Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 71
02-12-2010, 08:06 PM
I was going to ask the OP if the parts just looked like they were offset slightly rather than malformed, but it's clear the Dev passing through recognized the nature of the problem immediately.

Would have been so hard to say "Hey guys, you blew a z value by a couple of points <insert pictures here>, could you please tweak two numbers so it goes together properly as part of the next patch?" or was the extra froth and spittle absolutely neccessary? Maybe some finger pointing and muffled laughter as accompanyment?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 72
02-12-2010, 10:44 PM
wow you all that think this is a fix now issue please get a life or better yet dont play the game, that way i dont have to listen to you cry.

I wish my poo looked like the Christmas poo, and even talked, sang, and danced BUT IT DOES NOT thats just the way life goes, In my opinion, because everyone is entitled to theirs, it looks fine. DONT FIX IT CRYPTIC

I am doing this cause i hate when people nit pic. There are far more important issues within the game it self that need to be fixed before your crying can be dried up with a satin napkin. Get a life you babies.

P.S. If i was the dude that made the decision to fix this i would maybe loose the memo in the trash can, maybe light it on fire as well

Thanks and may the force be with you..... NOOBS
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 73
02-12-2010, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtattersall View Post
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It looks like a part offset issue. When working on ship variations we sometimes need to adjust the connection points of existing ships. Unfortunately in this case it appears to have caused this hull to be offset from the rest of the ship.

We have prioritized the bug appropriately.
I doubt anyone will see this over there, but thanks for the response.

Other than the graphic shortcomings, I've found the galaxy to be quite fun to fly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 74
02-12-2010, 11:29 PM
Quote:
I've taken the change in window thickness to go along with the change in interior spaces. For example, the Constitution refit is classically shown with two rows of lights along the sides of the saucer section. Now it only displays one. This correlates to the fact that ship interiors are apparently at least twice as high from deckplate to overhead now, so the Constitution refit saucer "brims" are now only one (really large) deck high instead of two (standard size) decks high.

I would expect that starfleet ships now have approximately half to a third fewer decks now. In addition, shuttlebays philosophy has apparently been changed. Where before, large ships would have a shuttlebay featuring several small shuttles, this has gone out of fashion in favor of designing bays that hold one large runabout instead. In the event that the ship would actually employ the use of actual shuttlecraft, personnel transporter pads have been greatly expanded to fit a Type-8 shuttle on the pad, where it is beamed out the ship for flight.

Also, the fact that we see so many ships with window lights on nearly horizontal surfaces apparently means that starfleet has adopted a design plan that gives interior spaces skylights instead of standard windows on the sides
Indeed. I hadn't considered that. Some ships even have floor windows, apparently. But how do we explain some of the secondary hull windows being suddenly half the size of other windows on the ship? Some of the Sov hulls have twice as many decks worth of windows for a smaller hull than the Sov itself. Maybe two rows of windows per deck? And why is it that although all my science ships have always had a primary and secondary deflector, I can only ever seem to use one of them at a time? Shouldn't I be able to fire one off, then the other immediately after?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 75
02-13-2010, 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtattersall View Post
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It looks like a part offset issue. When working on ship variations we sometimes need to adjust the connection points of existing ships. Unfortunately in this case it appears to have caused this hull to be offset from the rest of the ship.

We have prioritized the bug appropriately.
great to hear, since I bought the game all I was thinking about was getting a galaxy class. So I'm happy to see that this modeling error is being addressed. You can all stop complaining now people. If, in a week or two, the problem persists, then you can resume complaining.

It shouldn't be hard to fix, just change a Z value by a few decimals
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 76
02-13-2010, 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gul_Westfale View Post
what blasphemy is that?! change the style of a galaxy class? as soon as i rank up i'm going to get one of these, and i will never ever buy anything else. i might even start a galaxy clan. galclan... [/color]
We don't have clans. We have fleets.

Also

We don't have power levels, we have ranks and grades.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 77
02-13-2010, 04:01 AM
In my "adventure so far" critique of the game I postulated that the reason for no Nebula class is because the little pimp my ride system couldn't deal with a unique part (the top brace), which is odd considering it's a bloody battleship.

But this is probably why the clipping errors are happening, it's got to mate with all the other chunks "kinda" it's just a shame that one of the iconic franchise ships is a wee big broken in the pimpin' system. It does however add some more credence to my summing up of "cheap and cheerful".


Looking at some of the models and the textures used, I really do have to wonder if Cryptic did them all themselves of just yoinked them from SFC or similar game; it'd explain some of the oddities.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 78
02-13-2010, 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaneshi
In my "adventure so far" critique of the game I postulated that the reason for no Nebula class is because the little pimp my ride system couldn't deal with a unique part (the top brace), which is odd considering it's a bloody battleship.

But this is probably why the clipping errors are happening, it's got to mate with all the other chunks "kinda" it's just a shame that one of the iconic franchise ships is a wee big broken in the pimpin' system. It does however add some more credence to my summing up of "cheap and cheerful".


Looking at some of the models and the textures used, I really do have to wonder if Cryptic did them all themselves of just yoinked them from SFC or similar game; it'd explain some of the oddities.
yeah some of the art assets are really quite poor, I've seen amateur mods for games like freelancer that have produced better looking and more authentic star trek ship models. It's pretty sad when a licensed game can't even get the most iconic ship in recent trek history right. Although, as you said, this is probably largely due to the "pimp my ride" system of ship customization as you call it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 79
02-13-2010, 06:05 AM
take a good long look at this and tell me you see nothing wrong with this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screen..._argl____2.jpg

http://www.startrekdreams.com/galler...701d_wall2.jpg


i'd say FAIL and restart
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 80
02-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3R0B4NG View Post
take a good long look at this and tell me you see nothing wrong with this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screen..._argl____2.jpg

http://www.startrekdreams.com/galler...701d_wall2.jpg


i'd say FAIL and restart
your links are broken...
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 09:04 PM.