Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 731
11-16-2010, 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roche_Furman
This is more of a nit-pick, but would it be possible to get rid of the cake topping bridge on the Maelstrom class, or atleast redesign it? It just looks weird, and out of place. http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/a...yGlenn/333.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBuck
Not a bad idea. It should be a sunken bridge like the Defiant, IMO.
The defiant breaks many molds that Roddenberry / Matt Jeffries created. One such was that the bridge should be the highest point on the ship. Having a visible bridge superstructure is one of many traditional features that honours the memories of Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 732
11-16-2010, 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtattersall View Post
Fixed. Should show up in the next patch or two.
Any update on fixing the Defiant's bow?
  • Bow section not curved / angled downwards enough - Comparison shots 1 2

And thanks for these Defiant fixes:
  • Port nacelle registry is broken (FIXED!)
  • Starboard nacelle pushed too far to centre: Port Starboard Topdown (FIXED!)
  • Both nacelles need to be remodeled / repositioned in accordance with the studio model - 1 2 (FIXED!)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 733
11-16-2010, 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirror-Master
Any update on fixing the Defiant's bow?
  • Bow section not curved / angled downwards enough - Comparison shots 1 2

And thanks for these Defiant fixes:
  • Port nacelle registry is broken (FIXED!)
  • Starboard nacelle pushed too far to centre: Port Starboard Topdown (FIXED!)
  • Both nacelles need to be remodeled / repositioned in accordance with the studio model - 1 2 (FIXED!)
Yeah, though from those images the raised section that contains the bridge also looks too tall as well. And the nacelle cowling's need to be more in line with the top half of the main hull.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 734
11-17-2010, 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelSilhouette View Post
The defiant breaks many molds that Roddenberry / Matt Jeffries created. One such was that the bridge should be the highest point on the ship. Having a visible bridge superstructure is one of many traditional features that honours the memories of Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries.
I agree, but I just feel that something more fitting the design of the "class" should used. The bridge structure as it is, doesn't seem right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 735
11-17-2010, 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
I do not see why you countine to press the issue, its quite clear the colors the B'rel should have.
The Studio model and the CGI models all have green dorsal feather patterns of every Bird of Prey ever created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
Honestly if your making a hard canon ship then there is no other way to paint it than in studio model/CGI colors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelSilhouette View Post
This is true. As there are no actual canon references to coloured dorsal feather patterns, I've added it to the canon discrepancies section for the B'rel.
I'm going to say this again, but it seems you're not getting it.

Hard canon says the B'Rel is a 350m Bird of Prey.

Soft canon says the B'Rel is a 110m Bird of Prey and presumes that 90% of the BoPs you've seen on-screen are B'rel.

Soft canon also says that the B'Rel can, and does, have the tops of the wings painted red/brown, as demonstrated in such soft canon as STar Trek: Birth of the Federation, Star Trek: Armada, Star Trek Armada 2, etc etc.

STO is soft canon. It therefore only has a duty to maintain soft canon.

As it stands, the ability to paint the B'Rel's top feather decals is only gained by selecting a specific pattern. The default "none" pattern on those wings prevents you from being able to paint those top feather decals. By your definition, that means the B'Rel is alreayd fulfilling your need for any kind of canon.

Changing the B'Rel's wings therefore requires selecting a pattern - and by selecting a pattern you're already moving away from canon - so if you're now going to say that picking such a pattern on the B'Rel is a canon inconcistancy then you're now going to have to say the same thing about every other pattern on every single ship within STO.

If thats what you want then fine, do that, but I garuntee its not going to be changed. STO ships have pattern choices to give players a degree of customisation. The devs are maintaining a degree of canon by allowing players to chose not to use a pattern.

If, however, you're asking for one of the patterns to be changed so that it only paints the lowe wing - or better yet changed so that one colour paints the lower and the other colour paints the upper - then thats fine, and I too would like to see that added.

But using any argument of canon is as inaccurate as your claim portains to be.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 736
11-17-2010, 04:02 AM
I'm afraid your the one who just does not seem to get it.

Al BoP's in Star Trek are virtually all the same studio model, and that is all that matters.
What they have done in other Star Trek games is completely irrellevant.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 737
11-17-2010, 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
I'm afraid your the one who just does not seem to get it.

Al BoP's in Star Trek are virtually all the same studio model, and that is all that matters.
The studio model is irrelevant. This is about colour schemes, and every time that model was re-used, and eventualy replaced by a full CG model, those colours change. The fact that, so far, the top feathers have not been painted is inconsequential. At no point is there any confirmation in canon, as in a Klingon specificaly saying, that it has to be green - it is therefore open to interpretation.

Frankly this is the same as the argument over Bird of Prey wing positions where people are saying "canon says wings should be down for combat" or "canon says wings should be up for cruise". The only thing canon says for certain is that both fo those are possible wing positions, not that they are fixed in stone cold requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
What they have done in other Star Trek games is completely irrellevant.
What other Star Trek games do is very relevant.

The B'Rel class being a small 110m Bird of Prey is soft canon. All other games comprise soft canon. If other games have had the B'Rel with red/brown feathers on the top of the wings, then they have adjusted soft canon to say that is possible.

STO is soft canon. STO is using the soft canon virsion of the B'Rel. STO is therefore free to use the same soft canon colour rules that the other games have introduced into the franchise's lore.

I really don't see why that is hard to grasp.

If you want the B'Rel class to follow strict canon then you're going to have to ask for all colours to be removed, since the B'Rel in rascals was completly green, and for the B'Rel to be made 350m in size - roughly the same size as the Hegh'ta - because THAT is what the "canon" B'Rel class looks like.

But if you want to get off the canon bandwagon, and look at this realisticaly, then you'll see these three things:

1) STO is set in 2409. Klingon paint schemes for all of their ships, including BoP's, has regularly changed. There is no reason why it can't have changed again.
2) Setting the pattern on the B'Rel's "pylons" to "none" removes any customisation options from the wing's feather decals already.
3) The only way to colour those top feathers is to use a specific pattern - only 2 or 3 of them allow it - and those patterns are just as canon inconsistant as all the other patterns on all the other STO ships. The same patterns on the B'Rel also change the colour of the grey motor clamps, add diagnal lines to various places on the hull, and even allow you to paint over 60% of your ship in bright red - point being that it isn't supposed to be canon accurate, its supposed to be an option for a player to use.

Define what you are asking for - are you asking to prevent those featheres from being changed with ALL patterns, or are you asking for it to be just green when set to default? If you're asking for the former, that won't happen, its part of the scope and intent of ship patterns. If you're asking for the latter, then that is already in place and your entire argument is therefore moot.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 738
11-17-2010, 06:53 AM
What i am asking for is that the Dorsal feather pattern be locked to the main hulls color, I.E non customizable.
Only the Ventral pattern should be customizable.

The studio model is very much relevant, all the work the ship artists do on making new ships and improving them are based on studio model's and CGI, including the color patterns which the Sovereign and Excelsior class ships are prime examples of.

This is an error which should be fixed, end of story.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 739
11-17-2010, 07:18 AM
I admit I was a bit irritated to see that it wasn't possible to replicate the classic "orange-red" pattern on the ventral side of the wings (the available colours don't quite match), but I've settled for a blood red pattern that I feel looks just as good. As for the colours showing up on both sides of a wing ... not sure on that one. I pretty much settled for what we have now, although I'd like the option for a canon variant for comparison. Might be solvable by allowing a second set of wings for customization so that people can choose. I imagine a pair of wings without the mirrored colours on the dorsal side would allow for more interesting paintjobs (-> stripes).

What keeps bothering me on the BoP are the windows on the main hull (makes it look larger than it should be) and the "split" neck that should be a single armoured corridor. Currently it looks as if people would have to crawl through the neck if they want to get from the main body to the bridge and back. And of course that strange new pair of engines that got added. Other than that, I've really grown to love the model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtattersall View Post
Fixed. Should show up in the next patch or two.
Awesome, thanks!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 740
11-17-2010, 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
What i am asking for is that the Dorsal feather pattern be locked to the main hulls color, I.E non customizable.

This is an error which should be fixed, end of story.
STO customisation works on the concept of patterns, and most of those patterns are not intended to be canon. So some B'Rel patterns allowing the player to paint the Dorsal feathers is NOT an error, it is the intended purpose, and frankly if you couldn't paint those feathers in at least one of those patterns than THAT should be on the bug report.

Starfleet ships have two ways of maintaining cannon for ship customisation - by setting the patterns to "none", or on some ships by setting it to "Default". The Default pattern on the Sovereign, for example, adds the correct black decal that is present on the Enterprise E (though the player can obviously change it to a different colour).

For Klingon ships, the only way to maintain a canon look is to keep the pattern options to "none". When the B'Rel has the "none" pattern on the pylons, the dorsal feathers cannot be customised - they remain green.

So unless there are colours on those dorsal feathers while the pattern option is set to "none" then there is no error.

The fact of the matter is that some players are going to want to paint their B'Rel's feathers. They aren't as restrictive on canon as you are - this why the patterns are there in the first place. That isn't going to change, its working as intended.

THAT is end of story.
Closed Thread

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 11:12 PM.