Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 So I got a galaxy class...
02-04-2010, 06:25 PM
WARNING: This is a rant. This is only a rant. If you don't have the time or patience to read this, then move along. Yes, I know this might not be a priority in the scheme of things. Skip to the last couple of paragraphs if you just want to get to the payoff.



I got a galaxy class cruiser finally today. Yes, I know it is slower than a drugged sloth. That horse has been beaten to death in other threads, which are being studiously ignored. I have no interest in discussing it here.

I figured that I would just put up with its slow turn rate. I mean, heck, I get to play using a galaxy class, man! The Enterprise D! Considered by many to be one of the prettiest ships in Star Trek. I can put up with it, if I look cool slogging around.

...SIGH...

Here is the deal: It looks bad. Not bad as in badass, and not bad as in fugly. Bad as in sloppy and rushed.

Some key notes, in order of least problematic to most:

1 - I've already gone over the edge of the saucer section in a previous post. Now that I can see it up close, I can form a better opinion on it. It is defiantly too squared off, but here is the kicker. There are already more than enough polys in the saucer edge section of this model to fix it! They don't have to add polys, and heck, if they paid attention to this they could have REMOVED some polys and it would have looked BETTER than now.

2 - The warp pylons are done a bit poorly. They are a bit too long vertically. The nacelles and secondary hull positions are just fine, so don't move those, just shorten the height of the vertical struts a bit. This becomes quite distracting when you see the ship from underneath, like...oh...say EVERY TIME IT GOES TO WARP. The pylon bit sticks down underneath and looks very sloppy.

3 - No phaser strips...at ALL. Yes phasers fire from points on the ship (which, on the saucer are not the right points, but whatever). However, if you look at...oh...say EVERY SINGLE CRUISER UP TO THIS ONE, there are those phaser strips on the model. There are NONE on the galaxy model. They therefore become obvious by their absence, and detract from the appearance.

4 - This is the big one. The neck on the ship looks very very bad. It looks like it is angled backwards. The front of it does not line up with the front edge of the secondary hull, and the back top actually STICKS OUT from the saucer. This pretty much destroys the smooth and graceful lines that were part of the whole intent of the original design. It looks awful, and needs to be overhauled.


Now, as to why this is important in the overall scheme of things:

This model looks very sloppy and very rushed. Like the art department had the order come down that they needed a Galaxy class, so they just shoved this out with a minimum attention to detail so that they could get on with other things. It shows a lack of attention to detail, and more importantly a lack of commitment to doing the job right.

Frankly, this would have made me NOT buy a lifetime (or a preorder) as this can very well be a symptom of a company wide unwillingness or lack of resources to get the job done right. This lack of attention to detail reflects poorly on Cryptic, and the face they wish to present to their customers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-04-2010, 06:52 PM
bump


10chars////
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-05-2010, 12:12 AM
I do still like how it looks, but I do agree with the opening poster. The model could be, with a little more work, much more refined to the standards the Excalibur and Vesper ship classes hold.

For me, the more glaring points were:
~ the front and rear torpedo launcher were not represented at all. The rear torpedo launcher is... a big stub that peeks out from the dorsal curve much more than it ought to. I looked over ship customization to see if it was about being compatible with other pieces... and no, that wasn't the case.

~ I disliked how the nacelle struts were a visible addition under the Galaxy-class' ventral rear. You can see that it's a piece, instead of it blending in better (read: clipping into the secondary hull model).

~ ...and phaser strips, yes.

I could understand some of those details having been changed on the grounds of the Galaxy-class having been refitted after three decades. It being slightly different isn't an issue - it's the noticeable lack of detail compared to the benchmark other ships set.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-05-2010, 12:25 AM
Please tell me you're joking in that you're bumping a thread about the visual appearance of the galaxy class ship.

This probably falls somewhere below replying to the cruiser thread on the priority list for cryptic, which is to say it's not on the radar at all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-05-2010, 12:34 AM
The patch notes revealed they did visual tweaking on some ship models in order to make the game look better.

If there's interest and that it would make some players happy, why not? When the 3d art team had extra time, they worked on the bridges. If comments are made, then they have directions they can base themselves on to polish their product. I hardly see that as blind or deluded.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-05-2010, 12:48 AM
That's what i call a nice model of the Galaxy

http://bridgecommander.filefront.com...s/File/89383/1

I know it's a BC model but hey...high res models for a 10 year old game

Edit: Just wanted to show one thing what i loved about BC Modding Community FTW
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-05-2010, 01:08 AM
I agree with the OP...

Another Ship that has problems by the way is the Stargazer Class. If you use variations of ship pieces the engines can clip right into the saucer section of the vessel. Very poorly laid out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-05-2010, 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustTray View Post
Please tell me you're joking in that you're bumping a thread about the visual appearance of the galaxy class ship.

This probably falls somewhere below replying to the cruiser thread on the priority list for cryptic, which is to say it's not on the radar at all.
You have to be joking, right? The aesthetics of one of if not the most iconic ship in Strr Trek are not important? - well of course it's important. Getting this right is the absolute minimum I would expect, not because I live my life wearing spock ears in my sister's blue lycra vest but because it's often ther little things that matter the most. And Cryptic seem to understand this as the most recent patch fixed some ships (unknown if this was one of them) so you are wrong about it not being on their radar. When I play a game I want to see attention to detail, I want to feel that all the little things that you might not even notice individually add up to something greater than the summ of its parts.

There are bigger fish to fry but the basics should still be right or there's no foundation to build up.

So yes this matters and yes I agree with the original poster that it should be fixed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-05-2010, 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EaglePryde View Post
That's what i call a nice model of the Galaxy

http://bridgecommander.filefront.com...s/File/89383/1

I know it's a BC model but hey...high res models for a 10 year old game

Edit: Just wanted to show one thing what i loved about BC Modding Community FTW
The funny thing is that the original devs for that game got the galaxy class horribly wrong. It was TERRIBLE.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-05-2010, 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.LoveMonkey
The funny thing is that the original devs for that game got the galaxy class horribly wrong. It was TERRIBLE.
Yeah...and that's where the modding community of most games shine I wish we could have such models in STO....i would just stand there for an hour to just look at the model

Edit: The best mod models i had for BC where roughtly 70k polys with 2048*2048 res textures. Given the old engine but with global mods on it i could have huge battles without performance impact. Suppose with a newer engine like STO's it wouldn't be a problem to have high detailed models and fleet battles. Sure it depends on the rig someone has and mine is fairly powerfull but such things could be set in the game options.
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 03:09 PM.