Author Topic: Star Trek Online | Excalibur Class - Is ours better?! (Read 17173 times)

furswift · « **Reply #60 on:** October 06, 2009, 07:25:09 AM »

I'm going to have to see the final Excalibur in order to make a judgment, but for now it looks like the model in this game has been given a greater and more thoughtful attention to detail. I'm not the biggest fan of the Bridge Commander Excalibur; it looks a bit "puggish". I hope this new version has been streamlined, but maintains that "more interior space than anyone in their right mind knows what to do with" look. I think that's a fun design challenge to work out.

MR_7 · « **Reply #61 on:** October 08, 2009, 02:17:42 PM »

Not the new excalibur but the original. Done with a very secretice camera syle like that last update on the Excalibur class

I still prefer this ship from onlines, and it can only get better with the Excalibur team.

MajorD · « **Reply #62 on:** October 08, 2009, 02:30:13 PM »

Those are just scan lines like for the single for a cathode ray tube television.

MR_7 · « **Reply #63 on:** October 08, 2009, 03:48:01 PM »

Yes.....and i thought it gave it a nice look, maybe im wrong, but oh well.

Aresius · « **Reply #64 on:** October 08, 2009, 05:42:30 PM »

Someone's been hacking into the Romulan Spy-Network again....
Just hope the Tal Shiar didn't found traces. They can be a pain in the stellar butt.

MajorD · « **Reply #65 on:** October 08, 2009, 09:59:41 PM »

I'm just not a fan of scanlines, they hurt my eyes. The idea was right though.

naynayz · « **Reply #66 on:** December 07, 2009, 11:27:03 AM »

Quote from: HF Zach on May 30, 2009, 04:29:46 PM

Cryptic Studios have posted an update showing their "Excalibur Class" starship.

I think ours is better.

Here is theirs: (http://www.startrekonline.com/ships/excalibur)

and ours:

I would have to say that theirs is better. I have seen footage from them proving that theirs is in an engine and actually playable and a timeline for completion to boot. I have been following this project for several years but I have not seen some of those basic elements so I have to side with cryptic. I like what your graphics show, but I don't see much footage showing an engine being used in game play.

sman789 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 08, 2009, 12:41:33 AM »

I don't think one can really compare because as far as I can see, there's only one picture of the STE Excalibur and it's not really from a good angle

joe5 · « **Reply #68 on:** December 08, 2009, 07:56:43 AM »

that looks more like a cartoonists impression

majormagna · « **Reply #69 on:** December 09, 2009, 05:17:23 PM »

Quote from: naynayz on December 07, 2009, 11:27:03 AM

I would have to say that theirs is better. I have seen footage from them proving that theirs is in an engine and actually playable and a timeline for completion to boot. I have been following this project for several years but I have not seen some of those basic elements so I have to side with cryptic. I like what your graphics show, but I don't see much footage showing an engine being used in game play.

I don't really think it's fair to judge a single ship on the completion of the game engine... That's like saying you prefer Master Chief to Gordon Freeman, purely because HL2:Ep 3 isn't out yet.

I like them both, but the uh... Excalibur, Excalibur is better in my opinion. It's a big, clunky command ship, just what it should be. Not some overly-refitted ship from more than 100 years previous, made in a feeble attempt just to please fans. (Although I DO quite like it, but for other reasons).

yaya man · « **Reply #70 on:** December 21, 2009, 08:18:16 PM »

The one from Star Trek online looks very 'old fashioned'... like its from TMP era but vamped up to look 'cool.'

farshot · « **Reply #71 on:** December 26, 2009, 03:02:06 AM »

I wouldn't say it is a refit of the Constitution just yet. I have always had something hoping for a revival of old design philosophies in new ships - I keep expecting someone on BCCentral to make a new Enterprise that heads back towards the saucer-neck-pylon-nacelle profile made so famous by the TOS Enterprise. It maybe that because the Klingons have become hostile, that intrepid pioneer spirit of Starfleet has come back, heralding nostalgic feelings. And somewhere along that line of thought, someone made a workhorse ship that is an homage to the good ole Constitution. I am very happy that they revived the Constitution look for STO.

Back to the idea of refitting a Constitution; how many Constitutions do you think they'd have left to refit? If anything, those parts would have been used for Miranda's, which in general seem to be more advanced than Constitutions.

furswift · « **Reply #72 on:** December 27, 2009, 03:33:06 AM »

I too am getting sick of the "neckless" design aesthetic for federation ships. I don't know if I'm being nostalgic, but I would like to see more tall ships in the Star Fleet.

MajorD · « **Reply #73 on:** December 28, 2009, 07:32:04 AM »

Some tall ships would be nice, they've been getting very flat. I would like them to explain the neck as an efficiency thing, and flatness as a speed thing. So, if there is a true Galaxy class replacement, it would be neat for it to have a neck for long term endurance.

zzz · « **Reply #74 on:** December 28, 2009, 05:47:56 PM »

when designing the Sovereign didn't they already explain the neck as an efficiency and tactical thing? it bottlenecks movement between the hulls and is a weak point of the ship.

Toa_Kaita · « **Reply #75 on:** December 29, 2009, 04:44:48 AM »

I personally like both equally, but I don't think I would call the STO ship an Excalibur Class. When I think of the word Excalibur, I think mostly about power. And the STO Excalibur doesn't really signify as much power as the STE Excalibur. If I were in the position of the designer, I think I'd rename the STO Excalibur something else, like the Spearhead Class.

furswift · « **Reply #76 on:** December 29, 2009, 12:40:26 PM »

Quote from: zzz on December 28, 2009, 05:47:56 PM

when designing the Sovereign didn't they already explain the neck as an efficiency and tactical thing? it bottlenecks movement between the hulls and is a weak point of the ship.

That would apply to a Connie and to a lesser extent, a Galaxy, but the neck is fat and substantial on an Excelsior, and it looked functional, like a heat sink. The problem I'm seeing is that Star Trek ships are looking more like generic "rocket ships", which is exactly what Gene Rodenberry and Matt Jefferies were trying to avoid with the original design of the Enterprise. If you wanted to be totally realistic and design a ship based on efficiency with no aesthetic considerations, you'd probably wind up with just a sphere or a cube.

MajorD · « **Reply #77 on:** December 29, 2009, 02:32:44 PM »

Quote from: zzz on December 28, 2009, 05:47:56 PM

when designing the Sovereign didn't they already explain the neck as an efficiency and tactical thing? it bottlenecks movement between the hulls and is a weak point of the ship.

I don't recall that but a purposefully added internal bottleneck is kind of neat. I don't think it's practical though. Unless you mean they were eliminating that bottleneck. That makes sense, since the wider connection would make the hull sections more secure.

The Sovereign and Voyager are really throwbacks to the Excelsior. Just sayin'.

zzz · « **Reply #78 on:** December 29, 2009, 07:27:01 PM »

I meant to say they were eliminating the bottleneck.

sman789 · « **Reply #79 on:** December 30, 2009, 12:15:11 AM »

Just back onto the Excalibur discussion for one sec - can't the team post a proper render of their ship so we can actually tell which one is better