Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 21
12-05-2012, 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spike6942 View Post
Ok hereticknight, you are all knowing, im sorry i brought it up i didnt realize that you have the final say on this. so cryptic you heard him no more moving parts on any ship.
its the bane of his existence.

ohh and the corsair thing, that was the most inappropriate comparison. they are nothing alike, apples to oranges. make a comparison that has a hinge that doesnt move, ever!
There's no reason to get snippy. In fact that was downright rude. I was putting out logical simple arguments, and you give me this? An age comment would be appropriate here, but instead I shall simply ask this:

Why should the wings move? What good would they do the ship? How would it be cosmetically appealing?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 22
12-06-2012, 12:14 AM
Logical arguments:

1) This is not another game, so model should not function as it did in another game.

2) Klingons build cosmetic uselessness into pure-bread purpose-built warships.

Seems legit.

Moving parts always adds flavor to ingame models. Could be a Bugatti Veyron's spoiler on Need for Speed or the functioning BCG on an M4 in Fallout 3. People like moving parts..You can't tell someone to tell you how something would be visually appealing, because it's all a matter of taste to begin with. That's like asking someone to tell you what rhythm is. You either know or you don't..

Last edited by wunjee; 12-06-2012 at 12:30 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 23
12-06-2012, 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
Logical arguments:

1) This is not another game, so model should not function as it did in another game.

2) Klingons build cosmetic uselessness into pure-bread purpose-built warships.

Seems legit.

Moving parts always adds flavor to ingame models. Could be a Bugatti Veyron's spoiler on Need for Speed or the functioning BCG on an M4 in Fallout 3. People like moving parts..You can't tell someone to tell you how something would be visually appealing, because it's all a matter of taste to begin with. That's like asking someone to tell you what rhythm is. You either know or you don't..
Now that was a civilized and legit response. Thank you.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10
# 24
12-06-2012, 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
There's no reason to get snippy. In fact that was downright rude. I was putting out logical simple arguments, and you give me this? An age comment would be appropriate here, but instead I shall simply ask this:

Why should the wings move? What good would they do the ship? How would it be cosmetically appealing?
ok, snippyness aside, how about this; they get the nacelles out of the line of fire to the main body or they get the weapons on the wing in a better position to fire? i dont freaking know because i didnt design the thing! thats not what i wanted to debate! I DONT CARE WHY ITS THERE!!! i just wanted the thing to work as it was designed, thats all. im one of those that likes the moving things, it adds flavor, even just a little bit. take the chimaera, not the best looking ship nor is it the most powerful, but its pretty cool when it goes into tac mode, useless as it is as a warship, i like looking at it. and if they made a b'rel without moving wings it would be a k'vort. same class of ship but different. yes i get it its the vor cha family, but why is it so hard to swallow that you can have moving parts on a retrofit? and why do people have to get butthurt about changing things in the game?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,046
# 25
12-07-2012, 02:56 AM
HMM, how do you know it was designed to move?
Do you have any special insight into the creation of this ship?
Because originally the wings of the Birds of Prey in this game did not move and were later converted to move without any viasual changes to the models, no "pivot points" of any sort etc.
So how do you know this ship was designed or intended to have moving parts?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 26
12-07-2012, 03:16 AM
Because if you look at the model, you can see that obviously there was supposed to be some degree of vertical movement in the nacelle pylons ("wings"), centered around a pivot-point.

One could even fit this into the lore by saying the Tor'Kaht was a Klingon experiment in warp efficiency in a large-ish ship, similar to Intrepid's moving nacelle pylons.

"Flat" when out of warp, "up" when at warp. Very similar to the Intrepid.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,046
# 27
12-07-2012, 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
Logical arguments:

1) This is not another game, so model should not function as it did in another game.
Except the person who claimed it was in another game has not yet managed to prove that it is in another game.
And there's no eveidence I could find anyone ever created even a model named Tor'kaht for Armada not to mention it would have to look like the ship in STO for this to make even remote sense.
And then there's the matter that Cryptic can't just use stuff produced by another game company, or fan merterial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
2) Klingons build cosmetic uselessness into pure-bread purpose-built warships.
HMM, what does "cosmetic uselessness" in this context mean?
The Bird of Prey has wings for atmospheric operations.
In addition the recetly release Haynes Owner's Workship Manualexplains that the wings move into the horizontal for cruising because the canon BoP has its actual warp propulsion system in the wings (it does not have warp coils, but plates) and this system works best when the plates are in the same plane as the hull.
They move into a lowered position for an improved field of fire and because the plasma lines constrict which allows more concentrated warp plasma to be fed to the weaspons.
And the move into an upward position for landing so they don't touch the ground.

Please note the wings never moved on the larger cruiser-sized models, probably because it makes no sense at that size for field of fire purposes.
And ships of that size probably don't land on planes but can still move through the atmosphere for attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
Seems legit.

Moving parts always adds flavor to ingame models. Could be a Bugatti Veyron's spoiler on Need for Speed or the functioning BCG on an M4 in Fallout 3. People like moving parts..You can't tell someone to tell you how something would be visually appealing, because it's all a matter of taste to begin with. That's like asking someone to tell you what rhythm is. You either know or you don't..
Taste is certainly something very hard to debate over, but for example spoilers on (real) cars usually move because they have a function and that characteristic is usually replicated in a simulation/somewhat accurate racing game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 245
# 28
12-07-2012, 03:27 AM
See my reply I made moments before you made yours.

Moving warp pylons can be and have been explained on larger ships in Star Trek lore.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,046
# 29
12-07-2012, 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
Because if you look at the model, you can see that obviously there was supposed to be some degree of vertical movement in the nacelle pylons ("wings"), centered around a pivot-point.

One could even fit this into the lore by saying the Tor'Kaht was a Klingon experiment in warp efficiency in a large-ish ship, similar to Intrepid's moving nacelle pylons.

"Flat" when out of warp, "up" when at warp. Very similar to the Intrepid.
Have you ever built a 3-d model?

Because when you connect elements of different angles (especially of they are rather "flat") you need to have some kind if connection point or it will just look wrong or might produce clipping errors.
The simplest way to solve this problem is to use a cylindrical connection point.
I think you can imagine what that will look like.

In addition the Tor'kaht was originally designed and released as a mix-and-match model for the Vor'cha on the C-Store (in fact it was the only additional skin at the time).
That it was set up as a ship with moving parts makes no sense because it was mix and match with a ship that has no moving parts.
On the Intrepid, the additional skins all have the same characteristic: they have moving parts in the same place.
There is no mix and match in this game where the model of a ship with this feature is mixed with one that is without it.
And it makes no sense to set up a model to have a feature that will never be used under any circumstances.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,046
# 30
12-07-2012, 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunjee View Post
See my reply I made moments before you made yours.

Moving warp pylons can be and have been explained on larger ships in Star Trek lore.
Seems our postings intersect somewhat, it currently takes a while for me to write mine.

*EDIT: but you haven't explained what you mean by "cometic uselessness", you only explained why the Feds built a ship with folding (and only 1, must a reason they never developed the concept further)

Last edited by misterde3; 12-07-2012 at 03:55 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.