test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Starships: Model errors, issues and feedback

15455565759

Comments

  • jer5488jer5488 Member Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    hypl wrote: »
    http://i.imgur.com/zw9H9HB.jpg

    THIS is your promotional picture for the Galaxy bundle.

    ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME?

    How could someone work on the picture for this bundle and just MISS the crooked phaser lance? What the flipping heck Cryptic!

    Actually - it isn't just the lance. All of the normal 'Dreadnought additions' to the standard Galaxy saucer are off center. The lance, the cannons, the 'weapon box' behind the bridge. Everything that was added to the galaxy saucer is misaligned. If you look at your ship straight on - the lance is most visible - but one of the 'torpedo launchers' behind the bridge is aimed straight AT the bridge.

    So your choices are: Venture with missing windows on the bottom of the saucer or Galaxy with everything off center. /shrug.
  • captwcaptw Member Posts: 492 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    the Gal Xs don't seem to be the only ship screwed up, the Type 5 on the Assault Cruisers is messed up on the nacelles have one with the Type 6 skin and the other which is what the entire ship is suppose to be at Type 5. StarTrekOnlineSteam2014-3-6-23-54-11-548_zps4cde0c9c.jpg As you can clearly make out the facing nacelle is type six skinned.
    lHut1H2.jpg
    "I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment... because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we lived" Picard to Riker
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    jer5488 wrote: »
    Actually - it isn't just the lance. All of the normal 'Dreadnought additions' to the standard Galaxy saucer are off center. The lance, the cannons, the 'weapon box' behind the bridge. Everything that was added to the galaxy saucer is misaligned. If you look at your ship straight on - the lance is most visible - but one of the 'torpedo launchers' behind the bridge is aimed straight AT the bridge.

    So your choices are: Venture with missing windows on the bottom of the saucer or Galaxy with everything off center. /shrug.
    And in either case the center warp trail video effect is very noticeably off center to port and even the Ventures lance is slightly off center though at least the upper parts are ok, but anyone looking for the genuine look of the Dreadnaught has to live with what was clearly either a rushed job or one that the designer didn't give a damn about.
    Whatever the reason there is no excuse for it being left that way for a product being hyped as revamped.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • vonhellstingvonhellsting Member Posts: 543 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    iconians wrote: »

    Sad but all to true.:confused:
    The Lobi Crystals are Faaaakkkkee!
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I want to amend my previous observations. The center warp trail is off center only for the Venture skinned version of the Dreadnought, however as of the latest patches all of the previous flaws still remain.
    Current pending list:
    • All of the Galaxy Dreadnought's saucer components are severely misaligned to port.
    • The Galaxy Dreadnought's center nacelle graphics are an asymmetrical clone of the starboard nacelle so any customization decals on the center nacelle, duplicate that of the starboard nacelle only, giving it an unbalanced look.
    • The Venture is missing windows from a 20 degree arc of the starboard aft ventral section of the saucer.
    • The Venture Dreadnought's lance is slightly misaligned to port.
    • The Venture Dreadnought's center warp trail effect is severely misaligned to port.

    These next two are observations, not defects as such:
    • The Galaxy Dreadnought's lance is much smaller than the lance on the actual the studio model.
    • The Galaxy Dreadnought's saucer torpedo launcher is not proportioned correctly, it's too long and sits too short.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    maxvitor wrote: »
    next two are observations, not defects as such:
    • The Galaxy Dreadnought's lance is much smaller than the lance on the actual the studio model.
    • The Galaxy Dreadnought's saucer torpedo launcher is not proportioned correctly, it's too long and sits too short.

    Funny, I was just about to mention both of those. Having re-watched the AGT episode, and done some searching on the Dreadnought model itself, both the saucer torpedo launcher and the Lance are quite... tiny on the in-game model compared to the studio model. The length seems to be just about right, though when compared side by side, one is most definitely smaller than the other.
  • captz1ppcaptz1pp Member Posts: 931 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I'd like to see two skins for the Vulcan ship, and a Tellarite ship for engineers added.

    Edit: Provided the Tellarite ship has corners instead of curves.
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    hypl wrote: »
    http://i.imgur.com/zw9H9HB.jpg

    THIS is your promotional picture for the Galaxy bundle.

    ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME?

    How could someone work on the picture for this bundle and just MISS the crooked phaser lance? What the flipping heck Cryptic!

    ******nabits. Cryptic!!! It's called the x-axis!!! :P
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    Funny, I was just about to mention both of those. Having re-watched the AGT episode, and done some searching on the Dreadnought model itself, both the saucer torpedo launcher and the Lance are quite... tiny on the in-game model compared to the studio model. The length seems to be just about right, though when compared side by side, one is most definitely smaller than the other.
    You can see it in your signature picture, the lances is twice the height and width of STO's and actually covers up the saucer deflector (which are just windows on our models, another detail Cryptic missed, that the Galaxy actually has 2 deflectors)
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    Funny, I was just about to mention both of those. Having re-watched the AGT episode, and done some searching on the Dreadnought model itself, both the saucer torpedo launcher and the Lance are quite... tiny on the in-game model compared to the studio model. The length seems to be just about right, though when compared side by side, one is most definitely smaller than the other.

    agt-enterprise1.jpg

    Yup.
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I say that the Lance be increased in size while Cryptic's fixing the fact that it's disturbingly off-center. Can't be too hard, considering that it seems to be separate geometry from the Saucer itself (given that it is off-center), though I could be wrong.
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    I say that the Lance be increased in size while Cryptic's fixing the fact that it's disturbingly off-center. Can't be too hard, considering that it seems to be separate geometry from the Saucer itself (given that it is off-center), though I could be wrong.
    I'm also assuming it's separate geometry simply overlaid on the Galaxy model but who can tell. I'd be happy enough if they'd simply straighten out the parts, expecting them to faithfully reproduce the ships is far too much to expect at this late date. I really wish we knew one way or the other they were actually looking at this, but sadly I am beginning to feel like a mushroom from the quality of information we've been fed from developers of late.

    Oh how I wish I could get my Dreadnought to look like this:
    agt-enterprise1.jpg
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • vladdievladdie Member Posts: 117 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    On the Blockade Runner Escort and Blockade Runner Escort Retrofit, dual beam phasers emanate from the square sensor arrays on the front of the ship (center of the saucer) instead of from the visual phaser strips at the top of the saucer. Would look better if they came from there.
    Barihawk.jpg
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    maxvitor wrote: »
    I'm also assuming it's separate geometry simply overlaid on the Galaxy model but who can tell. I'd be happy enough if they'd simply straighten out the parts, expecting them to faithfully reproduce the ships is far too much to expect at this late date. I really wish we knew one way or the other they were actually looking at this, but sadly I am beginning to feel like a mushroom from the quality of information we've been fed from developers of late.

    Oh how I wish I could get my Dreadnought to look like this:
    agt-enterprise1.jpg

    Me too. :(
  • nikkojtnikkojt Member Posts: 372 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Getting away from the Gal-X issues for a moment, what's up with turret hardpoints? A lot of (if not all) ships seem to only have one or two points where turret shots can originate, which when you have a lot of turrets is a bit awkward; you have this massive stream of bolts coming out of this one spot. I realize "lots and lots of turrets" isn't a common use-case, but it seems like it should be a fairly simple upgrade to add a few more hardpoints.

    Also, the topside saucer turret hardpoint for the Sovereign appears to be...the main bridge. Might be worth fixing that even if you don't add more.

    TL;DR: make puny stream of pews into impressive cloud of pews.
    I am NikkoJT, Foundry author and terrible player. Follow me!
    There used to be a picture here, but they changed signatures and I can't be bothered to replace it.
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    nikkojt wrote: »
    Getting away from the Gal-X issues for a moment, what's up with turret hardpoints? A lot of (if not all) ships seem to only have one or two points where turret shots can originate, which when you have a lot of turrets is a bit awkward; you have this massive stream of bolts coming out of this one spot. I realize "lots and lots of turrets" isn't a common use-case, but it seems like it should be a fairly simple upgrade to add a few more hardpoints.

    Also, the topside saucer turret hardpoint for the Sovereign appears to be...the main bridge. Might be worth fixing that even if you don't add more.

    TL;DR: make puny stream of pews into impressive cloud of pews.

    Going back to the Galaxy-(X) the turret hardpoint appears to be... the rear underside. Meaning that using turrets on either of those ships means firing through your ship 80% of the time. :rolleyes:
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I don't think there's a happy medium for the turret hardpoints simply because there is no easy way to coordinate how the effects should be distributed, they can take the easy way out and have the the weapon fire from some central point on the ship model, even if it means it's shooting through the ship to get at the target or the hard way making some weird complicated mathematical model that vectors the effect to emit from a specific part of the your specific ship model depending on where that weapons target is. If we were making a big budget production like a tv show or sci fi movie we'd probably go the later route, but for a video game, I don't think so, but with that lack of realism we enjoy the benefit of 360degree weapons without suffering from the blindspots and gimbal limitations that realistic mounts would come with.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • nikkojtnikkojt Member Posts: 372 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    maxvitor wrote: »
    I don't think there's a happy medium for the turret hardpoints simply because there is no easy way to coordinate how the effects should be distributed, they can take the easy way out and have the the weapon fire from some central point on the ship model, even if it means it's shooting through the ship to get at the target or the hard way making some weird complicated mathematical model that vectors the effect to emit from a specific part of the your specific ship model depending on where that weapons target is. If we were making a big budget production like a tv show or sci fi movie we'd probably go the later route, but for a video game, I don't think so, but with that lack of realism we enjoy the benefit of 360degree weapons without suffering from the blindspots and gimbal limitations that realistic mounts would come with.

    Actually, existing beam array effects do fire from different points depending on where the target is, and turrets also do this to an extent (the Sovereign has at least one hardpoint on the saucer and one on the engineering hull). All I ask is that more possible turret hardpoints be added, so that aside from better lines of sight, you can have multiple effect "streams" if you have a bunch of turrets.

    To use the example that prompted this request, a Sovereign with a full turret loadout, all firing at once, currently outputs that as one or two streams, which as you may imagine is slightly underwhelming. I want to have, like, four or five streams if I'm firing eight turrets.
    I am NikkoJT, Foundry author and terrible player. Follow me!
    There used to be a picture here, but they changed signatures and I can't be bothered to replace it.
  • talgeezetalgeeze Member Posts: 196 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Close-up shots of the upper Galaxy saucer.
    http://imgur.com/a/YgMoi
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    We're never going to get studio quality versions of these ships and I understand some of the reasons for it, but we should at least be able to expect them to get the proportions and appearance of these ships as close to the originals as is feasible within the limitations of the game and at the very least, correct design errors in a timely fashion. It is inconceivable that such a glaringly obvious visual error as the misaligned parts on the Galaxy Dreadnought should still exist after a this time.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • spookpwaspookpwa Member Posts: 316 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Assimilated set have only one active thruster, that is usually not even set at center of crafts rare end. :confused:

    Assimilated set should really have evenly and symetrically spaced thrusters.
    As models are now they should spin uncontrollably when driving. :P
    Double_e23652_217093.jpg

    A test server is supposed to be used to properly test patches before patching anything....
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The Assimilated stuff was never symmetrical, it is supposed to look random just like how a drone looks like a random collection of implants.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • edited March 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • spookpwaspookpwa Member Posts: 316 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    maxvitor wrote: »
    The Assimilated stuff was never symmetrical, it is supposed to look random just like how a drone looks like a random collection of implants.

    As far as I remember all assimilated ships I saw on shows had either symetric or center placed thrusters.

    A vessel in space is hardly good to compare to a drone, and Borg ships was very symetrical (sphere, cube etc).

    A ship will follow the laws of physics and start spinning if force is applied to one of its sides only.
    Double_e23652_217093.jpg

    A test server is supposed to be used to properly test patches before patching anything....
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    spookpwa wrote: »
    As far as I remember all assimilated ships I saw on shows had either symetric or center placed thrusters.

    A vessel in space is hardly good to compare to a drone, and Borg ships was very symetrical (sphere, cube etc).

    A ship will follow the laws of physics and start spinning if force is applied to one of its sides only.
    Hardly, they only appear symmetrical if you take a distant unfocused view but on closer examination you are not going to find two parts of a borg ship that resemble one another in any sense of symmetry, the shape may be symmetrical but the content certainly isn't.
    That aside, I agree with your original statement, I personally dislike asymmetry unless it is a design necessity, like the Millenium Falcon with the cockpit over to one side, or a carrier with it's bridge on one side, but in the case of the borg addons, I really don't like how they ugly up a ship, so I turn them off.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    capnkirk4 wrote: »
    The funny thing is, I don't remember all that weird Borg junk on the outside of the Enterprise E, when it was assimilated by the Borg.

    Yea, Cryptic never thought that one through, either.

    Arctic_One_attacks_Tarkalean_freighter.jpg
  • nikkojtnikkojt Member Posts: 372 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    capnkirk4 wrote: »
    The funny thing is, I don't remember all that weird Borg junk on the outside of the Enterprise E, when it was assimilated by the Borg.

    Yea, Cryptic never thought that one through, either.

    The Enterprise-E was never fully assimilated. The only parts taken over were some interior sections of the engineering hull. If it had been completely assimilated, it would undoubtedly have taken on quite a bit of exterior gubbins.
    I am NikkoJT, Foundry author and terrible player. Follow me!
    There used to be a picture here, but they changed signatures and I can't be bothered to replace it.
  • maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    nikkojt wrote: »
    The Enterprise-E was never fully assimilated. The only parts taken over were some interior sections of the engineering hull. If it had been completely assimilated, it would undoubtedly have taken on quite a bit of exterior gubbins.
    I know where he's coming from and I'm quickly getting in the same mood when I read Dev blogs bubbling about how pretty they're making the Undine ships or those ugly flying trashcans they made for the Hirogen lock boxes or the whole Dyson lineup, then I look at my poor Dreadnought that I'm getting tired of talking about with it's undersized lance and off center parts and I have to wonder who the hell are they making this stuff for? Whoever is setting the priorities for what gets worked on has a definite case of tunnel vision and whoever does quality control needs a white cane and a dog. They keep talking about how they're Revamping this and Revamping that, well here's something that needs a revamp guys, it should have been revamped properly when you were claiming to have revamped it, get your heads out of the clouds and fix this.
    Sorry for the rant guys but patch after patch and I see no mention, no comment, nothing, one "it's on our bug list", which means exactly zip since it's been on that bug list since the ship was introduced and that's been a very long time now that they have been ignoring this.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • amosov78amosov78 Member Posts: 1,495 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    capnkirk4 wrote: »
    The funny thing is, I don't remember all that weird Borg junk on the outside of the Enterprise E, when it was assimilated by the Borg.

    Yea, Cryptic never thought that one through, either.

    Most of the Borg controlled area was the central engineering section. Given time, and eventual control of the ship, it would've started to look more Borg on the exterior. In fact they did start on that by attempting to alter the deflector array into an interplexing beacon: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontacthd/firstcontacthd1385.jpg
    U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-71895 - Nebula-class
    Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
    Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
  • edited March 2014
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.