3.1 Bugs

[Steve Walmsley]

Emplaced a colony on Mars pre-start. Built a pre-fab PDC on Earth, for transport to Mars. It got constructed. 59 parts.

Sent a cargo fleet to transport the parts. They carried 50/59. The 9 remaining disappeared from Earth (cannot issue a pickup order), and Mars has only 50. The fleet is empty cargo-wise.

This has also happened to me in-game. I built a small prefab PDC with 28 components, found only 25 delivered, none remain on Earth.

Had the same problem here.  Built 2 51-part prefab PDC's, transported them to the new world and only 100 parts showed up.  The other 2 dissappeared into thin air.  1 PDC did assemble out of the 100 parts though leaving an annoyinh 49 on the colony.

The bug is that fleets are carrying out orders correctly when there are more components available than they can carry but the components are being accidentally deleted when there are fewer components than the maximum the fleet could carry. Its fixed for the next version.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

I had a small survey ship destroyed when it surveyed a system with a NPC race. The warship that blew it away captured the life pod (which also held the commander of the survey ship).
After the rescue, the officer showed up in my officer pool again.

I have fixed that for v3.2. The officer should now appear as a POW. I have also added some espionage-related functionality to capturing enemy officers and crew from lifepods. See the espionage thread for more details.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Maybe this has been posted before, but I'm not sure... anyway, should I be able to put more colonists on a planet classified as unsuitable than on a planet with a colony cost of 2.2.  I have 106 units of infrastructure with a pop of 6.35m and a growth rate of 12.5% on the unsuitable and 1192 units of infrastructure with a pop of 4.68m, supported pop of 5.46m, and growth rate of 12.00%.  Doesn't pass the common sense test.  I am in full support of placing colonies on unsuitable planets, but with much more infrastructure than on planets needing a little terraforming.  Any thoughts?

You shouldn't be able to put actual people on unsuitable planets, although you can place PDC, tracking stations, automated mines, etc. The only planets you can colonise are those with a colony cost, rather than a "N/A" on the System View window. Unfortunately I hadn't coded for the eventuality that someone would establish such a colony and it is likely being treated as a 0,0 world. Therefore, I have added some code to the population growth section that will kill off any people on unsuitable planets while leaving installations intact.

Steve

[schroeam]

Maybe this has been posted before, but I'm not sure... anyway, should I be able to put more colonists on a planet classified as unsuitable than on a planet with a colony cost of 2.2.  I have 106 units of infrastructure with a pop of 6.35m and a growth rate of 12.5% on the unsuitable and 1192 units of infrastructure with a pop of 4.68m, supported pop of 5.46m, and growth rate of 12.00%.  Doesn't pass the common sense test.  I am in full support of placing colonies on unsuitable planets, but with much more infrastructure than on planets needing a little terraforming.  Any thoughts?

You shouldn't be able to put actual people on unsuitable planets, although you can place PDC, tracking stations, automated mines, etc. The only planets you can colonise are those with a colony cost, rather than a "N/A" on the System View window. Unfortunately I hadn't coded for the eventuality that someone would establish such a colony and it is likely being treated as a 0,0 world. Therefore, I have added some code to the population growth section that will kill off any people on unsuitable planets while leaving installations intact.

Steve

Sounds good.  Those pesky civilian colony ships just started delivering colonists to a planet I was using as a stockpile for infrastructure.  How much infrastructure should be needed for a colony, even of just a couple million, on a planet listed as N/A?  Or, maybe constructing something called "Outpost" to house 50K on a terrestrial planet that is N/A?  Just a thought to maximize the reality of accurately showing the spread of a population through a solar system.

Adam.

[Steve Walmsley]

Sounds good.  Those pesky civilian colony ships just started delivering colonists to a planet I was using as a stockpile for infrastructure.  How much infrastructure should be needed for a colony, even of just a couple million, on a planet listed as N/A?  Or, maybe constructing something called "Outpost" to house 50K on a terrestrial planet that is N/A?  Just a thought to maximize the reality of accurately showing the spread of a population through a solar system.

I see the problem now. The civilian ships look for colony locations with colony cost 0 or enough infrastructure. I hadn't considered a situation with infrastructure on a planet listed as "N/A", which was picked up as a negative col cost. I have fixed that for v3.2 as well.

N/A planets cannot have any actual people because they are completely unsuitable for colonization. This applies to gas giants and planets with very high or very low gravity. You can still place a colony site on a rocky planet with a "N/A" col cost and you can add automated mines, tracking stations, PDCs, etc, you just can put any colonists there, which in turn means any manned installations will be useless on that planet. The basis for this is that you might have artifical gravity in a PDC or the for the crew of a tracking station, but you can't do it for a significant number of people.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Fixed a problem where using the Fire button on the Combat Assignments window didn't add firing delays when the inexperienced fleets rule was being used.

Steve

[Kurt]

I seem to remember a bug report from someone concerning meson cannons not causing damage, and Steve replying that he had fixed it for 3.2.  

I cannot find this post, even with a search, and I'm going nuts trying to fiigure out if I'm going nuts.  Can anyone else remember this?

Kurt

[Erik L]

I seem to remember a bug report from someone concerning meson cannons not causing damage, and Steve replying that he had fixed it for 3.2.  

I cannot find this post, even with a search, and I'm going nuts trying to fiigure out if I'm going nuts.  Can anyone else remember this?

Kurt

Only posts I see with "meson" mostly are in 2.1 era.

Let's vote for nuts

[Hawkeye]

My first mentioning of a problem is here

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1237

while Steve´s answer is there

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1237&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

[Kurt]

My first mentioning of a problem is here

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1237

while Steve´s answer is there

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1237&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Thanks.  I was working on the writeup for the Indian Fleet, and the Indians are the only government that uses Mesons, and I wanted to make sure I remembered what I thought I remembered about the bug.  

I've had to relegate mesons to a point-defense only role in the Six Powers campaign, because of this bug.  Not disastrous, or any thing, but I'm glad I found out before the Indians went too far in investing in meson tech.  

Kurt

[Steve Walmsley]

Just squished a bug where ships with active sensors were not scanning jump gates for tech data unless there was also an alien or civilian ship in the same system.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Civilian space centres were not taking radiation levels into account when building ships. The chance of civilian construction is now reduced by the same percentage by which radiation reduces industrial output.

Steve