Republic Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,060
# 11
01-20-2013, 11:25 PM
The Galaxy X spinal lance is really the most glaringly obvious of the ship model errors, and is the only one I am desperate to see fixed.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 12
01-21-2013, 01:21 AM
Considering, the Galaxy is on Cryptic's hate list, I don't see how they could "find time" to fix it's issues.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 542
# 13
01-21-2013, 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Formats can be converted.
Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
# 14
01-21-2013, 09:07 AM
I love stuff like this, but I'd like to point out that the spider is an asset saving part that makes the defector look proper from far away, and that the galaxy deflector section difference in shape is due to perspective.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh....php?t=1313421
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, Xindi carrier, Xindi escort, and the T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The Constellation is made up primarily of Connie refit parts and it is tier 5, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the no tier 5/6 connie rule.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,210
# 15
01-21-2013, 09:29 AM
When posting stuff about the Galaxy-class, in particular, you need to keep in mind the differences between the four and six foot models used in the show. CapnLogan used the sleeker looking six foot model as reference when doing the alterations to the current Galaxy-class in-game.

In fact, here was one of the reference pages he used I believe: Enterprise-D Auction.
---------------------------------------------------
U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-91771 - Nebula-class
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Leave nothing unattempted" - James Cook

Last edited by amosov78; 01-21-2013 at 02:59 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,547
# 16
01-21-2013, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1986 View Post
Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly
It's Cryptic's choice whether they wish to create a nice-looking Galaxy or Sovereign class from scratch (which would take a LONG time), or just spend time converting and applying the logos and such. I'd pick the latter. It's easier to modify as opposed to create from scratch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm
I love stuff like this, but I'd like to point out that the spider is an asset saving part that makes the defector look proper from far away, and that the galaxy deflector section difference in shape is due to perspective.
That doesn't excuse the fact that it was sloppily done. Even putting in a bumpmapped texture would be preferable to a terrible deflector using up the polygons.
And I can send extra pictures to show that it's not a perspective issue, there really is a problem with the shape of the Galaxy-class deflector and "mouth".

Quote:
Originally Posted by amosov78
When posting stuff about the Galaxy-class, in particular, you need to keep in mind the differences between the four and six foot models used in the show. CapnLogan used the sleeker looking six foot model as reference when doing the alterations to the current Galaxy-class in-game.

In fact, here was one of the reference pages he used I believe: Enterprise-D Auction.
Indeed, there are significant differences. Even if they decided to use the Six-foot model as their reference (which they shouldn't, since the Four-foot model was created to replace the six-foot), there are still problems with the shape of the neck and deflector "mouth".

By the way, nice website find.

stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More!
It's about time. DEVS NEED ACCOUNTABILITY.

Last edited by stardestroyer001; 01-21-2013 at 01:38 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,125
# 17
01-21-2013, 02:05 PM
A lot of these fixes *are* really minor- as most of them are positional (so you go into the model and move the offending mesh into correct position), or only occur on one side of the model (so you go into the model and delete that side, then re-mirror the functional side).


That does not take a lot of effort to *do*, although given that STO stores most of its data locally, it would require a patch to actually fix.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,495
# 18
01-21-2013, 02:14 PM
the galaxy model in game is quite nice, though i wish it was a bit more 4 foot then 6 foot. the galaxy's biggest problem is its stats, its extreamly limiting station setup, its size giving it nothing but disadvantages, and there being no game mechanic or stat that benefits from a ship being large. that goes for nearly all fed cruisers, but for the galaxy the most.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,107
# 19
01-21-2013, 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1986 View Post
Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly
Yes it does, but it's still faster than creating stuff from scratch.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,507
# 20
01-21-2013, 02:43 PM
Sorry.

But with all the many other "errors" and broken stuff in the game that they should be fixing, the tiny artistic problems on these ships are totally minor, and honestly have no impact on a normal player's game play experience.

This is honestly the last thing that Cryptic should be dedicating anyone to fix. I'd rather see their current ship artists working on new and exciting things, than revisiting designs on ships that work.

I honestly never even noticed the things mentioned in the OP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by twg042370 View Post
This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?
I thought the same thing.
No one can be this obsessive about the placement of where the spinal lance is on a ship, or the shape of a deflector.
But then I realized.
This is a Star Trek fan.
We're all crazy about some aspect of the franchise.

But seriously, this kind of crap is the last thing a DEV should be worried about when so many other things about their game are not exactly "working as intended".

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.

Last edited by hippiejon; 01-21-2013 at 02:48 PM.
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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM.