Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 971
03-06-2011, 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelSilhouette View Post
Is it missing the registry suffix from the main shuttle bay?

http://www.mutara.net/Christies/deta...D/IMG_2018.JPG
Yes, the registry is still missing there. I did notice the inconsistency regarding the ship's name below the torpedo launcher. As was rightly pointed out, it was probably painted over during the production of Generations. A shame, if you ask me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 972
03-06-2011, 09:25 AM
Another thing, and a bit of a personal request, I'd love for the Galaxy's saucer impulse engines to be shaped correctly. They should be closer to a trapezium, rather than the sort of capsule shape that they are at the moment. To me it looks odd that the neck engine was given the correct shape, but the saucer engines not.

See here for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/bFh6o.jpg
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 973
03-06-2011, 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcW
Another thing, and a bit of a personal request, I'd love for the Galaxy's saucer impulse engines to be shaped correctly. They should be closer to a trapezium, rather than the sort of capsule shape that they are at the moment. To me it looks odd that the neck engine was given the correct shape, but the saucer engines not.

See here for reference:
http://i.imgur.com/bFh6o.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelSilhouette View Post
Well it could be said that Starfleet changed its regs and during a regular maintenance visit, the name was removed from the stardrive section.

That said, I've added it into the Galaxy class section which put me over the limit for characters in post #2, so I had to snip little bits here and there until it fit.

So I am once again asking for anyone to give me a heads up on anything I can remove from the lists. Posts 1 and 2 are absolutely full to bursting, so I can add nothing else for those groups.
Can't add it. See my last post, quoted above.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 974
03-06-2011, 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelSilhouette View Post
Can't add it. See my last post, quoted above.
I believe that the point below can be removed from the Galaxy's list. The bays were adjusted a while ago by CapnLogan and they seem right now.

"Shuttle bays 2 & 3 positioned incorrectly, not wide enough. See above side by side."

I was also thinking about the torpedo launcher ship name thing... It makes sense to for the ship's name to be there for when the stardrive section isn't connected to the saucer, otherwise it wouldn't have the name anywhere.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 975
03-06-2011, 09:40 AM
You can remove this from the "Assault Cruiser"

Quote:
◦Engineering hull Y shaped instead of U shaped

◦Back of the primary hull is too flat and the shuttlebay squashed, needs more of a hump.

◦Saucer edges too thick
◦Missing lights on Neck and Saucer
◦Engine Blocks too large, Engine Texturing could be different
◦Saucer should be Smoother
All of those use the "old" Pre-Logan model as reference.
If some of them are still a problem then they need to be re-posted with new reference images.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 976
03-06-2011, 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcW
I believe that the point below can be removed from the Galaxy's list. The bays were adjusted a while ago by CapnLogan and they seem right now.

"Shuttle bays 2 & 3 positioned incorrectly, not wide enough. See above side by side."

I was also thinking about the torpedo launcher ship name thing... It makes sense to for the ship's name to be there for when the stardrive section isn't connected to the saucer, otherwise it wouldn't have the name anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexraptor View Post
You can remove this from the "Assault Cruiser"



All of those use the "old" Pre-Logan model as reference.
If some of them are still a problem then they need to be re-posted with new reference images.
Fantastic catches guys. Though I still have a funny feeling about those shuttle bays. If the game ever lets me back in, I'll see if I can't get a side by side together to compare them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.

Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.

1:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...s/Untitled.png Showing the registry missing from the main shuttle bay, along with the missing plasma vents on the struts.

2:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled1.png This shows the deflector overbite that is missing from the current model.

3:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled3.png Neck needs thinning out a little and RCS thrusters need adding on secondary hull.

4:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled2.png And finally, this shows the gap that we have at the moment which should not be there along with the indentation missing from the rear of the ship.

This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 978
03-06-2011, 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainWallis View Post
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.

Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.

1:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...s/Untitled.png Showing the registry missing from the main shuttle bay, along with the missing plasma vents on the struts.

2:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled1.png This shows the deflector overbite that is missing from the current model.

3:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled3.png Neck needs thinning out a little and RCS thrusters need adding on secondary hull.

4:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled2.png And finally, this shows the gap that we have at the moment which should not be there along with the indentation missing from the rear of the ship.

This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
Isn't that the "inferior" 4ft model those comparisons are based on?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 979
03-06-2011, 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainWallis View Post
OK, I've taken these for reference and noticed that these problems (inaccuracies) still remains in the current model. Please if you could add them the Galaxy class will finally be complete.

Note: The images that I used are the one CapnLogan used for reference material, and I thinks its a mix of the 6ft and 4ft shooting model.

1:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...s/Untitled.png Showing the registry missing from the main shuttle bay, along with the missing plasma vents on the struts.

2:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled1.png This shows the deflector overbite that is missing from the current model.

3:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled3.png Neck needs thinning out a little and RCS thrusters need adding on secondary hull.

4:http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/.../Untitled2.png And finally, this shows the gap that we have at the moment which should not be there along with the indentation missing from the rear of the ship.

This is about it I think that I can find wrong with the current model. As you can tell by reading this thread we are all passionate about the ships from Star Trek and they should be shown a little more attention to detail.
I really must urge you to use the model shots listed in the galaxy section as reference. Drawings and cartoons will not suffice as canon references.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 980
03-06-2011, 12:22 PM
The Defiant deflector section angle needs adding to that list, it is very very off. It has been listed here and referenced better than I could so I wont add shots or snything, but its not on the main list and it needs to be
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 07:14 PM.