Author Topic: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread  (Read 93313 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #630 on: December 05, 2015, 09:55:31 AM »
Minor bug:

When you give a terraformer a 'Join' command to combine with another terraformer fleet at another planet, that terraformer is not counted as a terraformer in orbit until you order the entire fleet to re-move over the planet. Same thing happens with geosurvey, maintenance ships, recreation ships and so forth.

Ship ordered to move to a population will be flagged as in orbit of that population. However, as you can have multiple pops on the same planet, a ship that moves into orbit without a pop being specified won't move to any of them. A fleet can contain ships which have different populations set so joining a fleet doesn't necessarily determine which pop you should be assigned to.

For the moment, the easiest option is to order the terraformer to move to the population and then join the terraformers. That will solve your problem.

It may be worth having code that checks if a joined fleet is in orbit of a planet with only a single pop of the same race and then assigning on that basis.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #631 on: December 05, 2015, 09:59:57 AM »
As far as I was able to determine, no one seems to have reported this.
A typo in the combat assignments where it says automated fire in the top right portion of the overview, the mouse-over description reads:
If set for Synchronous fire, this ship will select ship targets and automatically open fire when in range.
I would presume that since it is a description for automated fire and not for synchronous fire, that it should read 'If set for automated fire'.
And in the Research overview, under power and propulsion, the capacitor recharge rate description reads:
The amount of power which am energy weapon will recharge every 5 seconds.
should be an instead of am.

Also in my current game I am using Known Star Systems, and in the Sirius System, Sirius AVI, a Gas Giant, has its list of moons begin at the number 8 instead of 1.

All the above fixed for the next version.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #632 on: December 05, 2015, 10:06:26 AM »
By pure chance I have today spotted this double appearing object...



...but then saw slightly different statistics for size and gravity in the system window, researched it and found out that the original 1998 WW31 had a nearly identical named moon, (1998 WW31) 1, despite its small asteroid size.
I still went to log that here as I am not sure if the distance can be correct. The screenshot shows an incredible distance of over 2 AE here, and there are two other objects of respectable size close (though could be of on z-axis), who might interfere, so why aren't they moons too if you can have one at only 0.004g over 2 AE? Might be wrong though. Amazing detail anyway!

I've added "-1" to the slightly smaller one. It's been a while since I created the Kuiper belt objects so I don't remember what source I used. They are both at the same distance but I randomise all the bearings at the start. It's just a coincidence they were so close together. Aurora doesn't support asteroid moons at the moment.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #633 on: December 05, 2015, 10:09:08 AM »
I'm surprised nobody has noticed this one: Scrapping doesn't return any minerals: just recovered components.

This is working as intended. When salvaging, you get a few intact components plus some minerals (the scrap value of the components too damaged to salvage). When you scrap in a shipyard all the components are intact. You can scrap those intact components for minerals if you wish.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #634 on: December 05, 2015, 10:10:42 AM »
Found a small typo. In the task groups screen the tool tip for "Remove all" says  "Remove all Oredsr"

Fixed for next version.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #635 on: December 05, 2015, 10:13:38 AM »

Rescued crew doesn't respect the capacity of Cryogenic Transport.
I designed a ship with an emergency cryo transport module. Total capacity of 200.
However after a recent battle leaving a number of wrecks in one system I discovered this:

That's 459 people crammed in like sardines. Now while it should be possible to fit  more people in crew quarters than designed capacity I'm pretty sure cryo transport wouldn't be the kind of thing you could add extra people into.
And if the extra 259 people are in the rest of the ship, well, the normal crew capacity of that ship is 12, overcrowding of 4000% should have caused the ships normal deployment time of 1 moth to be shortened to 18 hours. But the trip to drop off survivors was successful despite taking 2 weeks.

You can overcrowd a ship. However, if you do you will start to see life support failures. These are treated the same as normal maintenance failures so they will be repaired if you have enough maint supplies.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #636 on: December 17, 2015, 12:07:05 AM »
I haven't confirmed if this also exists in version 7.
I have 2 planets colonised which list being low gravity and requiring underground infrastructure.
However checking the system details shows they are high gravity and I assume shouldn't be colonizable with either form of infrastructure.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline ExChairman

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Commodore
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 614
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #637 on: December 18, 2015, 12:41:55 AM »
Noticed an odd thing.
Playing around with my carrier and adding 100 size 8 box launchers made the ship faster to build?
From 0,82 to 0,79 year ???
Veni, Vedi, Volvo
"Granström"

Wargame player and Roleplayer for 33 years...
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #638 on: January 25, 2016, 01:39:29 PM »
Noticed an odd thing.
Playing around with my carrier and adding 100 size 8 box launchers made the ship faster to build?
From 0,82 to 0,79 year ???
Larger ships have a higher Annual Build Point rate than smaller ships, though usually cost more as a result of having more components, thus not suddenly building faster just because they're bigger. Box launchers happen to be relatively cheap, though not particularly resource-hollow for their HS, but still, the addition you made likely increased the annual build rate faster than it increased the overall cost of the ship. There's also the possibility you may have some prefabbed or scrapped box launchers lying around.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #639 on: January 29, 2016, 06:36:51 PM »
I was playing my big 'flagship' game last night, and it kicked over to 5-second time increments.  I wasn't sure what was going on, so I let it run overnight on auto, during which time some order finished.  I started it again, and then left for work.  When I came back, it had stopped again, so I used the designer password to see what was going on.  It turned out that the star swarm mothership in a system was trying to destroy a buoy I'd left on a JP, but couldn't because it was out of weapon (though not FC) range.  For an hour and a half in-game, it had tried to kill this buoy, and failed to move in.  It was sitting on top of one of my wrecks, which might have caused the problem.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #640 on: February 06, 2016, 10:39:00 AM »
Ran into more trouble during the flagship game.  I was attempting to board a couple of star swarm soldiers with my marines.  The problem was that they had -1 and 0 crew respectively, so the boarding combat never completed.  They just sat there, throwing reports that combat was taking place without me actually taking over the ship.  (Both had been pounded on until their engines failed, then boarded, so this wasn't terribly surprising.)  I had to SM the units off the ships, then transferred one of them via designer mode.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Sematary

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #641 on: February 06, 2016, 03:16:06 PM »
Ran into more trouble during the flagship game.  I was attempting to board a couple of star swarm soldiers with my marines.  The problem was that they had -1 and 0 crew respectively, so the boarding combat never completed.  They just sat there, throwing reports that combat was taking place without me actually taking over the ship.  (Both had been pounded on until their engines failed, then boarded, so this wasn't terribly surprising.)  I had to SM the units off the ships, then transferred one of them via designer mode.
I have a feeling that has to do with the fact that you were dealing with that spoiler itself. I am not going to go into it but if you know the backstory of that spoiler you should have an idea.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #642 on: February 08, 2016, 11:51:30 AM »
I have a feeling that has to do with the fact that you were dealing with that spoiler itself. I am not going to go into it but if you know the backstory of that spoiler you should have an idea.
I've successfully captured ships of said spoiler race before.  The problem is that the ground combat doesn't update if one side's strength isn't a positive number, not that said race is immune to capture.  (Or if it is, Steve added it since 5.something without telling us.)
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #643 on: February 08, 2016, 02:52:05 PM »
I've got to say,  I would think it should be immune to capture,  hell I'd say it should be immune to boarding at all
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline AL

  • Captain
  • **********
  • A
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Official v6.40 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Reply #644 on: February 08, 2016, 03:29:54 PM »
I could imagine the marines crawling through the arteries of the "ship", making their way to the "bridge" and disconnecting/severing the main control system. They could then hook up a bunch of crude electronics to stimulate the appropriate functions of the ship and suddenly you are in command of a spoiler.

I think leaving in the option to board spoilers is a good idea, if you disapprove of it you can always just ignore it anyway.