Dudes specifically just asked you not to reply unless you work at cryptic. Maybe they will maybe they won't but nothing anyone has said so far has much of any value to the actual point of my thread.
The point of your thread is baseless. The in game Dauntless is a Star Fleet recreation, and thus couldn't be canon, nor will it likely ever be.
Gotchya noted. However Rather have no activity on the thread then have the thread spinning out in to random opinions.
Kait: they very clearly say they have the actual specifications found in the Delta quadrant to the ship in universe. So an exact recreation is what they would do if anything. Not only that but every other alien ship they have put in game is accurate to how it was seen on screen. The number of inaccuracies(broken mesh under the nacelles, over all incorrect shape of the ship, missing phaser strips, incorrect hull design) suggests a rush job.
Jon: Stop being salty. Go tell your kids you love them.
Could easily be the case that the Starfleet replica Dauntless class is slightly altered due to the template ship (Arturis' ship) appear to NOT have a conventional warp drive - at least not if the MSD is to be beleved:
There was a scene where Torres was poking at what his ship used instead of a warp core. It was a glowing sphere the size of a basketball. Torres kinda said she had no idea how it worked and was eager to spend several days studying it.
If you choose not to see its the incorrect in game design thats your choice. No one can force you to live in reality.
Reyan: that would break the seemingly consistent effort sto makes to put canon accurate ships in game. If they wanted to change the design they usually address things like that as they did with the recon destroyer when all they did was add two phaser strips. This seems the case of it being a rushed job.
If you choose not to see its the incorrect in game design thats your choice. No one can force you to live in reality.
I don't see any issue here though I will give you some credit for finally posting at least one picture that shows the distorted texture clearly. I can live with that art error. The rest of the skin and the model looks just fine to me though.
Again side by sides for your other claimed problems are your friend.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Again Salazar if you choose not to live reality no one can force you to.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that you are unwilling, for some reason, to post your argument in a manner that would help demonstrate it's validity. In the future, you are better off opening up MS paint and copy/pasting relevant pictures side-by-side in a way that it can be easily and directly compared. You are also better off not using multiple contradictory sources like a toy model and a random drawing. Shots from the actual movies and shows are usually the most accurate original source.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Azrael: Already posted that a few poss ago they have the specifications for it so note that anything they do would be a “recreation” that does not in anyway mean they altered the design. Again, for a second time,we’ve seen when they do alter a design they directly say so as we saw when they made a minor alteration to the recon destroyer.
Salazar: it very much is the issue seemingly. I’ve articulated my argument and shown proof via images both in show canon, design references as well as the official models magazine references. Nothing I can do if you want to play the contrarian. Short hand: it’s you not me.
Salazar: it very much is the issue seemingly. I’ve articulated my argument and shown proof via images both in show canon, design references as well as the official models magazine references. Nothing I can do if you want to play the contrarian. Short hand: it’s you not me.
You've talked about your argument but you haven't come close to clearly show or prove anything. Not a big deal to me though as the ship looks fine unless you can show something to prove otherwise.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Go back through the thread Salazar I've posted pics and explained the inaccuracies many time....again it really is you not me. I get it though you're just here to be a contrarian.
Go back through the thread Salazar I've posted pics and explained the inaccuracies many time....again it really is you not me. I get it though you're just here to be a contrarian.
Think most of the issue is you're using non-show sources. I'd suggest using images from the episode that the Dauntless is shown in - and only images from there.
As salazar said, you've made an argument, but haven't backed it up with screenshots from the eipsode the ship is in (if I'm interpreting it right).
Mozzelli, I've been in this game for a long time. Do you know it took 3 revisions for the Galaxy class to get to where it is now in terms of "screen canon accuracy"? It took longer for other classes, some, such as the Rhode Island, are still not there. I do not know where you got this idea from but even if these secondary, non-canon, sources are more accurate (which is debatable at best) there was never any guarantee that it would happen on initial release. Good lord it took a Dev working in his spare time to get the movie era Constitution refit to it's present state.
So true. A lot of people don't realize that "technical data" in books and magazines is very commonly inaccurate and is not considered canon at all.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Go back through the thread Salazar I've posted pics and explained the inaccuracies many time....again it really is you not me. I get it though you're just here to be a contrarian.
Okay, I understand you're getting a bit frustrated now. But, honestly, as I said before, of all the ships to fuss about, the Dauntless is probably the ship least in need of fixing. The T5 Nova, now that's a ship with many misaligned parts, and in real need of an overhaul. And I'm sure there are many others. But the Dauntless -- for what is essentially a make-believe ship -- is fine as is, really.
Azrael: that is the first valid point you've contributed to this tread and on that point I can agree with regard to how long some revisions took. With that in mind Im trying to find out if its even a consideration for a repass. With regard to sources:The model mag specs and comparative images come directly from the ships original designer. You can only throw so many contrarian points out there before you just have to make peace with the fact the ships inaccuracies are very real.
Imperator: scroll through the thread I posted IrishTrekkies review that contains the magazine and canonical images of the ship including the eaglemoss model the difference are very noticeable. As for the broken in game mesh scroll though I've posted it several times.
Meime: Well this certainty isn't a thread for the RoadIsland. Im sure there are many threads out there talking about that. This one however is about the Dauntless.
Meime: Well this certainty isn't a thread for the RoadIsland. Im sure there are many threads out there talking about that. This one however is about the Dauntless.
I know that. Just saying 'fixing' the Dauntless -- for all the reasons posted by everyone above -- is probably very low on Cryptic's agenda.
Azrael: that is the first valid point you've contributed to this tread and on that point I can agree with regard to how long some revisions took. With that in mind Im trying to find out if its even a consideration for a repass. With regard to sources:The model mag specs and comparative images come directly from the ships original designer. You can only throw so many contrarian points out there before you just have to make peace with the fact the ships inaccuracies are very real.
Imperator: scroll through the thread I posted IrishTrekkies review that contains the magazine and canonical images of the ship including the eaglemoss model the difference are very noticeable. As for the broken in game mesh scroll though I've posted it several times.
Yeah I get that. I just don't see Cryptic giving an already-decent model a pass when they could focus on other models that need it more (the Rhode Island, for instance).
I could see the model being up for a rework in a few years once all the other models that need it quite a bit more are done.
Azrael have to be honest dude it just seems like you're trying to play down Eaglemoss. Like you have some personal vendetta against them. which honestly I don't care about but could you rage on that somewhere else? Im sure there is an anit-eaglemoss post somewhere. But it isn't here. "I feel relevant" Is exactly how you know you aren't in this case.When you have to proclaim your point warrants attention its a bad sign and bad look. Feel free to bring up any actual relevant point as you did with the time it takes to get reworks going but at this point you are just harping on references that uses the original artists works and catalogs, how the design inception and final design came about. I suggest you watch the review I posted by irish trekie. Don't die on this hill.
Reyan you cant get the Duntless through another means beyond pure purchase. you can get a perfectly usable Nova for free. I want to reiterate this thread is about the Dauntless not a comparative.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,701Community Moderator
Um... Azrael isn't "raging" or on an "anti-eaglemoss" kick. Just pointing out that in general Eaglemoss has made mistakes in their models. The offered review of the XL Connie Refit has several glaring errors, that aren't even on the normal size model! And apparently a common error on them is window decal placement being off.
Also... many others, myself included, have suggested using screenshots of the Dauntless from the episode, which would be far more accurate than the physical model itself.
I just pulled that one from Memory Alpha. I'm sure a quick Google search can find more, and even some higher rez, pics of the Dauntless that will be a much better reference than an Eaglemoss model that may or may not have errors.
ONLY citing the Eaglemoss Model as your example of the canon appearance is the main issue at hand here. If that was the case, then I guess the Crossfield needs to be redone because she's not bronze like the Eaglemoss Model.
But then the issue of the Connie Refit comes in. Do we use the smaller Eaglemoss model as a reference or the XL model?
Normal size:
XL model:
Now do you see why we've been saying to use more than just the model as a reference? The Connie models don't match, yet they are both Eaglemoss models. So which one would you say is an example of canon to use as a reference for the in game Connie Refit?
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Reyan you cant get the Duntless through another means beyond pure purchase. you can get a perfectly usable Nova for free. I want to reiterate this thread is about the Dauntless not a comparative.
That's just not true. You can trade dil for zen which plenty of people do. You can also buy fleet modules on the exchange to get the fleet dauntless.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
I want to reiterate this thread is about the Dauntless not a comparative.
And *I* want to reiterate, that Cryptic is a company, with, you know, priorities. Hence, this isn't about the T5 Nova an sich, but about the point ppl are trying to get across to you, that, of all the ships that potentially need fixing, the Dauntless -- with only minute errors on it -- likely has a very low priority with Cryptic. Making this thread, to put it a bit bluntly, kinda pointless. You are, of course, free to bring anything to Cryptic's attention, as you see fit; just sayin' that I think you're fighting windmills here.
Oh, and you're being slightly disingenuous about the 'free' Nova (unless you truly believe the lowly Tier 2 ship is truly 'a perfectly usable Nova'). We're talking about the Tier 5 (Fleet) Science Vessel Retrofit here, of course, which costs money, like most everything else.
Rattler: Im actually pretty sure TRIBBLE's ship is bronze maybe copper is a better color to describe it? It is in that tone variation though.
The eagleomoss model came straight from the original designers specifications. You literally can't get more canon then the guy who designed the ship in to existence. For a third or fourth time watch Irish trekkies review of the ship. Its canon accurate. Unless you want to use the logical fallacy of a seam showing as some how being a detractor. Azrael very much was raging against the model. Are you like here to carry his torch now or somthing? Watch the review its Ridiculous to blindly try to discredit specifically the dauntless model because you personally don't like other models they've done. To clarify specifically we are talking about the Dauntless model *review posted some posts up go find it* Not TRIBBLE or XL models.
Its honestly coming across as contrarian and nothing more. I welcome valid points saying somehow the in game model is made intentionally this way and with some purpose, providing proof of course aside from that harping on other models doesnt help your point, whatever that is.
Meime: It's very clear YOU think this ship shouldn't be up for a rework for its very clear and blatant errors as proven throughout this thread and that's fine. However its a bit self serving to in essence say this ship shouldn't get a rework because I don't think it should. Maybe cryptic see this maybe they don't. Maybe a rework is on the table maybe it isn't but you know cryptics "priorities" I don't think you're privi to them for some strange reason. So its kinda pointless and about the least star trek thing you can do to stop your feet and say "I don't want this ship to get a rework because."
Comments
The point of your thread is baseless. The in game Dauntless is a Star Fleet recreation, and thus couldn't be canon, nor will it likely ever be.
Kait: they very clearly say they have the actual specifications found in the Delta quadrant to the ship in universe. So an exact recreation is what they would do if anything. Not only that but every other alien ship they have put in game is accurate to how it was seen on screen. The number of inaccuracies(broken mesh under the nacelles, over all incorrect shape of the ship, missing phaser strips, incorrect hull design) suggests a rush job.
Jon: Stop being salty. Go tell your kids you love them.
100% agreed. 3 pages in and I have yet to see anything to suggest that the in game model is anything but dead on accurate.
My character Tsin'xing
here is how it looks in game https://postimg.cc/MfMnHfmk
Here are is the broken mesh between the nacelles https://postimg.cc/fSmM1cvb this appears on both sides.
Here are the missing phaser strips https://postimg.cc/FYWXWCQZ
Here is how its supose to looks in the same area: https://postimg.cc/TKPZDjWW
Here is the correct hull design: https://postimg.cc/8sP33BtX here is what we have in game: https://postimg.cc/Cdz7kvv0
If you choose not to see its the incorrect in game design thats your choice. No one can force you to live in reality.
Reyan: that would break the seemingly consistent effort sto makes to put canon accurate ships in game. If they wanted to change the design they usually address things like that as they did with the recon destroyer when all they did was add two phaser strips. This seems the case of it being a rushed job.
Again side by sides for your other claimed problems are your friend.
Salazar: it very much is the issue seemingly. I’ve articulated my argument and shown proof via images both in show canon, design references as well as the official models magazine references. Nothing I can do if you want to play the contrarian. Short hand: it’s you not me.
You've talked about your argument but you haven't come close to clearly show or prove anything. Not a big deal to me though as the ship looks fine unless you can show something to prove otherwise.
Think most of the issue is you're using non-show sources. I'd suggest using images from the episode that the Dauntless is shown in - and only images from there.
As salazar said, you've made an argument, but haven't backed it up with screenshots from the eipsode the ship is in (if I'm interpreting it right).
Okay, I understand you're getting a bit frustrated now. But, honestly, as I said before, of all the ships to fuss about, the Dauntless is probably the ship least in need of fixing. The T5 Nova, now that's a ship with many misaligned parts, and in real need of an overhaul. And I'm sure there are many others. But the Dauntless -- for what is essentially a make-believe ship -- is fine as is, really.
Imperator: scroll through the thread I posted IrishTrekkies review that contains the magazine and canonical images of the ship including the eaglemoss model the difference are very noticeable. As for the broken in game mesh scroll though I've posted it several times.
I know that.
Yeah I get that. I just don't see Cryptic giving an already-decent model a pass when they could focus on other models that need it more (the Rhode Island, for instance).
I could see the model being up for a rework in a few years once all the other models that need it quite a bit more are done.
Meime: Its a ship you actually have to pay for to get let alone is a T6. many others like the Nova and its varients aren't.
Also... many others, myself included, have suggested using screenshots of the Dauntless from the episode, which would be far more accurate than the physical model itself.
I just pulled that one from Memory Alpha. I'm sure a quick Google search can find more, and even some higher rez, pics of the Dauntless that will be a much better reference than an Eaglemoss model that may or may not have errors.
ONLY citing the Eaglemoss Model as your example of the canon appearance is the main issue at hand here. If that was the case, then I guess the Crossfield needs to be redone because she's not bronze like the Eaglemoss Model.
But then the issue of the Connie Refit comes in. Do we use the smaller Eaglemoss model as a reference or the XL model?
Normal size:
XL model:
Now do you see why we've been saying to use more than just the model as a reference? The Connie models don't match, yet they are both Eaglemoss models. So which one would you say is an example of canon to use as a reference for the in game Connie Refit?
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
That's just not true. You can trade dil for zen which plenty of people do. You can also buy fleet modules on the exchange to get the fleet dauntless.
And *I* want to reiterate, that Cryptic is a company, with, you know, priorities. Hence, this isn't about the T5 Nova an sich, but about the point ppl are trying to get across to you, that, of all the ships that potentially need fixing, the Dauntless -- with only minute errors on it -- likely has a very low priority with Cryptic. Making this thread, to put it a bit bluntly, kinda pointless. You are, of course, free to bring anything to Cryptic's attention, as you see fit; just sayin' that I think you're fighting windmills here.
Oh, and you're being slightly disingenuous about the 'free' Nova (unless you truly believe the lowly Tier 2 ship is truly 'a perfectly usable Nova'). We're talking about the Tier 5 (Fleet) Science Vessel Retrofit here, of course, which costs money, like most everything else.
The eagleomoss model came straight from the original designers specifications. You literally can't get more canon then the guy who designed the ship in to existence. For a third or fourth time watch Irish trekkies review of the ship. Its canon accurate. Unless you want to use the logical fallacy of a seam showing as some how being a detractor. Azrael very much was raging against the model. Are you like here to carry his torch now or somthing? Watch the review its Ridiculous to blindly try to discredit specifically the dauntless model because you personally don't like other models they've done. To clarify specifically we are talking about the Dauntless model *review posted some posts up go find it* Not TRIBBLE or XL models.
Its honestly coming across as contrarian and nothing more. I welcome valid points saying somehow the in game model is made intentionally this way and with some purpose, providing proof of course aside from that harping on other models doesnt help your point, whatever that is.
Meime: It's very clear YOU think this ship shouldn't be up for a rework for its very clear and blatant errors as proven throughout this thread and that's fine. However its a bit self serving to in essence say this ship shouldn't get a rework because I don't think it should. Maybe cryptic see this maybe they don't. Maybe a rework is on the table maybe it isn't but you know cryptics "priorities" I don't think you're privi to them for some strange reason. So its kinda pointless and about the least star trek thing you can do to stop your feet and say "I don't want this ship to get a rework because."