Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bug Reports => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on December 18, 2023, 11:12:02 AM
-
Please post potential bugs in this thread for v2.4.0
First, please check the Known Issues post before posting so see if the problem has already been identified or is working as intended.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10637.0
'Me too' posts for unresolved bugs are fine as it shows they are affecting more than one person. Any extra information you can provide in 'me too' posts is very welcome.
Please do not post bugs from previous versions unless you confirm they are still present in v2.4.0
When you post, please post as much information as possible, including:
The function number
The complete error text
The window affected
What you were doing at the time
Conventional or TN start
Random or Real Stars
Is your decimal separator a comma?
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well
-
2.4.0 Function #2616: Attempted to divide by zero.
Error occurs (twice in succession) when selecting the "Target Tons Multiplier" button to 10,000 in the Create Research Project - Jump Engine window.
I generated a new game and researched the Jump Drive Efficiency 6, Squadron Size 3, and Squadron Radius 50k technologies, then went to create a jump drive and selected the 10,000 tonnage multiplier button. The error occurs when designing both Military and Commercial drives. After clicking through the two error messages, all the tonnage values in the "Jump Capability" dropdown go to 0 tons.
I'll never need a 1,000,000 ton military jump drive (990,000 tons must surely be sufficient) but I was just testing all the shiny new features.
SJW: Fixed for v2.4.1
-
Not a big problem, but at the program start
- No image found for Station
- No image found for Flag
- No image found for Hull
SJW: Not a bug. Please read the patch post.
-
Not a big problem, but at the program start
- No image found for Station
- No image found for Flag
- No image found for Hull
From C# Aurora v2.4.0 Patch release topic:
I've created an example game, so if you get any load errors regarding missing flag, ship or race pictures, it just means you don't have the same pictures in your installation. You can safely ignore the errors and they will disappear when you start your own game.
-
2.4.0 Function #2616: Attempted to divide by zero.
Error occurs (twice in succession) when selecting the "Target Tons Multiplier" button to 10,000 in the Create Research Project - Jump Engine window.
I generated a new game and researched the Jump Drive Efficiency 6, Squadron Size 3, and Squadron Radius 50k technologies, then went to create a jump drive and selected the 10,000 tonnage multiplier button. The error occurs when designing both Military and Commercial drives. After clicking through the two error messages, all the tonnage values in the "Jump Capability" dropdown go to 0 tons.
I'll never need a 1,000,000 ton military jump drive (990,000 tons must surely be sufficient) but I was just testing all the shiny new features.
Can confirm that this happens to me as well.
SJW: Fixed for v2.4.1
-
Jump Drive "Efficiency Modifier" can go below 1 https://i.imgur.com/LTyS9dq.png
According to the changes list it shouldn't be able to.
SJW: Fixed for v2.4.1
-
'Terminal Guidance' seems to default to on for any previous missile design you select from the drop down at the top of the missile design page, rather than whatever it should be for that design.
SJW: Its actually reversing whether the missile has ATG. Fixed for v2.4.1.
-
"Total Ordnance exceeds Magazine Capacity" warning shows up the moment you add a decoy to a classes ordnance template during class design, regardless of the availability of the decoy launchers. Adding/removing decoys works properly. Standard missiles also work properly, it's just when decoys are added the warning immediately appears.
Also, the quoted message above is a copy paste, the weird capitalisation is present in-game.
SJW: Fixed for v2.4.1
-
Researched Decoy Launchers still do not show up under their category in the Technology Report window (initially reported in 2.3.1).
-
I have ships that have 2 fire controls: a 256k km fire control (for particle beams) and a 64k km fire control (for gauss cannons). When I click "Auto Target BFC", it assigns both types of fire controls to an enemy target, despite the fact that only the 256k km fire control is in range (target is at 190k km away). This behavior happens regardless of if I have 2x range checkbox selected or not.
This is annoying as then when I open fire the game tells me the 64k km fire control is out of range (obviously).
SJW: This is not a bug. The fire controls are set if the ship is in range, not the individual controls. Changing target assignments resets the 'fire delay' for inexperienced crews, so if you only set the 256k initially and later add the 64k as you move closer, you will get two delays instead of one.
-
I have ships that have 2 fire controls: a 256k km fire control (for particle beams) and a 64k km fire control (for gauss cannons). When I click "Auto Target BFC", it assigns both types of fire controls to an enemy target, despite the fact that only the 256k km fire control is in range (target is at 190k km away). This behavior happens regardless of if I have 2x range checkbox selected or not.
This is annoying as then when I open fire the game tells me the 64k km fire control is out of range (obviously).
This isn't a bug. You could post this as a suggestion, but given that there are many cases when you would want to target a BFC on a target which is not (yet) in range, I don't see this changing either.
-
I have ships that have 2 fire controls: a 256k km fire control (for particle beams) and a 64k km fire control (for gauss cannons). When I click "Auto Target BFC", it assigns both types of fire controls to an enemy target, despite the fact that only the 256k km fire control is in range (target is at 190k km away). This behavior happens regardless of if I have 2x range checkbox selected or not.
This is annoying as then when I open fire the game tells me the 64k km fire control is out of range (obviously).
This isn't a bug. You could post this as a suggestion, but given that there are many cases when you would want to target a BFC on a target which is not (yet) in range, I don't see this changing either.
As far as I noticed, the 256k beam fire control only targets enemies within its range, unless I have 2x range checked, where it picks targets within twice its range. So the 64k beam fire control should only be picking targets within its range (if 2x range is not checked)
-
Ground Forces window -> Formation Templates tab -> "Copy Temp" does not preserve the assigned rank for the copied formation. I can't test the Copy + Upgrade button at the moment but I'd expect a similar result.
SJW: Fixed for v2.4.1
-
Looks like there aren't many bugs, hope we can get 2.4.1 soon :D
-
Bug Report: I had a fleet: CruRon 5, with 4 cruisers. they took a big missile salvo of 315 size 9 missiles. 1 ship was destroyed, the other 3 took damage. CA-15 Wichita lost both of its engines, however the ship was not automatically detached from CruRon 5. Unless it only automatically detaches them if the ship can still move a little?
-
Bug Report: I had a fleet: CruRon 5, with 4 cruisers. they took a big missile salvo of 315 size 9 missiles. 1 ship was destroyed, the other 3 took damage. CA-15 Wichita lost both of its engines, however the ship was not automatically detached from CruRon 5. Unless it only automatically detaches them if the ship can still move a little?
Did the max speed of your fleet change when it lost it's engines?
-
Bug Report: I had a fleet: CruRon 5, with 4 cruisers. they took a big missile salvo of 315 size 9 missiles. 1 ship was destroyed, the other 3 took damage. CA-15 Wichita lost both of its engines, however the ship was not automatically detached from CruRon 5. Unless it only automatically detaches them if the ship can still move a little?
Did the max speed of your fleet change when it lost it's engines?
yes, until I detached the ship with no engines
-
So might have my first bug. Had a new colony with a starport but I haven't gotten fully stocked with fuel, ordnance, and MSP so I had the Destination for Automated Refueling box unchecked so all ships would head to Earth. I had an exploration ship past it with conditonal order to refuel, resupply, and conduct overhaul at colony. When its condition was met, it repeatedly tried to set its order to return to the unchecked colony. I deleted the orders and made sure that the automated refueling for the colony was unchecked but the ship insisted on returning there. I think it might have something to do with the refuel/resupply/overhaul combination because the block seemed to work on an earlier version game for just refueling.
I have no save to attach but the setup for this is easily reproducible.
-
Bug Report: Template system does not account for max engine size: I started a new game, and imported templates that used 60 HS engines. However, while it automatically researched tech like fuel use and ion engines, it didn't research max engine size. So I have ship designs with 60 HS engines, but the max engine size I can design manually is still 25 HS.
-
'Terminal Guidance' seems to default to on for any previous missile design you select from the drop down at the top of the missile design page, rather than whatever it should be for that design.
SJW: Its actually reversing whether the missile has ATG. Fixed for v2.4.1.
I'm not sure if this is related but the game currently removes the ATG bonus on missiles that have ATG on save.
To repro:
Design any missile that has an ATG bonus.
Go to FCT_MissileType and observe the ATG column, the correct value should be there.
Save the game
Reload the DB and reinspect the ATG column - you'll notice that the value has reset to "1".
Note that things like the additional size/cost due to the ATG remain so ATG is just a "nerf my missile" button in 2.4.0 right now. The game is just not saving the bonus for whatever reason.
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
Bug Report 1: Creating a new game deletes all existing ship templates. This happens consistently. It does not get deleted when switching between different saves, however.
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
Bug report 2: I loaded a ship design into a new game using the template system. I just realized that the missile launcher was made as a size 3 launcher, instead of the size 10 launcher it should have been.
In the save "New Game Name", I loaded the Anubis Class Survey Ship. It should be a flat 10,000 tons and have 1 size 10 launcher with 30% size reduction. Instead, it is 9,883 tons, because it has 1 size 3 launcher with a 30% size reduction. The launcher still has the original name of "S10 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction).
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
Ships with damaged weapons can be made to continue firing when they should not.
Replication:
- Have two or more identical ships, armed and in the same fleet
- Have one of the two ships with a damaged weapon - in my case, this happened due to a maintenance failure during firing with insufficient MSP to effect the instant repair. I am unsure if the same error occurs when the damage is due to enemy weapons fire
- Select the undamaged ship, with an enemy in range. Assign it's weapons, order it to open fire, then use the "Assign Fleet" or "Assign System" button
This results in the damaged ship having it's damaged weapon assigned to it's fire control and will incorrectly open fire as time is incremented.
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
'Terminal Guidance' seems to default to on for any previous missile design you select from the drop down at the top of the missile design page, rather than whatever it should be for that design.
SJW: Its actually reversing whether the missile has ATG. Fixed for v2.4.1.
I'm not sure if this is related but the game currently removes the ATG bonus on missiles that have ATG on save.
To repro:
Design any missile that has an ATG bonus.
Go to FCT_MissileType and observe the ATG column, the correct value should be there.
Save the game
Reload the DB and reinspect the ATG column - you'll notice that the value has reset to "1".
Note that things like the additional size/cost due to the ATG remain so ATG is just a "nerf my missile" button in 2.4.0 right now. The game is just not saving the bonus for whatever reason.
Unfortunately, the database field is an integer and it should be a double. The fix will need a database update.
-
I don't know if this is a bug or the game is just taking a super long time, but if I turn on customised NPRs and creating the first NPR the game stops responding.
SJW: As per below, the problem was caused by Archipelago. I have removed this as an option for NPR home worlds.
-
I don't know if this is a bug or the game is just taking a super long time, but if I turn on customised NPRs and creating the first NPR the game stops responding.
Do you know what system the NPR is being created in (i.e. is it user-specified)? I have had some issues in the past where the game will hang on start because it is trying to create habitable systems for stars where this is functionally impossible - in my case, it was because I specified too small/narrow of a starting distance distribution for too many starting NPRs (prior to the advent of customized NPRs).
-
I don't know if this is a bug or the game is just taking a super long time, but if I turn on customised NPRs and creating the first NPR the game stops responding.
Do you know what system the NPR is being created in (i.e. is it user-specified)? I have had some issues in the past where the game will hang on start because it is trying to create habitable systems for stars where this is functionally impossible - in my case, it was because I specified too small/narrow of a starting distance distribution for too many starting NPRs (prior to the advent of customized NPRs).
Just two NPRs between 30-50 LYs, with the game hanging after I created the first one
-
I don't know if this is a bug or the game is just taking a super long time, but if I turn on customised NPRs and creating the first NPR the game stops responding.
Do you know what system the NPR is being created in (i.e. is it user-specified)? I have had some issues in the past where the game will hang on start because it is trying to create habitable systems for stars where this is functionally impossible - in my case, it was because I specified too small/narrow of a starting distance distribution for too many starting NPRs (prior to the advent of customized NPRs).
Just two NPRs between 30-50 LYs, with the game hanging after I created the first one
Are random stars on? There have been a lot of bugs historically related to this.
-
I don't know if this is a bug or the game is just taking a super long time, but if I turn on customised NPRs and creating the first NPR the game stops responding.
Do you know what system the NPR is being created in (i.e. is it user-specified)? I have had some issues in the past where the game will hang on start because it is trying to create habitable systems for stars where this is functionally impossible - in my case, it was because I specified too small/narrow of a starting distance distribution for too many starting NPRs (prior to the advent of customized NPRs).
Just two NPRs between 30-50 LYs, with the game hanging after I created the first one
Are random stars on? There have been a lot of bugs historically related to this.
Known Stars is turned on. Though, I wonder if it is because I choose just Archipelago for the NPR homeworld terrian.
Edit: Ah, yeah it seems that was what caused it.
-
Known Stars is turned on. Though, I wonder if it is because I choose just Archipelago for the NPR homeworld terrian.
Edit: Ah, yeah it seems that was what caused it.
Yeah, Archipelago is a rough terrain for a home world because the usable land area tends to be virtually nil, leading to massive overcrowding. I think Steve added a check at some point to make sure a NPR wouldn't spawn on a planet that couldn't support its population, or something along those lines, so that interaction may be what caused this.
SJW: Yes, confirmed this is the issue.
-
Known Stars is turned on. Though, I wonder if it is because I choose just Archipelago for the NPR homeworld terrian.
Edit: Ah, yeah it seems that was what caused it.
Yeah, Archipelago is a rough terrain for a home world because the usable land area tends to be virtually nil, leading to massive overcrowding. I think Steve added a check at some point to make sure a NPR wouldn't spawn on a planet that couldn't support its population, or something along those lines, so that interaction may be what caused this.
IIRC the check is supposed to just cap the population to the carrying capacity but when I reported that bug back then it was in the context of generated NPRs not game-start NPRs.
-
Known Stars is turned on. Though, I wonder if it is because I choose just Archipelago for the NPR homeworld terrian.
Edit: Ah, yeah it seems that was what caused it.
Yeah, Archipelago is a rough terrain for a home world because the usable land area tends to be virtually nil, leading to massive overcrowding. I think Steve added a check at some point to make sure a NPR wouldn't spawn on a planet that couldn't support its population, or something along those lines, so that interaction may be what caused this.
IIRC the check is supposed to just cap the population to the carrying capacity but when I reported that bug back then it was in the context of generated NPRs not game-start NPRs.
You're probably right. I suspect that based on the Create Habitable Systems dev post (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164017#msg164017), there is an endless loop where the habitable planet checker requires <70% hydro, but Archipelago requires... more than that.
-
I can also confirm that I've been having issues related to restricting homeworld types with Custom NPRs in Known Stars universes.
-
Concerning Decoy Missiles:
You can't load them onto colliers, so you can't move them between colonies except by making a ship full of Decoy Launchers and moving them with load/unload ordinance.
This means I have been unable to test reloading Decoy Launchers in space from Ordinance Transfer Systems. Is this supposed to be the case?
-
Concerning Decoy Missiles:
You can't load them onto colliers, so you can't move them between colonies except by making a ship full of Decoy Launchers and moving them with load/unload ordinance.
This means I have been unable to test reloading Decoy Launchers in space from Ordinance Transfer Systems. Is this supposed to be the case?
I reported this in the 2.3.1 thread and it's intended. You can see below that Steve does eventually plan on doing something about that. Right now you have to build decoys on-site I'm afraid or use SM to teleport decoys around. Though I guess your decoy launcher carrier also works, as hyper specialised as it is.
I'm posting this as a bug because I think this is an unintended side effect of the way decoys are designed.
Decoys can't be loaded into a magazine, when trying to add the decoys to a ships ordnance template, I just get 0 despite available space. This makes it impossible to transport decoys via magazine from one population to another, which is quite annoying if you have static defense bases that use countermeasures. I get that we shouldn't be able to reload decoy launchers through a ships magazine, but we should still be able to transport them to distant populations.
SJW: Decoys aren't 'missiles' in the traditional sense, so this is working as intended. I agree though that some form of transport for decoys is needed.
-
Not sure if WAI or not, but I created a new game in 2.4 with the auto assign tech points option, and I ended up with small compressed fuel tanks. Is that a normal research project now?
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
Not sure if WAI or not, but I created a new game in 2.4 with the auto assign tech points option, and I ended up with small compressed fuel tanks. Is that a normal research project now?
No, that's a bug. I thought it had been fixed already.
-
if you don't have any fleets set up you can make infinite ships at 1 shipyard. It doesn't matter how many slipways you have there.
First, there is an error when you give out construction orders, but then after you refresh shipyards window (by closing and opening it again), you can see there are ships being built and your available slipways can display as a negative number.
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
if you don't have any fleets set up you can make infinite ships at 1 shipyard. It doesn't matter how many slipways you have there.
First, there is an error when you give out construction orders, but then after you refresh shipyards window (by closing and opening it again), you can see there are ships being built and your available slipways can display as a negative number.
Oh THAT is fun! Don't fix it !
-
I've been experiencing a weird problem in my current game with ships disappearing when being towed by tugs. It's happened a couple times so far:
Gave an order to tug a space station with hangar decks and four squadrons of fighters embarked. When released, two of the squadrons had disappeared.
Just now, I disabled, boarded and captured a pair of raider ships. Gave an order to tug them back to Earth, but when the tugs reached them, they disappeared.
I haven't been able to reproduce this yet.
-
Was it a case of multiple/nesting sub-fleets?
-
This may or may not be a bug, but it's been noted the last couple days on Discord that Missile Retargeting is allowing a missile to make multiple attack attempts in a 5-second increment, seemingly doing an attack run every 1-second sub-pulse until it hits. If PD can still only fire once every 5 seconds, this is a pretty big buff to retargeting that may not be intended.
Example from user Exultant on Discord launching a single missile at a target making multiple attacks in one 5-second increment:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/388444714577297408/1187948944706256936/image.png?ex=6598beab&is=658649ab&hm=3d73f99af3e57f61e76e35f3776ce17f3ecb09a4e4bc1c68297871438c88fb44&)
SJW: Fixed for v2.5.0
-
This may or may not be a bug, but it's been noted the last couple days on Discord that Missile Retargeting is allowing a missile to make multiple attack attempts in a 5-second increment, seemingly doing an attack run every 1-second sub-pulse until it hits. If PD can still only fire once every 5 seconds, this is a pretty big buff to retargeting that may not be intended.
Example from user Exultant on Discord launching a single missile at a target making multiple attacks in one 5-second increment:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/388444714577297408/1187948944706256936/image.png?ex=6598beab&is=658649ab&hm=3d73f99af3e57f61e76e35f3776ce17f3ecb09a4e4bc1c68297871438c88fb44&)
Yes, this is a bug. I'll take a look over the weekend. Retargeting should be once per 5-second increment, but this is very likely caused by the 1-second sub-pulses.
-
This may or may not be a bug, but it's been noted the last couple days on Discord that Missile Retargeting is allowing a missile to make multiple attack attempts in a 5-second increment, seemingly doing an attack run every 1-second sub-pulse until it hits. If PD can still only fire once every 5 seconds, this is a pretty big buff to retargeting that may not be intended.
Example from user Exultant on Discord launching a single missile at a target making multiple attacks in one 5-second increment:
Yes, this is a bug. I'll take a look over the weekend. Retargeting should be once per 5-second increment, but this is very likely caused by the 1-second sub-pulses.
This could be a big deal since people are doing tests that show retargeting is massively better than anything else (e.g., multiple warheads) on AMMs. Since I don't think the intention was to create a clearly best option with the new mechanics, if this bug is responsible it would avoid having to do a bunch of extra rebalancing work if solved.
-
This may or may not be a bug, but it's been noted the last couple days on Discord that Missile Retargeting is allowing a missile to make multiple attack attempts in a 5-second increment, seemingly doing an attack run every 1-second sub-pulse until it hits. If PD can still only fire once every 5 seconds, this is a pretty big buff to retargeting that may not be intended.
Example from user Exultant on Discord launching a single missile at a target making multiple attacks in one 5-second increment:
Yes, this is a bug. I'll take a look over the weekend. Retargeting should be once per 5-second increment, but this is very likely caused by the 1-second sub-pulses.
This could be a big deal since people are doing tests that show retargeting is massively better than anything else (e.g., multiple warheads) on AMMs. Since I don't think the intention was to create a clearly best option with the new mechanics, if this bug is responsible it would avoid having to do a bunch of extra rebalancing work if solved.
Yes, I noticed that too. If it can attack 5x per increment, then it will be much more effective than intended.
EDIT: Now restricted to one attack per increment, as per original rules post
-
I have a survey ship with the standing order "Survey Next Three System Bodies or Locations" that is surveying a set of trojan asteroids in descending numerical order instead of by distance. There is another survey ship in the same system with the same standing orders. What is even stranger is that this ship was surveying in the inner parts of the system before deciding to make the long trek out to the trojans, and there are many bodies and locations much closer in. The system only has one lagrange point in the one set of trojans, if that has any effect.
-
if you don't have any fleets set up you can make infinite ships at 1 shipyard. It doesn't matter how many slipways you have there.
First, there is an error when you give out construction orders, but then after you refresh shipyards window (by closing and opening it again), you can see there are ships being built and your available slipways can display as a negative number.
Oh THAT is fun! Don't fix it !
Oh well, I knew it was coming, and I'm glad it was fixed. but :(
-
Bug Report: Move to System Requiring Geosurvey doesn't work. The ship just jumps back and forth between Sol and the system through Sol jump point 1. See attached database, Game 2, look at fleet "SS-03 Abraham Bar Hiyya".
Move to system requiring Grav survey does seem to work fine though.
-
When assigning a fleet commander the game will show all relevant posts. The information regarding the posts show the ship class as well as the ship name of the post, however it doesn't show the fleet that the post would be in, which often forces me to open the naval organisation window and find the fleet (and where there are multiple ships with flag bridges, the specific ship).
Would be nice if the commander window just told me which fleet each "fleet commander" post was in.
-
Inbefore: I'm still on 2.4 but haven't seen this under fixes yet. Will take a look and report it for 2.5 when I'm upgrading.
Very minor and purley visual bug, I think:
If you have ground forces in training with only 50% it estimates the time needed for training wrong. It seems that it does not / through 0.5 but instead * by 0.5 for the build time in the queue:
Eg.: Two exactly the same formations in training. 7th blabla has 50% allocated, 4th blabla has 100%. One would expect that the 7th blabla needs twice the time for training(which it actually does when it's being build). However, in the queue it shows 0.09 (= 0.17 * 0.5) years as the expected build time.
The actual training time is unaffected, as one can see in the screenshot: It's december 2672 and the 5th blabla will be finished in April 2673, which is roughly four months/third a year (0.17 / 0.5 = 0.34 years).
-
Inbefore: I'm still on 2.4 but haven't seen this under fixes yet. Will take a look and report it for 2.5 when I'm upgrading.
Very minor and purley visual bug, I think:
If you have ground forces in training with only 50% it estimates the time needed for training wrong. It seems that it does not / through 0.5 but instead * by 0.5 for the build time in the queue:
Eg.: Two exactly the same formations in training. 7th blabla has 50% allocated, 4th blabla has 100%. One would expect that the 7th blabla needs twice the time for training(which it actually does when it's being build). However, in the queue it shows 0.09 (= 0.17 * 0.5) years as the expected build time.
The actual training time is unaffected, as one can see in the screenshot: It's december 2672 and the 5th blabla will be finished in April 2673, which is roughly four months/third a year (0.17 / 0.5 = 0.34 years).
I reported this and it got fixed in 2.5.
-
Unecessary bug report
I reported this and it got fixed in 2.5.
Oh. I missed that.
Sorry and thank you.