FreeOrion

i personally like the second one but i think the first one sucks here you go the 2 logos feedback appreciated.

The logo we have now is pretty much set in stone. There is no reason to create a new one for v0.4.

Both of your logos are way too busy. They rely on glaring effects instead of simple shapes. The first one is even hard to read. The fonts for both don't look very well either. I would go so far and even say, those aren't logos, but images.
If you aply any effects to a logo, it should be done in a subtle way and to support the logo. Your effects dominate the 'logos'.
But before any of this can be done, you have to do the ground (graphical) work - just black shapes on white background.

Another thing: Please try to use proper punctuation. It is unnecessary hard to understand, what you are trying to say sometimes.

thanks for trying, but i agree that what we already have is better.

And good logo-design needs to start with shape/spacing/size of the letters and symbols (if any). If that foundation is solid, filters might enhance the logo, but filter's don't turn plain text into a logo.

I've been working for my company logo for a while... and come to realize that the logo must ... MUST be drawn in black and white first (just the sake of being clearly identified even when in one color) and then for websites and color documents add color and some effects.

and in any case, never ever create a logo that can't be easily reproduced in vector format!
I've noticed that carving a complicated raster logo into a stone emblem will cost you about 100x more than when it's in vector format!