PDA

View Full Version : Starship Models: errors and issues!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 02:42 AM
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!


Federation:

*ship part registries are glitchy, can replace NCC number with 987098709870:
(Post 24th March, this seems to affect ALL ships at random during customization)

Tier 1

Light Cruiser:
*Centaur has windows and escape pods on Impulse Engines - Makes no sense

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Miranda saucer front has two window lines, not one, Rearward windowing also improper


Tier 2

Escort:
*Saber Nacelles attach at different points, making them lopsided (http://i.imgur.com/hUEOE.jpg)
*Ushann hull and Saber Saucer clip at front (http://i.imgur.com/MTspu.jpg)
*Various (http://i.imgur.com/zc5Tb.jpg) Trail (http://i.imgur.com/ABjXt.jpg) Errors (http://i.imgur.com/d8gmB.jpg)

Science Vessel:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*Deflector is incorrectly textured
*Indented Windows on Saucer missing (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66846013@N00/4471170787/), but their indents aren't (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66846013@N00/4471170869/)

Cruiser:
*Excalibur, Vesper lacks proper Shuttle Bay
*Torpedoes do not launch from Torp Bay in the Neck (unconfirmed)
*Vesper windowing between Hull/Neck joint clipping (http://i.imgur.com/Mwd9L.jpg)

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Saucer has two window lines on side, not one. Missing recreation deck (http://tinyurl.com/y25z6t2) on right back of saucer rim as well.
*Arboretum windows (http://tinyurl.com/yyrk99c) on sides of second hull missing
*Saucer should not have windows on main area of upper Saucer (http://tinyurl.com/y7tswge), underside Windows are wrong (http://tinyurl.com/y3xxc2t)
*Strongback paint missing on all materials: 1 (http://tinyurl.com/y5dp2yg) 2 (http://tinyurl.com/y34jx5v)
*Missing VIP lounge (http://tinyurl.com/y5poq3b) on back of upper Saucer
*Shuttle Bay Doors are dome shaped (http://tinyurl.com/y2gxxuu) like TOS (http://tinyurl.com/yylbsls), not cone shaped like TMP Canon (http://tinyurl.com/y6wbeyu). Red upper lights missing.
*Outer nacelle grills are supposed to be unlit (http://tinyurl.com/yyz8xob)


Tier 3

Heavy Escort:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*Unnecessary vertical pylons on rear hull (block between nacelles) (1)
*Rear hull supposed to house Deflector (2)
*Nacelles not integrated into Saucer (3)
*Gap on Saucer front too wide (4)
*Saucer front too spherical. (http://tinyurl.com/y7w56ue)

Research Science Vessel:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*Radically different model (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66846013@N00/4471950140/)
-Olympic doesn't have a Deflector in middle of Saucer

Heavy Cruiser:
*Third Cheyenne Impulse leaves no trail


Tier 4

Tactical Escort:
*No Cannon/Turret/Dual Beam points
*No Torp Launchers
*No Phaser strips

Canon Inconsistencies:
*No light showing ship's Name (This only appears a few times in DS9. Could be Optional?)
*Main Deflector front not angled downwards enough
*Rear Nacelles glow not glowy enough (Material Type2a also much deeper blue)

LR Science Vessel:
*Discovery, Cochrane Saucers (nearly) blocking forward torp launchers (http://tinyurl.com/yyqrop7)

Canon Inconsistencies:
*The STO model depicts Canon Aft Torp Launchers as Impulse Engines
*The Canon Impulse Engines are Blue, not Red per Canon, and leave no trail
*New Aft Torps underneath Shuttle doors are New!
*Saucer (Secondary) Deflector Dish isn't supposed to be lit up
*Nacelles do not move up when preparing for Warp
*Saucer upper deck, aft hull tip windowing incorrect (http://forums.startrekonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3580&d=1266693097)

Exploration Cruiser:
*Various texture issues, canonical stuff, etc (http://tinyurl.com/y5vxg82)
*EXCESSIVE size difference between models

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Saucer too thick around the edge
*The strip that comes down the center of the rear hull is about twice as tall as it should be (http://tinyurl.com/y3ldpxw)
*Nacelle pylons should not attach underneath hull tail, should blend smoothly into it (http://tinyurl.com/y6o6tzb)
*Escape pods are arranged in a single ring around the outside of Saucer, opposed to Canon
*Neck Impulse Engine should be further down and shaped like an oblong box
*None of the materials mimick the look of Canon Galaxy


Tier 5

Advanced Escort:
*Dual Cannons/Beams on top Nacelle tips?!
*Prometheus Lower Nacelles do not glow during Warp Out sequence (Possibly also on other models)
*Prometheus and Phoenix don't have windows on lower Hull
*Cerberus lower Hull windows don't change with Window selection. They are always Type 1
*When pressing Cerberus preset in Ship Customization, lower Hull is set to Prometheus
*UV map for the saucer section of the Prometheus produces "wavy" lines with texture's panels

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Area near main Deflector where Hull joins to Saucer is very strangely shaped. Should look more like Sovereign's/General Model inconsistency to Canon (http://forums.startrekonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3696&d=1271065582)

Fleet Escort:
*Dervish Saucer: Flickering lights on underside. (http://tinyurl.com/y6cznlu)

Recon Science Vessel:
*No blinking lights opposed to other ships
*Polaris Nacelle Buzzards have different 'backlight' texturing (http://i.imgur.com/wdP6A.jpg)

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Escape pods are in wrong place (http://tinyurl.com/y5pm6so), shouldn't be a ring around bottom of saucer
*Large windows (Arboretum-like as Constitution) (http://www.stogeek.com/w/images/c/cd/Luna_class_starship.jpg) are missing on Hull
*Lots of Canonical errors (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9512/errorslunajpeg.jpg), Extensive windowing inconsistencies, missing lower pods, etc (http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3802/lunamoreerrors2.jpg)


Deep Space Science Vessel:
*No window selection
*Destiny Mission Pod shares texture with Deflector, looks bad with Material 2. (http://i.imgur.com/tAxFV.jpg)

Assault Cruiser:
*Imperial: NecroWulf drops it like it's hot (http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7867/imperialerrorsv1jpeg.jpg)
*Imperial parts lock Windows to 1.

Canon Inconsistencies:
*Missing Phaser strips on nacelles
*Deflector not yellow
*No red stripes/decals along hull
*Saucer edges too thick (http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz264/furtiveblog/Image1.jpg)
*Missing lights on Neck and Saucer
*Engine Blocks too large, Engine Texturing could be different (http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz264/furtiveblog/Image2.jpg)
*Saucer should be Smoother
*Pylons should be straightened out (http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/5342/sovf.jpg)


Star Cruiser:
*Avenger pylons are Asymmetrical, making Nacelles lopsided (http://i.imgur.com/KjEbf.jpg)
*Hull/Saucer joints are jaggy (http://i.imgur.com/5aLse.jpg)
*Saucer Impulses leave no trail (http://i.imgur.com/afCav.jpg)
*Avenger Saucer(Hull): Ship number/registry twisting (http://i.imgur.com/9nBYt.jpg) and obscured by parts (http://i.imgur.com/133M4.jpg)
*Avenger Saucer+Other Hull: Pods are obscured (http://i.imgur.com/TJL3Q.jpg)

Issues and Errors List continues two posts down!

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 02:46 AM
Star cruiser:

The forward swept pylons of the Vanguard class are not symmetrical. One sticks further forward than the other, making the nacelles lob-sided.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 02:48 AM
OP CONTINUES HERE!!!


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.
*Basic Hull color is a different green than Canon. Perhaps make it a material choice?
*Where Is the K'Vort?


Tier 2:

Quldun BoP:
Quldun BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This ship uses the Enterprise series warship design that, for all intents and purposes, looks like an older B'Rel design. It seems highly unlikely that it would be superior to a ship about 100 years newer.


Tier 3:

Norghi BoP:
Norghi BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This is an ENT series-based model, sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier2. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like like it's actual predecessor, the B'Rel.

K'Tinga Cruiser:
K'Tinga Canon Inconsistencies:
*IT IS NOT A K'TINGA - It's a D7: (http://i48.tinypic.com/29z7j2e.jpg) (Thank you Tain for the excellent image)
-Aft section is entirely the wrong shape.
-Impulse engines are the wrong shape and location: current STO (D7) (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b1/D7_aft%2C_remastered.jpg), Canon K'Tinga (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/6/69/USS_Excelsior_and_Kang%27s_cruiser_faceoff.jpg).
-Due to above, The Aft Torp Launcher is missing.
-Reactor buldge on the belly is missing (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/0/03/K%27t%27inga_class_studio_model.jpg) (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'Tinga has 4 on head, 2 on brim, 2 on head itself.


Tier 4:

Ki'Tang BoP:
Ki'Tang BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This is an ENT series-based model, sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier2. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like like it's predecessor, the B'Rel.
*Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship?

Tier 5:

Hegh'Ta BoP:
Hegh'Ta BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This is an ENT series-based model, sharing much of the design philosophy of the Tier2. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like like it's actual predecessor, the B'Rel.
*Why is this ship not the K'Vort, a well known heavy attack ship?


Romulan:

Romulan BoP:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*Model used is that of the Romulan warship seen in Enterprise. It doesn't fit all that well in STO.

Mogai Escort:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*It's name: It's most commonly known as the Valdore-Type, or the Norexan-Class
*Possible Scaling issue. (not confirmed)

D'Deridex Warbird:
Canon Inconsistencies:
*Possibly 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)


Miscellaneoust:
Doomsday Machine:
Canon inconsistencies:
*STO model has much rougher design, as opposed to TOS (remastered). (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/-Jes-/doomsdays.jpg)


Thanks to the following people for contributing (heavily) to this list:
Klaitu
Forgotten-Nemesis
Cruis.In
BlackWyvern
Alexraptor
Tutalchamen
RoydEris
Tain
dirtyklingon
LIFEFORM
AlphaOmega35
SuperDuper22bw
Maschinengeist
WarpVis
Brynthe
Callasan
NecroWulf
Seether
Valiant797
desseb
Vallinor
vampiric_hoshi
krako
Klystron
Genex
Morbius1
stevens_uk
AngelSilhouette

And finally, a TON of thanks to Cryptic Team Members mtattersall, lightning_strike and CapnLogan!

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 02:50 AM
THANK YOU Forgotten-Nemesis, for adding to the thread. :)

It really pi$$ed me off too because the forward swept design is the only one I like.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 03:28 AM
the defiant nose is wrong and not angled down enough. it also has no light on the saucer area showing the number and name like the other ships in game do and like it should rightly have.

the nacele aft area do not glow the correct blue. or have no 'light' aspect at all. model is overall poorly lit.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 03:50 AM
the defiant nose is wrong and not angled down enough. it also has no light on the saucer area showing the number and name like the other ships in game do and like it should rightly have.

the nacele aft area do not glow the correct blue. or have no 'light' aspect at all. model is overall poorly lit.



The Defiant never had a light showing the ship name. And the ships registry number was in small print on the front end of the nose if I recall correctly from DS9. And i don't think the nose is as angled down as people seem to want to remember (though I haven't seen any in game yet).

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/68/DefiantDS9.jpg

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 03:55 AM
you know after playing with the defiant - it looks correct to me, but I still prefer the Vigilant (without the pylons), as it just looks sexier.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 03:57 AM
Kinda more like a new aged defiant, Yeah I get what you mean I just used the defiant pylons on the vigilant.

Also gotta admit Love seeing the Flash photo

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 04:06 AM
The Defiant never had a light showing the ship name.Ohhhh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AkhpKfnFU

Excuse the poor quality and sh#¤% music, but it was the only vid I could find at such short notice.
Now it is true that they barely turn the light on in the series, but make no mistake: It DOES have a light.

In fact, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRrJqMFEJhM

The Defiant V The Lakota. The Lakota doesn't have it's name-showing lights on, either, and everyone knows the Excelsior Class DOES have such lights. It's apparently just a standard to turn such lights OFF during combat!

However, that standard is VISIBLY ignored in STO by many other ships, so I don't see why the Defiant shouldn't.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 06:21 AM
Kinda more like a new aged defiant, Yeah I get what you mean I just used the defiant pylons on the vigilant.

Also gotta admit Love seeing the Flash photo

Same here :)

Don't even know why they put those pylons on - looks horrid!

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 07:11 AM
I don't like shooting phasers from my dorsal nacelles on the Prometheus. It may be a convenient spot to put the emitters for the model, but, to the best of my knowledge, weapons are not mounted on nacelles for a reason:

Target Weapons = Target Weapons, Warp, Power, and in all likelihood shields as well, if you manage to damage the warp core badly enough with feedback.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 07:33 AM
I think you can allow the developers some artistic license here because It is 30 years in the future. How do you feel about Federation ships using disruptors? Personally it irritates me so much I wont use them even if they are higher stats than phaser weapons.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 07:44 AM
There are many problems here that are obvious mistakes, and do not conform to artistic license.
Such as the Intrepid aft torpedo launcher to engine conversion, which does not even resemble any at all like engines compared to anything else in the game.

Anyway for the list of issues:

T2 Nova:
That second impulse engine is in reality the aft torpedo launchers.

T4 Defiant:
Strange vertical portrusions on the "shoulders" of the ship between the nacelle's and the nose which should not be there. In fact the actual defiant has a small "gap" there, not a portrusion.

T4 Galxy: Completely off, the model should be redone from scratch, almost every single dimension imaginable is off.

T5 Sovereign: Very very very polygonal, and the saucer section is far too thick around the edge.

Also attached a clear comparison image of the intrepid launcher/engine mistake.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 07:54 AM
Ohhhh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AkhpKfnFU

Excuse the poor quality and sh#¤% music, but it was the only vid I could find at such short notice.
Now it is true that they barely turn the light on in the series, but make no mistake: It DOES have a light.

In fact, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRrJqMFEJhM

The Defiant V The Lakota. The Lakota doesn't have it's name-showing lights on, either, and everyone knows the Excelsior Class DOES have such lights. It's apparently just a standard to turn such lights OFF during combat!

However, that standard is VISIBLY ignored in STO by many other ships, so I don't see why the Defiant shouldn't.

Or, the more likely explanation. It was removed at some point during the Defiant's service in SF.

But the real wold explanation if I remember right, is that the light was removed or not turned back on after the initial shots were done because with the maneuvers we saw the ship doing in later episodes the FX guys felt that the light, stuck out too much and it was an eye distraction.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 08:35 AM
Tier 2 Escort

Sabers warp nacelles attach at different points, one's further forward than the other. :confused:

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 09:01 AM
Tier 2 science

Nova both main and secondary deflector dish is just blue....something.... but actual dish (that orange thing) is missing in all material variants.
I saw it on other ships but why they dicided to not include it at nova class puzzles me.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 06:46 PM
bump fix these issues.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 07:39 PM
Its worth noting that the windows on the T1 fed ships are all wrong, too. The Miranda in game has a single row of windows around the saucer (it should be two) and only two rows of windows on the aft section (it should be 5) resulting in the ship looking WAY smaller than it really is.

In game Miranda windows (http://i50.tinypic.com/14xym2g.jpg)
"Real" Miranda Windows (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/b/ba/USS_Brattain.jpg/800px-USS_Brattain.jpg)

I think the Connie refit suffers from the saucer window issue, too.

The K't'inga also suffers this, having two rows of windows in its head section when it should actually have 4. (2 in the "hat brim" and 2 in the head)

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 08:06 PM
the inconsistencies don't really bother me too much, but wtf are the blue strips on teh underside of the connie refit's saucer?

not to mention the red knobs on teh front end of teh saucer.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 10:48 PM
The Olympic class as well is really very different from canon. Here's it in-game:
http://stowiki.org/w/images/thumb/b/bc/Olympic_Side.jpg/800px-Olympic_Side.jpg

and canon:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Pasteur.jpg
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Pasteur,_Earth_orbit.jpg

You can see that other than the basic shape it's completely different. Not that I don't like it. Other than wishing the lower portion of the secondary hull flowed better with the rest of it I like this new version, but at least give it another name or call it an Olympic Refit.

Archived Post
02-12-2010, 11:41 PM
there. In fact the actual defiant has a small "gap" there, not a portrusion.

T4 Galxy: Completely off, the model should be redone from scratch, almost every single dimension imaginable is off.

T5 Sovereign: Very very very polygonal, and the saucer section is far too thick around the edge.


I completely forgot about that. How foolish of me.

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 12:06 AM
The Tier-1 Centaur model has windows on the engines; there's no way that can look into anything other than the exhaust ducting or impulse reactors. There are also phasers blasts coming from nowhere, between the impulse engines.

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 02:25 AM
OP has been updated.

Thank you all for contributing. :)

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 03:32 AM
Nova. The forward torpedoes are suppose to be on the tip of the nose on either side of the sensor array. There are notches there already for them on Cryptic's model. But they stuck the torpedoes down below the primary hull and above the deflector dish where the Intrepid has them.

Horizon shoots its torpedoes down.

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 04:15 AM
i dont care about how many rows of windows on this ship or that, but i thought this might be a good place to complain about the heavy cruiser i got the other day. its ugly. i dont want it. the engines look winmpy and i dont want a stargazer. let me keep the enterprise like ship, but with more crew slots and the the other sufff. i dont want that ugly hunk of ****. or give me some options to make it look a little less gay. thanks.

seriously. i hate the way the heavy cruiser looks.

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 04:31 AM
I made a mistake before. The Vanguard pylons are fine. Its the Avenger pylons that are lob-sided.

Archived Post
02-13-2010, 07:57 AM
Nova. The forward torpedoes are suppose to be on the tip of the nose on either side of the sensor array. There are notches there already for them on Cryptic's model. But they stuck the torpedoes down below the primary hull and above the deflector dish where the Intrepid has them.

Horizon shoots its torpedoes down.Noted. Post edited.

Horizon is then confirmed.

I made a mistake before. The Vanguard pylons are fine. Its the Avenger pylons that are lob-sided.Post edited.

Archived Post
02-14-2010, 04:15 AM
For details/references on the Galaxy:

The strip that comes down the center of the rear hull is about twice as tall as it should be; also, the rear torpedo launcher is missing in STO.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5f/USS_Enterprise-D%2C_aft_torpedo_launcher_and_impulse_drive.jpg

The nacelle pylons attach underneath the tail, whereas they should blend smoothly into the tail.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-6.jpg

The saucer is WAY too thick at the edge; it's supposed to come to more of a point.
The saucer's profile from the side is not supposed to be symmetrical from top to bottom; the 'bulge' underneath the saucer is suppoed to be smaller underneath than on top.
The 'neck' actually extends up further than the saucer in STO; it's almost as though the saucer needs to be lifted up to be aligned properly.
The escape pods are NOT supposed to be arranged in a single ring around the outside of the saucer.
The saucer's upper and lower phaser strips are NOT supposed to go all the way around; the upper strip is supposed to be interrupted by Shuttle Bay 1, and the lower strip is supposed to be interrupted by the 'neck'; these five points can be seen in the pics referenced below:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/e/e7/Galaxy_class_aft.jpg
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-4.jpg
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-3.jpg

The torpedo launcher in the neck is completely missing; torps seem to launch from beside the deflector dish in the STO model.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/6/6f/Galaxy_class_torpedo_launcher.jpg

Then there's the simple fact that the texturing is WAY off. All in all, there's so much that needs to be changed, it might be better to just start over in regards to the Galaxy class.

I realize I'm being picky, but this thread is all about the details.

Edit: The Centaur model has escape pods on the tops of the two impulse engines...not really sure how an escape pod would fit in there, lol.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 07:03 AM
Maschinengeist: Thank you, especially for all the detailed links.

OP edited.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 07:26 AM
Incorrect lower hull on the Constitution refit. Shuttle bay doors are the dome shaped doors from the TOS Constitution, and should be more cone shaped as shown on the refit vessels from the movies.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 01:08 PM
Incorrect lower hull on the Constitution refit. Shuttle bay doors are the dome shaped doors from the TOS Constitution, and should be more cone shaped as shown on the refit vessels from the movies.

Really? Could you post some pictures of it? :)

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 01:13 PM
Really? Could you post some pictures of it? :)
Refit as it appears in STO
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14270158/star-trek-online/images/star-trek-online-20091119011835371.html

TOS Enterprise
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/3/37/Galileo_approaches_USS_Enterprise_from_Vulcan.jpg

TMP Enterprise
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/0/0f/Star_Trek_V_Official_Movie_Magazine_cover.jpg

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 01:19 PM
Nice!

Thank you, OP edited with links.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 01:32 PM
For the Luna Class:
1. Escape pods are in the wrong place (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/6/6e/Titan4_l.jpg), they shouldn't just be a ring around the bottom of the saucer.
2. The shuttle bay on the Luna is missing its doors (http://images.wikia.com/startrek/images/d/dc/Luna_class_starship_specs.jpg).

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 01:38 PM
Thank You Brynthe, updating OP.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 03:20 PM
I will add more on the K't'inga, the T3 Klingon battlecruiser.


1. Its not really a K't'inga. Its a reskinned D7 model. how can you tell:
2. Aft section is entirely the wrong shape.
3. Impulse engines are the wrong shape and location, in game they are a single bar across the rear of the ship, and because of this..
4. The aft torpedo bay is missing entirely. The rear engines should be divided into two triangular shaped engines with a large torpedo bay in the middle. Instead, we get the D7 engine arrangement with no aft bay.
5. Reactor buldge on the belly is miissing (k't'inga feature, not present in D7)
6. Head is the wrong shape, is that of a D7 (no bow flattening, bridge tower is level with bridge dome like in a D7 but should be taller in a K't'inga)
7.An entire section of the forward hull is missing, the dome shaped neck bubble immediately behind the head where the officer's mess/lounge is located. (this is where Gorkon was assassinated in ST:VI)
8. As mentioned, window rows are entirely wrong and are more on par with D7. It only has two in game, it should have 4 in the head. 2 in the brim and 2 on the head itself.

I have prepared this image (http://i48.tinypic.com/29z7j2e.jpg) as a quick visual guide to the most glaring issues with the model. I know the klingon ships get no love from people at large, but I know the Feds would be rather dissapointed if their refit connie had so many fundamental shape issues.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 06:05 PM
Also noticed that the pod on the sovereign saucer section that is supposed to be the quantum torpedo launcher and captain's yatch is completely missing!
Theres also a very wierd curve to the nacelle pylons, which should be at a straight angle.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 06:14 PM
Add one for the T3 Escort...one of the optional bridges is WAY too large on interior volume. I've forgotten the name, but if it actually fit in a Defiant class, it's easily take up a good 30-50% of the hull space.

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 07:16 PM
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.

This is not a thread about whether or not one thing needs fixing more than another, or anything else like that. It is simply to be a list of 'known errors and issues' that can be compiled and shown to Cryptic.

PLEASE post and describe any known 'visual' issues you know of with a certain ship (provide image link if possible), and I'll add it to the list!


Federation:


Tier 1

Light Cruiser:
*Miranda saucer front should have two window lines, not one. Also, rearward windowing is inconsistent to Canon.
*Centaur has windows and escape pods on the Impulse Engines. What, are we living INSIDE the engines now?


Tier 2

Escort:
*Sabers warp nacelles attach at different points, one's further forward than the other.

Science Vessel:
*Dual Cannons/Beams on Nacelle tips? Bad!

Nova Canon Inconsistencies:
*Nova doesn't have a second, lower Impulse Engine.
*The deflector dish is incorrectly textured.
*The Fore Torp Launchers are not positioned to the sides of the secondary deflector dish, as is canon.

Cruiser:
Constitution Refit Canon Inconsistencies:
*Saucer has two window lines on the side, not the current one.
*Shuttle Bay Doors are dome shaped (http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14270158/star-trek-online/images/star-trek-online-20091119011835371.html) like TOS (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/3/37/Galileo_approaches_USS_Enterprise_from_Vulcan.jpg) , not cone shaped like TMP (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/0/0f/Star_Trek_V_Official_Movie_Magazine_cover.jpg) as would be proper.


Tier 3

Heavy Escort:
Steamrunner Canon Inconsistencies:
*Nacelles are not integrated into the saucer.

Research Science Vessel:
*Hope, Horizon Saucer: Fore Torp Launchers fire Up! (Possibly also on Olympic)
*Visible blue 'sphere' follows from underneath when going into warp. (may be a specific part)

Olympic Canon Inconsistencies:
*Radically different model.
-Example: Olympic doesn't have a deflector dish in the middle of the Saucer.


Tier 4

Tactical Escort:
*No Cannon/Turret/Dual Beam points.
*No Torp Launchers.
*No Phaser strips.

Defiant Canon Inconsistencies:
*No light showing the ship's Name. (This only appears a select few times in DS9 Canon. Should be Optional?)
*Main Deflector front not angled downwards enough.
*Rear Nacelle glow not glowy enough. (Material Type2a is also a much deeper blue)

LR Science Vessel:
*Discovery, Cochrane Saucers (nearly) *blocking forward torp launchers. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/-Jes-/goodsci.jpg) (text is regarding Tier5 RSV issues)
*Intrepid Saucer: 'Current' Impulse Engines can be seen through.

Voyager Canon Inconsistencies:
*Current Aft Torps are Canon Impulse Engines.
*Canon Impulse Engines are Blue, not Red as would be proper.
*New Aft Torps are New!
*Saucer (Secondary) Deflector Dish isn't supposed to be lit up.

Exploration Cruiser:
*No Torp Launchers.
*No Actual Phaser strips. (It's just an indent in the model)
*Visible size difference between models.
*Bad Model Quality!

Galaxy Canon Inconsistencies:
*Saucer too thick around the edge.
*The strip that comes down the center of the rear hull is about twice as tall as it should be. (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5f/USS_Enterprise-D%2C_aft_torpedo_launcher_and_impulse_drive.jpg)
*The nacelle pylons should not attach underneath the tail, they should blend smoothly into the tail. (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-6.jpg)
*The neck does not extend up further than the saucer, as it does in STO.
*The escape pods are arranged in a single ring around the outside of the saucer, as opposed to Canon.
*The saucer's phaser strips do NOT go all the way around:
-Upper strip should be interrupted by the Shuttle Bay. (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-3.jpg)
-Lower strip should be interrupted by the neck itself. (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/galaxy-class-cruiser-sheet-4.jpg)
*None of the materials mimick the look of Canon Galaxy.


Tier 5

Advanced Escort:
*Dual Cannons/Beams on top Nacelle tips? Bad!

Recon Science Vessel:
*No Phaser strips.
*No Cannon/Turret/Dual Beam points.
*No Torp Launchers.
*Bridge on all three saucers visibly offset to right. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/-Jes-/badluna.jpg)
*Deflector Effects appear from Bridge. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/-Jes-/whaddaefff.jpg)
*Missing surfaces/see through on all three saucers' engine blocks.
*Luna Hull: Top escape pods are black.
*Mission Pod selection in Ship costumization turns unselectable if choosing None.
*Dual Beam Arrays fire from Mission Pod - from inside deflector if no Pod selected? (not confirmed)
*Lights/Pods on Polaris Saucer underside suffer from terrible clipping.

Luna Canon(as far as we know) Inconsistencies:
*Escape pods are in the wrong place (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/6/6e/Titan4_l.jpg), they shouldn't just be a ring around the bottom of the saucer.
*The shuttle bay on the Luna is missing its doors (http://images.wikia.com/startrek/images/d/dc/Luna_class_starship_specs.jpg).

Assault Cruiser:
*Noble Hull: Aft Torp Launchers fires Down. (possibly also on noble, Sovereign)
*Sovereign Saucer: Poor model quality. Front is especially jagged. It's edges are also thicker than canon.

Sovereign Canon Inconsistencies:
*No Phaser strips on nacelles.
*Deflector is not yellow.
*No red stripes/decals along hull.
*No registry numbers on nacelles.
*Aft Torp Launcher incorrectly placed.

Star Cruiser:
*Forward-swept Avenger pylons are not symmetrical. One sticks further forward than the other, making the nacelles lob-sided.


Klingon:

None known yet. Possible that no Klingon ship is as 'finished' as most Fed ships are.

Some things you missed, if you're going from a strict Canon viewpoint:

1) BoP models used are from Enterprise, and represent 22nd Century BoPs. This is the 25th Century supposedly. Ya. This is true of the T2-T3 BoPs, witth the last two tiers being the same modles with elongated wings.

2) VoQuv is NOT CANON AT ALL - biggest Klingon ship according to canon is the Negh'Var.

3) Models incorrectly scaled to representative Federation canon ships.

ROMULAN:

1) Again, Romulan BoP are using the models from Enterprise - NOT the later BoP from The original Series, which is what they should be using if they want to use that model at all.

2) Mokai Escorts model incorrectly scaled - in-gane it's as big or bigger than a D'Direx - and that's not right. Mogai model was only used in ST Nemesis, where one was named "Valdore". The scale sheet for the movie list this ship at 604M - the D'dridex is 1364m.



Thanks to the following people for contributing (heavily) to this list:
Klaitu
Forgotten-Nemesis
Cruis.In
BlackWyvern
Alexraptor
Tutalchamen
RoydEris
Tain
dirtyklingon
LIFEFORM
AlphaOmega35
SuperDuper22bw
Maschinengeist
WarpVis
Brynthe

Archived Post
02-15-2010, 11:17 PM
I also noticed that the Sovereign saucer is missing the red trail common to the other ships.
The Hull is still a pretty bad low-poly model.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:56 AM
Thank You, OP updated.

Callasan, please, don't quote the full OP next time. People may mistake it for a revision and link to that post alone, and it just takes up browser space on the entire page. :)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Bamping this.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 01:27 PM
The errors and bugs listed here are very helpful. Thank you for compiling them.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 01:36 PM
Sovereign is indeed missing the impluse trails... I would prefer they remain missing ;)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 01:45 PM
How about the Vesper saucer showing a number string instead of the registry.
(It reads 987098709870 instead of NCC-91234)

edit - Here's what I've discovered with this. The prefix doesn't matter (NX / NCC). I know, I'm out 1500 merits as a result of that experiment. It is ALWAYS wrong on the Vesper saucer. If switching to the Excalibur saucer from the Vesper, the error remains, but the Connie (refit) is always right. Switching from the Connie (refit) to Excalibur, the Excalibur displays correctly.

Hope this helps someone.


(I've heard rumors of other ship parts doing this... anyone else seen this?)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 01:51 PM
The errors and bugs listed here are very helpful. Thank you for compiling them.

That is what I made this thread for. :)

Sovereign is indeed missing the impluse trails... I would prefer they remain missing ;)
I too would like an option to actually disable the trails, but it would be better to first have the trails functioning on ALL ships before begging Cryptic to add such an option. ;)

How about the Vesper saucer showing a number string instead of the registry.
(It reads 987098709870 instead of NCC-91234)


(I've heard rumors of other ship parts doing this... anyone else seen this?)
I totally forgot about that. My brother had this in OB as well.

Anyway, OP edited. Thank you for reminding me. :)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:14 PM
Another potential issue for the advanced escort (100% prometheus pieces), the warp animation where white light shines from the warp nacelles before it zooms away (aka powering up), well the light only comes from the top two nacelles. Seems like it should come from all 4 maybe? Not sure how the other cruisers with 4 nacelles handle it though.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:22 PM
Thank you desseb. OP edited.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:22 PM
something of a pet peeve; Why are the impulse engines leaving trails in sector space (when moving at warp, the warp engines should be leaving trails, no?)

How about a decent Movie-era bridge for the Light Cruisers and Constitution refits?

Free up the registry numbers; Older ships like the Miranda and Constitutions need proper 4 digit numbers. Most other ships also should have numbers lower than 91; Olympic, Cheyenne, Sabre, Akira, Defiant, Galaxy, Intrepid, etc, etc. all had lower registries. (It also makes the suffix option redundant. No 91k series number is worth suffix-ing)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:25 PM
ShinRa_Actual: On the other hand, why do warp nacelles leave trails in system space?
It's a valid point, but it's not an 'error' per say - it's not related to any of the ship models specifically, but simply a result of how Cryptic has chosen the trails to function.

As for bridges and NCC numbers, that's not covered in this thread. :)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:26 PM
How about the Vesper saucer showing a number string instead of the registry.
(It reads 987098709870 instead of NCC-91234)


(I've heard rumors of other ship parts doing this... anyone else seen this?)


I had that with my T2 escort.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:34 PM
Very nice compilation, glad the dev's finds them useful as well! Thumbs up! :)

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:36 PM
NOTICE: I have effectively reached the letter count limit on OP, so unless Cryptic forum mods will let me force a new post in after/before OP, I've got trouble ahead. :)

So, if anyone has any more to add, please, be as CONCISE AS POSSIBLE.
Any other suggestions to shorten down select lines in OP will also be appreciated.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:37 PM
Also for the t4 science vessels:

When using the discovery nacelles and pylons, the light trail at full impulse speed disappears on the left engine (it is there at slower settings).
Missing light glow on the same engine during warp. A light can be found however to the right of the right engine. It looks like bloom but follows in depth.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:38 PM
I don't quite get why you've entered the following under all the various classes of Bird of Prey:

*This is an ENT series-based model. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like.

Klingon BoP's are not ENT era at all. The only two Klingon ships that were seen during the ENT era was the Raptor and the D-5.

The BoP's first appearence was Star Trek 3, which was the B'Rel class.

If you want the errors for BoP's:

Tier 1 Bird of Prey
* The feather decals on the wings should be present on both the upper and under side of both wings
* On the B'Rel class, both the upper and lower feather decals are usualy painted in reds and browns
* There is a venting pipe missing from the bridge section (the red pipe at on the font in this picture: http://sfc.battleclinic.com/docks/images/d/d50937dc5139076e3aa88d4a0b0985e7.jpg)
* The lower half of the rear engine should glow yellow, the upper half should glow red
* The wings should change to a strait angle when entering warp (fully down is combat mode, strait is flight mode, up is landing mode).

K'Vort Bird of Prey
The largest and most powerful class of Bird of Prey is apparently missing from the ship list, the K'Vort. The K'Vort is a super-sized version of the B'Rel, looking almost entirely the same, but with an overal size larger than that even of a K'Tinga battle cruiser. By DS9 the K'Vort was the most commonly used BoP in the Empire.

For other ships:

* Intrepid class nacelles do not angle upwards when entering warp
* Impulse engines are in the middle of the nacelle pylons and NOT on the neck - ironicaly what should be the impulse engines currently glow blue rather than the correct red and what are currently the intrepid's impulse engines should be rear torp launchers
* There should only be ONE phaser band on the Galaxy class saucer, yet the galaxy model's saucer appears to have two
* The hull lines on the Galaxy are completly wrong - Please see the blueprints already posted by the OP which quite clearly details the hull lines which are all symetrical and not the random mess that is currently present on all of the texture options
* The middle band that runs down the top of the body section on the Galaxy class is far too big. It should thin down to a fine point that is tipped with a single torpedo launcher.
* The Galaxy class's Impulse engines are never running when the saucer is connected to the star drive - the saucer's impulse engines are ONLY for saucer seperation.
* The Galaxy's impulse engine (on the neck) should be lower down and should be shaped more like an oblong box - again see plans which quite clearly detail this

I know you added the intrepid impulse onto your list but I felt it didn't read well and needed to be further explained.

Frankly I am utterly apalled at the sheer lack of quality and accuracy in the ship models in STO. There are Trek games that have been around for more than 10 years that managed to get them more accurately. This is especialy apalling for the Galaxy class considering the detailed blueprints that were released for it. There is really no excuse for such a badly done job in this regard.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 02:43 PM
Thanks for compiling these errors, I'm glad someone is bringing attention to this.

I just got myself to Captain and honestly... I cant play the game anymore with the ships in this state, as a 3d artist myself... its actually painful to look at. I worked so hard to get my Galaxy Class but when I got it... my heart just sunk. It looks like it was made from lego. I tried going for a Defiant (which is missing a bridge dome and the intrepid while it is a decent enough model... just has something about it which doesn't fit with the earlier ships. I think the specular map on it may be 2 shinny.

Also... not sure if this was pointed out... but the right phaser array on the Akiras weapon pod is not sitting on top of the pod. there seems to be some kind of break in the mesh.

I mentioned in another post that I also work in the games industry as a 3D Artist and I do understand that you guys must have had a moment where you went... "look that'll do for now, we need to get a move on" but really... you need to get these issues sorted out. The most iconic ships which everyone works for in the game look like they were modeled by an intern. I've even offered to make one for you guys! lol free of charge!

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 03:14 PM
something of a pet peeve; Why are the impulse engines leaving trails in sector space (when moving at warp, the warp engines should be leaving trails, no?)

How about a decent Movie-era bridge for the Light Cruisers and Constitution refits?

Free up the registry numbers; Older ships like the Miranda and Constitutions need proper 4 digit numbers. Most other ships also should have numbers lower than 91; Olympic, Cheyenne, Sabre, Akira, Defiant, Galaxy, Intrepid, etc, etc. all had lower registries. (It also makes the suffix option redundant. No 91k series number is worth suffix-ing)

first, This thread is also a very good idea and needed. A concise serious and polite listing of the inconsistencies was needed rather then some less then polite fan rants that have been happening. Can not stress to people enough, calm down and address an issue, and due so in a polite manner if you really would like it looked at. The more constructive you can be and detailed the better.

I would also like to state I agree with the above post, I would not say its a vital fix, but I think having a bridge set or two for the older ship models is a good thing. The TOS bridge and one for the Miranda and Constitution refit would make the classic uniforms some of us have look right. The newer bridges just do not work well with them IMO.

And I would like to know why the NCC number index is locked at 91++++.

Yeah I noticed that the K't'inga was way off also. good that some one had a model or such to reference it to, I was digging through my stuff looking for something to put up here about that. I know the Fed ships have some errors, but the Klingon ones from what I have seen of them so far are in dire need of some serious fixing. I would gather it was harder to find needed data on them, but with help from the fan base maybe we can get them in proper space worthy shape.

I am wondering if the Dev team used the bad Wiki information for the ships? or where they came up with this current rendering of it.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 03:20 PM
Before you look at the following items for the Constitution Refit - realize that if Cryptic is going to take on an iconic ship in the Star Trek franchise, they need to do it correctly. I'm also in agreement with the items that have been pointed out for the Galaxy and Sovereign class models in STO. So, here's a big list of changes that should be made to the Constitution Refit...


Constitution Refit (T-2 Cruiser)


STO model has rows of windows on upper saucer. There are none on the physical model...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent68.jpg

STO model is missing VIP lounge windows on the back of the b-c decks (below bridge)...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent13.jpg

STO model's lower sensor array on the underneath of the saucer is way off. Has a red dot on the center of the array. Physical model doesn't have that...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent09.jpg

STO's window patterns on the underneath side of the saucer are wrong...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent09.jpg

STO saucer missing recreation deck windows on right side of the back of the saucer rim (BTW - there are two rows of four windows. The picture below cuts off the last set of windows)...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent30.jpg

STO model is missing the six large arboretum windows on each side of the lower hull...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent55.jpg

STO model is missing "strongback" coloring differences and patterns (green on TMP refit/blue on Enterprise-A) on lower hull...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent56.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent31.jpg

As mentioned previously, STO model's hangar doors are way off, and are missing the red lights above the hangar doors...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent19.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent67.jpg

STO model's nacelles should have only an outer fin on the rear, instead of fins on both the inner and outer sides of the nacelle...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent46.jpg

STO model is missing the pattern that runs up the length of each nacelle pylon (inner sides)...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent63.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent53.jpg

STO model missing the triangular vents on the inner and outer sides of the pylons...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent72.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent53.jpg

And here's the worst offender (IMHO)... The physical model never, never, never ever had illuminated outer nacelle grills. STO model does. They should always be dark - gunmetal grey is the color...
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent67.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent58.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent59.jpg


Also, all the extra 'greeblies' added by Cryptic artists to the Constitution Refit should be removed. And definitely, definitely remove the strange deflector choice that appears only when you select the "2-a" hull color in the ship customizer. It's strange that "2-a" gives a pearlescent finish (correct for the Constitution Refit) but then tacks on that weird deflector dish.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 03:42 PM
I know the OP mentioned this is not the place, but the NCC-91+++ was a CBS restriction placed on Cryptic. This was stated by a dev in some other topic somewhere in the vast wasteland of the forums. Basically, CBS didn't want to step on established registries and leave room for future ships on future series.

I had a couple 7xxxx numbers that I've always wanted to use, but it is what it is. IMO, there are bigger fish.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 04:01 PM
i freely admit i havent read all the replies so sorry if this has already been said...

it would be nice if during the warp out, the intrepid class ships nacelles would move upwards as the ship did on voyager and while traveling in warp on the map if the nacelles were in their elevated position.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 04:31 PM
Klingon BoP's are not ENT era at all. The only two Klingon ships that were seen during the ENT era was the Raptor and the D-5.

Ohh? (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9a/Klingon_b-o-p_docked_with_Enterprise%2C_Borderland.jpg)


Sorry for not updating the OP with all this new info. I have been a bit backed up IRL, but will try to add the new info by tommorow evening.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 04:55 PM
Good list. I would love to see these addressed.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 05:13 PM
excellent post well done i though i was the only one who spotted the impulse engine inconsistency on the K'tinga and the missing aft tube .

for the early model you can check out both ST:TMP and ST VI for some real nice shots of the ship

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 05:32 PM
*Nova doesn't have a second, lower Impulse Engine.

Yes, it does. Someone posted a screencap from the Equinox episode clearly showing two impulse drives the first time this issue was brought up.

*The deflector dish is incorrectly textured.
All ships have the same deflector texture. While that would mean that many ships have an incorrect deflector look, I kind of just chalked it up to advances in tech.

Ki'Tang BoP:
Ki'Tang BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This is an ENT series-based model. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like.


Tier 5:

Hegh'Ta BoP:
Hegh'Ta BoP Canon Inconsistencies:
*This is an ENT series-based model. It could at least be more 'TMP/TNG' like.

Tiers four and five have Cryptic designed bop's. They are not ENT-era ships. Ergo, your argument is non valid.

Also, while I couldn't be bothered to quote the Romulan paragraph, I do agree that the Mogai's should be renamed to Valdore, since the mogai thing is only shown in the Titan novels. That, and... I'm pretty sure the naming source (what a mogai actually is) is never mentioned on screen. Memory Alpha has no article.

Also, yes, D'deridex are too small. But I do not agree the ENT-style bop is out of place. It looks far more futuristic than the lumbering D'deridex, closer to the Valdore. That being said, would you rather have the TOS Romulan bird of prey instead? :P

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 05:49 PM
Sovereign Class nacelle pylons should not be curved.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 06:26 PM
Good thread.

I have one that's rather bothering me -
T2 Rapier-nacelled Escorts fire out of their nacelles as well when using dual beams. I don't know if other nacelles for T2 escorts do this; but Rapier nacelles do for sure.

(I really, really hate shooting out of the nacelles - I don't care all that much about canonicity; but beams out of the nacelles is just silly looking - especially when there are obvious hardpoints for said weapon on the front of the ship)

I'll be keeping my eyes open henceforth and adding posts as I think of things that aren't on the list.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 06:27 PM
Another potential issue for the advanced escort (100% prometheus pieces), the warp animation where white light shines from the warp nacelles before it zooms away (aka powering up), well the light only comes from the top two nacelles. Seems like it should come from all 4 maybe? Not sure how the other cruisers with 4 nacelles handle it though.

this happens on t3 cruiser as well

and for the love of god how did they mess up the galaxy so bad...? it's only in every single episode of tng

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 06:50 PM
Yes, it does. Someone posted a screencap from the Equinox episode clearly showing two impulse drives the first time this issue was brought up.


I'm going to go with no, the Nova doesn't have two impulse engines. I looked for them. So until someone cites better sources, I'll go with mine:

Comparison of the Equinox and Rhode Island (nova class variants). Notice the Rhode Island has an illuminated impulse light. It appears as though the Equinox doesn't have an impulse engine.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/factfiles/nova-comparison3.jpg

History of the Equinox (from the designer, Rick Sternbach). Doug Drexler was a visual effects artist on Star Trek, these renderings of the Equinox are basically as canon as pictures of the Enterprise-D's model at ILM.
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/rick-sternbachs-equinox/

And just for fun, the defiant pathfinder (from the DS9 Tech Manual) which was actually the basis for the Nova (read the article on the history of the Equinox)
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/File:Defiant_pathfinder.jpg

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:22 PM
Not sure if it's been mentioned or not, but the 'Steamrunner' in game is completely not the Steamrunner from canon. At all. So I'd either make a note that it's simply a different ship, or that it needs major revision.

Textures are wonky here, but the model's right:
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/alex-jaeger-week-steamrunner-class/

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:24 PM
Specifc problem. On the Tier 5 Deep Space Science ships. The Trident Secondary Sensor Pod is missing a tile side on the rear,top beveled edge. It's visible (well not visible) when using an Oracle Hull.

And now some of my opinions about the Cryptic ship designs in general. All of the cannon ships in all of the movies and TV series followed a design paradigm of form and function. They followed a consistent form and all of the parts had a function (for the most part). A lot of you designs have form but no function. The examples, I'm most familiar with are teh Tier 4 Science and Deep Space T5 Science ships. Some of the classes have these swept bad wings/plates which look good in terms of the lines of the ship design, but they have no function. And they look very out of character for Federation ships. They just look like large hull plates with huge portions sitck out of the hull that they forgot to cut off during construction. And the Destiny class Saucer. The lower decks on extend out of a curved lips at the bottom. If you look at it from the bottom the lip its only about 1 "room" thick. It really doesn't make a lot of sense from a ship design. It really should be extended backwards in thickness and blended into the rest of the hull.

And another detail that's missing on all of the Cryptic designs...shuttle bays. Every Federation ship of any size had a shuttle bay for auxiliary craft. Even the tiny Defiant Class (of DS9 vintage) had a small shuttle bay with 2 shuttles. There needs to be some definite shuttle door details added to the ships. And some designs I wonder where you could even add them. The Excalibur Class Cruiser is a good example of this. The seconday hull is too oblique and flatten to have any traditional shuttle bay door.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:26 PM
I've noticed that the TOS Consitution's Windows aren't proper either. Especially those on the front edge of the Saucer.

http://startreklives.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/constitution_ortho.jpg

http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/fleet/constitution14.jpg

The Windows on the Galaxy-Class and the Sovereign-class are obviously just thrown on, without any canonical placement. (The Galaxy also lacks the Giant Windows for 10 Forward).

And when firing Dual Beams from the Galaxy-class, it comes from the edge of Saucer's sides, instead from the Array points on top and below the Saucer.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:37 PM
that back block on the steamrunner is suspose to be the deflector dish
the deflector on the akira should be much smaller and round in the front of a shallow dome (see st:first contact) not a giant block

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:40 PM
To be honest, that's not even a Steamrunner, its a wannabe Steamrunner.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:45 PM
*Hope, Horizon Saucer: Fore Torp Launchers fire Up! (Possibly also on Olympic)

Just a side comment - am I the only one (despite the fact that I know its wrong) kind of like the "pop up torps" on these ships? :D It was the saving grace to the "ball ship" for me.. every time I fired a torpedo, I would catch myself saying "fump!".. and of course a High Yield barrage .. "fump, fump, fump!!"

Sorry.. had to share.. :D

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 07:59 PM
T5 Assault Cruiser:

The left red impulse trail from the Noble's saucer is MUCH thinner than the right.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 08:34 PM
I don't quite get why you've entered the following under all the various classes of Bird of Prey:



Klingon BoP's are not ENT era at all. The only two Klingon ships that were seen during the ENT era was the Raptor and the D-5.

The BoP's first appearence was Star Trek 3, which was the B'Rel class.

Explain this, from a ST site:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/klingon-22ndcentury.htm

Please do.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 10:35 PM
Something I noticed while I was still flying around in teh Constitution was a Phaser Array (?) that was pointing backwards and under the Shuttlebay. Whatever piece was used looks like it was attached crooked.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 11:06 PM
Sovereign is indeed missing the impluse trails... I would prefer they remain missing ;)

Actually they ARE there. Go full speed and make a sharp turn in Sector Space and you'll see them, though they're very short. Alternately, go full impulse in a system and slam it in reverse... you'll see them pop out of the front of your saucer...

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 11:08 PM
This is a great list, thank you OP.

Archived Post
02-16-2010, 11:18 PM
Be nice if they enhanced the phaser firing animations too. I noticed the phaser strips dont charge up like they did in the TV shows and movies. I cant find a good video to explain, but the animations of the phasers would always run along the strip from each direction, meeting at the firing point before firing outward.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 01:49 AM
T5 Advanced Escort, Prometheus.
The area near the main deflector where the hull joins to the saucer is very strangely shaped.
It should indeed be smooth but it should resemble more the area of the sovereign.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 02:00 AM
Be nice if they enhanced the phaser firing animations too. I noticed the phaser strips dont charge up like they did in the TV shows and movies. I cant find a good video to explain, but the animations of the phasers would always run along the strip from each direction, meeting at the firing point before firing outward.

that is one of the things that I am missing as well.


to the OP, good list. I hope they go through it and fix everything listed.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 02:09 AM
Excellent post!!!

the main things bugging was the Galaxy's neck sticking higher then the saucer and the Sovereign's missing ventral saucer dome/Q-torp launcher, and most Nemesis-era aft torpedo launchers.

ALSO, most of the galaxy's saucer pattern textures look terribly misaligned by dividing the saucer textures into 3 instead of 4

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 02:21 AM
Not sure if mentioned but here it goes.

On the galaxy the fore dual beam banks originate from the sides of the saucer (the flight lights double as phasers now?)

Turrets fire from the bridge and on the underside (where a horizontal phaser strip should be).

I hope things get an overhaul soon. Some things are really an eyesore :p

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 03:11 AM
Be nice if they enhanced the phaser firing animations too. I noticed the phaser strips dont charge up like they did in the TV shows and movies. I cant find a good video to explain, but the animations of the phasers would always run along the strip from each direction, meeting at the firing point before firing outward.

This video shows it pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaTPOn2u8lA

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 04:42 AM
The Luna's main hull is too thick, it should taper off more in the rear. Too many lights on the main hull too, four main windows also missing from the side of the hull.

http://www.simonsays.com/images/titan/TitanWinner/TitanSide.jpg

http://www.stogeek.com/w/images/c/cd/Luna_class_starship.jpg

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 04:43 AM
Yet another issue for the sov.
Can't help but notice, the whole back of the main hull feels very flattened and compressed.
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/6/69/Sovereign_class_at_warp.jpg
Notice the dome in the aft how its nice and rounded and not as flattened as the actual game model is.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 05:20 AM
Ohh? (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9a/Klingon_b-o-p_docked_with_Enterprise%2C_Borderland.jpg).

The ship you show there is as related to the current class of BoP's as the D-5 is related to the D-7. It only holds a very vague resemblence to existing classes of BoP's, just as the D-5 losely resembles the D-7, but it does not make the D-7 an ENT era ship in any way and neither does it make the classes of BoP's represented in this game.

The tier 1 Bird of Prey in STO is a B'Rel class. The B'Rel class was developed and constructed at some point between the last TOS episode and Star Trek III, with Star Trek III being its first ever appearence. That means that the B'Rel class, and all subsequent classes that follow it, are Trek movie era and not ENT era. It is like saying that the D'Derix is ENT era because there are Romunlan "warbirds" in ENT.

STO's B'Rel isn't actually as bad a representation as the other ships, and has actually been done reasonably well considering how small the mesh is, it is just missing some of the bits mentioned in my previous post.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 06:49 AM
This thread is detailing the issue with the Saber nacelles, but the OP "Kylemore" posted a very clear image of the issue:

Source Thread (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=68806)
Image (http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5355/saber01k.jpg)

Main thread has been forwarded to them.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:02 AM
The ship you show there is as related to the current class of BoP's as the D-5 is related to the D-7. It only holds a very vague resemblence to existing classes of BoP's, just as the D-5 losely resembles the D-7, but it does not make the D-7 an ENT era ship in any way and neither does it make the classes of BoP's represented in this game.

The tier 1 Bird of Prey in STO is a B'Rel class. The B'Rel class was developed and constructed at some point between the last TOS episode and Star Trek III, with Star Trek III being its first ever appearence. That means that the B'Rel class, and all subsequent classes that follow it, are Trek movie era and not ENT era. It is like saying that the D'Derix is ENT era because there are Romunlan "warbirds" in ENT.

STO's B'Rel isn't actually as bad a representation as the other ships, and has actually been done reasonably well considering how small the mesh is, it is just missing some of the bits mentioned in my previous post.

Now that you're done missing the point ENTIRELY (not to mention failing basic reading comprehension, since I am in no way insinuating that the B'Rel is 'ent era' - only that the higher tier BoP's in STO are since their design is BASED on an ent era ship), let me explain you why it's a subject!

STO treats both these ships as Birds of Prey.
One is from Star Trek 3+, and is actually named a Bird of Prey. This is currently the Klingon starter ship, Tier1.

The other is a klingon warship as seen in an Enterprise episode, slated Ca. 100 years EARLIER.
This ship model, this EXACT SHIP BY DESIGN, is currently used as a Tier2 Bird of Prey, DESPITE being - in your words - unrelated to the BoP of ST3+. DESPITE being ca. 100 years older.
And the Tier3+ ship designs are DIRECTLY based upon this ship as well.

Don't you find that just the slightest bit 'out of place'? That a 100 year older ship that in your words is unrelated is currently the 'next stage' of Birds of Prey?

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:06 AM
Be nice if they enhanced the phaser firing animations too. I noticed the phaser strips dont charge up like they did in the TV shows and movies. I cant find a good video to explain, but the animations of the phasers would always run along the strip from each direction, meeting at the firing point before firing outward.

Always is such a strong word. Although the running along the strip looks real purty, it's not a requirement to fire.

Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ds9GRjSw4s&feature=related
(specifically 2:55 to 3:10).

And this is against multiple enemies, you know, like we usually are in game.

I'm content if the phasers originate from where they're supposed to (as opposed to on nacelles). Heck, my dual phasers on the miranda properly originated from the pylon strut (aka rollbar), as in TWOK

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:20 AM
All ships have the same deflector texture. While that would mean that many ships have an incorrect deflector look, I kind of just chalked it up to advances in tech.

Not true. Look at the Intrepid (And Discovery) hull. It has a unique defector matching Voyager rather well (when given skin 2) It's not a texture issue.

Try to be less abrasive when you correct people.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:30 AM
Be nice if they enhanced the phaser firing animations too. I noticed the phaser strips dont charge up like they did in the TV shows and movies. I cant find a good video to explain, but the animations of the phasers would always run along the strip from each direction, meeting at the firing point before firing outward.

Like some others said, that's not always the case on the shows. However, I think they use this animation when doing Beam Overload, though my ship is usually angled away from me when I use it, I'm almost positive I've seen it do the animation just before firing the Overloaded Beam.. I'll have to pay more attention next time.

Edited to Add: - Just tried this out, unfortunately, the Luna class doesn't have any phaser strips, so its hard to give a good answer.. hehe. And while the lack of phaser strips is something that should be fixed, its not techinically Cryptic's fault, as phaser strips were left off of Sean Tourangeau's (the original designer of the Luna Class) original design as well.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:33 AM
Not true. Look at the Intrepid (And Discovery) hull. It has a unique defector matching Voyager rather well (when given skin 2) It's not a texture issue.

Try to be less abrasive when you correct people.

Plus the Galaxy Class also has a deflector texture set that is unique as well.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:34 AM
Yes, it does. Someone posted a screencap from the Equinox episode clearly showing two impulse drives the first time this issue was brought up.They did not post that screencap in this thread. However, it is Fixed.

All ships have the same deflector texture. While that would mean that many ships have an incorrect deflector look, I kind of just chalked it up to advances in tech.Maybe so. That's why they are listed as Canon inconsistencies.

Tiers four and five have Cryptic designed bop's. They are not ENT-era ships. Ergo, your argument is non valid.Their designs are clearly based on the ENT-Era 'BoP'alike that is currently taking Tier2 BoP seat. Ergo they are unfitting, and also take up a spot that surely should have been taken by the K'Vort.

(on 'Mogai') Memory Alpha has no article.Memory Alpha DOES have such an article: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Valdore_type

I do not agree the ENT-style bop is out of place.PFunny you should mention the TOS version, because at least that ship would be better fitting Canon-wise. Again, this is why that is listed as a Canon inconsistency. :P

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 08:22 AM
I would like to add that the Specs on the Excalibur are probably wrong since on the ship customization screen the Excalibur is slightly smaller than the Constitution. Which would put it at around 300m in length not the 350m on the ships page of the main site. Also that would make the tonnage way off it should be around 260,000mt not 990,000mt unless it has a Leadanium hull or the models in the game are not sized correctly.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 08:43 AM
The errors and bugs listed here are very helpful. Thank you for compiling them.

Maybe here are some additions to this Topic:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=113923

Look @ Post 16

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 08:59 AM
Personal opinion:

The K'Vort should be is own model. Using a scaled up version of the B'Rel was done due to budget constraints and lazy FX philosophy in the ST series'. The excuse of it being scaled up was created by the fan base, in order to justify a lousy design decision by the makers of the show in which it appeared.

Using scaled up versions of ships looks sloppy and lazy, and makes the Klingons honestly look, as a species, very stupid. New Klingon designs, please. They are an intelligent and aggressive race, which is fully capable of creating new things in order to adapt to and overcome changing situations.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 11:00 AM
I think you can allow the developers some artistic license here because It is 30 years in the future. How do you feel about Federation ships using disruptors? Personally it irritates me so much I wont use them even if they are higher stats than phaser weapons.

This.

I refuse to use disruptors as well, and for the same reasons.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 11:20 AM
In the words of William Shatner, "Get a life."

Seriously. It's a game. Don't sperg out because one warp nacelle appears to be longer than the other or if there should be an extra row of windows.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 11:24 AM
In the words of William Shatner, "Get a life."

Seriously. It's a game. Don't sperg out because one warp nacelle appears to be longer than the other or if there should be an extra row of windows.

Thank you for dropping by and trolling, thereby bumping this post.

:D

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Thank you for dropping by and trolling, thereby bumping this post.

:D

Yes. Next time I will not express my opinion. I'm also not sure how bumping a thread (which itself was bumped 20 minutes prior) is a problem. We have bigger issues to worry about, such as the proper phaser placement for my tier 5 science vessel.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:14 PM
Personal opinion:

The K'Vort should be is own model. Using a scaled up version of the B'Rel was done due to budget constraints and lazy FX philosophy in the ST series'. The excuse of it being scaled up was created by the fan base, in order to justify a lousy design decision by the makers of the show in which it appeared.

Using scaled up versions of ships looks sloppy and lazy, and makes the Klingons honestly look, as a species, very stupid. New Klingon designs, please. They are an intelligent and aggressive race, which is fully capable of creating new things in order to adapt to and overcome changing situations.

The problem is that the Klingon Empire has a kind of "anti-intellectual" "anti-scientist" bias. Basically if you aren't a proper "warrior" you are looked down at. Many Klingon tech advancements have come from other races and from their allies. Also they are fairly conservative as a species. That means that they are VERY slow to adopt new classes of ships. Hell, they have used BOP designs for like 200+ years. Heck, I think that they have just been upgrading tech in their old ships instead of making new ones.
---

From a game player POV, I want to have a Movie/TNG/DS9 era BOP to captain. So I would be quite disappointed if the artists "upgraded" the look of the classic ships. I don't mind the new classes, I just want the old stuff available. Heck my Feddy piloted a TOS Constitution class (Which BTW has nacelles that are slightly too long), and then grabbed a T2 Movie ara Constitution as her upgrade ship. Things like this make the game much more fun for me. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that TOS Constitutions are available to pilot or that they are actually effective in combat. I don't really care about that, I am making my own episodes and having fun. BTW my Klingon officer would love to fly both the TOS D7 and a Correct K'tinga. That would make my klingon experience much better.

This is a good thread. I hope that the canon minded players help to correct the issues that the ship models have.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:23 PM
Hey just a thought on your entire complaint/picky pointing out of issues here. This game places the time line at after the Nemesis Movie, so what do you base all of your "info" on for ship design, it cannot possibly be past stuff because developments would seem to indicate that things change. Perhaps the Miranda class changed to one set of windows in stead of two for budgetary or window washing union reasons. Perhaps they took the light off the name of the ship registration on the Defiant class due to it always burning out at high warp. Your claims of this and that are moot as this is a continuing time line and what starship manufacturer would not make design improvements.:p

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:24 PM
The problem is that the Klingon Empire has a kind of "anti-intellectual" "anti-scientist" bias. Basically if you aren't a proper "warrior" you are looked down at. Many Klingon tech advancements have come from other races and from their allies. Also they are fairly conservative as a species. That means that they are VERY slow to adopt new classes of ships. Hell, they have used BOP designs for like 200+ years. Heck, I think that they have just been upgrading tech in their old ships instead of making new ones.
---


I can definitely see how one would get this impression, but I don't think its accurate, personally. To me, the Klingon "warrior" isn't an occupation, its more of a state of being, almost a religious path, not a job. Klingon scientists and engineers would also consider themselves warriors due to how they lead their lives according to tradition and meet all challenges without fear and without backing down, even if they don't see actual combat for many years. While every klingon in the empire is a warrior, not every klingon in the empire is a soldier and its the soldiers we have dealt with exclusively on the TV series.

The Klingons are clever, and more of technological opportunists. They made a deal with the romulans and secured cloaking technology the very year it first appeared (anyone who could get the romulans to part with such a brand new, high tech secret definitely has something to offer). They also adopted the bird of prey style ship from them very shortly after it made its debut with the romulans. This is not old, antiquated technology but bleeding edge alien equipment being hastily adapted to klingon designed warships.

On top of that, its good to remember that the Klingons were the ones who found a defense against the Breen energy dampening weapon. The Romulans and The Federation couldn't.

I think the Klingons are a far more clever people than their military gives an impression of.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:27 PM
Hey just a thought on your entire complaint/picky pointing out of issues here. This game places the time line at after the Nemesis Movie, so what do you base all of your "info" on for ship design, it cannot possibly be past stuff because developments would seem to indicate that things change. Perhaps the Miranda class changed to one set of windows in stead of two for budgetary or window washing union reasons. Perhaps they took the light off the name of the ship registration on the Defiant class due to it always burning out at high warp. Your claims of this and that are moot as this is a continuing time line and what starship manufacturer would not make design improvements.:p

The window thing really isn't negotiable. Windows correspond directly to decks- you can't have windows breaching multiple decks on a ship for obvious reasons. Cutting the window rows from 2 to 1 effectively makes the ship half the size its supposed to be. Thats not cool.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:31 PM
The window thing really isn't negotiable. Windows correspond directly to decks- you can't have windows breaching multiple decks on a ship for obvious reasons. Cutting the window rows from 2 to 1 effectively makes the ship half the size its supposed to be. Thats not cool.

Actually maybe the decided it was uncool to put windows on that deck seeing as it was only for equipment and various other stuff that requires no window for someone to look out of....

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:34 PM
Always is such a strong word. Although the running along the strip looks real purty, it's not a requirement to fire.

Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ds9GRjSw4s&feature=related
(specifically 2:55 to 3:10).

And this is against multiple enemies, you know, like we usually are in game.

I'm content if the phasers originate from where they're supposed to (as opposed to on nacelles). Heck, my dual phasers on the miranda properly originated from the pylon strut (aka rollbar), as in TWOK

If you look at that video again, you will see the initial firing is a charge up as I described, while subsequent firing does not seem to require the "charge" effect.

Though I agree with you in that I'd be happy if weapons simply fired from where they are meant to.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 12:46 PM
Not a starship model, but i just noticed that the Deep Space 9 model(exterior) is like at least TWICE the size it really should be.
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/54/Deep_space_9.jpg

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 01:09 PM
*Sabers warp nacelles attach at different points, one's further forward than the other. (http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5355/saber01k.jpg)
:

OK after reading this and looking at the picture I have to say, first I was laughing pretty good. After that I thought "wow talk about half ass'd work". If that was my job I would be embarrassed. Mediocrity at its best.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 02:04 PM
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines (http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=36&a=2) ~Seadgir

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 04:19 PM
Usually I would troll a post like this. Cryptic does have better stuff to be doing then fixing minor cannon errors, but there is always the exception. You have an amazingly keen eye and instead of just whining that some random things need to be fixed, you took it upon yourself and created this list. You are the kind of forum goer we need to see more of. I am certain that the devs will use your hard work. They would be fools not too.

This is obviously a passion for you and I can only hope one day I am as passionate for something as you are for Star trek. This is not a dig but a sincere compliment.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 05:01 PM
How about rather than point out all the individual flaws, it could be just be worded like this:

The STO models look like crap.

That less nit-picky for you?

It's an overstatement, some of the models are decent, but there are major flaws with too many of the major ship models and scaling is HORRIFIC (defiant almost the same size as the galaxy? )

Even I am not such a major trekkie that a missing set of windows is going to irk me, but that said, it's like they had someone who had never watched the shows try to create the models using low-grade pictures as reference.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:21 PM
I think cryptic has made a great game that I am enjoying very much. I posted the inaccuracies in the STO Constitution Refit in the hopes that someday, when they get the chance, they will revisit the model and improve it. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if they make a hyper-accurate TMP refit skin a C-Store item.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 07:58 PM
There are many problems here that are obvious mistakes, and do not conform to artistic license.
Such as the Intrepid aft torpedo launcher to engine conversion, which does not even resemble any at all like engines compared to anything else in the game.

Also attached a clear comparison image of the intrepid launcher/engine mistake.

While looking at your comparison, did you notice that they also removed the windows from the deck below the shuttlebay? They also do not have the ship registry and name back there.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 08:03 PM
Actually maybe the decided it was uncool to put windows on that deck seeing as it was only for equipment and various other stuff that requires no window for someone to look out of....

The deck is still exposed to window- its just one giant, multi deck spanning window instead of 1 window per deck. Giant, multideck windows do not exist in star trek on these ships and are a structural weakness, which brings us back to the ships being too small. If the windows are not giant, multi deck windows and DO conform to 1 deck per window row as they do in canon, that means the ships are half the size they should be.

Archived Post
02-17-2010, 08:14 PM
This is ****ing pathetic. They have better **** to work on than your pedantic "THIS ISNT EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS ON TV IM CANCELING MY SUB CRYPTIC"

I have yet to see a single post saying someone is canceling their subscription over these minor bugs. It is simply a collection of issues noticed and compiled for reference for the graphical development team. Which I shall inform you is a completely different department then program and software development. They literally have nothing to do with any of the code-based bugs currently infesting STO.

However, if you would like to cancel your subscription, since obviously you're upset enough to be trolling a aesthetic bug compilation thread, trying to push off your own limited and short-sighted understandings, I would be more then glad to take any unwanted credits and items off your hands.

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 07:51 AM
In the words of William Shatner, "Get a life."

Seriously. It's a game. Don't sperg out because one warp nacelle appears to be longer than the other or if there should be an extra row of windows.

This is ****ing pathetic. They have better **** to work on than your pedantic "THIS ISNT EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS ON TV IM CANCELING MY SUB CRYPTIC"

Oh, I'm sorry, you two must've missed out this particular part of the OP:

This is not a thread about whether or not one thing needs fixing more than another, or anything else like that. It is simply to be a list of 'known errors and issues' that can be compiled and shown to Cryptic.


So please, save your mouth excrement for another time. :)

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 08:12 AM
Wasn't there also an issue with the Luna model somebody posted a couple of weeks back? Not a Science captain myself, mind...

And yeah, while these aren't exactly high priority fixes, I'd really appreciate it if Cryptic would take care of these little inconsistencies and modeling screwups eventually.

Seriously, the Saber thing makes me glad I didn't roll Tactical... :p

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 10:21 AM
Seriously, the Saber thing makes me glad I didn't roll Tactical... :p

No doubt, that just can't be UNSEEN.. every time I load up my tactical captain I get sidetracked looking at the lopsided nacelles.. hehe

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines (http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=36&a=2) ~Seadgir

Thank You Seadgir! :D

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 03:39 PM
Tier 3

Heavy Escort:
Steamrunner Canon Inconsistencies:
*Nacelles are not integrated into the saucer.

You forgot to mention the rest:
Steamrunner VS Zephyr (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y84/genex89/SteamrunnerVZephyr.png)
1. Wierd pylon additions which are nowhere to be found on the canon version
2. Large block, which serves no purpose, (Form should follow function), its where the deflector is housed on the Canon verson
3. As you said, Nacelles are not intergrated like on the canon version
4. The saucer is the wrong shape, and the gap at the front is too large as opposed to the canon verson

Crypic if your going to do canon do properly or don't do it at all, The Steamrunner was one of the reasons I wanted to play tactical, You've nailed it with the TOS Conny, so why not the canon versons of ships, instead we have an anorexic olympic class and a messed up steamrunner

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 04:41 PM
That is an EPIC comparison shot. Thank You Genex. :)

OP Edited.

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 06:19 PM
Crypic if your going to do canon do properly or don't do it at all, The Steamrunner was one of the reasons I wanted to play tactical, You've nailed it with the TOS Conny, so why not the canon versons of ships, instead we have an anorexic olympic class and a messed up steamrunner

In this case, I would suspect that's why they chose to just rename the class and not present it as canon.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should rework the Zephyr and make it into the class it was clearly meant to be.. the problem for this one I think comes from trying to get the varying nacelle types to also be able to integrate into the hull design.. its the general problem that caused alot of the things mentioned in this thread, in that the canon design is a vicitm of the customization system of the game, trying to make every part fit every other option sometimes screws up the originals.

This is a design they needed to spend a bit more time on to get just right, and I think they moved on to other things to get them complete rather than trying to replicate the canon design. I personally think the Tier 5 escorts could have benefitted from them getting the Steamrunner correct, as integrated nacelles would have looked better on them too, IMO.

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 08:32 PM
The Akira Class Escort should have a hanger bay with Shuttle/Fighters as the Designer of the Ship designed the ship that way and would combat the Klingon Carrier problem in STO...

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 09:01 PM
If you look at that video again, you will see the initial firing is a charge up as I described, while subsequent firing does not seem to require the "charge" effect.

Though I agree with you in that I'd be happy if weapons simply fired from where they are meant to.

Eek. You caught me. I know there's the initial "charge" effect. I merely meant to demonstrate that it was not a requirement. I just knew that VFX shot off-hand cause I remember watching it originally and thinking, "It can fire that way?" I don't know if any other similar VFX shots exist.

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 09:23 PM
The Akira Class Escort should have a hanger bay with Shuttle/Fighters as the Designer of the Ship designed the ship that way and would combat the Klingon Carrier problem in STO...

The Akira is NOT a carrier. While its true the designer drew it to fulfill that role, that concenpt died with first contact. Its not canon, as the ships role obviously changed (along with its size) in subsequent appearances. The ship became a gunboat/torpedo boat and general starfleet cruiser and nothing out of the ordinary. Especially not a carrier.

Archived Post
02-18-2010, 10:02 PM
The Akira is NOT a carrier. While its true the designer drew it to fulfill that role, that concenpt died with first contact. Its not canon, as the ships role obviously changed (along with its size) in subsequent appearances. The ship became a gunboat/torpedo boat and general starfleet cruiser and nothing out of the ordinary. Especially not a carrier.

The Carrier role never died... she can still Launch Fighters and Shuttles... there is nothing that has changed wit the Akira Class.... she was Designed with a hanger bay and 15 Torpedo Launchers....

Funny they never added that fact to the game eighter...

The hanger bay is still on the Akira model so it should be used for Carrier Dutys.... Limit the Akira to just 8 Fighters / Shuttle Craft and that is enough to combat the Klingon Vo'Quv Class Assault Carrier....

Archived Post
02-19-2010, 11:40 AM
There are a couple more problems with the Advanced Escorts that are not listed.

- Prometheus and Phoenix don't have windows on the lower hull. (If you actually pick the Cerberus lower hull it does have windows, which brings the next issue)

- The Cerberus lower hull windows don't change with the window selection. They are always Type 1.

- When picking the Cerberus class button (on the left that changes all the options to one class) the lower hull is set to Prometheus by default and not Cerberus. (I actually like the Cerberus lower hull)

- The UV map for the saucer section of the Prometheus produces "wavy" lines with texture's panels.

Archived Post
02-20-2010, 10:39 AM
Intrepid:

On STO there is no ready room or briefing room windows and there are windows all around... what i think is deck 2... there should only be windows in the center which fall in line with the mess hall

and the windows to the rear of the ship, below the shuttlebay are non existant.

I hope this can be fixed aswell as the other things mentioned on that list.

Archived Post
02-20-2010, 02:52 PM
*Sovereign Saucer is missing Impulse engine trails.

Well.......


thats actually a good thing.

Archived Post
02-20-2010, 07:30 PM
You forgot to mention the rest:
Steamrunner VS Zephyr (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y84/genex89/SteamrunnerVZephyr.png)
1. Wierd pylon additions which are nowhere to be found on the canon version
2. Large block, which serves no purpose, (Form should follow function), its where the deflector is housed on the Canon verson
3. As you said, Nacelles are not intergrated like on the canon version
4. The saucer is the wrong shape, and the gap at the front is too large as opposed to the canon verson

Crypic if your going to do canon do properly or don't do it at all, The Steamrunner was one of the reasons I wanted to play tactical, You've nailed it with the TOS Conny, so why not the canon versons of ships, instead we have an anorexic olympic class and a messed up steamrunner

The problem with this is, how are you going to integrate the Akira and Oslo-class parts into the ship if the engines are fully integrated into the hull. The reverse of this situation is how would you then use any of the Zephyr parts on the Akira and Oslo?

Archived Post
02-20-2010, 09:06 PM
The problem with this is, how are you going to integrate the Akira and Oslo-class parts into the ship if the engines are fully integrated into the hull. The reverse of this situation is how would you then use any of the Zephyr parts on the Akira and Oslo?

Yeah.. its the unfortunate side affect of trying to squish two different canon ship types into a single tier, given the way they do the customization. It almost would be a better choice to split all the tiers like they do at Admiral, then they could add in some additional ships starting around tier 3, giving some additional options.

For example, that would allow them to open up Excelsiors and Ambassadors for Cruisers.. actual Steamrunners for Escort.. and come up with a non ball design for science (maybe move novas up to tier 3 and put the Oberth down at tier 2.)

Granted if you followed that option, they'd have to do it at Tier 4 too.. but I'm sure we could come up with plenty of additional ship types to throw in there.

Archived Post
02-21-2010, 05:38 AM
I've decided to go back to the Galaxy and give it another try.

I actually think the model isn't so bad now... It looks like it was modeled ok at first and then someone accidentally moved the neck/drive section up a tad. If these two elements were put back in place, I believe you wouldn't see that awful connection error on the drive/pylons and the neck/aft torpedo tube would be near enough in the right place. They just need to remodel the bridge dome area/add detail into the textures/fix the mesh error on the neck. Should be a days work at most just to make it look reasonable.

My guess is that a lot of these nit picks would be solved with a simple revisit by someone who knows what they are doing. :D

Archived Post
02-21-2010, 08:02 AM
Thanks everyone who posted. List is updated.

Archived Post
02-21-2010, 09:58 AM
If you combine the Sovereign neck with either the Noble or Magestic hull, and turn the camera to look at the side of the ship, there's a huge gap between the back of the neck and the top of the hull. The non-Sovereign hulls are vertically shorter, and the Sovereign neck model doesn't extend down far enough to account for this.

Also, the number of decks with windows between the different assault cruisers differ greatly. Is this the only class that doesn't give different options for windows? Or are there others?

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 12:29 AM
Er, I just had to hop in and say, as an avid Voyager watcher, that the Intepid's impulse engines are in the very back, next to the nacelles, and they do indeed glow red, and not blue. You're right that the torpedo launchers go where they have the impulse engines now though.

Also, while Voyager did raise it's nacelles 99% of the time, in the technical manual it says raising them is optional, and it was designed to not damage subspace like the dirty Enterprise so they could warp faster. Not a huge deal obviously, but it means the Intrepid in the game could still be correct.

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 01:14 AM
Dunno if anyone has mentioned this previously, but I'm wondering where the Enterprise NCC-1701-C type is? (I think I'm right in saying that's the Ambassador Class). It should certainly be STO if we can fly around in the Constitution and Enterprise classes, since both those types predate it and it is the missing link between those and the Enterprise D.

It is certainly in more than one ST episode and we are led to believe that there were quite a few of them based on various mentions of the variant in ST lore, although of course it most famously showed up in the TNG episode 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. It's a cool-looking ship.

Al

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 01:41 AM
People thought the Envoy was an updated Ambassador, but it's not. The Ambassador and a dozen other remaining canonical ships have yet to be seen.

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 03:05 AM
Nice work! You deserve compensation for your dedication to paid beta testing. Maybe a playable liberated Borg for our fine feline friend. *hint hint devs

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 03:56 AM
*Discovery Nacelles: Left nacelle loses trail when at full impulse.

I thought it does actualy loses its trail (with Discovery nacelles) when not turning, but at any speed. Does not really matter, it does really look odd...

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 04:44 AM
A big issue (in terms of i am always shaking the head) seems missing or i overread it:

You always have BOTH trails at any ship, impulse (red) and warp (blue). MUST be either red (in systems) OR blue (sector map).

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 08:06 AM
A big issue (in terms of i am always shaking the head) seems missing or i overread it:

You always have BOTH trails at any ship, impulse (red) and warp (blue). MUST be either red (in systems) OR blue (sector map).

This is likely more of a design choice than any 'model issue'. :)


TheStreaker, thank you, and I hope so. :)

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 08:58 AM
Errm and models are no design? The trails are part of the model and therefore should "function" right, my it be in terms of alignment or being present at all ;) If they rework the ship models design, they can fix issue in a row ;)

Archived Post
02-22-2010, 09:38 AM
Errm and models are no design? The trails are part of the model and therefore should "function" right, my it be in terms of alignment or being present at all ;) If they rework the ship models design, they can fix issue in a row ;)

However that issue is unrelated to whether the actual individual trails WORK on any single ship model, it is only related to the fact that both sets are always on.

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 10:49 AM
Bamping my thread, since it's got official Kryptix backing. ;)

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Just saw the STO version of a Doomsday Machine, did not get any screen captures, but the surface looks too rough to me.

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 11:38 AM
Just saw the STO version of a Doomsday Machine, did not get any screen captures, but the surface looks too rough to me.

Not exactly one of the ships the thread generally refers to, but I guess I can add it! :D

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 12:58 PM
Isn't the T-1 Miranda Class(Reliant from STWoK) supposed to have it's impulse engines on the top pylon box? Forgive my absense of proper dictionary terms. In game, the impulse engines are on the back of the saucer.

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 01:33 PM
Isn't the T-1 Miranda Class(Reliant from STWoK) supposed to have it's impulse engines on the top pylon box? Forgive my absense of proper dictionary terms. In game, the impulse engines are on the back of the saucer.

Nope, engines are right where they are supposed to be.

Archived Post
02-23-2010, 02:32 PM
Bumping for great justice, fix my Luna please. :D

Archived Post
02-25-2010, 04:12 AM
Nice Klystron, Nice. :)

Archived Post
02-25-2010, 03:11 PM
Dunno if it was mentioned already but...

The Discovery model left nacelle doesn't leave a warp trail.

Archived Post
02-25-2010, 10:59 PM
Possibly outdated or repaired bugs

Red lines over the hull until the Bridge are missing on the old Constitution model (Enterprise unlock)

Luna Error:

The bridge should be higher as well, going over the "hump"
Canon
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/5652/titanside.jpg

Ingame
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2865/lunayp.jpg

Luna class on tribble server:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7168/screenshot2010030706091.jpg

Hull is straight where it should be curved.
Floating windows on the saucer

More errors:

Windows and curvature missing on the front, 3 floors instead of 2, there shouldn't be any windows on the side of the saucer
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9296/titanwindowscurvature.jpg

No escape pods underneath the ship.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5682/titanescapepodsunder.jpg


Impulse engines are transparent, The end tip of the hull should have a different finish, the hull should be thicker and follow the lines of the impulse engines, missing recreational front windows and its model depression, nacelles should be straight, missing the blue at the end of the nacelles, no escape pods on the bottom of the hull, the tear/triangle shapped part of the hull when it joins the saucer is completely wrong. The bridge shouldn't look like a wedding cake with floors. ... wow... :eek:

Current picture with the errors pointed out.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3802/lunamoreerrors2.jpg




*New Errors*
Thank you for updating the models


Sorry, I just realized those "smaller" but quite important mistakes, this is what happens when I'm sleepy :D
There are further things to be added, like it was mentioned before, the red lines, ejection chamber for the reactor, to the strip line of sensors at the side of the hull and getting other smaller details... but I consider the ones I've mentioned below more "important" and necessary. Because some of the errors I mentioned above could also mean increasing the polygon count... and maybe making it difficult to run.

Luna

1. Nacelles need the blue bit at the end
2. Escape pods in the wrong position, it shouldn't be in a circle
3. Arboretum Missing
4. Escape pods over the bridge is missing
5. The hull needs a curvature
6. The dish needs to go out in the front a bit
7. The nacelles has a clip in that area, which is missing
8. Escape pods on the hull section should be a bit more on the front
9. The hull should have a small bit at the end stretching a bit further in the back
*new*
10. There should be 2 lights underneath of the saucer pointing to the front, but not cross shaped. It would also mean, that the "lights" that are currently there needs to be reworked to reflect a bit more like the current model from the books
11. The bridge, the lower floor of the bridge needs to extend further back. Though I don't know if this will work considering that it needs to fit with the other models.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9512/errorslunajpeg.jpg



Sovereign

1. The hull is smoothed out, but in the middle it needs a bit more smoothing
2. The Pylons should be straight.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/5342/sovf.jpg




EDIT: I'm editing this post as soon as I find more errors, because it is linked to a ticket.

Archived Post
02-26-2010, 01:05 AM
How about the Vesper saucer showing a number string instead of the registry.
(It reads 987098709870 instead of NCC-91234)

edit - Here's what I've discovered with this. The prefix doesn't matter (NX / NCC). I know, I'm out 1500 merits as a result of that experiment. It is ALWAYS wrong on the Vesper saucer. If switching to the Excalibur saucer from the Vesper, the error remains, but the Connie (refit) is always right. Switching from the Connie (refit) to Excalibur, the Excalibur displays correctly.

Hope this helps someone.


(I've heard rumors of other ship parts doing this... anyone else seen this?)

Saber escort hull piece has this issue. I *think* the 'saucer' might as well. The other escort class pieces seem fine.

Archived Post
02-26-2010, 01:15 PM
have we had any dev response to these errors yet (apart from 'thanks for the list')? i really want my galaxy to look right

Archived Post
02-26-2010, 04:22 PM
How long do you think it will be till this is fixed? Just realized how bad the galaxy class is fitted.

Archived Post
03-01-2010, 04:10 PM
I'm assuming that the reasoning behind placing the thrusters on the intrepid model where the torp launchers are is that if for exampled, you used the pylons from the discovery or Cochrane class with the intrepid saucer then you would have no thrusters... (as only the intrepid model has the thrusters on the pylons)

Archived Post
03-01-2010, 06:25 PM
I'm assuming that the reasoning behind placing the thrusters on the intrepid model where the torp launchers are is that if for exampled, you used the pylons from the discovery or Cochrane class with the intrepid saucer then you would have no thrusters... (as only the intrepid model has the thrusters on the pylons)

Uh oh, the potential for a dreaded "working as intended" rears its ugly head. Did they think Trek fans -- many being collectors of images, plans and cross-sections of their favorite fictional ships -- would just "hand wave" details like this?

Archived Post
03-02-2010, 02:24 AM
Uh oh, the potential for a dreaded "working as intended" rears its ugly head. Did they think Trek fans -- many being collectors of images, plans and cross-sections of their favorite fictional ships -- would just "hand wave" details like this?

I know I didn't, it's irretated my backside since day one.

Archived Post
03-02-2010, 03:27 AM
I'm assuming that the reasoning behind placing the thrusters on the intrepid model where the torp launchers are is that if for exampled, you used the pylons from the discovery or Cochrane class with the intrepid saucer then you would have no thrusters... (as only the intrepid model has the thrusters on the pylons)

I agree. That's probably also the reason why they didn't make the Steamrunner (deflector in the aft pod and nacelles integrated into the saucer unlike the Akira class), but rather a look-alike loosely based on it.

Archived Post
03-02-2010, 03:55 AM
Sovereign is indeed missing the impluse trails... I would prefer they remain missing ;)

I agree, I like the nacelle trails but I also agree I would like to not see the impulse trails.

Archived Post
03-02-2010, 06:16 AM
HEy gang,

This is a great post! Thanks for everyone for compling this information.

Although I already saw it mentioned, I would like to say that after having done the Doomsday Device mission I was disappointed at the appearance. The STO one looks like the Thing from the Fantastic Four. Even if you can't use the TOS Remastered version, at least give us the blue one from the original TOS. Seems like this should not be too hard to change.
Also the thing seemed kind of small. Either way i was glad to see it in the game. Awesomeness.

Thanks,
Duncan

Archived Post
03-02-2010, 08:48 AM
The Zephyr is the one that troubles me the most of the models in and of themselves. Those massive raised bars are a HUGE eyesore. I have accepted the lack of integrated nacelles, but the random changes just ruin what was one of my favorite Trek ships of all time.

Please take note Cryptic!

Archived Post
03-03-2010, 01:05 AM
Recon Science Vessel:

*Dual Beam Arrays fire from Mission Pod - from inside deflector if no Pod selected? (not confirmed)
With no mission pod the dual beams fire from behind the ship to the left per screenshot below.
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-02-28-18-34-59.jpg

Different versions of the saucer and the Luna hulls do not align correctly.

Side view of Sol Saucer on Luna Hull sitting too high: http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-02-27-18-33-14.jpg

Luna Saucer on Luna Hulll, fits perfectly: http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-02-28-19-53-58.jpg

Sol Saucer on Luna Hull, needs to be lowered a lot: http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-02-28-19-54-09.jpg

Polaris Saucer on Luna Hull, needs to be lowered a bit: http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-02-28-19-54-19.jpg

Archived Post
03-04-2010, 09:07 AM
Thanks everyone for contributing. :)

List updated.

Archived Post
03-04-2010, 10:45 PM
Placed a cannon on my Akira Class and it was firing from some invisible point between its weapon array and the saucer.

Beams on my vigilant class seam to come from somewhere inside of the body.

Saber body has permanent impulse engine reflections on the flanks. Using the Ushaan saucer makes it look ridiculous as there is nothing there to create the orange illumination on the sides.

Combining the Ushaan hull with the Saber saucer causes awful clipping at the bow.

Rapier Saucer section has an inexplicably placed weapon hardpoint right in the center of a bank of windows (some going behind it as if the hardpoint was just stuck on as an afterthought)

Rapier Saucer has impulse glow bleeding through the area of the saucer with the starfleet / federation emblem.

The escape pods on the Emissary hull are far larger than the escape pods on its saucer or on any part of the other two star cruisers.

On Star Cruisers, using the Avenger saucer with the Emissary or Vanguard hulls obscures the name on the ventral side of the saucer. I suppose that's fine, because if your ship name is longer than a few letters, it is warped quite sharply to fit the curvature of... something... on both the dorsal and ventral sides.

Also on Star Cruisers, you can zoom in quite closely to them, so one might expect quite good detail on them, but arcing curves are clearly a series of straight lines strung together and windows on the ventral hull are always placed very poorly.

Tier 2 Cruisers: Using a Vesper neck with the Excalibur hull partially obscures some windows. Quite unsightly.

Tier 5 Science: Using anything but type 1 windows places them in very asymmetrical and odd places on the bridge superstructure. The Polaris class has the typical spotlight illumination for the name and registry, but there is no actual spotlight.

Also on Tier 5 science, the escape pods seem to be packed in quite tightly in places, some of them squeezed to be quite tiny.

The little licorice allsorts with red dots all over the ships that act as weapon placeholders for dual beam arrays and cannon hardpoints seem to be over-done on nearly all of the ships. Most of them seem to go unused, as if they were added all over the place "just in case" and then when the beam / cannon anchors were finalised, they just left those little unsightly dots everywhere. Many of them don't even seem to be symmetrical.

The beam arrays look like weird cheese graters on some ships and raised ridges on others; the beams don't move along them as they do in the series/movies, and we don't get the lovely little lights sliding across them before the beams lance out, so there seems to be no point to having them. To make things worse, I am quite often seeing the beam seeming to emanate from the ventral array to shoot through the saucer, coming out from nowhere near the dorsal array.

The beams are enormous things. I understand it makes it easy to see them when you zoom away from your ship, but why not just scale them so that the farther you zoom, the larger the beam becomes for you so you can still see. It's like replacing a scalpel with a machete so the doctor can see it better when his arm is stretched all the way out.

Tier 4 science vessels: Why don't their nacelles change position when preparing for warp and then staying that way while cruising through "warp"/sector space?


Quite a lot of this can be seen in the link in my signature. EH and I have got quite a lot of very good close ups of all of the ships (save Tier 2 and 4 science), so there are lots and lots of detail..... Except the Tier 6 escort... it's impossible for me to zoom any closer to them, so I had to resize the pictures to be larger and they don't look so nice. >.>


I feel like an awful whinger, here, but this is over 50% of the game. It's like playing a FPS where the devs just decided to use the gun graphics from the original wolfenstein because making new ones would be too much trouble. (In my possibly warped mind, anyway)

=edit=

To fix the 98709870987 registry number, you can select one of the three main types of ships on the far left. It fixes the registry so that you can then go through and customise the other parts. It works for my Tier 2 escorts and cruisers, at least.

To fix the window selection issues on some ships, utilise the same trick. Some of the ships in one tier class allow you to change the windows, some don't. If you select the ship that allows you to change windows, then change the windows, you can then change the parts and keep the windows.

Archived Post
03-05-2010, 12:22 AM
Something that hasn't been mentioned much is that the markings on the ships are not as extensive as those found on the models used in the shows and movies. While having every single marking on each model might be considered unnecessary, it's a shame when the name of our ships are only displayed once on the top of the saucer and not at least once somewhere else (with the exception of a few classes like the Nova and the Saber).

By this time period, we know Starfleet marked ship names on the ventral side of the saucer below the registry as well, including classes that didn't have the names on that side before such as the Galaxy class (see: USS Challenger (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Challenger_tractors_Delta_Flyer.jpg)).

Speaking of the Galaxy class, the warp-in effect for that class when we enter a system is a good example of how adding our ship name to these other areas would definitely be seen in the game and noticed by players. The current shot zooms in close to our secondary hull and neck of our ship. On the official models, right below the forward torpedo bay, the name of the ship is spelled out (http://www.freewebs.com/opxsite/galaxy.jpg). On STO's model, there is nothing.

It's a minor detail and definitely one of the last things that should be looked into (especially compared to the state of some of the actual ship models themselves such as STO's current Galaxy class). Still, having the name on other parts of the ship help make our ship seem truly different from the numerous other sister ships out there. Plus, that kind of detail always looks impressive in screenshots. :D

Archived Post
03-05-2010, 12:31 AM
Akira's missing it's impulse engines on the trailing edge of the saucer.

That's my one and only beef. Anything else as far as models not being 100% accurate to their CGI onscreen models can be chalked up to it being 30 years in the future.

But I want the impulse engines on the Akira's saucer. :mad:

I know it'll only be a matter of time before people start modding the game tho, as far as models are concerned. I'd be really surprised if they didn't..It'd be the 1st Trek game ever not to be modded..Lol.

$10 says we see Rick Knox's Akira ingame within a year.

Archived Post
03-05-2010, 01:46 PM
The beams are enormous things. I understand it makes it easy to see them when you zoom away from your ship, but why not just scale them so that the farther you zoom, the larger the beam becomes for you so you can still see. It's like replacing a scalpel with a machete so the doctor can see it better when his arm is stretched all the way out.

The TOS Connie has nice thin beams.

Archived Post
03-06-2010, 02:01 AM
Experimenting with turrets on my Star Cruiser. Put 3 front and 3 rear and even though I have ten of those bloody nonpareils all over my ship, all 3 bow turrets fire from the one in front of the spotlights and all 3 aft turrets fire from one on the dorsal spine of the ship... Even when firing at targets "below" the ship. I've only ever seen 2 of the other things fire on either side of the saucer when I had a dual beam array. None of the other little black and red dots have ever had any use.

I really hope they get rid of those unsightly little placeholders and come up with something more appropriate in appearance... Didn't the bolts in the series fire from the phaser array grooves?

Archived Post
03-08-2010, 11:02 AM
Another missing detail on the Galaxy model: the stripe down the torpedo/spine is missing, and no color choice enables it (gemini is as close as it gets and looks like the ship is an on ramp now).

No light pattern gives 10-forward on the saucer, and the hull patterns are off center compared to Canon.

Archived Post
03-08-2010, 11:41 AM
HEy gang,

This is a great post! Thanks for everyone for compling this information.

Although I already saw it mentioned, I would like to say that after having done the Doomsday Device mission I was disappointed at the appearance. The STO one looks like the Thing from the Fantastic Four. Even if you can't use the TOS Remastered version, at least give us the blue one from the original TOS. Seems like this should not be too hard to change.
Also the thing seemed kind of small. Either way i was glad to see it in the game. Awesomeness.

Thanks,
Duncan

Might be a leetle hard to do, as the original Doomsday Machine from ST:TOS was actually a cone made of tinfoil, with a effect animated into the front to give the imprwession of a enormous grinder. Just as the model of the Constellation from that same episode was a AMT model kit of the Enterprise, modified with a soldering iron. At the scales we see the Doomsday Machine at in STO, recreating the original tinfoil cone would be more than a leelte unrealistic, right?

TBH, since Spinrad's Doomsday Machine was loosely based on Saberhagen's Berserkers, the STO rendition may actually be the most "accurate" of the three versions - as Berserkers used whatever was available to repair/re-armor themselves, giving them a often almost-organic look...which the STO Doomsday Machine has in spades (the original concept, after all, was "giant space leech")

Archived Post
03-08-2010, 11:58 AM
Red lines over the hull until the Bridge are missing on the old Constitution model (Enterprise unlock)

Luna Error:

The bridge should be higher as well, going over the "hump"
Canon
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/5652/titanside.jpg

Ingame
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2865/lunayp.jpg

Luna class on tribble server:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7168/screenshot2010030706091.jpg

Hull is straight where it should be curved.
Floating windows on the saucer

Why do people regard the Luna-class as canon? It's NOT CANON, IT'S FANON - Created by fans as the result of a throwaway line in ST:Nemesis, and a couple of entries in fan books. It didn't exist any any of the shows or movies.

Reference:

Star Trek Nemesis established William T. Riker's new command, the USS Titan, but offered no information about that ship. When Pocket Books launched the Star Trek: Titan book series, they held a competition to design the new Luna class. The winning design by Sean Tourangeau was announced on October 6, 2005. Tourangeau then worked with artist Ellery O'Connell to develop a 3D model of the Titan, which debuted on the cover of the fourth Titan novel, Sword of Damocles.

Get it? IT's NOT CANON, AND NEVER WAS. Therefore, "canon" references to the Luna are nonsense. FANON references, onthe other hand...

Don't take it personal, I just think it's idiotic to treat fanon as canon until it's actually MADE canon, which things like the Luna never were. Unlike LucasArts, Paramount has NEVER recognized any of the "Expanded Universe" things as canon.

Archived Post
03-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Why do people regard the Luna-class as canon? It's NOT CANON, IT'S FANON - Created by fans as the result of a throwaway line in ST:Nemesis, and a couple of entries in fan books. It didn't exist any any of the shows or movies.

Reference:



Get it? IT's NOT CANON, AND NEVER WAS. Therefore, "canon" references to the Luna are nonsense. FANON references, onthe other hand...

Don't take it personal, I just think it's idiotic to treat fanon as canon until it's actually MADE canon, which things like the Luna never were. Unlike LucasArts, Paramount has NEVER recognized any of the "Expanded Universe" things as canon.


I'm sorry to have offended you my majesty. I wasn't aware of the word Fanon. I was referring by Canon on the ships made by the books, but still unaware of the word. Sorry my majesty for I have offended your magnificence.

Would you prefer I deleted my post and asked the OP to also delete the luna ship model errors? You know the lack of escape pods, bridge badly built, or the hump being too high, lack of curvature on the saucer section...or the floating windows? You know, since its just fan based, they can get away with those errors, right?

Once again, my apologies my majesty. :mad:

Archived Post
03-10-2010, 12:23 AM
More errors:

Windows and curvature missing on the front, 3 floors instead of 2, there shouldn't be any windows on the side of the saucer
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9296/titanwindowscurvature.jpg

No escape pods underneath the ship.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5682/titanescapepodsunder.jpg



There other 2 errors, end of the nacelles and the bridge design, but those I'll post in after I get some sleep.

Archived Post
03-10-2010, 12:40 AM
I actually like the windows on the sides of the Luna saucer. Would be nice to have a windows option with and without these.

Archived Post
03-11-2010, 06:08 PM
Impulse engines are transparent, The end tip of the hull should have a different finish, the hull should be thicker and follow the lines of the impulse engines, missing recreational front windows and its model depression, nacelles should be straight, missing the blue at the end of the nacelles, no escape pods on the bottom of the hull, the tear/triangle shapped part of the hull when it joins the saucer is completely wrong. The bridge shouldn't look like a wedding cake with floors. ... wow... :eek:

Current picture with the errors pointed out.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3802/lunamoreerrors2.jpg

Archived Post
03-12-2010, 06:09 AM
Impulse engines are transparent, The end tip of the hull should have a different finish, the hull should be thicker and follow the lines of the impulse engines, missing recreational front windows and its model depression, nacelles should be straight, missing the blue at the end of the nacelles, no escape pods on the bottom of the hull, the tear/triangle shapped part of the hull when it joins the saucer is completely wrong. The bridge shouldn't look like a wedding cake with floors. ... wow... :eek:

Current picture with the errors pointed out.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3802/lunamoreerrors2.jpg

Well, at least the impulse engine error has been fixed on Tribble.

Archived Post
03-13-2010, 08:31 AM
I'm not someone who cares about exact details, or comparisons to canon, however some of the current models of ships being non symmetrical, lop sided or various parts fit badly together does annoy me, It just puts you off the ship or designs.

I know from the recent content update on what the devs are focusing on is new ship designs and variations, this is nice from one stand point, but if this leads to more of the same mistakes, it will put me off entirely.

I hope these things count as bugs and that they are working on making them look right for the future.

Archived Post
03-13-2010, 10:49 AM
Great list. Something I will add (if it hasn't been already) that I think is a real detraction from the Constitution model (and all models, really) is the extra details, painting-wise. Specifically the Starfleet Delta and red trail on the Constitution's engineering hull. This marking appears on every single ship, but some of the models don't have that marking and it makes the Engineering hull look too dull and incomplete. It'd be an easy fix, one that would add to the models in the game.

Archived Post
03-13-2010, 05:37 PM
Thought I would repost this from a Luna thread from Tribble Feedback Forum:

Oh and the reason the heights are so wrong on the saucer is that the catamaran akira style pieces on top of the saucer are far to high. LOOK at the pic linked above and you will see it.

The bridge hump didnt need moving up, the catamarans needed flattening

It isn't that these catamaran Akira pieces are too large but the top Luna saucer curve is not correct which NecroWulf already pointed out.

This canon design has the curve of the Canon Luna saucer starting near the saucer edges:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...aturecanon.jpg

This screenshot shows that the STO Luna saucer curve doesn't start anywhere near the edge:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...urvature01.jpg

If we draw a proper curve on the STO Luna saucer it covers and makes the catamaran Akira style pieces appear smaller which they should be:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...rcurvature.jpg

This will make the catamaran Akira style pieces smaller and make new changed bridge hump smaller as well.

There are so many alignment issues with all the RSV models, especially when you mix the parts and make your own kit bash.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 12:45 PM
Thread updated, thanks to everyone who helped.

Also, GOOD NEWS EVERYONE:

Galaxy Class model now more accurately reflects the TNG canon ship.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 01:32 PM
i'll check the details the next time i hit up a shipyard, but on the recon class science vessel one of the pylon attachments (connecting engine to hull) doesnt actually connect to the hull. you can turn the camera and see straight through a substantial gap.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 02:14 PM
I read through about 3 pages of posts and right now am too lazy to go through the rest butr here are my issues.

1) Enterprise (TOS) crew is off by about 1/2. 400 crew and 35 officers not 200 crew as STO has stated.

2) Enterprise (TOS) is listed officially by Paramount as a Heavy Cruiser not a light cruiser.

3) Excellsior neck is wrong. Should be much fatter.

4) Enterprise (TOS) according to the diagrams in the Tech manual the photon tubes are under the main bridge not some where on the lower portion of the ship.

5) Enterprise (TOS) had 3 banks (some argue six because they were mounted on the upper and lower portions of the saucer) of twin beam phasers. 1 fwd 90, 1 port and 1 starboard 135 degree firing arcs.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 06:05 PM
Intrepid class issues:
- Torpedo launchers aft are now apparently impulse engines?
- Impulse engines aft have been turned into "mini warp nacelles" including micro bussards in front.

Galaxy class:
- "dorsal" ridge to rear torpedo bay is too prominant, should be flush with a slight indent over the spine.
- Phasers fire from the "transporter emitters" instead of the phaser arrays which are noted as missing.
- Rear of the saucer should be flush with the stardrive, not indented.
- turbolift and ready room missing from external bridge layout/dome
- neck STILL not flush with the navigational deflector of the hull
- Torpedo bay missing from neck, torpedoes firing from next to main deflector of all places!
central impulse engine has no flare
- Using wrong type of escape pods on all textures, Galaxy pods are squareish in shape
- Dual phaser and single phaser fire does not come from the phaser "array", but comes from the far edges of the saucer.
-Phaser array does not go "360" around the saucer of the galaxy, the indent on the saucer is also the wrong position for the phaser array, it should be the next "loop" in, and is terminated by the shuttlebay, giving a 270 degree ring around the saucer wtih the shuttlebay blocking it off, same goes with the ventarl phaser, 270 degree ring.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 06:17 PM
i'll check the details the next time i hit up a shipyard, but on the recon class science vessel one of the pylon attachments (connecting engine to hull) doesnt actually connect to the hull. you can turn the camera and see straight through a substantial gap.

I see this problem on these RSV kit bashes when using a Polaris hull with either Luna or Sol Pylons. This is on Tribble so it isn't fixed yet. Doesn't occur on any other kit bash.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-03-14-19-01-58.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-03-14-18-58-42.jpg

edit: looked again and this gap is occuring on both the right and left pylons, not just the right as described in the pictures.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 06:20 PM
Here's something else for the Nova class folks:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/rick-sternbachs-equinox/

I saw that there wasnt enough references for the nova here, that's got the CG shots of the studio model and the design plans for it.

Oh, and another galaxy issue:
the Deflector is made up of two pieces, the rear blue parabolic dish, and the extended orange/blue dish emitter:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Galaxy_class_navigational_deflector.jpg

Right now, the Galaxy deflector is just a series of blue and dark blue concentric circles, that's fine, but the colours need to be changed from dark blue to orange for the darker circles.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 06:28 PM
Thread updated, thanks to everyone who helped.

Also, GOOD NEWS EVERYONE:

Originally Posted by Tribble Testserver Release Notes, 10th of March
Galaxy Class model now more accurately reflects the TNG canon ship.



They fixed two problems out of the list of 10 with that, BTW, so it's not fixed, just a little less broken.

I'd also like to add, the Nor-type stations need a lot of work too, apart from the scaling issue, which we can liv with MMO wise, we've also got docking pylons with no airlocks, the docking ring with no airlocks, strange "bumps" on the weapon sail towers where they converge on the habitat ring, etc...

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 06:31 PM
I see this problem on these RSV kit bashes when using a Polaris hull with either Luna or Sol Pylons. This is on Tribble so it isn't fixed yet. Doesn't occur on any other kit bash.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-03-14-19-01-58.jpg
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p312/SuperDuper22bw/Star%20Trek%20Online/screenshot_2010-03-14-18-58-42.jpg

edit: looked again and this gap is occuring on both the right and left pylons, not just the right as described in the pictures.

BINGO, polaris hull w/ all the stupid antennae. i really miss my capt class sci ship lol - the look, not the limited equip slots.

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 10:07 PM
Here's some more:

Constitution refit:
- Constitutions do not fire torpedoes from the bow of the saucer, they fire them from the torpedo bay in the neck: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Constitution_class_refit_torpedo.jpg

Galaxy:
- Saucer impulse engines should NOT be lit up under any circumstances until the saucer seperates (Makes the moving slow like a turtle more believable, as a side effect)
- centre impulse engine does not emit a trail

Defiant:
- Quantum torpedo hardpoints are here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Defiant_firing_quantum_torpedoes.jpg
- Cannon hardpoints are here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Defiant_firing_phaser_cannons.jpg (The canons are firing from 4 hardpoints on the leading "edges" of the nacelles. If you were to draw a line that ran perpendicular along the vertical axis of the nacelle where the hull meets the nacelle itself, that is where they are. will draw in paint later if the description is unclear.
- As well, the "ribbing" at the back is not lit up red, it's a dull grey colour and is unlit.
- The Defiant has phaser beam emitters for dorsal/ventral and aft directly behind the bridge and behind the shuttlebay hatch, respectively.

Cheyenne:
- Cheyenne class do not have "phaser canon mounts" on their warp pylons, they have phaser arrays as seen here, phaser arrays are also present on the mounts for firing aftwards:http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Cheyenne_class_studio_model.jpg
-Cheyanne bridge module is larger in canon then it is in STO's model, there is also large rounded "humps" on both the crossbeams between the nacelle pairs.
- Cheyanne does NOT have a deflector dish in the position as provided in STO's model. According to this site here, in an interview with Mike Okuda, the cheyenne was made by "sticking two galaxy class saucer undersides together", there is no deflector on the underside and it should technically match the topside for shape:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/cheyenne/cheyenne-parts.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/cheyenne.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/wolf359/ahwahnee-parts.gif
- Cheynne's 3rd impulse engine does not emit a trail

Archived Post
03-14-2010, 11:51 PM
It's excusable for the Cheyenne which, I think, was only seen on screen as a half-destroyed hull. Adding a deflector dish makes sense. The only reason why it didn't have one in the first place was probably because no one could've made out that it's missing anyway.

Note that the in-game Cheyenne fires torpedos from the upper nacelle pylons (apparently from humps near the engines), either port or starboard, depending on its relative position to target. The aft launcher seems to be situated flush with the fore ones but in the middle.

Edit: Not also that the in-game model has more hull detail than the original model that make the saucer halves not vertically symmetrical: there are shuttle bay doors in the bottom half aft on both sides and Intrepid-style sensor palettes both top and bottom, but in different places. Again, I think those are reasonable additions.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 12:33 AM
It's excusable for the Cheyenne which, I think, was only seen on screen as a half-destroyed hull. Adding a deflector dish makes sense. The only reason why it didn't have one in the first place was probably because no one could've made out that it's missing anyway.

Note that the in-game Cheyenne fires torpedos from the upper nacelle pylons (apparently from humps near the engines), either port or starboard, depending on its relative position to target. The aft launcher seems to be situated flush with the fore ones but in the middle.

Edit: Not also that the in-game model has more hull detail than the original model that make the saucer halves not vertically symmetrical: there are shuttle bay doors in the bottom half aft on both sides and Intrepid-style sensor palettes both top and bottom, but in different places. Again, I think those are reasonable additions.

I agree in principle except for the forward torpedo launchers. The foward launchers should be on the twin necks of the ship, in the same position the galaxy's would be if these were galaxy class necks. It makes sense considering the warp pylons ARE galaxy class necks stuck on top of each other, but as for the rest... Yes, although with the Miranda and Norway class, there is precident for ships without known deflector dishes to exist. So it could arguably be removed and still be an acceptible ship.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 01:07 AM
Some of the starship designs are just ABORTIONS who designs this krap... there are so many good ship ideas already existing or at least let there be some fan created starship designs .

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 02:04 AM
Another few Galaxy faults:

The bussard collectors should not have such a big "cap" of metal over them, from the top and bottom views, they should be at least 50% exposed over the entire length of the bussard collector. As well, they should not be "inset" into the nacelle as depicted in game, rather then metal smoothyly transitions into the bussard, as seen here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Bussard_collector,_Night_terrors.jpg


As well, the coils behind the bussard collectors before the blue warp grills should be orange, not grey.

And the nacelles, looking from top down, should not be tapering from the rear to the front of hte nacelle, until they reach the "large" blue glow module ust before the orange grills. Right now from a top down view they look like a teardrop or melting candle, the rear of the nacelles are too fat compared to the front.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 02:23 AM
Some of the starship designs are just ABORTIONS who designs this krap... there are so many good ship ideas already existing or at least let there be some fan created starship designs .

I think the 3D artists are simply not interested in Star Trek.
It just shows. Most ships are a slapdash mess.
None of the ST:O ships are even worthy enough to be a free download on a site like
http://bridgecommander.filefront.com/files/Bridge_Commander/Ships/Federation;640

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 02:48 AM
I would prefer them just allow user submitted content esp new ship designs. the Phasers on ships dont even come from the strips on some designs....... Its just crazy. I wonder is this sabotage of star trek is deliberate. Its a Star wars conspiracy!

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 02:49 AM
IThe foward launchers should be on the twin necks of the ship, in the same position the galaxy's would be if these were galaxy class necks. It makes sense considering the warp pylons ARE galaxy class necks stuck on top of each other, but as for the rest...

Well, there's no need for the necks to be identical with Galaxy necks as they're not supposed to be Galaxy necks in-universe. Likewise, the saucer was scaled down by re-arranging the windows and making them bigger. It's a smaller ship, hence no need for any part of it to be exactly the same as a bigger ship's part, even if it looks similar.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 02:54 AM
What gets to me is simple modeling erros that People on any mod site will do for free.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 03:05 AM
Well, there's no need for the necks to be identical with Galaxy necks as they're not supposed to be Galaxy necks in-universe. Likewise, the saucer was scaled down by re-arranging the windows and making them bigger. It's a smaller ship, hence no need for any part of it to be exactly the same as a bigger ship's part, even if it looks similar.

I know, but the canons on the nacelle mounts are a definite no-no, i'm trying to find a resolution that would allow for that issue to go away, but keep a reasonable torpedo launcher hardpoint. Drawing them on the cheyenne necks as if they were galaxy necks would be a suffiicient compromise.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 05:10 AM
I know, but the canons on the nacelle mounts are a definite no-no, i'm trying to find a resolution that would allow for that issue to go away, but keep a reasonable torpedo launcher hardpoint. Drawing them on the cheyenne necks as if they were galaxy necks would be a suffiicient compromise.

I see. That makes sense.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 05:49 AM
Reconnaissance Science Vessel:

Polaris Saucer + Luna or Sol hull = see through the back of the saucer (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9189/screenshot2010031513444.jpg).

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 03:23 PM
I certainly hope these matters get looked at. It seems they placed awilliams to the task of fixing the Galaxy and Luna ships. Hopefully he can squeeze out some time to look at the other issues listed on the OP.

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 05:51 PM
The UV Coordinates on the T2 Escort Rapier Saucer really need looking at - Apply the Gemini Texture and look at how wavy & skewed the dark wedges along the top-outside of the saucer are.

The Federation Emblem on the T2 Escort Rapier Saucer also looks really bad - it's too large for the recess where it's located so it gets cut-off and the textures around the sides of the opening are inconsistent. IMHO It would look much better somewhere on the raised rear portion of the saucer above the impulse engines.

There are also several places where the textures do not seem to be correctly mapped onto a hull feature. In particular, the raised bits along the top-front of the T2 Escort Rapier Saucer and the rear-outside parts of the T3 Escort Akira Hull come to mind. For most of the hull types & patterns, half the feature is one color while the other half is a different color.

The T3 Escort Oslo Saucer has some problems with the window and hull textures just in front of the main bridge.

- SC

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 09:51 PM
just to throw one into the mix... i think the jem hadar battleship is missing some parts in the back of the ship... an impulse engine i believe
the attatchments should help

Archived Post
03-15-2010, 10:09 PM
Let's chuck in some more issues, shall we?

Sovereign
- Deflector dish wrong colour
- Missing torpedo bay at bottom of saucer (above where the captain's yacht should be)
I can go on about the nemesis variant of the sovereign, but we'll consider that much like the Galaxy-X, would be nice but not urgently needed.

Archived Post
03-16-2010, 01:17 AM
More Galaxy fun!:

The underside is woefully lacking in detail:

AS you can see here, the registry number is not as prominant as it's displayed on the cryptic ship and is closer to the centre of the saucer, rather then just under the phaser array.
as well, there is several larger clusters of windows that are indented into the hull which are missing in the cryptic model:

http://witneyman.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/enterprise-d.jpg

Archived Post
03-16-2010, 06:50 AM
I have a fed captain in each of the major disciplines (Sci/Tac/Eng), but so far my preferred is my Sci/Sci setup, and I have noticed some issues that *need* to be looked at (after fixing gameplay issues of course):

1. It's already been said a thousand times but here it is again: The impulse drives are in the wrong place!
>>2. Nacelles do not move for warp speed, and if there's one thing that made Voyager unique it was those gorgeous *moving* nacelles<<
3. There are some red lit-up things underneath the nacelle pylons, I'm not sure what they are supposed to be, but I don't think they were on the original Voyager.

The second issue is critical for me, after all the swinging nacelles were a feature in the opening credits of the show for cryin' out loud!

EDIT: I know this stuff has been mentioned before, but I thought it bore repeating. How could they screw up the most iconic ships so badly?

Archived Post
03-16-2010, 03:19 PM
I have a fed captain in each of the major disciplines (Sci/Tac/Eng), but so far my preferred is my Sci/Sci setup, and I have noticed some issues that *need* to be looked at (after fixing gameplay issues of course):

1. It's already been said a thousand times but here it is again: The impulse drives are in the wrong place!
>>2. Nacelles do not move for warp speed, and if there's one thing that made Voyager unique it was those gorgeous *moving* nacelles<<
3. There are some red lit-up things underneath the nacelle pylons, I'm not sure what they are supposed to be, but I don't think they were on the original Voyager.

The second issue is critical for me, after all the swinging nacelles were a feature in the opening credits of the show for cryin' out loud!

EDIT: I know this stuff has been mentioned before, but I thought it bore repeating. How could they screw up the most iconic ships so badly?

I think the galaxy and constitution are more iconic then the flying toilet seat :P

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 01:49 AM
It's already been said a thousand times but here it is again: The impulse drives are in the wrong place!


It's not likely that will be fixed because it's a necessity of interchangeability of parts with the Cochrane and Discovery classes. They should've designed those with a different impulse engine placement. But it's unlikely they'll go to the effort to change all three designs as the two other classes would require extensive reworking.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 06:28 AM
It's not likely that will be fixed because it's a necessity of interchangeability of parts with the Cochrane and Discovery classes...

It will be fixed if *customers* demand it. Capitalism is a powerful thing.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 03:27 PM
Putting impulse engines on those two design's warp engines wouldn't be too difficult from a modelling point of view, but the art department would have to approve the change and the marketing team would too.

It's one of those issues where the conceptual artists didnt have a clue what each bit of the ship did before they made their own designs.

And they can just remove them flat out, we dont really care. There are other really popular ships that have NO impulse engines, like the NEBULA CLASS.

One of the rationalizations I imagined ages ago for having no obvious impulse grilles involved capturing and compressing the impulse fusion reaction exhaust and later releasing it from special non-propulsive ports. If the Nebula class was employed in a stealthy surveillance mode, it would be smart to minimize all overboard emissions. Since most all “modern” impulse engines involve little or no pure rocket thrust, but more of a sub-warp drive, one could say that the familiar orange Starfleet glowy exhausts could be modified or eliminated. - Rick Sternbach (TNG ship designer and builder) @ drexfiles.com

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/nebula-class/

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 03:44 PM
Hello, thank you all for working on putting together this awesome list. I'm looking into some of the issues and so far here's what was fixed:

Nova class ships (science tier 1) no longer fire cannons out of nacelles :)
U.S.S. Nova and it's variants had fore torpedo bays moved to their correct location in the front on the side indents.
U.S.S. Nova now has only one impulse engine as per canon. Variants are intact.
I've checked to make sure tier 3 science ships (olympic and variants) don't fire fore torpedoes up.
The holes at the engines on the Intrepid were fixed.
I will look into the issue of the intrepid not using pylons' impulse engines as soon as we can figure out a way to
preserve the variants and still have proper customization.
U.S.S. Majestic had a weird graphical issue on the aft-top of its hull - fixed.
U.S.S. Noble upside-down and oversized fleet logos were fixed.

Again, thank you for your feedback!

These will probably roll out with the next update.

-lightning strike out!

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 03:53 PM
Hello, thank you all for working on putting together this awesome list. I'm looking into some of the issues and so far here's what was fixed:

Nova class ships (science tier 1) no longer fire cannons out of nacelles :)
U.S.S. Nova and it's variants had fore torpedo bays moved to their correct location in the front on the side indents.
I've checked to make sure tier 3 science ships (olympic and variants) don't fire fore torpedoes up.
The holes at the engines on the Intrepid were fixed.
I will look into the issue of the intrepid not using pylons' impulse engines as soon as we can figure out a way to
preserve the variants and still have proper customization.
U.S.S. Majestic had a weird graphical issue on the aft-top of its hull - fixed.
U.S.S. Noble upside-down and oversized fleet logos were fixed.

Again, thank you for your feedback!

These will probably roll out with the next update.

-lightning strike out!

Lightening strike, to fix the issue with the variants, look at the post directly above you. The trek creators already had a loophole available to resolve a similar problem :)

But awesome on the rest of it, it'll be great to see a real firing nova in the next patch.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 04:28 PM
Hello, thank you all for working on putting together this awesome list. I'm looking into some of the issues and so far here's what was fixed:

Nova class ships (science tier 1) no longer fire cannons out of nacelles :)
U.S.S. Nova and it's variants had fore torpedo bays moved to their correct location in the front on the side indents.
U.S.S. Nova now has only one impulse engine as per canon. Variants are intact.
I've checked to make sure tier 3 science ships (olympic and variants) don't fire fore torpedoes up.
The holes at the engines on the Intrepid were fixed.
I will look into the issue of the intrepid not using pylons' impulse engines as soon as we can figure out a way to
preserve the variants and still have proper customization.
U.S.S. Majestic had a weird graphical issue on the aft-top of its hull - fixed.
U.S.S. Noble upside-down and oversized fleet logos were fixed.

Again, thank you for your feedback!

These will probably roll out with the next update.

-lightning strike out!

thanks for the update, I was hoping you might be able to look at the weapon firing points on the Advanced Escorts? beams and cannons are firing from their nacelles! would be great to have this in by the 45 day patch.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 04:29 PM
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/nebula-class/

I already wanted a Nebula in game, but after taking a look at that link I now want one twice as bad.

lightning_strike: make it so!

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 05:50 PM
On the Tier 4 Escort Vigilant, The starboard/right nacelle is a little bit farther from the center of the ship than the port/left nacelle. I noticed this when using Gallant Nacelles but it may affect others as well.

Also, the Hull patterns for the Vigilant seem to get really screwy at the very back of the ship.

Also, when using the Defiant Pylons on the Vigilant, you can see through them from behind if the camera angle is right. It's like there is a gap between the pylon model and the hull model which exposes the back-faces of the pylon model.

- SC

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 09:04 PM
Noted, I'll pass this on to the right person.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 09:45 PM
The D'deridex is definately too small, and the Mogai is too large. Cryptic will have to flesh out some new designs for the Romulan faction too...enough to cover 5 tiers. Take inspiration from ST: Legacy...that game had some nice ships and sound effects.

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 10:09 PM
My issue with ship scale is CBS has all the rights and info on the ships they can easily ask CBS tell us the right size... If not ask CBS just try to consult with the many sources on the internet I have combed the internet sources and found that a defiant class ship is at min 120m in length and no more than 170. Using the galaxy class ship as a reference for all the ships is a good start because its the most widely recognized and people have decided on the exact scale of it.

In essence using the Galaxy class as a starting point
* Defiant class in length should be only 1/5th the size of galaxy class
*Bird of prey From most of the deep space nine episodes is around 110 M long 1/5th
*KTinga class should be 1/3rd the size
* Akira class 2/3rd of the galaxy
*Runabout 1/28th ( though it will look like a spec of dust gamewise... Imagine flying along side a galaxy class with highly detailed textures. VERY EPIC)

Archived Post
03-17-2010, 10:15 PM
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/lcars24.php and food for thought... A Lcars database of the inside of some ships...

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 12:08 AM
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/lcars24.php and food for thought... A Lcars database of the inside of some ships...

I think those are great renditions that include a lot of conjecture that makes sense.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 12:29 AM
I think those are great renditions that include a lot of conjecture that makes sense.

http://www.merzo.net/ this is also a great sight he has scaled EVERYTHING

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 01:05 AM
Folks,

in regards to scaling, memory-alpha is accurate. It's using CBS authorized sources (including rick sternbach, doug drexler, alex jaeger and john eaves blogs) for things like sizes.

The D'Deridex is twice hte size of a Galaxy, the Defiant is 1/5, Voyager is 2/3, the soverign is 40 metres , longer, etc...

Note too:

In regards to the nebula posting, I didnt post it to say "WE WANT THE NEBULA" i posted it as an example, one of many, of a ship that doesnt NEED to have impulse engines visible to be able to fly. The nebula class uses "concealed" engines, so it still has impulse, it just doesnt have the vents. Maybe the variants Vigilant and discovery can have such an engine type too, which would conform to some starfleet designs.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 09:51 AM
I'd like to point out that the new phaser strips on the 'fixed' Galaxy-class look flawed (2 dorsal, on the tail of the ship to each side of the torpedo launcher, and 2 to the sides, on the 'corners' of the nacelle pylons).

~ Firstly, they look a smigen too rectangular and blocky. They really ought to have more rounded corners like the phaser arrays shown on the rear-end of the Miranda-class light cruiser.

~ Secondly, having two phaser strips on the rear-end, but only seen on the dorsal side is kinda wierd. I'd really recommend adding two more phaser strips on the bottom of the tail as well for more top/bottom symmetry.

~ Third, all the new phaser strips have textures that give a pattern like this: ||||||||. That is inconsistent, seeing that like textured lines shown on other phaser strips are supposed to follow the length of the strip like such: ===. Essentially, all the newly added phaser strips need to have thier textures given a 90 degree rotation.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 02:47 PM
On the Tier 4 Escort Vigilant, The starboard/right nacelle is a little bit farther from the center of the ship than the port/left nacelle. I noticed this when using Gallant Nacelles but it may affect others as well.

Also, the Hull patterns for the Vigilant seem to get really screwy at the very back of the ship.

Also, when using the Defiant Pylons on the Vigilant, you can see through them from behind if the camera angle is right. It's like there is a gap between the pylon model and the hull model which exposes the back-faces of the pylon model.

- SC

I also inherited responsibility for these ships. I'll take a look at these bugs in the very near future. Thanks!!

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 02:58 PM
For the love of god! are you all serious?? you get a dev response because your earl gray tea wasn't up to the proper temp out the replicator, but they do not respond on KDF or other issues? while i have no real beef with cosmetic issues, could we please fix some other stuff first? This isn't Star Trek Hello Kitty Online.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 03:08 PM
For the love of god! are you all serious?? you get a dev response because your earl gray tea wasn't up to the proper temp out the replicator, but they do not respond on KDF or other issues? while i have no real beef with cosmetic issues, could we please fix some other stuff first? This isn't Star Trek Hello Kitty Online.
I've seen a number of responses from developers on Klingon, PvP, mission, crafting, skill and cosmetic issues to name a few.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 03:52 PM
For the love of god! are you all serious?? you get a dev response because your earl gray tea wasn't up to the proper temp out the replicator, but they do not respond on KDF or other issues? while i have no real beef with cosmetic issues, could we please fix some other stuff first? This isn't Star Trek Hello Kitty Online.

most DEVs have their own area that they work on... or do you really want the graphics people to do the coding... and the coders to do the ship-designs?
think it through ;)

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 03:58 PM
For the love of god! are you all serious?? you get a dev response because your earl gray tea wasn't up to the proper temp out the replicator, but they do not respond on KDF or other issues? while i have no real beef with cosmetic issues, could we please fix some other stuff first? This isn't Star Trek Hello Kitty Online.

Are you an idiot? This is a GRAPHIC DESIGN issue, not a PROGRAMMING/CONTENT issue. These people have nothing to do with your lack of missions, pve content or the like, they're sole role is ships and graphics. These folks are the ones you complain to if the content people have made missions and ships and there's no art for them. They are two seperate departments.

Now, if you have any problems with existing klingon ships, THESE are the people you complain to, one neghvar nacelle shorter then the other? BOP turned inside out? that kind of stuff, not to complain about lack of content.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 04:19 PM
For the love of god! are you all serious?? you get a dev response because your earl gray tea wasn't up to the proper temp out the replicator, but they do not respond on KDF or other issues? while i have no real beef with cosmetic issues, could we please fix some other stuff first? This isn't Star Trek Hello Kitty Online.

CapnLogan can't fix PvP ballance issues, he can't fix UI problems, he can't fix mission bugs. He can't really fix anything outside of this area's of responsiblity. He can fix ship models problems. That's his job: working on hips models (and I assume 3-D model generation in general). Ship model problems may not be important you. But they are important to me and a lot of other player. You can tell that by read all of the issues that player report here, and their comments about them. Problems through out the game are being dealt with. Read the @#$ Tribble release notes.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 06:54 PM
Here's some other things from the list that have just been addressed.

the left nacelle trail on the U.S.S. Discovery - fixed.
checked to see if there were sufficient shuttle doors on U.S.S. Discovery and Cochrane - I think so :confused:
moved the aft torpedo bay on the U.S.S. Sovereign to it's correct position according to canon
smoothed out the U.S.S. Sovereign and U.S.S. Majestic saucers :)
fixed the aft torpedo's launching downward on the U.S.S. Noble
added the captain's yacht to the U.S.S. Sovereign

- (I believe what looks like the "quantum dome" on the Noble is actually a yacht) I will add the yacht to the Majestic as well but I will leave the currently existing weapon ports to represent the quantum torpedo bays as in canon although all torpedoes will still fire either out of fore or aft torpedo launchers.

Anyways, these will probably roll out with the next update as well.

Lightning Strike out! Ktshhhh...cracklecrackle!!!:eek:

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 07:09 PM
Here's some other things from the list that have just been addressed.

the left nacelle trail on the U.S.S. Discovery - fixed.
checked to see if there were sufficient shuttle doors on U.S.S. Discovery and Cochrane - I think so :confused:
moved the aft torpedo bay on the U.S.S. Sovereign to it's correct position according to canon
smoothed out the U.S.S. Sovereign and U.S.S. Majestic saucers :)
fixed the aft torpedo's launching downward on the U.S.S. Noble
added the captain's yacht to the U.S.S. Sovereign

- (I believe what looks like the "quantum dome" on the Noble is actually a yacht) I will add the yacht to the Majestic as well but I will leave the currently existing weapon ports to represent the quantum torpedo bays as in canon although all torpedoes will still fire either out of fore or aft torpedo launchers.

Anyways, these will probably roll out with the next update as well.

Lightning Strike out! Ktshhhh...cracklecrackle!!!:eek:

That's great news for this Sovereign fan. One question - what about the Sovereign's impulse engines? They don't leave impulse trails and frankly, look like jellybeans in a picture frame. :D

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 07:43 PM
Here's some other things from the list that have just been addressed.

the left nacelle trail on the U.S.S. Discovery - fixed.
checked to see if there were sufficient shuttle doors on U.S.S. Discovery and Cochrane - I think so :confused:
moved the aft torpedo bay on the U.S.S. Sovereign to it's correct position according to canon
smoothed out the U.S.S. Sovereign and U.S.S. Majestic saucers :)
fixed the aft torpedo's launching downward on the U.S.S. Noble
added the captain's yacht to the U.S.S. Sovereign

- (I believe what looks like the "quantum dome" on the Noble is actually a yacht) I will add the yacht to the Majestic as well but I will leave the currently existing weapon ports to represent the quantum torpedo bays as in canon although all torpedoes will still fire either out of fore or aft torpedo launchers.

Anyways, these will probably roll out with the next update as well.

Lightning Strike out! Ktshhhh...cracklecrackle!!!:eek:


I think you should check the USS Victory model, I don't think it needs screenies coz the errors are quite visible. For example, you can see through the the side of the ship, there are holes on the nacelles(at the back)

Did we get more details under the saucer on the sovereign? :D

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 07:59 PM
That's great news for this Sovereign fan. One question - what about the Sovereign's impulse engines? They don't leave impulse trails and frankly, look like jellybeans in a picture frame. :D

sry, I forgot to mention that. Sovereign impulse trails are also fixed.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 08:03 PM
Deleted post.

That's what I get for not ready entire thread..

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 08:06 PM
I think you should check the USS Victory model, I don't think it needs screenies coz the errors are quite visible. For example, you can see through the the side of the ship, there are holes on the nacelles(at the back)

Did we get more details under the saucer on the sovereign? :D

I'll make sure the right person looks at the constellation class(?). If by more details you mean the captain's yacht, then yes.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 08:23 PM
The U.S.S. Victory model is a Jupiter-class Federation dreadnought. While the quad-nacelle configuration is the same, it is not the Constellation-class (actually, the Constellation-class isn't in the game at all :D ).

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Silly lightning strike.... I keep thinking of the Jupiter class as the U.S.S. Jupiter. Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look at it.

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 10:22 PM
Here's some other things from the list that have just been addressed.

...

Anyways, these will probably roll out with the next update as well.

Lightning Strike out! Ktshhhh...cracklecrackle!!!:eek:

Any possibility of adding somewhere down the line additional markings and pennants to the ships (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2305424#post2305424) as seen on the shows?

Archived Post
03-18-2010, 11:49 PM
In regards to the Sovereign's impulse engines, can they not be so prominant on the hull? They seem to stick out an aweful lot and their position is a bit higher up the saucer then whre they should be. Here's a pic for reference:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sovereign/sovereign-shuttlebay-firstcontact.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sovereign/sovereign-topside-insurrection.jpg

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 05:23 AM
There are still several Klingon-related ship issues (most of which I have already posted here) that are still missing from the Klingon list.

I'll post them again:

B'rel class BoP

Missing "feather" decal from lower wing
The decal that is currently present on the top of the wing should be mirrored beneath the wing as well.

Missing "Warp" glow
The B'rel engines should be split by two colours. The top half should be yellow - this is the warp drive. The bottom half should be red - this is the impulse drive. Currently the engine glow is entirely red.

Missing Piping from "nose"
There is a rusty-coloured piping that sits on top of the ledge formed by the over-sized lower section that bends round the entire nose. It looks like some kind of attempt has been made to add this to the texture, but iit is difficult to tell because of the poor texture quality (due to small size of the file). This is quite a prominent feature of the BoP's bridge section and as such should be an actual mesh.

Colour Inconsistencies
The colour of the B'rel is wrong. The hull should default to Klingon green (the same green that should now be present on ALL klingon ships). Likewise, none of the customisation pattern options allow for the feather decal on the wings to be the correct red and brown mix. Later B'rels would also have red feather decals beneath, and green ontop. The metal vents, which also act as the leverage for the wings, should always be a metalic grey.

Missing lights
There should be a scattering of lights, both running/naviagtion and also crew quatres, throughout its hull.

Vor'Cha Battlecruiser

Missing "feather" decals from wings
The Wings (upper and lower) should have the klingon-esq decals on the wings very similar to that of the Negh'Var. It is completly missing in the current model. See here: Vor'Cha screen grab (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080911030949/memoryalpha/en/images/3/36/Vor%27cha_class%2C_profile.jpg)

Missing bumps on the back of the wings
There are several protruding objects on the back of the Vor'Cha wings, all of which are missing. The main "bump" was always coloured yellow. See them here on this image of the official Vor'Cha plastic model kit, which was an accurate scaled version of the studio model: http://www.argalot.com/vor%27cha1.jpg

Wings too straight
The back of the wings are too straight. They should be curved far more noticeably, as seen in either image linked above.

Wings decal from the front of wings
There should be three squar-ish decals on the front of the wings, coloured red, as shown in this screen grab: Pic (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080911220541/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5e/Vorcha_forward.jpg). The current model appears to have some kind of attempt at this decal, but its been made into one long indent with absolutely no colouring.

Hull colouring
By the late 2370's ALL Klingon ships were painted in Klingon Green. As such, the default grey-ish hull colour of the Vor'Cha is wrong. I understand that you've likely chosen a more neutral colour to allow for customisation, but if that is the case then can you please add an option to set the default hull colour of Klingon ships and give us the option of 3 colours: the current neutral grey, TNG blueish-green, DS9 Klingon Green. The same is true for pretty much every single Klingon ship.

Negh'Var

The hull of the Negh'Var seems to have been modelled from that used in the TNG episode "All Good Things". Though this model was meant to have been from 2404, it was from an alternate reality and had several differences to the Negh'Var seen in DS9 and also in Voyager's finale "End Game" which was also based in 2404. I will list the in-accuracies below.

Missing lower Weapons pods
The small pods currently in place beneath each wing on the model is that of the "All Good Things" Negh'Var. The correct use should have an additional pod hanging from what already exists on the model, seen here in the following screen grabs: Image 1 (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080817055833/memoryalpha/en/images/3/3e/IKS_Negh%27Var.jpg), Image 2 (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091107203307/memoryalpha/en/images/6/6c/Regent%27s_flagship_retreats.jpg), Image 3 (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091107204229/memoryalpha/en/images/9/9b/Klingon_warship_and_SC-4.jpg) (the 3rd image is actually from a Negh'Var from 2404 as shown in Voyager "End Game" - you can see the weapon pods quite prominantly here).

The forward section of these pods housed the majroity of the Negh'Var's foreward weapon arrays, seen firing in this screen grab: Action shot (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060317193212/memoryalpha/en/images/6/67/IKS_NeghVar_attack.jpg)

There are currently 2 weapon placements on the wings - one of the wing tip, one a little further in - either of this could be re-positioned onto the new (and more accurate) weapon pods.

Incorrect Hull colour
As with the Vor'Char, and indeed all Klingon ships, the default hull colour is incorrect. ALL Klingon ships should have a default "Klingon Green" hull. As mentioned above, I understand that you may have chosen a more neutral green to aide in the customisation options for the various patterns, but if this is the case then please allow us to pick a grey or green hull. Please note I am not asking for a pattern that coveres the whole hull - I am litteraly just asking for some variants to the defaulting hull colour. Presumably you could achieve this via the "material" drop down options.

K'Vort Class Bird of Prey

I realise this is in the original post, but I wanted to stress this point. Please add the K'Vort class Bird of Prey as a variant model for the Brigadier General BoP. The K'Vort is identical in design to the B'rel, but is the same size as the existing two General BoP's. This ensures that there is at least two canon klingon ships available to players at General.

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 05:26 AM
Silly lightning strike.... I keep thinking of the Jupiter class as the U.S.S. Jupiter. Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look at it.

Just to help you ouit I decided to take a few screenies. I'm not sure about the blue strips on the side(outside) of the nacelles(Just at the end), as I've just noticed it by looking at my screenshots, please check it just in case (the bottom left one).

Also. it seems there are some texturing/lightning problem at the end of the ship. Personally, I would focus more on the "holes"...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6411/jupiterclass.jpg

Details I mean, stuff like windows, a bit more "edginess" light...
http://homepage.eircom.net/~watty/tcz/picz/tff/1701e.jpg
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs31/f/2008/216/8/7/USS_Enterprise_NCC_1701_E_by_enterprisedavid.png
Escape pods... oh...and also, if possible increase the poly count on the hull of the sovereign, if

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/File:EnterpriseE.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e5/UNKNOWN314159/EnterpriseE.jpg

I hope this helps :)

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 06:34 AM
since STO uses book canon the romulan warbird is way under scale (has been stated that a galaxy class could fit between the twin hulls)

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 06:59 AM
since STO uses book canon the romulan warbird is way under scale (has been stated that a galaxy class could fit between the twin hulls)

WHere'd you get that from? The D'Deridex has been in books AND TV as only being twice the size of a galaxy, there is no instance anywhere where a galaxy was said to fit inside the double hull. Closest i can recall is the book Federaiton where the Enterprise D sheered a warbird in half by ramming it.

Lightening strike: How hard would it be to change a borg model, completely? I mean right now, the 3 borg ship types are Cube, Sphere and Probe, with the Probe just looking like a dodgier version of the sphere. Where in actaulity, the Borg probe was an actual unique ship design, as seen here:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Borg_probe

Is it possible, anywhere down the line, to see the borg probe model updated to look like an _actual_ borg probeship instead of a Sphere's uglier cousin?

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 10:12 AM
I just want to reiterate my love for this thread. The Engineer that I am loves the attention that the Devs are paying to the ship models. Thank you very much!

Duncan

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 10:37 AM
I've been looking over the Galaxy class as noticed a few issues (some most likely due to mesh refinements). I've made an image highlighting the mesh errors, as well as labeled a few minor improvements.

Galaxy Class Refinements (http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/galaxyclassrefine.jpg)


Above the saucer impulse engines there is a mesh error showing, this is mostly noticable when the lighting hits it from certain angles.
On the ship spine, adding a texture to it (Gemini in this images case) you can see that the texture co-ordinates are slightly off, most likely due to the mesh changes on the spine.
The Port shuttlebay is currently to large, in the show it was actually smaller, the 2 bays on the neck are not actually the same size.
The Greeblie on the pylon looks odd, since it was never there on the show, I have placed a green outline where the plasma vents are in the show, perhaps moving and reshaping the greeblie block to that location? it may require a few more polies to get the right shape, but since the current greeblie should not be there it shouldn't be a huge issue.
Added outlines for the ships rear phaser banks, not sure if this is possable due to the other ship model parts. I'm assuming the greeblie I mentioned previously could be a phaser bank? If so it needs to be reduced in size by about 50%.
Added the locations of the ships name and registry on the ships pylons.


I was going to add the missing pennants on the naccelles, but since no ships have the markings and pennants at this time I didn't feel it was needed. I've focused on the rear of the ship mostly, since this is what the player sees the most when traveling, thus, is more important to have accurate(ish).

On another note, the Luna class is still missing its name and registry on its warp nacelles, I think alot of ships would really feel more 'Trek' if they had the names and registries on thier nacelles, I know the lower tier ships had them, but many of the higher tier ships seem to be missing them.

As has been echoed previously in the thread as well, pennants and markings would really be a great addition, maybe adding them to the window texture layer or something? To me it's the little markings that have always made Trek ships stand out from generic grey spaceships. I know there are restrictions on textures budgets, but they would be fairly easy to make, only the pennant itself needs a decent texture, the stripes would just be a small red block stretched out to make the lines afterall.

Also, it would be very nice if you could hide the pods on the Deep Space Science Vessels too, like the Recon Science vessels.

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 01:36 PM
vampiric_hoshi, Suricata, lightning_strike: thanks for the epic information you've posted.

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to update the lists, so hang in there.



zyvox76: This thread is NOT the place for arguing, bashing or complaining regarding Cryptic's ways. Take it elsewhere.


Comrade_Vlad: I understand your need to describe your concerns --- but please, I implore everyone to examine the list found in OP and extra and ONLY, ONLY post your issues if they are not found or otherwise solved there!

Archived Post
03-19-2010, 07:37 PM
I've been looking over the Galaxy class as noticed a few issues (some most likely due to mesh refinements). I've made an image highlighting the mesh errors, as well as labeled a few minor improvements.

Galaxy Class Refinements (http://suricatasblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/galaxyclassrefine.jpg)


Above the saucer impulse engines there is a mesh error showing, this is mostly noticable when the lighting hits it from certain angles.
On the ship spine, adding a texture to it (Gemini in this images case) you can see that the texture co-ordinates are slightly off, most likely due to the mesh changes on the spine.
The Port shuttlebay is currently to large, in the show it was actually smaller, the 2 bays on the neck are not actually the same size.
The Greeblie on the pylon looks odd, since it was never there on the show, I have placed a green outline where the plasma vents are in the show, perhaps moving and reshaping the greeblie block to that location? it may require a few more polies to get the right shape, but since the current greeblie should not be there it shouldn't be a huge issue.
Added outlines for the ships rear phaser banks, not sure if this is possable due to the other ship model parts. I'm assuming the greeblie I mentioned previously could be a phaser bank? If so it needs to be reduced in size by about 50%.
Added the locations of the ships name and registry on the ships pylons.


I was going to add the missing pennants on the naccelles, but since no ships have the markings and pennants at this time I didn't feel it was needed. I've focused on the rear of the ship mostly, since this is what the player sees the most when traveling, thus, is more important to have accurate(ish).

On another note, the Luna class is still missing its name and registry on its warp nacelles, I think alot of ships would really feel more 'Trek' if they had the names and registries on thier nacelles, I know the lower tier ships had them, but many of the higher tier ships seem to be missing them.

As has been echoed previously in the thread as well, pennants and markings would really be a great addition, maybe adding them to the window texture layer or something? To me it's the little markings that have always made Trek ships stand out from generic grey spaceships. I know there are restrictions on textures budgets, but they would be fairly easy to make, only the pennant itself needs a decent texture, the stripes would just be a small red block stretched out to make the lines afterall.

Also, it would be very nice if you could hide the pods on the Deep Space Science Vessels too, like the Recon Science vessels.

Those unknown greebles seem to be in the place where if i recall correctly, the transporter emitter arrays are supposed to be, although it could be further back where the phasers currently seem to be firing from. I'd have to check back again.

Archived Post
03-20-2010, 05:01 AM
Window problem:

http://imgur.com/INCB0.jpg

Enterprise registry error

http://imgur.com/zMAEW.jpg

Tier 4 science: Scale issues?

http://imgur.com/Zcjcx.jpg

http://imgur.com/zZx3W.jpg

http://imgur.com/r3yba.jpg

http://imgur.com/s9quK.jpg

http://imgur.com/MHwWI.jpg

http://imgur.com/ieo8M.jpg

The above screens are of a Tier 4 science ship utilising the Discovery class hull/struts/nacelles and Cochrane class saucer. The Type 8 Del Taco shuttle is resting on my ship's fantail. I did a little manoeuvring to make sure the shuttle's nacelles were just resting on my hull and the bow was just touching the "door" instead of clipping into it because I had been hoping that the little door looking thing on the aft of my ship was... well.. a door. Unfortunately, it seems the hull of my ship can't accommodate a shuttle... It looks like it can barely accommodate a crew standing two abreast. There was more space inside of WWII submarines.

http://imgur.com/gZasg.jpg
The shuttle is almost touching the bow of the ship, here.

http://imgur.com/L78Nu.jpg
The shuttle's port nacelle is actually touching the saucer hull. Yes, it's in the foreground, but I've manoeuvred my ship to where the aft tip of the shuttle's nacelle is just clipping into my hull. I'm beginning to think that my ship is crewed by dwarves, halflings or gretchin. That or my crew are all scooting around on mechanics' creepers.

That or they're standing up and my ship just has portholes in silly places.

Please don't cop with the "It's a fisheye problem" excuse; it was played out the first time it was used. The scale is wrong, here, the Saber class nacelles are asymmetrical and the Avenger class struts are as well. I had taken some screens of the saber class issue but the game has recently decided to black out about 30% of my screenshots.

Moving on :3

Star Cruiser Saucer / Hull joint:

http://imgur.com/5aLse.jpg


And to end on a positive note. ^.^

http://imgur.com/afCav.jpg

+edit+

Admittedly, it could be that the shuttle is just too large. :3