The Anvil Carrack, Crusader Ares Star Fighter, Crusader Mercury Star Runner, Crusader Spirit, Origin 400i, and the RSI Galaxy were excellent concept ships. However, some oversights and mistakes were made in their execution towards final design, marketing, sales, and in-game release, including some that seem serious and appear to be systemic that need to be addressed by CIG. Here's a bit of feedback open for discussion. Mistakes happen. Minds change. Yet it is infuriating when products and/or their variants are pitched and marketed, on both the web and in brochures, with highly specific characteristics and functionality that results in enhanced sales, then "inaccurate" information is later "corrected" or CIG outright makes material changes to the products, after accepting significant amounts of real-world currency. This occurred with at least the Carrack, Ares, Mercury, Spirit, and the Galaxy. It is an exceptionally serious pattern that CIG must address. It is disappointing and frustrating when "in-game" sales & marketing brochures are not fully produced. These serve as timely, accurate summaries that are critical to making decisions on whether or not we should provide CIG with additional pledges of our precious financial resources continue to support further project development efforts. When "low-effort" "spec sheets" are produced for marketing rollouts instead of a full marketing brochure, yet we see record funding levels being achieved, it negatively impacts our perception of CIG's commitment of excellence to the product and community. This occurred with the Spirit and the Galaxy. They deserved better. With the Carrack and Mercury, the product produced did not accurately reflect the pitched, marketed, and funded design; major design changes fattened the vessels, altered their visual aesthetics, and removed some characteristics and functionality. For example, the Carrack went from resembling a bird of prey to resembling a large hog, vertical docking ports were eliminated, "truly self-sufficient" fuel replenishment functionality that we pledged real-world currency for, was lost or abandoned, and interior space was inefficiently used (the entire design team at CIG needs a refresher on compartmentalization concepts and why they are important in spacecraft design). The Carrack should undergo extensive redesign, to scale it up significantly. With the Mercury, developer FPS PVP eSports fantasies were allowed to be prioritized over its sleek design, and tunnels were added; that should never have been allowed! The Mercury should be redesigned to eliminate those ridiculous tunnels, the turrets fixed to be retractable, the data room more securable, and the addition of a secondary entrance/airlock. The 400i's sleek design is reminiscent of performance racing yachts. Unfortunately, it is slightly too small, and a bit confusing. Why produce a ship for a crew of three, yet only provide dedicated space for a vehicle that seats one? In the least, the 400i should have been able to be used to cross-promote the Origin G12, not just the X1 (And the X1 should fit in the 100 series, because the X1 was cross-promoted in its brochure!). Please scale the 400i up slightly, so at least an Origin G12 can fit in it. And I wouldn't mind marine and submarine functionality being added to the 400i, with a true airlock... I have already addressed the Ares extensively. In a nutshell, someone who determined its pricing grossly misunderstood its capabilities. The Ares should have been priced appropriately, hull limited, and/or withheld and released alongside the F8A Lightning, where its capabilities could have been appropriately understood in context of how to properly use it. Further, developers materially altered the Ares away from its pitched, marketed, and financially funded functionality, after months of in-house development, testing, release to the public, and a hot-fix; that should never have occurred! For a detailed summary of what should have happened, see: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/drake-corsair-solo-group-erts-ez-mode/5518743 The cargo space of the Spirit was an obvious and glaring mistake that should never have made it past basic proof-reading; CIG clearly has issues lately publishing timely and accurate information associated with marketing and sales when they go live. However, with the Galaxy, it is crystal clear that the inaccurate information about its hanger size significantly impacted sales related to the refinery module; if the concept of the Galaxy was to be an all-in-one ship a single crew can go and use, it fails in its refinery role without the ability to either be used as the mining vessel, or ability to carry a Prospector (or RSI mining vessel) in its hanger. The hanger size was originally listed as XS, which is large enough for a Prospector. However, that was corrected the day after its reveal, which introduces a great many unknowns into the equation, and eliminates the ability of a single crew in a single vessel from being able to venture into the cosmos together; design FAIL! The solution is simple; please scale the Galaxy up in its production design to be able to have an XS-dimensioned hanger, and possibly include the hanger as part of the modular design. It doesn't likely need to be the size of a Polaris or Star Destroyer (hint hint...), but I won't argue if you bump it up significantly... Realize, this isn't to say that these vessels are all bad. Far from it. They all have places in a fleet. But they are all far less than they should have been.