test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fix the ablative armour

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
CapnLogan has asked that we construct a thread dealing with the LRSV Refit Armour and it's low quality compared to the EC's Saucer seperation. The conversation started in the model errors thread.

here:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=163481&page=11

All comments welcome.

Pic of the armour:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mustrumridcully/4783547116/sizes/l/

CapnLogan on Ablative armour production:
CapnLogan wrote:
You are all correct, it is just a texture swap. I wanted to touch on this to keep you all informed.

I was not permitted to create a new model for the ablative armor ability, I had to use the ones already in game.... The ablative armor itself would have a new model to cover the secondary deflector dish, the aft torpedo bays, the bridge section etc. etc. etc.

It was decided that we would not sub in a new model, and also that we would not be able to alter the UV's to more accurately reflect the ablative armor.... reasons for this:

data conservation (more new models means more new data to be loaded)
customizable ship parts (not in yet, but soon you'll be able to have your customizable intrepid with ab. armor) and we don't have tech yet to identify what parts you've chosen, then generate a new 'ablative armor' model to swap out your ship with.
time (yep)


Basically this inconsistency boils down to the fact that it would take a LOT of time to create new ablative armor models to swap out the 30 some customizable ship parts for intrepid class, simply for an ability that you get to turn on for 30 seconds at a time.

In the meantime though, I hope that you find this ability satisfactory.


CapnLogan talking about the dev of saucer sep:
CapnLogan wrote:
touch
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345678

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    As promised: Two bars of Gold Pressed Latinum.

    But seriously. Please make sure the good Capn gets to apply his trademarked polish to this sooner rather than later.

    On a side note - I'm all for a good looking texture as opposed to a new ship model, especially if it means that we can continue to use all the ship parts AND get ablative armor. One of my biggest fears of these retrofits is that we'd be stuck in the stock configuration.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Voyager was my favorite Star Trek series - it did a good job of getting back to the original "feel" of TOS while updating it for a more modern audience. As such, I would like to demand a properly modeled out ablative armor appearance. I won't settle for anything less.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I would like it, but I think working on new ship models for Klingon and Federation ships is more important. So, do it in between projects and once you got a few new ships done, but not as the highest priority.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    /signed

    This feature deserves the time to be done right.

    -Forjo
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    /signed

    If your going to have ablative armor it should be as awesome as in the episode, patch by patch deployment animation sequence of the armor, in 3D.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    /signed

    Ablative armour just isn't the same as a texture swap.

    CapnLogan is a huge asset to this game, and its a shame to see his talents not put to good use.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    pics of the crappy ablative texture?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I look forward to CaptLogan putting in overtime and personal hours to make this happen because he is a true fan, but I don't think his bosses are wrong that there are other matters on the schdule requiring his attention more.

    ...Like making customizable Romulan ships (hint hint :D).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    NikeOnline wrote: »
    I look forward to CaptLogan putting in overtime and personal hours to make this happen because he is a true fan, but I don't think his bosses are wrong that there are other matters on the schdule requiring his attention more.

    ...Like making customizable Romulan ships (hint hint :D).

    Devs have stated there wont be another faction for a long while. sorry. Read capnlogans quotes above, they put in 7-14 days on saucer separation. Ablative got a 4 hour retexture.


    PIc here:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mustrumridcully/4783547116/sizes/l/
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Is this a safe place to disagree without starting a flame war?

    I don't really think *any* powers deserve that much effort when there's so much else to do in the game. Saucer separation is a lot older (at least as old as TOS "The Apple" but more detail here: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Saucer_separation#Appendices) and there were a lot of people begging for it, but I think the game needs more ship variants more than it needs a whole new ship's worth of work just to add some (admittedly cool) powers to the game. It sounded like Logan didn't even think the saucer would be in yet if the schedule-makers had fully known what it would take to implement.

    I agree that the texture swap they're doing now is pretty far from ideal, but I still think there are bigger fish for the ship guys to fry right now.
    *koff*Klingons*koff*
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I think the game needs more ship variants more than it needs a whole new ship's worth of work just to add some (admittedly cool) powers to the game.

    I believe in the exact opposite. I believe nothing is worth doing unless you take the time and spend the effort to do it right. A texture swap isn't doing it right, so I want the devs to devote the time to implement ablative armor PROPERLY.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    We hope to someday go back and create a custom ablative armour, but there are some large technical and time issues preventing that from happening in the near future.

    Please understand that we have a small team and we try to work on issues that give us the biggest bang for our buck first.

    Thanks.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Forjo wrote: »
    /signed

    This feature deserves the time to be done right.

    -Forjo

    /signed
    agreed
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Forgive my bluntness but i cannot really see any "technical" issues here.

    I assume the engine is capable of basic model animations.
    In which case it would be matter of creating the frame by frame animation of the armor deploying per part of the ship with a new armor model segment per frame.
    That being keyed to trigger on command.

    2D and 3D animations work on the same basic principle, unless this engine is a very very strange one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    We hope to someday go back and create a custom ablative armour, but there are some large technical and time issues preventing that from happening in the near future.

    Please understand that we have a small team and we try to work on issues that give us the biggest bang for our buck first.

    Thanks.

    We understand Matt. We understand that you guys have a alot of items to juggle around on your collective plates in order to make us all... well if not happy as a clam then at least fairly content a majority of the time were in game. However were just giving cryptic a pretty decent hint as to what the players want as a priority to makes us all extremely happy. :cool:

    /signed
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Forgive my bluntness but i cannot really see any "technical" issues here.

    I assume the engine is capable of basic model animations.
    In which case it would be matter of creating the frame by frame animation of the armor deploying per part of the ship with a new armor model segment per frame.
    That being keyed to trigger on command.

    2D and 3D animations work on the same basic principle, unless this engine is a very very strange one.

    CaptainLogan has already explained why it's not looking it's best atm, check the dev tracker for his posts on the matter, however in short it has to do with 3 things.

    1.) The Ablative armor is not going to be for the intrepid only, eventually the T5 refits are going to get all the customization options that the T4 variants get. So that means that they would have to model the ablative armor for each option, not to mention getting it to work for all the different combination of options possible in game.

    2.) The will require a new piece of tech to add to the game to make this effect look good, similar to the Galaxy Separation Sequence.

    3.) It would take about a month, if not longer to do all this, and it took 2 weeks to get the Saucer Sep working properly and that was over the time allotted for the project.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Which is the purpose of this thread.
    To show the developers that this is a big deal and that we want it, that it will give them their "big bang" for their buck to prioritize.

    The Galaxy and saucer seperate would never have come about were it not for threads like these.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Forgive my bluntness but i cannot really see any "technical" issues here.

    I assume the engine is capable of basic model animations.
    In which case it would be matter of creating the frame by frame animation of the armor deploying per part of the ship with a new armor model segment per frame.
    That being keyed to trigger on command.

    2D and 3D animations work on the same basic principle, unless this engine is a very very strange one.

    You ship character which points to your custom options and geometry are structured in a way that does not make it easy to change ship mesh parts on the fly for a power while maintaining your costom part choices. Texture changes can be done through FX but geo swapping while remembering part setup is a different story. Saucer separation is close in the sense that it remembers your settings, but it is not swapping for new geometry. It uses the existing settings and meshes and just splits them and that took a long time to set up. Not to say we can't do it in the future, but we do not use the necessary tech anywhere in the game now. So we would have to create it. This type of tech could be used for other things so I think it is worth exploring. But we don't have time at the moment to experiment. Hopefully we can address this down the road a bit.

    Thanks.
    Marc
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Please understand that we have a small team and we try to work on issues that give us the biggest bang for our buck first.

    Thanks.

    I understand that you have a small team, but I don't understand WHY you have a small team.

    We've all paid a heck of a lot of money, and continue to do so. Hire more people.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    But thats just it, i'm not talking about actually swapping geometry.
    I'm talking about an animation sequence embedded as part of the main geometry.
    And when the power is used the animation would simply play out advancing the frames of the geometry.
    The armor frames could be added to each model part seperately with a little work to make sure that they match up properly and make sure the timing iis right for the animation to play on all the parts.

    For example:

    - Power is activated
    - Saucer mesh animation advances from frame 0 to frame 50
    - Hull mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once saucer mesh hits frame 40(since the hull and saucer overlap)
    - Naccelles mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once hull mesh hits frame 20(again they sort of overlap)
    - Pylons mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once naccelles mesh hits frame 20(overlap overlap!)
    - Animation on all parts is complete, the armor is deployed.
    - Power duration ends and the whole sequence is played back again in reverse or all parts may simply just fade from frame 50 to frame 0.

    Did i make things too confusing there?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    O Capn my Capn. Just tell us whos palm we need grease and the ammount of beer we should ship you to get the job done sir. Lets talk bottles... How many cases does it take to get the job done?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    But thats just it, i'm not talking about actually swapping geometry.
    I'm talking about an animation sequence embedded as part of the main geometry.
    And when the power is used the animation would simply play out advancing the frames of the geometry.
    The armor frames could be added to each model part seperately with a little work to make sure that they match up properly and make sure the timing iis right for the animation to play on all the parts.

    For example:

    - Power is activated
    - Saucer mesh animation advances from frame 0 to frame 50
    - Hull mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once saucer mesh hits frame 40(since the hull and saucer overlap)
    - Naccelles mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once hull mesh hits frame 20(again they sort of overlap)
    - Pylons mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once naccelles mesh hits frame 20(overlap overlap!)
    - Animation on all parts is complete, the armor is deployed.
    - Power duration ends and the whole sequence is played back again in reverse or all parts may simply just fade from frame 50 to frame 0.

    Did i make things too confusing there?


    Hey, since you're obviously so knowledgeable Re: The limits of the Cryptic MMO graphics engine, and obviously the fix is so straightforward; why to you program something and create a visual demo and link to it here, so the STO Devs (who are obviously clueless to this simple fix) can see how right you are, and how wrong they are when they claim there's a major technical issue involved? hell, you might even get hired!:eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    But thats just it, i'm not talking about actually swapping geometry.
    I'm talking about an animation sequence embedded as part of the main geometry.
    And when the power is used the animation would simply play out advancing the frames of the geometry.
    The armor frames could be added to each model part seperately with a little work to make sure that they match up properly and make sure the timing iis right for the animation to play on all the parts.

    For example:

    - Power is activated
    - Saucer mesh animation advances from frame 0 to frame 50
    - Hull mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once saucer mesh hits frame 40(since the hull and saucer overlap)
    - Naccelles mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once hull mesh hits frame 20(again they sort of overlap)
    - Pylons mesh advances from frame 0 to frame 50 once naccelles mesh hits frame 20(overlap overlap!)
    - Animation on all parts is complete, the armor is deployed.
    - Power duration ends and the whole sequence is played back again in reverse or all parts may simply just fade from frame 50 to frame 0.

    Did i make things too confusing there?

    This is actually a pretty good solution.

    To add a quick thought, the armor is designed to cover up the ship's exterior. Since all the "Interepid" variants have the same general shape, you could just program the same armor model onto all the pieces and it would look fine. That way you have a single set of animations, geometry, and textures that load for all variations.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Hey Matt? I know this is the wrong thread but could you tap on the shoulder of the perons who did the account maintaince this morning and ask him/her why alot of us can't copy over our characters to Tribble?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    mtattersall, I understand what you're saying , but you know there is always someone who thinks they know more. The Cryptic teaam has a set order of business they have to follow whether anyone here likes it or not. They will get the work done but it is not currently in the alloted schedule. (aka Season 2) So for now enjoy what we have. The best is yet to come.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I understand that you have a small team, but I don't understand WHY you have a small team.

    We've all paid a heck of a lot of money, and continue to do so. Hire more people.

    I'd love the STO team to be larger too, but think about it this way:

    Let's say the average Cryptic Employee makes around $50,000 a year. For the midwest, where I live, that salary seems pretty cushy - but it's not that great in California. Anyway, When you average everyone from dstahl on down to CapnLogan (who I'm sure deserves to be paid more than his lowly artist salary) let's say it winds up being roughly around $50K a year.

    That means for each new artist or programmer that Cryptic hires, that person has to generate at least $50,001 for the company. More than that if they really want to keep their job.

    Let's do some math to see how many monthly subs each Cryptic Employee is hypothetically worth:

    $50,000/$15 = 3333.333....!

    So for every person Cryptic hires they have to sell over three thousand months of game time over the course of a year to get their investment back, or, if you want to look at it a different way, roughly 1,667 box copies of the game.

    I want to see a canon-looking Voyager with batmobile armor as much as the next guy, but I highly doubt features like that which will be enjoyed by a comparably small portion of the player base would move thousands of months of subscription time.

    But even then, not all of that money goes to Cryptic. Atari are the folks keeping the lights on and funding projects in development, so who knows how much of each subscription payment or C-Store purchase goes straight from your wallet to Atari's coffers. It also can't help that Atari is currently operating at a loss. The way things are, I highly doubt the last word on employee numbers and team size belongs to anyone that wears a Cryptic nametag anymore.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Armsman wrote: »
    Hey, since you're obviously so knowledgeable Re: The limits of the Cryptic MMO graphics engine, and obviously the fix is so straightforward; why to you program something and create a visual demo and link to it here, so the STO Devs (who are obviously clueless to this simple fix) can see how right you are, and how wrong they are when they claim there's a major technical issue involved? hell, you might even get hired!:eek:

    FYI, animations are quite easy to make really. What he said is indeed not all that hard to do as far as the 3d modeling part is concerned. I cant say about how hard it would be to program it and synch it propedly between each pieces but all the individual meshes could have their animations and triggered propedly and you can make a good anim. It would be hard to believe that their engine doesn't support simple mesh animations!! (didnt they wanted animated nacelles when engaging warp? same type of animations but armor deployement instead)

    If I had the actual 3d mesh of the intrepid and the episode showing the armor being deployed as reference, I could probably make a rough anim showing it... (and I havnt taken any courses in 3d editing, i've been doing 3d only as a hobby. Professionals would be able to do much better work than I would).

    But their explanations of having not enough time/manpower to spend on it is quite valid and understandable too.

    .02$
    SV
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Voyager was my favorite Star Trek series - it did a good job of getting back to the original "feel" of TOS while updating it for a more modern audience. As such, I would like to demand a properly modeled out ablative armor appearance. I won't settle for anything less.

    I'M WITH YOU ABSOLUTELY WHOLE HEARTEDLY!!!

    I've PAID for some of these ships!
    I've worked/will work HOURS upon HOURS in game to earn these ships.

    It's VERY troubling to me that quality has been suffering in this issue time and time again!.
    Why troubling? Why is this one little ship an issue? Because to me it sets the tone of things. If you start cutting corners on quality here with this one little ship, where else will poor quality start popping up? You can always say you are short on people and time, that becomes a crutch. i don't want to pay for quality only in the c store!
    And to be honest, it's NOT just with this one ship either:

    You released the Nomad in the c store, we paid extra for it, and then you had to go back and tweak this ship because of quality issues... It looks great now.

    The Galaxy needed some lovin you gave that model some extra attention and it's absolutely gorgeous now, (in my opinion).

    The Galaxy X, I paid $25 for this ship and it still doesn't function properly when you choose to loose that third nacelle.
    When you loose that third nacelle to make it look like a regular Galaxy, you end up shooting phasers from empty space behind the model.

    PLEASE fix the sovereign model. This is another ship that hasn't been done right from the start. It's a fan favorite! We've taken the time to bring the errors in that model to your attention many, many times.

    Are the Excelsior and the Nebula everyone's so looking forward to, going to have quality issues too?
    I hope not, as I hear they will be offered in the c store.

    Star Trek fans LOVE the ships!

    To be honest, I simply don't see why quality has to suffer repeatedly. With respect, these issues are starting to accumulate. If you are going to do something, PLEASE do it right.
    Please do right by us guys.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Honestly, I really want this to look the best it possibly can, but also to be honest, I want to see a lot of other things just as much or more (additional boff powers, more episodes, stfs, ships, races, replayability ect)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Do it make the sound from the show when it turns on?
Sign In or Register to comment.