www.ditl.org

by **JudgeKing** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:38 am

And guess what, it looks almost exactly like the Intrepid-class.

by **Captain Seafort** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:26 am

At least the designer admits that the design is derived from the Intrepid IU

Punts to A&D

by **Tyyr** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:16 am

That's a bit more than just derived. It's the Intrepid with a bit of tweaking and some fins. STO turns out another abortion.

by **GrahamKennedy** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:47 pm

Do not like.

Looks kinda like a Mirror Universe Intrepid might look.

by **Atekimogus** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:17 pm

I am not surprised, they did the same for constitution, defiant, sovereign and akira/norway class and yet they somehow manage always to make their "new" designs butt-ugly.

It is not only the design per se but also the whole graphical style with exhaust trails etc, ships looking like plastic kits...honestly, there are better looking bridge commander mods out there..... .

I sincerely hope that noone is forced to fly one of those abominations and that the original designs (akira, nebula, galaxy) are able to compete in endgame.

by **USSEnterprise** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:47 pm

What the hell are those things jutting out from the nacelles?

by **JudgeKing** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:01 pm

USSEnterprise wrote:What the hell are those things jutting out from the nacelles?

I think those are wings.

by **Nickswitz** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:41 pm

Yeah, I'm guessing no one on that site realizes that in space they don't matter, and if landing they would break really fast, and really bad...

I think these people think they are making it look cool, but in reality making some stupid looking shit... :bangwall:

by **Vic** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:52 am

About those wing thingies, having actually read the entry..... :shock:

I know "read the entry, why the heck would I do that?" :poke:

They are supposed to be some subspace stabilizers

to make the variable geometry nacelles (yes, that again) more , well stable. :roll:

by **Nickswitz** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:14 am

Vic wrote:About those wing thingies, having actually read the entry..... I know "read the entry, why the heck would I do that?" They are supposed to be some subspace stabilizers to make the variable geometry nacelles (yes, that again) more , well stable.

Wow, I'm more confused than if I hadn't read it... Had they come up with a good bs excuse, which, IDK what they could have come up with that woul;d qualify, but something other than that, I may have been able to just look over it, but that's just a bad bs excuse, lol.

by **Foxfyre** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:40 am

There is only one half way (or should I say half assed?) design which I will tolerarate fon that site and that the Excalibur class

by **Mikey** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:46 pm

I, too, am forced to wonder, "Why bother?" Just use an Intrepid and call it a day.

by **SomosFuga** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:08 pm

I don't think it's particularly ugly (considering what we have seen before) but doesn't look like a new desing, more like a refitted Intrepid so they should just say that and not pretend it's a new class.

by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:00 pm

You think that's bad? Look at their Defiant equivalent:

http://www.startrekonline.com/ships/vigilant

by **Tsukiyumi** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:49 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:You think that's bad? Look at their Defiant equivalent:

http://www.startrekonline.com/ships/vigilant

It pretty much is the Defiant. Lame.

www.ditl.org

I present the Discovery-class

I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Re: I present the Discovery-class

Who is online