Seriously that is bugging the hell out of me...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    One thing I just realized, according to every source I've run across the Galor's impulse AND warp engines are in the two "wings" toward the front, yet in-game the impulse trails are coming out of the little fork on its tail.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    terloki wrote:
    One thing I just realized, according to every source I've run across the Galor's impulse AND warp engines are in the two "wings" toward the front, yet in-game the impulse trails are coming out of the little fork on its tail.

    Yeah, this was noted in one of the other threads about errors with the ship. The "forked tail" is meant to house its aft disruptor array.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Hey, just saying: when you swap from your shuttlecraft interior back to your regular ship via transporter, your regular ship has your shuttlecraft's registry.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    The nebula class does not have any visible impulse engines. (only if you go to full impulse)


    BTW it would be nice to have a feedback on this thread at least once a month. It would feel less like nobody really cares about model errors.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    szim wrote:
    The nebula class does not have any visible impulse engines. (only if you go to full impulse)


    BTW it would be nice to have a feedback on this thread at least once a month. It would feel less like nobody really cares about model errors.

    It's not supposed to have visible impulse grilles.

    Here is a quote from Rick Sternbach on Doug Drexler's blog:
    "One of the rationalizations I imagined ages ago for having no obvious impulse grilles involved capturing and compressing the impulse fusion reaction exhaust and later releasing it from special non-propulsive ports. If the Nebula-class was employed in a stealthy surveillance mode, it would be smart to minimize all overboard emissions. Since most all 'modern' impulse engines involve little or no pure rocket thrust, but more of a sub-warp drive, one could say that the familiar orange Starfleet glowy exhausts could be modified or eliminated."

    It would indeed be nice to get feedback on this thread. It seems that the devs that were aware of it have forgotten it and that jimjamz hasn't even heard of it to know if its existence.

    Besides, there is too much focus on new shinies to go back and fix the old, tarnished ones.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Is it possible to put the Tactical Escort Retrofits cloaking device on a Sao Paolo? Or vice versa, put the Sao Paolo ship "costume" and quad phaser canon on a Tactical Escort Retrofit?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Ramos40000 wrote: »
    Is it possible to put the Tactical Escort Retrofits cloaking device on a Sao Paolo? Or vice versa, put the Sao Paolo ship "costume" and quad phaser canon on a Tactical Escort Retrofit?

    The Sau Paulo quad cannons and costume can be used on the Retrofit but the cloak is only for the Retrofit and Dreadnought.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Oh, thats cool! Thank you! :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2012
    not gonna read through 161 pages, but the prometheus has no running lights except the two red and green ones on port and starboard. Has this been addressed?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2012
    Emanonsah wrote:
    not gonna read through 161 pages, but the prometheus has no running lights except the two red and green ones on port and starboard. Has this been addressed?

    AngelSilhouette compiles all the suggestions on page 1 for ease of reading.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2012
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2012
    whats about the Sovereign Class rework? still have many issues and since Months/Years no fixes!!! Such an iconic ship will fall down to the forgotten space...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2012
    Have lately noticed that the Jem'Hadar shield doesn't display correctly on the original series Constitution ship. It has several large, bright white patches that may be glow masks for smaller glowing purple details consistent with other ships that display this shield.

    It's a small thing, but it's a thing. :)

    Image link
  • angelsilhouetteangelsilhouette Member Posts: 24
    edited June 2012
    Welllllp

    Guess I should have taken the time to update that first page instead of procrastinating. >.<
  • raptor63549raptor63549 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited June 2012
    This may be a minor nit-pick, but the Akira has engines on the catamaran hull as well as the rear of the saucer. Currently, only the engines on the secondary hull leave trails.
  • phase325phase325 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2012
    Dreadnought:

    Spinal Gun not central to the ship either. :smile:
    HAMMER SQUADRON
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • psiameesepsiameese Member Posts: 1,650 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Now that Starbase Retrofit and Fleet Retrofits of lower tier starships is out of the bag, what are the chances that the Art Department will be given time to fix or rebuild some of those older costumes to be worthy of long-term endgame play?
    (/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    psiameese wrote: »
    Now that Starbase Retrofit and Fleet Retrofits of lower tier starships is out of the bag, what are the chances that the Art Department will be given time to fix or rebuild some of those older costumes to be worthy of long-term endgame play?

    and also i noticed on some of the refits e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/r-et/7475978340/in/photostream/lightbox/ had no new looks and hasn't been fixed.
  • pillslingerpillslinger Member Posts: 34 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Sovereign Needs to be fixed. There are windows that float in space on the underside of the saucer, She has no starfleet markings, and the font for the name/hull numbers could be redone. I would like to see a lighter hull material also, but I can live with what we have if the other issues can get fixed. Thanx
  • raj011raj011 Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Sovereign Needs to be fixed. There are windows that float in space on the underside of the saucer, She has no starfleet markings, and the font for the name/hull numbers could be redone. I would like to see a lighter hull material also, but I can live with what we have if the other issues can get fixed. Thanx

    plus I noticed the phaser strips at the back of the saucer next to the impulse engines have merged with the windows too. Also I think the saucer needs to be a bit wider and the nacelles risen.


    Edit: And there are a lot of windows missing, there are supposed to be a lot on the saucer section. This should alo show how big the ship its.
  • alexraptorralexraptorr Member Posts: 1,192 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Akira is also dire need of fixing.
    Was hoping they would a bit with the new carrier variant out, but oh well. :(
    "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
  • aethon3050aethon3050 Member Posts: 599 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    The Venture-class saucer is missing half the windows underneath, on the starboard side, and it never has the same type of windows as the rest of the ship.

    This is another one that has been reported more than once, when that ship was first released. I reported this months ago, got tired of the game, and just came back to give it another try...and it still isn't fixed. Seeing all the ads all over the site doesn't give me any hope that it will ever be fixed, though; they'd probably rather sell more broken ships than fix the stuff we've already paid for.
This discussion has been closed.