Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,128
# 31
01-24-2013, 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
And "BC-Central"? Is that BCS-TNG? It's been a while since I reinstalled my copy of STBC and got Kobayashi Maru for it, so I haven't been prowling the BC sites lately.
No, BCS-TNG is totally separate from BC-Central. BCS was only started to give the scripters some-place else to work undisturbed by the community until they felt ready to release.

Be sure you get the correct version of KM. I think the latest KM version is 2010 which had a metric sh*t ton of improvements over the older versions.

In fact, there is a ship building contest taking place on BCC as we speak. Some very interesting ships coming out. All of which are set in the "lost era" (post TMP, pre TNG)
Player of the once promising game known as Star Trek Online. Derider of the derisory, sultan of stun, captain of things obvious and people oblivious.
The only one who dislikes the oddy outfit. Would love a t5 TMP Constitution class or a Fleet K'tinga revamp!
In memoriam, exploration clusters, a victim of the great content massacre. 2010-2014.

Last edited by captainoblivous; 01-24-2013 at 02:10 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,241
# 32
01-24-2013, 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lincolninspace
I am not one of those trekie types that pores over ship schematics or anything but I agree with the op that the Galaxy has noticable flaws and I noticed something was wrong with it almost immediately after I purchased one. It is a ship that is on tv every day only the constitution gets as much screen time so people know what it is supposed to look like. It is also one of the most beloved ships and deserves more love.
I couldn't agree more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainoblivous View Post
No, BCS-TNG is totally separate from BC-Central. BCS was only started to give the scripters some-place else to work undisturbed by the community until they felt ready to release.

Be sure you get the correct version of KM. I think the latest KM version is 2010 which had a metric sh*t ton of improvements over the older versions.

In fact, there is a ship building contest taking place on BCC as we speak. Some very interesting ships coming out. All of which are set in the "lost era" (post TMP, pre TNG)
Ah, I see. And I think I have the latest version installed, I'll double-check in the future.

And "lost era" haha, nice way of putting it. I'll check it out.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Email me for a Pro-Galaxy sig!
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
Foundry: A new series coming soon! | PvP: PvP Boot Camp, Notebook Project Almost Done!
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 476
# 33
01-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Heh, just be glad you didn't see these ships around launch ...



Honestly, I got the 'parody' impression when I saw the deflector part too. Did you know it used to not even be yellow? And just be glad you're not a bigger fan of the Intrepid class, which used to have impulse trails coming out of its airlocks. People still complain about the underside of the saucer, which is a trouble point on the Luna as well.


The early launch-era ships had extremely varied quality. Some were good, but some were terrible. Ships ranged from attempts at canon designs, to an unexplained redesign of the Olympic class, to adding some flat antenna things all over to make the Luna variant into the 'Polaris' variant. If you look under all the doodads, you can still see what the Luna used to be.

Over the years, ship artists haven't been the most numerous devs on the team, but they've done a lot of work to update the models from what they were. They have to deal with a lot of things like polygon budgets and swappable parts. Are more accurate models possible? With some issues yes, but it will take some squeezing in or else all the other ship work in the game will come to a screeching halt. Other issues are just limitations that the artists have to work within, or things that would cause more problems if they were to be 'fixed'.


It's easy to say it should be done better because other people have made accurate models, but working for a company on a schedule, having to prioritize your work, is totally different than making models on your own time that don't need to be optimized for the minimum game specs.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 307
# 34
01-25-2013, 04:47 AM
Regarding the difficulty of fixing such off center (or minor mesh-) problems in general:
You load the model and select the vertexes in the proper viewpoint, align the grid and/or turn on some sort of snap-to-grid, you then move the vertexes into their proper place.
After this you might need to check whether this has caused problems with the uvw map and adjust it if necessary (that's just a matter of moving another bunch of vertexes on a texture).

This is literally step-by-step. It might take 5 minutes (altho there might be more than one problem with a mesh, obviously).

Eh. Cryptics pretty hopeless.
The flipped polygons on many ship models (due to an error in their exporter) have, for the most part, not been fixed even tho it's even easier and the problem has been known for many months now, with the number of people having this problem slowly increasing.

I mean, sure, it would be nice if there was some huge surprise patch in the works that fixes most of the model errors in general - but I doubt it will ever happen.

He's dead, Jim.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,241
# 35
01-28-2013, 08:35 AM
It's kinda disappointing, really. Fanmade starships, with no pay and sometimes deadlines, can create much better looking vessels and have them work in a game. And then there's Cryptic... they can't even make a half-decent ship, even when they're being paid to do so.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Email me for a Pro-Galaxy sig!
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
Foundry: A new series coming soon! | PvP: PvP Boot Camp, Notebook Project Almost Done!
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,247
# 36
01-29-2013, 03:39 PM
What annoys me most ATM, is that 4 nacelled ships are really hard to make look symetric (side view) or at least look good.

I have found some ways to make the prometheus look at least decent but it's very hard to find some good combinations with the (Fleet) Heavy Cruiser.

I won't start talking about cryptics ships, i tend to get really upset when getting into this issue. Let me just say that if i where in charge of Cryptic i would fire the responsible ship artist with a pleasure. Especially the person who made the Patrol escort, the various Assault cruiser variants (excluding the regent), and most other Cryptic ship models should be .... (insert something cruel and untasty here).

Sometimes they have some nice basic idea but they tend to add way too many things into one design, making it look overloaded. They should look much more onto their starships general shape instead of making each little detail look special.

By the way they should give us much more freedom when designning our ship at the ship tailor. At least they should make pylons and nacelles much more flexible to place and to size them.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread

Last edited by yreodred; 01-29-2013 at 03:41 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,689
# 37
01-29-2013, 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
It's kinda disappointing, really. Fanmade starships, with no pay and sometimes deadlines, can create much better looking vessels and have them work in a game. And then there's Cryptic... they can't even make a half-decent ship, even when they're being paid to do so.
You forgot to add that Cryptic most definitely has deadlines, sort-of set work hours, and probably have no desire to take their work home with them.

So yeah, I'd sort of expect Joe Free-Time after work with months on end to map every weapon hardpoint as accurately as possible will turn out better work than Mike Ship-Guy who has to put out a ship every two weeks* and pray nothing goes wrong else the next ship he has to do in two weeks might end up rushed.

Does it really come as a surprise to you that fanmade stuff turns out better most of the time, with that in mind?


*number is pulled out of exhaust pipe, probably innaccurate, but likely in the ballpark based on observation.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,241
# 38
01-29-2013, 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jexsamx View Post
You forgot to add that Cryptic most definitely has deadlines, sort-of set work hours, and probably have no desire to take their work home with them.

So yeah, I'd sort of expect Joe Free-Time after work with months on end to map every weapon hardpoint as accurately as possible will turn out better work than Mike Ship-Guy who has to put out a ship every two weeks* and pray nothing goes wrong else the next ship he has to do in two weeks might end up rushed.

Does it really come as a surprise to you that fanmade stuff turns out better most of the time, with that in mind?


*number is pulled out of exhaust pipe, probably innaccurate, but likely in the ballpark based on observation.
Nope, not a surprise. That's why I suggested, in posts around the same page as the one you quoted, that they ask Joe-Free-Time to use their models in the game.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Email me for a Pro-Galaxy sig!
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
Foundry: A new series coming soon! | PvP: PvP Boot Camp, Notebook Project Almost Done!
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,873
# 39
01-29-2013, 10:02 PM
I think one thing that many people overlook when they say, "Just have fans build it!" is that everything that goes into the game has to be built in specific ways. Ships more than most, as they are basically a character. They need to not only fit into a triangle count, and a material count, but they have to be split up into multiple parts, with pivots in specific locations for customization. They have to have all of their UVs set up in a way to work well with multiple different materials. They have to be set up with nodes for every phaser strip, blinky light, photon torpedo launcher, and tractor beam. They have to be named in specific ways, and a million other things I'm sure I don't know about since I'm not a ship artist.

The point being, making a ship for OUR game, is a much more involved process than just making a good looking model in Maya for renders.

All of that stuff makes it difficult to outsource. There are many iterations, many things need to be double, triple, octuple checked, and when something breaks, there needs to be someone to debug/fix it who knows what they're doing.
-The Artist formerly known as Tumerboy



Quote:
Originally Posted by mightybobcnc View Post
Tacofangs, what is your beef with where's Sulu?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 40
01-29-2013, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
The point being, making a ship for OUR game, is a much more involved process than just making a good looking model in Maya for renders.

All of that stuff makes it difficult to outsource. There are many iterations, many things need to be double, triple, octuple checked, and when something breaks, there needs to be someone to debug/fix it who knows what they're doing.
So what you're saying is, you guys will get to work on it right away?
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 01:48 PM.