Official v6.20 Bugs Thread

[joeclark77]

Glad I could help.  I've had a similar error when I had a fighter with damage to its crew quarters that I didn't bother to repair after the battle.  It has something to do with the routines for checking morale.  It'll give you a message (among several other messages) saying there was insufficient life support and 14,000 crew members have died [or any arbitrary number].  The other -13,999 crew members... something something.

[Evanissimo]

I am having a bit of a problem as I just got a new computer running windows 8.   The problem with Aurora seems to be with the expandable/collapsable lists in the sidebars of the combat overview, colony summary, and OOB organizer windows.   Whenever I got to expand them, they visually do not expand, leading to the game being completely unplayable.   However, while the visual aspect seems to be broken, if I click around enough I will eventually select something, as if the list actually had been expanded.   I am also wondering if this has anything to do with the fact that this computer is also a touchscreen. 

Edit: I tried using a second monitor to overcome the touchscreen problem, however this did not fix anything.

[Icefire]

I get a random error 91 now everytime I zoom, or try to time increment.  Might happen with other things, but that's all I've tried so far.  This is also 28 years into the game.

Exact message:

Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable or With block variable not set
Please report

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I get a random error 91 now everytime I zoom, or try to time increment.  Might happen with other things, but that's all I've tried so far.  This is also 28 years into the game.

Exact message:

Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable or With block variable not set
Please report

Try clicking the Min Zoom button if you run into this problem (near the top left)

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

6th January 2000 00:00:01,Momo,Due to the complete failure of the life support systems on board Missile Complex 012, 4876 crew members have died. The remaining -4664 crew members are struggling to stay alive

Yeeeeah...

Even if we ignore the 2300% casualty rate, should the life support on conventional missile silos even fail? Is that intentional? Because I really don't think it should. Even if it is, I'm not sure "The remaining -4664 crew members are struggling to stay alive" even makes sense (and it certainly caused an error when it tried to make the next morale check).

The code is supposed to kill a percentage of the crew. However, it was multiplying by 1-100 instead of 0.01 to 1

Fixed for v6.30

Steve

[Aloriel]

I thought for sure I'd find this bug reported considering the popularity of box launchers, but a search produced unrelated results. . .  *shrug*

It would seem that the box launcher has issues with its reload times.  I was given a reload time of 37. 5 minutes on the description of the launcher, and the number of seconds initially listed in the combat display corresponds to this figure.  My box launchers have taken hours to reload at this point (they still aren't loaded).  It wouldn't be such a problem, except that I have a major enemy fleet bearing down on me LOL.

A little experimentation gave me these results: if I hit 5 seconds, 1 second is marked off.  If I hit 30 seconds, 6 seconds are marked off.  This seems to follow a pattern, but it breaks down at higher numbers.  5 minutes only marks off 40 seconds instead of the expected 60 by the above pattern.  I'd keep testing, but the fleet is getting pretty close.  I don't think I can hit larger times without hitting weapons range of my other craft.

It's definitely not following 1:1 time.

Additional info:
Fleet at 100% training.  Mothership at 34% grade bonus.  Fighters at variable grades from 2% to 15%.
It's trying to reload 45 fighters with 2 box launchers each.  Box launchers are size 5.  Missiles are size 5.

Worst comes to worst, I have a lot of PD. . .  so I'll just kite them with my longer beam weapons range.  I'll still win, but not the way I wanted to LOL

[sloanjh]

The code is supposed to kill a percentage of the crew. However, it was multiplying by 1-100 instead of 0.01 to 1

So you're saying it was a case of over-kill?

:: ducks and runs for cover::

John

[joeclark77]

The code is supposed to kill a percentage of the crew. However, it was multiplying by 1-100 instead of 0.01 to 1

Fixed for v6.30

Steve

That explains why the calculation is wrong.  But... why do the missile complex crews need to die in the first clock-tick to begin with?  Is this a subtle anti-war easter egg?

[Bgreman]

Think I sussed out a long-running bug (which may actually have already been fixed in 6.0+, but I haven't seen anything about it that I remember).

The ETA listed on the Task FORCE screen is almost always wrong when compared to the ETA listed on the Task Group screen.  The Task Group screen is correct, the Task Force screen has ETEs that are off by a factor of ten.

Code: [Select]

Dist (M km) Speed (km/s) ETE (s)         ETE (h:m:s) TF ETE Ratio
215.5         984         219004.065 60:50:04 6:05 10.00018265
394.3         477         826624.7379 229:37:05 22:57 10.00514403
476.7         1600         297937.5 82:45:38 8:16 10.01135753
117         990         118181.8182 32:49:42 3:17 9.998477157

The third column is the time en-route (in seconds) calculated by simply dividing the distance remaining by the speed of the task group.  The fourth column is this same value expressed as hours:minutes:seconds (and matches up with what the Task Group screen displays in each case).  The fifth column is the ETA listed for each task group on the Task Force Organization (Ctrl+F4) window.  The last column is the calculated en-route time divided by the TFO screen displayed time.  It is close to 10 for all cases.

Does the code for generating the line in the TFO screen maybe have an extra factor of ten dividing something?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That explains why the calculation is wrong.  But... why do the missile complex crews need to die in the first clock-tick to begin with?  Is this a subtle anti-war easter egg?

It's a known bug that is fixed in v6.30

Steve

[ZimRathbone]

Cloaking Device bug

I recently decided to try doing a Stealth Scout, and so for the 1st time since v2.1,  I researched cloaking devices in more than a cursory fashon, and got it up to Eff 5 & 85% reduction.

I created a corvette sized Shadow device (for 5Kt ships) but then realised that my 10Kt fleet scout would be a better platform to use so while I was waiting for the Destroyer Shadow to be developed I thought I'd test the design using 2x Corvette Shadows.

Here is the summary of the class before mods

Code: [Select]

Beholder-II class Scout    10,000 tons     196 Crew     2340.5 BP      TCS 200  TH 1800  EM 0
9000 km/s    JR 4-1000     Armour 2-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 84/84/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.23 Years     MSP 439    AFR 266%    IFR 3.7%    1YR 301    5YR 4521    Max Repair 600 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 18    
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Cryogenic Berths 1000    

StarShifter    10Kv2     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 4
Hi-Power MagFus SpaceDrive (6)    Power 300    Fuel Use 70.98%    Signature 300    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 2,985,000 Litres    Range 75.7 billion km   (97 days at full power)

Guardian Mk2 r778(s) (1)     GPS 51600     Range 779.0m km    Resolution 86
HeatSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km
ElectroSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km

ECM 20

and after adding the two undersized cloaks

Code: [Select]

Beholder-III class Scout    10,000 tons     253 Crew     3031.5 BP      TCS 30  TH 525  EM 0
7500 km/s    JR 4-1000     Armour 4-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 84/84/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 758    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 331    5YR 4972    Max Repair 600 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 400    

StarShifter    10Kv2     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 4
Whisper MagFus SpaceDrive (6)    Power 250    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 87.5    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,280,000 Litres    Range 64.0 billion km   (98 days at full power)

Guardian Mk2 r778(s) (1)     GPS 51600     Range 779.0m km    Resolution 86
HeatSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km
ElectroSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 15% of normal

ECM 30

I was surprised that the TCS had dropped but I thought perhaps that it was treating the devices as cumulative, so I removed one of the cloaks.

Code: [Select]

Beholder-III class Scout    8,950 tons     213 Crew     2819.5 BP      TCS 26.85  TH 525  EM 0
8379 km/s    JR 4-1000     Armour 4-38     Shields 0-0     Sensors 84/84/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 0
Maint Life 2.01 Years     MSP 788    AFR 160%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 259    5YR 3887    Max Repair 600 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 40    
Cryogenic Berths 400    

StarShifter    10Kv2     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 4
Whisper MagFus SpaceDrive (6)    Power 250    Fuel Use 36%    Signature 87.5    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,280,000 Litres    Range 71.5 billion km   (98 days at full power)

Guardian Mk2 r778(s) (1)     GPS 51600     Range 779.0m km    Resolution 86
HeatSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km
ElectroSens s6r84 (1)     Sensitivity 84     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  84m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 15% of normal

ECM 30

Basically Aurora gives the TCS reduction regardless of the tonnage that the device is rated for.  There needs to be a check similar to the one for Jump Engines to ensure that the cloak rating is big enough for the class before the TCS is reduced, and an error message displayed if you have too small a cloak installed.

[canshow]

V6.   21

Error in SetupWrecks

Error 3265 was generated by DAO.    FIELDS
Item not found in this collection.   
Please report to blahblahblah.    .    .    .   

When I try to close the game from the taskbar I get this message right after

Error in UpdateGameLog

Error 3420 was generated by DAO.    DATABASE
Object invalid or no longer set.   
Please report to blahblahblah

Both errors are infinite.     I get 1 other error before the 1st one though, which isn't infinite.     Forgot what its called though.   


Anyways, this happens occasionally when I run into a new system.     I'm forced to restart the game so it seeds a different system without wrecks.     This has only happened on my current game which I set up differently;

150 Max systems
200% difficulty
2 NPRs generated (AI controlled only)
99mil RP auto-dis in designs and tech
No overhauls needed
No extra-galactic invaders

I also have encountered a similar finite-error with pirate generation.   

And in this game I met 1 NPR race that had 3 colonies.     There were no ships in the system, its homeworld was undefended, and the 2 moons it had colonies on (55 thermal and 55 EM) had several infantry units on it.     I couldn't attack either moon colony with missile ships, and was forced to capture them.     When I did, they had human populations (and not the alien population (what the hell?)) Just found that to be highly unusual. 

Additional quirks I've noticed;
Systems overlap eachother in systems map
No way to read running text in textboxes.   (like whether continual expansion is paused or not)

[lord of waffles]

I just got an error 11 divide by zero  in orbital paths

time and orbits will increase but its an infinite error and happens at each increment now.

[Rolepgeek]

The game stops working if I try to do a Space Master start. Usually. I got it to work once. But only by not touching my computer or doing anything for ten minutes or so while it did stuff. It stops responding, and such.

[Aloriel]

Further information on the box launcher reload bug:

As you can see here, my fighter is listing approximately a 15 day reload time. This is after spending months on the carrier since the last time it fired.


This is the fighter in question:

Code: [Select]

B-1 Tiger class Bomber    220 tons     1 Crew     36 BP      TCS 4.4  TH 40  EM 0
9090 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1.5
Maint Life 10.37 Years     MSP 10    AFR 3%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 9    
Magazine 10    

20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 20    Fuel Use 69.18%    Signature 20    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 5.9 billion km   (7 days at full power)

Size 5 Box Launcher (2)    Missile Size 5    Hangar Reload 37.5 minutes    MF Reload 6.2 hours
Missile Fire Control FC5-R100 (50%) (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 100
Tomahawk ASM Mk 2 (2)  Speed: 22,400 km/s   End: 121.2m    Range: 163m km   WH: 8    Size: 5    TH: 74/44/22As you can see above, the reload time is supposed to be 37.5 minutes, or worst case 6.2 hours. Yet somehow, the box launcher is listing the aforementioned 15 days. Some of the more recent ones that I fired have less (merely 869503 seconds).

I'm not really sure what is going on, but my box launchers have essentially made my fighters one offs.

EDIT:
After posting this, I noticed something. They are counting UP. 869503 became 869504 after a 5 second tick. Something tells me that this value is actually negative right now. :/ Worse yet, it counted only 1 second, for a 5 second tick.

EDIT2:
I figured it might be helpful to add more information about my system and current status of the game:
System:
Win 7 64 bit
AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition (Quad core)
4GB RAM DDR2
120GB SSD HD (contains Aurora and Windows among other things)
1.5TB HD (the rest of my stuff )

Game:
25 star systems (17 explored by me)
1 starting NPR 75% difficulty
Most other things default
Current year 2105 (start year 2025)

EDIT3:
Swapped out box launchers for 25% size reduction standard launchers. They appear to be working.