Starships: Model errors, issues and feedback

Comments

• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Tier 4
  

  • Advanced Escort:
    
    • No warp core ejection ports
    • Hull / saucer pattern mismatches
    • Missing registry / name on secondary and tertiary hulls
      
      Prometheus:
      
      Phoenix:
      
      Cerberus
    • No origin for bow registry light
    • Floating Starfleet decal
      
      
      Hephaestus
    • Floating escape pod textures 1 2
    • Gamma section missing dorsal textures on bow fork. Completely transparent when viewed from top down.
    
    

    Paraphrasing MarcW (to save space)
    The Prometheus MVAM is missing the impulse engines on sections Beta and Gamma.
    

    1. This is a screen capture from the episode of Voyager: Message In A Bottle. I've pointed out the missing engine grills. The glowing white engines at the edges of the saucer must be the saucer impulse engines.
       
       
    2. This image shows the Prometheus gestalt. I've pointed out the three sets of impulse engines as they would appear in this configuration. Only the saucer engines are operational when the ship is fully assembled.
       
       
    3. This image shows the section Alpha. As you can see, the blue/white parts are the impulse engines.
       
       
    4. This image shows section Beta, also with labelled impulse engines. In-game, this section appears to have invisible impulse engines at the base of the nacelle pylons - clearly incorrect, as they should be where they are shown in this image. I've also pointed out where the ship's name and registry are shown on this hull (also missing from game).
       
       
    5. This image shows section Gamma, also with correct impulse engine location pointed out. Like section Beta, in-game there are invisible impulse engines at the nacelle pylon bases, which is incorrect.

    
    
    
  • Reconnaissance Science Vessel:
    
    • Polaris Bussard collectors have different 'backlight' texturing
    • Comet class has the green starboard running light on both sides of the saucer.
    • Comet class rear dorsal turret hardpoint missing grapic representation. 1 2 (Personal recommendation that turret hardpoints be located within phaser strips.)
    • Gaps in mesh allowing you to see through the ship when using Comet Hull and Polaris / Luna saucers. 1 2 and Polars hull w/ Luna saucer
    • Comet hull: Windows obscuring hull texture details
    • Luna, Sol, and Comet pylons to not touch the Polaris hull
    
    
  • Assault Cruiser:
    
    Imperial class:

    • NecroWulf drops it like it's hot

    
    Noble class:

    • Saucer, Starboard side - Staying on this side and moving to the front, there is a visible texture error with the ship name and registry number. The raised section on which it's applied causes it to partly snap off. It looks fine on the port side though. Noble Registry - Name
    • Both Noble and Majestic missing shuttle bays. They should have at least one, possibly two, like the Sovereign.
    
    
    Canon Inconsistencies:

    Sovereign class:
    Sovereign reference shots from Doug Drexler's blog site. Thanks, Valiant797!
    Sovereign reference shots contributed by Alexraptor
    Super size reference shots contributed by Amosov
    Studio model shots

    • Impulse glows clipping through the saucer.
    • UV mapping needs to be fixed on saucer (texture and window warping / deformities)
    • Phaser / Window overlap and anomalies
    • Dorsal name & registry should be closer to the bridge superstructure and separated by the innermost ring of windows
    • Ventral saucer windowing is asymmetrical: Port Starboard
    • Floating windows 1 2
    • Main Deflector is too large.
    • Neck piece should not slope and stick up so much.
    • Saucer is a little too long and narrow.
    • Missing Phaser strips on nacelle pylons
    • No Starfleet decals along hull
    • Colour scheme from films missing
    • Quantum turret too small
    • Missing escape pods and windows 1 2 3 4

  
  
  
  Tier 5
  
  

  • Fleet Escort:
    
    • Dervish Saucer: Flickering lights on underside.
    • When using the maelstrom hull, the fleet escorts' nacelles clip with the saucers in most configurations, especially when using the Gryphon pylons
    • Deflector texture not large enough, gaps showing around the sides.
    • Maelstrom: All escape pods on the upper rear section of the ship are completely blocked, by either the nacelles, and the centre pylon
    • Hermes:
      • Obscured / Uneven nacelle registry 1 2
      • Floating nacelle registry

  
  

  • Deep Space Science Vessel:
    
    • No window selection (fixed?)
    • Destiny Mission Pod shares texture with Deflector, looks bad with Material 2.
    • Nimbus pylon "fix" only works when combining the Nimbus pylons with the Nimbus nacelles. Any other combination looks awful. Suggest that the "fix" be applied to the hull, not the pylons or nacelles. This would allow the mixing and matching of multiple variations whilst retaining the vertical orientation of the nacelles and doing away with the sagging nacelle look.
    • Oracle class nacelles have offset blue contrails from the glowing blue strips that wrap around them
    • Trident "saucer" windows obscured by destiny hull strips. All "hulls" have crazy looking conning superstructure window textures when using Type 2 windows

  • Star Cruiser:
    
    • Nomad dorsal bow name / registry floating significantly high above the hull.
    • Hull/Saucer joints are jaggy
    • Forward impulse exhausts leave no trail
    • Avenger Saucer(Hull): Ship number/registry twisting and obscured by parts
    • Avenger Saucer+Other Hull: Name / Registry obscured
    • Nacelles: Using an ATI Radeon 3200 HD with "recommended" level graphics settings (one less than maximum), and with a GTX 480 with the latest driivers the nomad class nacelles (shown here) spin to face odd angles and the blue glow turns red.
    • Bussard collectors still look pointy and angular.
    
    
  • Cruiser Refit:
    • Switching between Galaxy and Celestial necks shows that one or both of the saucers is off centre (Animated gif)
    • Saucer transforms into a standard Galaxy saucer with type 1 windows and no pattern for re-docking
    • Underside clipping and miscoloured aft starboard nav lights
    
    
  • Dreadnought:
    
    • Centre nacelle has a partially obscured starboard nav light at the aft
    • Centre nacelle is simply a copy of the starboard nacelle: It duplicates its patterns which makes it feel asymmetrical / lopsided
    • Centre nacelle does not glow for transwarp
    • Geo error on pylons
      
    • Spinal cannon obscures registry and windows
    • Rear ventral windows warped
    • Crazy bridge glows

  • Nebula & Excelsior:
    
    • Excelsior Studio Model
      • Nacelles should not have windows
      • Non-refit bowshould be windowless
      • Aft windows do not line up with side windows.
      • Name obscured by hull artwork
      • Missing stripe, missing illumination from ventral cargo bay, window errors
      
      
    • Nebula Studio Model Gallery Additional pics: 1 2 3 4 5 6 CGI Gallery (requests exist to use the physical model instead of the CG.)
      • Bussard glow off-centre
      • Magellan Mission pod has port nav light (red) instead of starboard (green).
      • Nebula starboard nacelle's nav light should be green
      • Nebula centre pylon offset to the right.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Starfleet Shuttles
  

  • Sovereign Captain's Yacht / Quantum Torpedo Turret:
    • IT'S ENORMOUS! (Playability means nothing when it destroys immersion. You may as well have made it a centaur class or a wireframe model.)
    
    
  • Delta Flyer:
    • It's enormous, too.
    • Nacelles not extending / retracting during warp out / in
    
    
  • Class F
    • Also enormous
    • Shuttle name should be written in cursive/script at a jaunty angle at the bow
    • Shuttle pet has the Galileo 2's designation but is missing the Galileo 2 name on the bow
    • While the gunwales do remain level from bow to stern, the hull between them should slope down from fore to aft, represented by the dotted line in the side view in this picture.

  
  
  Klingon:

  Most Canon Klingon ship designs in STO appear to be scaled 'against' Federation ships, and as such aren't even close to Canon scale.
  [*]Most canonical Klingon ships have bright fore and aft facing spotlights that are missing in STO.
  [*]Where Is the K'Vort cruiser?
  [*]Several ships have nacelles / wing tips that hang outside of the slipstream tunnel
  [*]Suggest renaming "Saucer" with "Command Module" "Bridge Module" or simply "Head" inside of ship customisation screen.
  
  
  Tier 0:
  
  
  D12 / B'rel BoP: (Studio model reference) 1 2
  
  Canon Inconsistencies:
  This is one of the most iconic Klingon ships, full stop, yet it has an egregious lack of detail. This is not only sad, but absolutely shameful on Cryptic's part. As seen throughout the series and films, the classic Bird of Prey ranges from 51 metre scouts to 600+ metre cruisers and is the work horse of the Empire. This style should absolutely have its detail increased; the level of detail should, at the very least, match the Season 2 detail updates on the Galaxy, Intrepid, Comet, and Nomad. Not only should the texture and model be fixed and fixed well, there should be a classic Bird of Prey in every tier.

  • Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster.
  • Dorsal feather pattern should match the primary colour of the hull
  • Suggest a pattern be created that separates the feather patterns from the rest of the hull (colour / pattern wise) so they remain distinct.
  • Serious and shameful lack of detail on the warp engines.
  • Too many windows
  • Missing forward facing spotlights at the base of the wings

  
  
  
  Tier 1:
  
  
  [*]Quldun BoP:
  

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  This ship uses the Enterprise series warship design that, for all intents and purposes, is older than the D12 Bird of Prey seen in Star Trek II - IV (Retired because they were likely to be as dangerous to their own crew as their enemies). It seems unlikely that it would be superior to the D12 / B'rel styled Tier 0 Bird of Prey.

  
  [*]K'Tanco class battlecruiser:
  

  Multiple engine exhausts: 2 on the wings, and 4 on the main hull. The two on the wings do not leave contrails and the two in the centre of the hull are over-under but the exhaust contrails are side by side.

  
  [*]Somraw Class Raptor
  

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  Impulse exhausts should be Indigo / Violet

  
  
  
  Tier 2:
  
  
  [*]Norghi BoP:
  

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  This is an ENT series-based model, a design older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey mentioned previously, sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier 1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.

  
  [*]K't'inga Class:

  Model reference shots. 1 2
  
  Canon Inconsistencies:

  • Psi'a Meese points out some interesting on screen differences. Perhaps they should be integrated into ship costumes.
  • Forward torpedo tube texture is broken, rectangular, and should glow more
  • Aft section is entirely the wrong shape.
  • Impulse engines are the wrong shape and location: current STO (D7), Canon K't'inga.
  • Due to above, The aft torpedo tube is missing. Rear facing spotlights on fantail and bridge section missing.
  • Reactor buldge on the belly is missing (k't'inga feature, not present in D7)
  • Head is that of a D7: no bow flattening, bridge tower is level with bridge dome like a D7, should be taller.
  • The dome shaped neck bubble immediately behind the head where the officer's mess/lounge is located is missing.
  • Only two window rows in STO model, as per D7, Canon K't'inga has 4 on head, 2 on brim, 2 on head itself.
  • Ventral weapon pimple and beam bars float below the belly
  • Update K't'inga with Kronos One style model with actual raised armour plating
  • Struts need outer vent details, which should be maintained regardless of hull pattern.
  • Move fleet emblem from the top engineering hull to the struts forward these vents. Per the movie model.

  D7 Template

  • Impulse engine placement needs polish per remastered TOS, or removed entirely as the original TOS never displayed any at all.
  • Struts need outer exhaust vents.
  • Fleet Logo should be moved from the center portion of the engineering hull to the outer portion.
  • Add aft torpedo tube to mirror the one from the bow to make the in-game model more complete if the slot exists for it.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Tier 3:
  
  
  

  • Vor'cha Battlecruiser:
    
    
    Canon Inconsistencies:
    Huge side by side studio model / in game model comparison. (Note that in several places, multiple rows of windows have been replaced with a single row, making the ship appear much smaller.)

    • Missing logo on base of wings
    • Missing rack-style texture on the square (red) plasma vents on nacelles
    • Angle of logo on the top of wings is facing the wrong direction - it should be facing the same direction as the nacelles, not facing away from the nacelles
    • The shape of the wings are wrong - they are too straight at the back and curve at too shallow of an angle at the front - the wings should also place the nacelles far more lower compared to the hull

    
    Tor'Kaht costume issues:

    • Mission pod detached from hull
    • Window errors
    
    
  • Ki'Tang BoP:
    Canon Inconsistencies:
    This is an ENT series-based model (making it older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey seen in ST II - IV), sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier 1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.
    Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship used in the series in roles that, within the STO tier structure, would span nearly every tier?
    
    Tier 4/5:
    
    
    
  • Hegh'Ta BoP:
    
    This ship has several pairs of cannon hardpoints: Wing-tip cannons, mid-wing cannons, mid-line cannons and on the bow.
    
    Out of those 8 weapon hardpoints only the wing-tip cannons do anything.
    
    Using various weapons combos:

    • 3 DHCs and 1 torp forward: all 3 cannons fire from the wing-tips.
    • 2 DHCs, 1 torp and 1 DBB: Both cannons and the DBB fired from the wing-tips.
    • 2 DHCs, 1 torp and 1 DBA: Both cannons fire from the wing-tips. The beam array fires from various points, none of them cannon barrels.
    • When activating Cannon Rapid Fire, the mid-wing cannons receive activation FX but never fire.

    
    This affects all similarly designed Birds of Prey.
    
  • There are 4 engines but only the pods on struts up above the main hull leave trails
  • Windows on command module side extend into what looks like a door or an armour plate, with one window placed directly on the "seam"
  • Wing-mounted cannons still have torpedo launcher graphics attached to them. This has been partly dealt with by "hiding" the upper side of the swivels behind an additional model element, but the lower sides still have this issue. Additionally, this texture is also present on the cannons' barrels. Would it be possible to just exchange it with the alternative skin version of the launcher texture (i.e. yellow torpedo launcher = red cannon barrels; red torpedo launcher = yellow barrels)?
    
    
    Canon Inconsistencies:
    • This is an ENT series-based model (once again, older than the retired D12 Bird of Prey seen in ST II - IV), sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier1. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like the B'Rel / K'vort.
      Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship used in the series in roles that, within the STO tier structure, would span nearly every tier?
    • Starfleet style escape pods line the keel. Not exactly Klingon, and never seen in any of the series. (Error also exists on Haj BoP.) (Note circled clipping issues)
    
    
    
  • D12 / B'rel BoP: (Studio model reference) 1 2
    
  • missing phaser strip on starboard aft ventral wing. (There is a phaser strip on port aft ventral wing)
    
    Canon Inconsistencies:
    This is one of the most iconic Klingon ships, full stop, yet it has an egregious lack of detail. This is not only sad, but absolutely shameful on Cryptic's part. As seen throughout the series and films, the classic Bird of Prey ranges from 51 metre scouts to 600+ metre cruisers and is the work horse of the Empire. This style should absolutely have its detail increased; the level of detail should, at the very least, match the Season 2 detail updates on the Galaxy, Intrepid, Comet, and Nomad. Not only should the texture and model be fixed and fixed well, there should be a classic Bird of Prey in every tier.
    • Canon BOP has no wing engines. All engines should be housed in the central yellow / red cluster.
    • Dorsal feather pattern should match the primary colour of the hull
    • Suggest a pattern be created that separates the feather patterns from the rest of the hull (colour / pattern wise) so they remain distinct.
    • Serious and shameful lack of detail on the warp engines.
    • Too many windows
    • Missing forward facing spotlights at the base of the wings
    
    
  • Negh'Var Battlecruiser:
    Reference pictures:
    (Requests exist to use the DS9 model as it is the Prime time-line as opposed to the alternate "All good things" anti-time variant)

    • Side by side reference pics (Hi res) from the DS9 model.
    • Ventral and torpedo pod detail shots from DS9 model. ("Head" ventral pod removed for storage. Detail
    • DS9 / Endgame model shots from Christies: 1 2
    • Side by side reference pics from "All Good Things"
    • Ventral weapon nacelles from "Endgame" / DS9
    • Sternbach's concept art for anti-time future "All Good Things" with part identification
    • Oddly textured forward torpedo launcher on the variant when using type 2 hull material.
    
    Canon Inconsistencies:
    
    
  • Starfleet style escape pods line the keel. Not exactly Klingon, and never seen in any of the series.
  • Missing weapon nacelles on the keel
  • Hull is not "chunky" enough - the entire vessel should be a LOT taller overall, giving it a far greater height
  • Curve of the wings is wrong, it should be straighter on the front
  • Wings need to be about twice as thick
  • The vertical curve of the wing should be a little less steep
  • There are three indented squarish-sections missing on the front of the wings - The concept art lists them as impulse intakes
  • The bulge on the underneath of the head section should be thicker and more rounded
  • There is an additional box missing from the bulge on the underneath of the head
  • There is a fore-firing torpedo launcher at the front of each missing weapon nacelle (they look like giant BoP torpedo launchers) - the weapon mount point for the existing forward torpedo launcher should be moved, and should be replaced by one on each of the new weapon nacelles - the actual pike currently being used as the torpedo launcher is either the main disruptor or a docking probe
  • The triangular mission pod at the top-rear of the ship needs to be about twice is big

  
  
  

  • Vo'Quv
    • Scanning graphic comes from centre of model instead of any place sensible.

  
  

  • Orion Marauder
    • Windows clipping on port side (Starboard, for comparison)

  
  
  Romulan:
  
  
  D'Deridex Warbird: Christie's model shots

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  Massively underscaled. It is supposed to be (at least) one KILOMETER long, larger than even a Galaxy Class. (available data varies from 1.042km to 1.353km)

  
  
  Norexan / Mogai Escort: (John Eaves reference shots)

  Canon Inconsistencies:

  • It's name: It's most commonly known as the Valdore-Type, or the Norexan-Class (from the TCG. Mogai is fom the Titan novels released after the TCG and is less well known)
  • Possible Scaling issue. (not confirmed) - According to the film's ship scale sheet, it should be 604 metres in length
  • Weapon nacelles on the tip of the wings in game are to small and they are not used. Weapons fire in game comes from the tip of the warp nacelles.
  • The ventral support structure is all straight lines in game, not curved like its supposed to be.
  • The nose section in game is all wrong, not angular and sharp and indented, but roundish and the lower part is bulging outwards

  
  
  Romulan BoP:

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  Model used is that of the Romulan warship seen in Enterprise which may not fit all that well in STO. (Though the new OP quite likes it. )

  
  
  Jem'Hadar
  
  Battle Cruiser: (Memory Alpha Reference)

  Canon Inconsistencies:
  Aft Impulse engines missing.

  
  
  
  Miscellaneous:
  
  Doomsday Machine:

  Canon inconsistencies:
  STO model has much rougher design, as opposed to TOS (remastered).

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  I was going to throw this on the old thread, but saw this. Props to AngelSilouhette for carrying the torch.
  
  It's been mentioned that the Sovereign may be getting some love next. On a particularly slow day at work (today) I stumbled across this post on the Drex Files. Good reference stuff.
  
  http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/1701-e/#more-15798
  
  On a side note, this is the "First Contact" Enterprise. There were some minor changes for Nemesis. I personally like the First Contact version better.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Adding in some of the Capn's updates:
  

  CapnLogan wrote:

  I've completed my overhaul of the Defiant.
  
  -Saucer/Hull
  Now tapers upward on the lower front section
  Now has a recessed area where the forward dish array "head" nestles into nicely
  Additional detail has been cut in with geometry, and re-mapped to give more accurate and interesting look
  "Ladder" area the top/rear hull is now modeled to correctly reflect the design
  Central bridge area atop the hull is now modeled correctly
  The cylinders atop the hull are now properly recessed into the body of the hull and mapped properly
  Cut geo in around "stanchion" are where torps will fire from
  
  
  -Forward dish array "head"
  Completely re-modeled with all correct shapes and angles
  Lower portion now has the cool tubes and connection pieces modeled in\
  Added the extra little windows to this area too
  
  Some love has been given to other areas to give a more accurate and cool look, such as details on the nacelles etc. and correctly placed and modeled firing nodes.
  
  Here's the screenies of the updates:
  
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_001.jpg?t=1276640322
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_002.jpg?t=1276640321
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_003.jpg?t=1276640321
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/def_004.jpg?t=1276640322
  
  Hope you all enjoy!
  
  My next endeavor will most likely be the Sovereign since I've been hearing a lot of complaints about it (this is ANOTHER model that I didn't make but will be fixing LOL) and I've brought to my bosses attention that I've been hearing a lot of complaints about the TOS Constitution so maybe that'll happen soon too. I'll keep this thread informed on what fixes will be coming up next, but I can't make any promises about priority or timelines.

  
  
  And some shots of the new Long Range Science Vessels
  

  CapnLogan wrote:

  hope these links work:
  
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid2.jpg?t=1276193963
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid3.jpg?t=1276193963

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Valiant797 wrote: »

  I was going to throw this on the old thread, but saw this. Props to AngelSilouhette for carrying the torch.
  
  It's been mentioned that the Sovereign may be getting some love next. On a particularly slow day at work (today) I stumbled across this post on the Drex Files. Good reference stuff.
  
  http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/1701-e/#more-15798
  
  On a side note, this is the "First Contact" Enterprise. There were some minor changes for Nemesis. I personally like the First Contact version better.

  
  Excellent reference shots! I'll add these to the Sovereign section.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  T1 Miranda & T2 Constitution class.
  
  Phaser strips should be removed completely from the models and replaced with the proper phaser emitter/banks to fire from.
  Mainly because having phaser strips on ships originally designed with banks in mind just looks wierd and interrupts the flow of the hull design, and canonly the miranda and constitution always did have wide firing arcs.
  
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Majestic,_firing_phasers.jpg
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Alexraptor wrote: »

  T1 Miranda & T2 Constitution class.
  
  Phaser strips should be removed completely from the models and replaced with the proper phaser emitter/banks to fire from.
  Mainly because having phaser strips on ships originally designed with banks in mind just looks wierd and interrupts the flow of the hull design, and canonly the miranda and constitution always did have wide firing arcs.
  
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:USS_Majestic,_firing_phasers.jpg
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg

  
  Updated the appropriate sections and modified the overall look of the list.
  
  If it's too busy or hard to read, please do provide me feedback.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Went through the previous incarnation of the Starship Model errors and issues thread and updated the current version with issues listed after -Jes- discontinued updating.
  
  If I've missed anything please do let me know.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but I'll drop them in as I haven't seen them on the list.
  
  A couple of texturing issues with the Noble
  
  1. Saucer, Starboard side - The 3rd row of windows from the edge of the saucer are broken and incomplete. While the flickering from them isn't as noticeable as it is with other vessels, such as the error with the Dervish saucer, there are numerous instances of window flicker across all tiers.
  
  Noble Saucer Windows
  
  2. Saucer, Starboard side - Staying on this side and moving to the front, there is a visible texture error with the ship name and registry number. The raised section on which it's applied causes it to partly snap off. It looks fine on the port side though.
  
  Noble Registry - Name
  
  Prometheus Pylons
  
  The pylons look more or less spot on if you look at them from above or below, however, side on they look somewhat poor with how they attach to the hull, so a bit of smoothing and tweaking in that area mightn't hurt.
  
  Prometheus, Starboard
  
  Prometheus, Port

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  When Cerberus (upper) nacelles are used with Hephaestus or Prometheus (upper) pylons, there is a visible gap at some angles. The pylons simply need to be moved down a little bit so that they connect with the pylons better.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Ultrawave wrote: »

  Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but I'll drop them in as I haven't seen them on the list.
  
  A couple of texturing issues with the Noble
  
  1. Saucer, Starboard side - The 3rd row of windows from the edge of the saucer are broken and incomplete. While the flickering from them isn't as noticeable as it is with other vessels, such as the error with the Dervish saucer, there are numerous instances of window flicker across all tiers.
  
  Noble Saucer Windows
  
  2. Saucer, Starboard side - Staying on this side and moving to the front, there is a visible texture error with the ship name and registry number. The raised section on which it's applied causes it to partly snap off. It looks fine on the port side though.
  
  Noble Registry - Name
  
  Prometheus Pylons
  
  The pylons look more or less spot on if you look at them from above or below, however, side on they look somewhat poor with how they attach to the hull, so a bit of smoothing and tweaking in that area mightn't hurt.
  
  Prometheus, Starboard
  
  Prometheus, Port

  hurleybird wrote: »

  When Cerberus (upper) nacelles are used with Hephaestus or Prometheus (upper) pylons, there is a visible gap at some angles. The pylons simply need to be moved down a little bit so that they connect with the pylons better.

  
  Added to the list.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  I am not sure if it is a real problem, but when selecting the "Orion" pattern the complete part of the hull gets slightly colored with the first selected color. For example if you select yellow and choose Orion for the saucer, the saucers hull looks slightly yellowish. If you select blue, it would have a blue touch.
  Because of that it is somewhat difficult to mix Orion with another pattern, since the hull colors simply don't match.
  
  
  You can see what I mean on this shot:
  http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1ppw-lsi3uglAE06thXAqBjw8yslGblRhccuCwbeJ4PPuDcEmlWmp2wc7zqvv5ozVIZa2qcSJbMUVjWp_F48KQ-A/USS%20Simarillion%201.jpg?psid=1
  The hull section uses Orion pattern and looks clearly blueish compared to the saucer section.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Hi i posted a ist on the old version, i've updated my reply to include screen shot but i will include it here too.
  
  The TOS beam as well as being fat, can fire at certian angles through the hull and due to its oversie the if you look down on the saucer while the beam fires from under it will seem of the beam, and vice versa if u looking up from underneath.
  
  the Nimbus lights up quite nicely using dual plasma beams, if i tried different weapons maybe it would give a multi colour affect / using single beams fom the aft slot has no affect on the ship.
  
  *not tested yet fore single beams or other types of dual beams.
  
  the version of the Niumbus i use is a mix of different parts, i will add them later, but now the screen shots.
  
  first 3 in this folder show the ToS beam, ln one im looking down on the ship while it fires at a target below, giving a red circle on my saucer section. the other 4 show how the Nimbus lights up.
  
  Screen shots

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  One thing I've noticed on the Hephaestus model is the the pylons are neither straight or consistently curved.
  
  They look like a wave when viewed from behind.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  HMS_Indomitable wrote:

  Hi i posted a ist on the old version, i've updated my reply to include screen shot but i will include it here too.
  
  The TOS beam as well as being fat, can fire at certian angles through the hull and due to its oversie the if you look down on the saucer while the beam fires from under it will seem of the beam, and vice versa if u looking up from underneath.
  
  the Nimbus lights up quite nicely using dual plasma beams, if i tried different weapons maybe it would give a multi colour affect / using single beams fom the aft slot has no affect on the ship.
  
  *not tested yet fore single beams or other types of dual beams.
  
  the version of the Niumbus i use is a mix of different parts, i will add them later, but now the screen shots.
  
  first 3 in this folder show the ToS beam, ln one im looking down on the ship while it fires at a target below, giving a red circle on my saucer section. the other 4 show how the Nimbus lights up.
  
  Screen shots

  
  Most of those screenshots don't really give any evidence of model or texture errors.
  
  In the case of the TOS Enterprise, why use anything but its phaser banks?
  
  In the case of the Nimbus firing beams that seem to change shape shortly after firing, that is not a starship model error.
  
  

  DKeith2011 wrote:

  One thing I've noticed on the Hephaestus model is the the pylons are neither straight or consistently curved.
  
  They look like a wave when viewed from behind.

  
  If you can, host a picture of that on tinypic or imgur for us.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Great thread, this and the original. Glad to see so many errors in one place.
  
  I will say, however, that Miranda class ships are generally modular, and it's not inconceivable that they would have minor variations from canon (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Miranda_class#Design_variants). We are 30 years ahead of the latest canon version of the Miranda, so they would probably get upgrades of some sort.
  
  Same basic idea applies to some of the other canon items listed. A lot of them involve windows... ships can have different window types, do these errors apply to all window types, or just the ones used on screen? (I mean: most ships on screen have rectangular thing windows, but we can choose to put round ones on our ships. Are the round window placements also incorrect?)
  
  Speaking of windows, maybe the in game Nova class just has the lights turned off?
  
  Also, the "canon" inconsistencies between steamrunner and zephyr don't really apply, in my opinion. Although the Zephyr is an updated steamrunner, it's still a different class.
  
  Anyways, sorry to nitpick a little, I'm just curious about these things. Great thread, I approve!

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Felderburg wrote: »

  Great thread, this and the original. Glad to see so many errors in one place.
  
  I will say, however, that Miranda class ships are generally modular, and it's not inconceivable that they would have minor variations from canon (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Miranda_class#Design_variants). We are 30 years ahead of the latest canon version of the Miranda, so they would probably get upgrades of some sort.
  
  Same basic idea applies to some of the other canon items listed. A lot of them involve windows... ships can have different window types, do these errors apply to all window types, or just the ones used on screen? (I mean: most ships on screen have rectangular thing windows, but we can choose to put round ones on our ships. Are the round window placements also incorrect?)
  
  Speaking of windows, maybe the in game Nova class just has the lights turned off?
  
  Also, the "canon" inconsistencies between steamrunner and zephyr don't really apply, in my opinion. Although the Zephyr is an updated steamrunner, it's still a different class.
  
  Anyways, sorry to nitpick a little, I'm just curious about these things. Great thread, I approve!

  
  Appreciated, but I must refer you to the first post:
  

  -Jes- wrote:

  Ok, I'm hoping to make a catalogue here of known STARSHIP MODEL issues. This means anything from phasers shooting out from nowhere, to clipping textures, visual glitches and Canon inconsistencies.
  
  PLEASE, post ONLY if you have any NEW info on issues or inconsistencies any ship might have, as posting info already found here will only hamper my efforts to update this thread.
  
  If you are only here to flame or whine or otherwise argue semantics, PLEASE GTFO NOW!

  
  If you want to argue that you think the ships look better flawed or that detail can be ignored and sloppiness and lazy modelling accepted and excused for a difference in the time frame then here is not the place for it. Take it to another thread and point out how wrong our list of contributors are in wanting fixes.
  
  Don't forget to read back into the previous version of this thread and see where CapnLogan, the ship dev, agrees with everyone listed in the credits of the Klingon error post and calls the work of his predecessors sloppy and poor (to paraphrase).

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Sorry, I was just curious. I really only skimmed both posts, since they were fairly long. Like I said, I approve of the list!

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Felderburg wrote: »

  Sorry, I was just curious. I really only skimmed both posts, since they were fairly long. Like I said, I approve of the list!

  
  
  Appreciated and understood. No hard feelings.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  I like the Long Range Science Vessel changes but the Impulse engines look wrong on the Intrepid model.
  
  Compare:
  http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070309074855/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9b/USS_Voyager_docked_at_DS9.jpg
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Omega_X wrote:

  I like the Long Range Science Vessel changes but the Impulse engines look wrong on the Intrepid model.
  
  Compare:
  http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070309074855/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9b/USS_Voyager_docked_at_DS9.jpg
  http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z105/williafx/intrepid1.jpg?t=1276193963

  
  Added as: Impulse engines should be taller, same colour as the hull, and have 4 slots instead of 3. Shuttle runway markings missing from fantail.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  I noticed an odd glitch... could be my graphics settings, but it doesn't seem to happen on other ships.
  
  One of the Star Cruiser nacelle sets, when viewed from far away, glitches like crazy. The nacelles seem to flip, and become red where they should be blue. Images of far and near: http://img62.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=screenshot2010062021482.jpg

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Felderburg wrote: »

  I noticed an odd glitch... could be my graphics settings, but it doesn't seem to happen on other ships.
  
  One of the Star Cruiser nacelle sets, when viewed from far away, glitches like crazy. The nacelles seem to flip, and become red where they should be blue. Images of far and near: http://img62.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=screenshot2010062021482.jpg

  
  I've never seen that one happen to my Star Cruiser. Cropped and hosted here, let us know what video card you have and a general summary of your graphic settings and I'll add it to the main post.
  
  That looks like Nomad saucer nacelles and pylons with an Emissary hull. Not so sure of the pylons, though, which are they?

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  did you catch this one?
  
  http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=161966

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  AngelSilhouette wrote: »

  I've never seen that one happen to my Star Cruiser. Cropped and hosted here, let us know what video card you have and a general summary of your graphic settings and I'll add it to the main post.
  
  That looks like Nomad saucer nacelles and pylons with an Emissary hull. Not so sure of the pylons, though, which are they?

  
  ATI Radeon 3200 HD
  
  I just have the regular graphics settings bar open, it's at the "recommended" level (one less than maximum). I can glance around the advanced settings if you want.
  
  By the way, this was not my star cruiser, it was another player's, so I don't know anything at all about the parts, sorry

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Felderburg wrote: »

  ATI Radeon 3200 HD
  
  I just have the regular graphics settings bar open, it's at the "recommended" level (one less than maximum). I can glance around the advanced settings if you want.
  
  By the way, this was not my star cruiser, it was another player's, so I don't know anything at all about the parts, sorry

  wfs5519 wrote: »

  did you catch this one?
  
  http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=161966

  
  Added to the appropriate sections.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  Added pics of the upcoming Nomad fixes, including the new shuttle bay. (External)

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  wow the sovereign is a total mess, especially when you look at the comparison pics from the front, back, and sides ... the deflector is way too big (well i think it is the right size, just big compared to the undersized body) ..., the body/hull is too narrow, the saucer is shaped too thick around the edge, the nacelle pylons are too curved, the torpedo module under the hull is too small, the nacelles are totally blocked by the saucer, and so many other points that are messy.. the saucer seems too flat under the bridge module too.. just a mess lol
  
  "[*]Overall geometry of the ship is incorrect. Here are some side by side comparison pics: 1 2 3 4"

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  wfs5519 wrote: »

  wow the sovereign is a total mess, especially when you look at the comparison pics from the front, back, and sides ... the deflector is way too big (well i think it is the right size, just big compared to the undersized body) ..., the body/hull is too narrow, the saucer is shaped too thick around the edge, the nacelle pylons are too curved, the torpedo module under the hull is too small, the nacelles are totally blocked by the saucer, and so many other points that are messy.. the saucer seems too flat under the bridge module too.. just a mess lol
  
  "[*]Overall geometry of the ship is incorrect. Here are some side by side comparison pics: 1 2 3 4"

  
  It is a total mess, I dont know why the devs are so busy fixing the Nomad and Comet when we have this...Sovereign monstrosity flying around...its terrible! I hope they do this ship justice..cause it really needs a ton of work.

  0
• Options

  Archived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User

  June 2010 edited June 2010

  they are planning on fixing it next. they probly saved the worst one for last simply because of that reason... i would. I noticed the akira is a mess too.

  0