When we are saying that the X4‘s ship is ugly, what are we talking about?

[Thecrippler]

Really? I think people just have nostalgia syndrome.
https://www.egosoft.com/games/x4/screen ... en_048.png

X3TC.net is being annoying.http://eng.x3tc.net/screenshot/ship.php?MzkwMTM0Nw

Do my eyes deceive me or is this pretty much an open and shut case when actual data is applied? "upgrading" X3 ships to x4 ships would be a stunningly major undertaking.
I suggest anyone who thinks it's not to load up 3ds/maya and go to town. Tell us how long it takes you.

I was talking about the capital ships - I did mention that most fighters look pretty good actually. And my main concern is more about ship diversity. X Rebirth capital ships for the most part looked a lot better, except for the Teladi ones.

Ugh! No, was not a fan of X3 ship design. Really glad they didn't do that. Played X3 (etc) because the game mechanics were better than X2, but really did not think much of some of the ship designs. Borons in particular were (in my entirely subjective opinion) atrocious compared to X2 counterparts - e.g. they turned spiky mutant fish Hydra (my favourite X2 M6) into a bloated whale. Still flew one but tried very hard to avoid ever looking at it from the outside. Think my favourite game in the series from a ship design perspective has to be XR - some truly beautiful ships in that game (very fond memories of the Lepton). Do however like many of the ships in X4 (would rate it 2nd overall for ship design after XR). In particular think they did a grand job with many of the freighters & mining ships. Very fond of the design aesthetic for Teladi ships in X4 too - weapon placement may be a little odd for some of them, but that just gives them distinctive character.

X3 or even X Rebirth! And note that I am talking about capital ship designs, not fighters / corvettes. I also miss that X2 Hydra beauty and was also so disappointed in X3 haha. Ended up flying the Mamba, Hyperion, Elephant and Python pretty much exclusively. I actually quite liked the look of certain Boron ships due to the color scheme, but the actual designs were a little underwhelming in terms of detail. Can't compare Boron in X4 though, so it doesn't apply . And yeah as I said I find a few of the freighters / miners actually pretty cool, especially the Argon ones.

One thing I must say though is that capital ship cockpits are pretty nice, albeit not being that interactive. I wish the inside was a little more... alive. A few NPC scripts and display scripts could improve this.

My opinion the Boron ships war ok in x3 since they are sea mammals now the argon war totale out of place hell x2 head better design argon ships then in x3

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

My opinion the Boron ships war ok in x3 since they are sea mammals now the argon war totale out of place hell x2 head better design argon ships then in x3

The argon capital ship designs in X2 were essentially Starship Trooper like designs, ok in one way but not in others.

The argon main capital ship designs in X3 (Colossus/Titen) were more like the human capitals out of Babylon 5 in some ways - without the spinny centrifuge bit. The Boreas (X3:TC/X3:AP) was a bit more unusual as a human ship design but then it was adopted from the community developed XTM mod for X3:R.

The capital ship designs in X-Rebirth were a mixed bag, liked some - not so much others. The Arawn was an exceptional design from an aesthetics standpoint, very reminis of Battlestar Gallactica but the others were not particularly outstanding.

The Paranid capital ship designs in X4 are largely identical to the X3:R Zeus design (albeit maybe with less surface detail). The Argon capital designs in X4 are remenise of some of the USC designs in X3:AP (thinking Osaka). The Teladi capital ship designs are meh.

If I was to guess, I would reckon the main reason for the capitals in X4 looking rather bland in terms of surface features the obvious answer might be something to do with performance concerns. Given the game performance at release, such concerns may not be completely unfounded.

[Axeface]

Whether you like the designs or not there are a few outliers that are rushed and simply not finished that need to be addressed. Paranid captials especially, the osysseus has cuts into the hull and other things that just look rushed and messy. The way the engine components are placed on top of a boring flat surface is a big no-no. As for the shape, they are incredibly plain and boring - and I dont think the 'made to fit the limitations of docks etc' arguement works here, they could add a bit of width (or even height) to them to make them less 'fat', or simply add more shape detail (while optimising them) with no problems. Please look at the X3 Deimos.

The argon models and teladi look like they recieved a bit more time than Paranid capitals and are passable in my opinion (I dont like many of them though, which is a shame).
The small ships in the game are very random to me, there are some that I really like to look of like the Falcon and Buzzard, but others that I think are just boring like the Elite and Eclipse.

There are other strange decisions that really effected the designs too. Why do docking bay doors rotate and like they do? Why dont they use some kind of corregated folding or something, or even a star trek 'woosh' and they are gone? Odd.

Another thing that really annoys me about the ship designs are the components. Race components should fit the aesthetic of the race ships should they not? Having a grey paranid fighter with off pink(WHY that colour?) or green engines annoys me.


Also, no one is talking about stations. The stations that were ported from Rebirth are fine, but the new ones? The Paranid ones (again) especially, very little artistic flair was put into them - everything is that tall eggs structure with random black lines in it. I hope these things are improved in time as I think most of the issues are not due to skill but time.

A positive note? One area I think is quite well done is ship interiors and cockpits.

[Max Bain]

Whether you like the designs or not there are a few outliers that are rushed and simply not finished that need to be addressed. Paranid captials especially, the osysseus has cuts into the hull and other things that just look rushed and messy. The way the engine components are placed on top of a boring flat surface is a big no-no. As for the shape, they are incredibly plain and boring - and I dont think the 'made to fit the limitations of docks etc' arguement works here, they could add a bit of width (or even height) to them to make them less 'fat', or simply add more shape detail (while optimising them) with no problems. Please look at the X3 Deimos.

The argon models and teladi look like they recieved a bit more time than Paranid capitals and are passable in my opinion (I dont like many of them though, which is a shame).
The small ships in the game are very random to me, there are some that I really like to look of like the Falcon and Buzzard, but others that I think are just boring like the Elite and Eclipse.

There are other strange decisions that really effected the designs too. Why do docking bay doors rotate and like they do? Why dont they use some kind of corregated folding or something, or even a star trek 'woosh' and they are gone? Odd.

Another thing that really annoys me about the ship designs are the components. Race components should fit the aesthetic of the race ships should they not? Having a grey paranid fighter with off pink(WHY that colour?) or green engines annoys me.


Also, no one is talking about stations. The stations that were ported from Rebirth are fine, but the new ones? The Paranid ones (again) especially, very little artistic flair was put into them - everything is that tall eggs structure with random black lines in it. I hope these things are improved in time as I think most of the issues are not due to skill but time.

A positive note? One area I think is quite well done is ship interiors and cockpits.

Agree on 100% of what you said.
No one is saying that ALL ships look uggly in X4, but because we have just a very few different ships to fly I think every bad designed ship is too much.
It seems that Egosoft started with Argons and noticed that they will run out of time and so they used a lot copy and paste on Teladi ships and then they got to Paranids and hell... something went really wrong here .

I would prefer to buy a DLC which would improve (remodel + retexture) all bad designed ships in X4 and add 1 M, 1 L and 1 XL combat ship to the existing factions than a new race which might end with the same bad quality in design. Sure a patch could fix this as well, but I somehow doubt that this will happen .

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

If we could state objectively that something is ugly, why is wrong to have these things in a game?

[MegaJohnny]

The Paranid capital ships are a bit less detailed than they should be, but the designs themselves I really like. The only problem for me is the Odysseus - it's just too fat. If you'd scale up the Selene in Blender and plop all the Oddy weapons/docks on it, I'd be totally happy with it.

[Dreez]

The Paranid capital ship designs in X4 are largely identical to the X3:R Zeus design (albeit maybe with less surface detail).

There is no win-situation by removing detail . Detail is everything, especially in spacegames with ships.
Otherwise we could all simply fly around in tincans.

Just look at the Oddy, it's probably one of the ugliest and bland spaceships i've ever seen.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I really like the Odysseus Vanguard a lot. It may not be beautiful. But it is a very effective as a ship.

[Thecrippler]

The Paranid capital ship designs in X4 are largely identical to the X3:R Zeus design (albeit maybe with less surface detail).

There is no win-situation by removing detail . Detail is everything, especially in spacegames with ships.
Otherwise we could all simply fly around in tincans.

Just look at the Oddy, it's probably one of the ugliest and bland spaceships i've ever seen.

Oddy looks like a star trek hand phaser

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The Paranid capital ship designs in X4 are largely identical to the X3:R Zeus design (albeit maybe with less surface detail).

There is no win-situation by removing detail.

Maybe purely from an aesthetics standpoint, but lower detailed models means lower graphics overhead in terms of polygons, texture memory, or both. Depending on specific rendering circumstances that can be a significant point. Lower model detail generally also means the engine can more easily support more instances of said model too.

The hulls may be less detailed, but the modular components (and surface landing areas) that are visible are not. Besides which, less complex model surfaces makes mapping textures simpler too which means the game can more easily support a wide variety of common paint jobs.

Sometimes such compromises are necessary, other times they are not - there are ALOT of factors and variables to consider.

[Dreez]

Maybe purely from an aesthetics standpoint, but lower detailed models means lower graphics overhead in terms of polygons, texture memory, or both. Depending on specific rendering circumstances that can be a significant point. Lower model detail generally also means the engine can more easily support more instances of said model too.

The hulls may be less detailed, but the modular components (and surface landing areas) that are visible are not. Besides which, less complex model surfaces makes mapping textures simpler too which means the game can more easily support a wide variety of common paint jobs.

Sometimes such compromises are necessary, other times they are not - there are ALOT of factors and variables to consider.

I don't know what you just said.... But i don't invest in my PC to have developer "nerf" grapgics to have the game run better.
I've always been a STRONG believe in that if your PC can't handle the graphics, turn them down or upgrade hardware .

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Maybe purely from an aesthetics standpoint, but lower detailed models means lower graphics overhead in terms of polygons, texture memory, or both. Depending on specific rendering circumstances that can be a significant point. Lower model detail generally also means the engine can more easily support more instances of said model too.

The hulls may be less detailed, but the modular components (and surface landing areas) that are visible are not. Besides which, less complex model surfaces makes mapping textures simpler too which means the game can more easily support a wide variety of common paint jobs.

Sometimes such compromises are necessary, other times they are not - there are ALOT of factors and variables to consider.

I don't know what you just said.... But i don't invest in my PC to have developer "nerf" grapgics to have the game run better.
I've always been a STRONG believe in that if your PC can't handle the graphics, turn them down or upgrade hardware .

That policy is all well and good but it is flawed in reasoning since there are fundamental bottlnecks that essentially prevent certain ambitions for levels of detail being realised even on top-end graphics hardware. Computational capability of graphics cards may have improved ALOT over the years but the rendering performance on the whole has improved as much. Shaders of various types have allowed developers in general to cheat in more detail in at least some cases but there are still practical limits regarding what is achievable.

You take some of the amazing technical demonstrators that nVidia produce for their cards, yes there is an amazing amount of detail in many of those demos but in practice game developers would be hard pressed to produce the same level of effect in a game of any substance - at least and have it perform well enough on anything but the most-expensive/highest-performing top-end hardware (may be not even then). Compromises in graphical detail can be essential to ensuring that specific design goals are achievable and that the product will work well enough the hardware that is reasonable to expect the target audience to have access to.

In addition to the technical considerations there is also the modelling time considerations too, that is not something that can be easily defined and since we do not know the brief that the modellers were given nor what timescales they were asked to work to. It does seem that a lot of time and effort went into the modelling aspects of the modules though, which is not that surprising.

It is difficult to tell what compromises are (or are not) necessary from our perspective, as customers/end-users we have to trust that the developers (in this case Egosoft) have made the right decisions on that score. If you think the models could do with a buff in their level of detail then you could always try developing a community mod for it.

[mr.WHO]

I really like the Odysseus Vanguard a lot. It may not be beautiful. But it is a very effective as a ship.

Exactly - in might look like an oversized hairdryer, but the weapon placement and amount of L-size turrets is smart and effective unlike the Behemoth or Phoenix.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I really like the Odysseus Vanguard a lot. It may not be beautiful. But it is a very effective as a ship.

Exactly - in might look like an oversized hairdryer, but the weapon placement and amount of L-size turrets is smart and effective unlike the Behemoth or Phoenix.

The Phoenix I would agree with, the Behemoth not so much.

The Behemoth may have not as many turrets as the Odysseus but they are perhaps the best placed turrets in terms of maximising potential firing arcs.

The Phoenix has arguably the worst placed turrets overall, the V2.0 AI changes may mitigate that particular flaw to at least some extent though.

The Odysseus is indisputably perhaps the most effective Destroyer though, but that is more down to turret count than turret placement. Plus it's unique (on the destroyer front) capability to carry and M-size vessels.

[FearMunchies]

Having only played the X games from X3 Reunion on-wards, I can only give a limited opinion. I was impressed with what the developers did to the vast majority of ship designs going from X3:AP to Rebirth, the ships had much more detail and proper turret placements. However, it seems a lot of the ships (Capital Class primarily) have lost a SIGNIFICANT amount of detail compared to the previous game. When I first saw the Argon Behemoth destroyer for the first time, I immediately thought "That ship shape is awfully similar to the Olmekron from Rebirth" but it had less that half the detail of the Olmekron and just looks so bloated or perhaps "blocky" in regards to the shapes used to make it.

The aesthetics are worsened by the size and lack of turrets these ships can equip. Take the Paranid Odysseus destroyer, what appears at first to be a sleek destroyer design afar, looks absolutely ridiculous up close when you see those 3 bulging L turrets on its bow and side that resembles pimples! Why couldn't the ship designs mimic those from Rebirth, when you have a vast amount of smaller sized, but equally destructive, turrets and therefore make them appear more integral to the ship (like the Taranis light destroyer), as opposed to this slap-on-hull turret system?

On a better note, the fighter designs are by far the best seen so far with a couple of minor exceptions (those 2 stupid rods sticking out the front of the Pulsar making scanning station breaches a pain for example).

[GCU Grey Area]

The Phoenix has arguably the worst placed turrets overall, the V2.0 AI changes may mitigate that particular flaw to at least some extent though.

Not so sure about that myself any more - added a couple of Phoenix Vanguards to my fleet last night & beginning to suspect I may have misjudged them.

Definitely now prefer them to Behemoth, both for weapon number (+1 M turret) & placement, also certainly for aesthetics. Always struggled with Behemoth to give it a loadout which balanced anti-capital & anti-fighter. Generally found it needed all of it's M turrets for anti-fighter defence.

In contrast, due to turret placement on the Phoenix, it can get away with 2 Pulse turrets on each fin (any 2 fins provide intersecting firing arcs, for an effective 4 turrets covering each approach vector - quite an efficient design, very Teladi IMO). This leaves the 3 remaining M turrets on the dome to be fitted with Plasmas to assist the main guns.

Have also come to appreciate the L turret placement on Phoenix, it's really not as bad as I initially thought. They may be towards the rear of the ship, but they're also right near the edges of the ship which definitely seems to give them a bit more effective range on ships approaching the flanks, compared to Behemoth with it's L turrets located very much in the middle of the ship. Using Beams in Phoenix L turrets by the way (2.0 makes them a significantly more effective weapon than earlier versions).

Naturally Odysseus is still top of the heap for sheer firepower among the destroyers, but still don't really see myself using it all that often - never been a fan of Paranid capital ship aesthetics (in any of the games from X2 onwards) &, since I don't fly such ships myself, but do like having them around, I find it's much harder to ignore a capital ship design I find unappealing.

[Olfrygt]

I miss fregattes, i mean real fregattes. Like in X3.

In X4 fregattes are nothing more then "better" corvettes with abit more hull and a docking area (that takes away 2/3 of the body and makes them all look pretty equal).

That moment when u bought your first Boron M7 Kalmar (dunno the english name sry).....well that feeling. It was slower then my Split Dragon but the shields and the pure firepower was overwhelming. Thats what i miss most.

S/M balance needs a rework too, Fighters slower then corvettes/fregattes....in combat (travel mode is something special fighers should be slower there to make docking bays more attractive).

And overall i think that the modules are abit too "big". They should be smaller and feel/look more integrated to the ships design.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The Phoenix has arguably the worst placed turrets overall, the V2.0 AI changes may mitigate that particular flaw to at least some extent though.

Not so sure about that myself any more - added a couple of Phoenix Vanguards to my fleet last night & beginning to suspect I may have misjudged them.

Definitely now prefer them to Behemoth, both for weapon number (+1 M turret) & placement, also certainly for aesthetics. Always struggled with Behemoth to give it a loadout which balanced anti-capital & anti-fighter. Generally found it needed all of it's M turrets for anti-fighter defence.

In contrast, due to turret placement on the Phoenix, it can get away with 2 Pulse turrets on each fin (any 2 fins provide intersecting firing arcs, for an effective 4 turrets covering each approach vector - quite an efficient design, very Teladi IMO). This leaves the 3 remaining M turrets on the dome to be fitted with Plasmas to assist the main guns.

If you are piloting the capitals, the Phoenix's L turret placement is next to useless for anything other than missiles perhaps, and the M turrets lack the range to compensate for this shortcoming.

As for Aesthetics, the Pheonix is probably one of the worst designs from an hull aesthetics perspective, but it does look quite appropriate for the Teladi. I much prefer the Argon designs for hull aesthetics. The Teladi and Paranid capitals do probably have the best looking bridges though. The Paranid bridges probably being my favourite.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

That moment when u bought your first Boron M7 Kalmar (dunno the english name sry).....well that feeling. It was slower then my Split Dragon but the shields and the pure firepower was overwhelming. Thats what i miss most.

Not sure which you are refering to but there was two Boron M7 craft in X3:

1. Thresher - Glass cannon
2. Kraken - Missile boat

I suspect you are referring to the glass cannon M7 as opposed to the missile boat.

If I were to pick by personal favourite from X3, it would probably be the Odin overall but in terms of M7s I did like the Aegir.

That being said, the ship balance and classes in X4 do not map to X3 - they do however map better to X2 which was my all-time favourite X game before X4. We will have to see about X4 in the long haul - it is currently the bugs that ruin the game overall.

[GCU Grey Area]

If you are piloting the capitals, the Phoenix's L turret placement is next to useless for anything other than missiles perhaps, and the M turrets lack the range to compensate for this shortcoming.

Really depends what you want to use the L turrets for.

Recently encountered a rather unpleasant Xenon I which had almost all of it's turret slots armed (most don't) & my Condor V (now designated: War Freighter #001) was struggling to cope. In the end lost the battle of Ianamus Zura (along with the trade station) & was forced to retreat on it's single remaining engine.
In 2.0 L Beams are quite effective at neutralising subsystems, so primary incentive for adding to the fleet was simply to field more L Beams to assist with such situations in the future. The main guns on these ships are more of a fringe benefit - certainly nice to have, but not the main reason I got them.

As discussed before I never fly destroyers personally so the M Plasmas on the front do get a fair bit more use than perhaps they would with a human pilot hanging back to exploit the full range of the main guns.