Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,887
# 61
02-03-2013, 12:21 PM
The Galaxy Dreadnaught has the spinal lance, canons and shield module misaligned, the Galaxy celestial skin has windows on the lower saucer misaligned, these are long standing errors on ships that are not free, customers had to pay for them so they should be held to a higher standard than free designs.
I've done more than a bit of ship designs myself for various game mods, I know about geometry budgets and UV mapping, the Celestial windows is a UV mapping error, the Galaxy Dreadnaughts spinal canon is a non zero x axis dislocation for the addon object group, which is what the lance and canons are, overlaid on a standard Galaxy model and is a very easy fix.
It's all well and good to talk about the high degree of tolerance to which designs are held but such talk falls short in the face of visually obvious flaws that go unnoticed and despite dozens of posts describing the problem and hundreds of patches still remains unrepaired.

Last edited by maxvitor; 02-03-2013 at 12:28 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,159
# 62
02-03-2013, 12:40 PM
I can only say that I feel sorry for the OP. Playing this game must be extremely painful for someone who can pick out the particulars so acutely.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 153
# 63
02-03-2013, 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
Here we go again!
As if re-posting your cherished screenshots were going to somehow strengthen your position...

Quote:
I don't need a magnifying glass. I don't need to zoom in. It's obvious from a distance!
No, what you obviously need is a sense of perspective.

Quote:
And it should never have happened, if the model artists were doing their job in replicating the looks of the ships from the series this game is based off of.
Then why don't you fire off your resume to them for the Art Dept's QA position? I'm sure they'd be thrilled.

Otherwise, /bug stuff and move on.
I was someone else here til the forum/account transition lied
and told me that my original name was taken.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,253
# 64
02-03-2013, 06:29 PM
Quote:
As if re-posting your cherished screenshots were going to somehow strengthen your position...
Well, some people seem to just read one post ahead of theirs, and make a comment without taking a look at the pictures I posted in the first post.

Quote:
No, what you obviously need is a sense of perspective.
A sense of perspective? Please elaborate.

Quote:
Then why don't you fire off your resume to them for the Art Dept's QA position? I'm sure they'd be thrilled.

Otherwise, /bug stuff and move on.
And I don't need to apply for a position within Cryptic's art department (and I doubt they're hiring). If you read previous posts of mine within this thread, I already offered a suggestion - let the gaming community have an unpaid shot at modeling the ships. That way, Cryptic doesn't have to pay for the person fixing their models, just supplying ingame rewards.

Also, /bug just reports the bug for some office worker to look at for a split second. I'm pushing for real action, getting the ships in this game fixed at some point in the foreseeable future. If you had read this thread, you wouldn't have to post that last line.

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: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,749
# 65
02-03-2013, 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
The Galaxy Dreadnaught has the spinal lance, canons and shield module misaligned, the Galaxy celestial skin has windows on the lower saucer misaligned, these are long standing errors on ships that are not free, customers had to pay for them so they should be held to a higher standard than free designs.
I've done more than a bit of ship designs myself for various game mods, I know about geometry budgets and UV mapping, the Celestial windows is a UV mapping error, the Galaxy Dreadnaughts spinal canon is a non zero x axis dislocation for the addon object group, which is what the lance and canons are, overlaid on a standard Galaxy model and is a very easy fix.
It's all well and good to talk about the high degree of tolerance to which designs are held but such talk falls short in the face of visually obvious flaws that go unnoticed and despite dozens of posts describing the problem and hundreds of patches still remains unrepaired.
I know the "starcraft" type of gamer won't care about pretty ship moodels but I am with to OP on the Galaxy models I noticed the errors almost immediately. I don't get why the position of the ships name on the sovereign class is important. The game is 30 years after the films so conventions could have changed. But the Galaxy is not the same ship that you can see on tv every day and is uneven.
Play more STO Foundry! (You can thank me later.)

A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM in the SIRIUS SECTOR

Last edited by lincolninspace; 02-03-2013 at 07:57 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,253
# 66
02-18-2013, 05:32 PM
I would agree with you about the Galaxy-class model problems. It is pretty obvious once you first pick up the ship, and turn the camera around.

As to the Sovereign: Naming conventions rarely change in Starfleet - after all, the name and registry are still in the same place on the more-than-140-year-old Miranda class.

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: 1,499
# 67
02-19-2013, 07:54 AM
as requested by OP i'm posting this here too:


imho those Ships are a bit expensive to have quality issues like this,

picture is self explaining

*click to enlarge*



plz fix asap
kthxbye
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,253
# 68
02-19-2013, 10:59 AM
Agreed, some of those issues should be fixed for the premium ships they are.

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: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,022
# 69
02-19-2013, 11:58 AM
Considering some of those ships can cost $400-$700 dollars depending on how lucky you are? Yeah, they should be fixed.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 220
# 70
02-19-2013, 03:40 PM
The problem is, the glitches are mounting. They never do get fixed.

The new ships have holes in the floors on the bridge in some cases.

Shoddy workmanship. If you don't get them corrected when they first begin, they((Modelers)) think they can get away with more and more until their making huge glaring mistakes and no ones correcting them.

The models are just as bad as the rest of the game since Season 7. Glitched and incomplete.
Click here to see the true story of the KDF and Cryptic!

"...just look at my track record for making the improvements that I said we would with the KDF and judge by that." - Dan Stahl
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 02:26 AM.