Author Topic: 2.4 Bugs  (Read 6960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
(No subject)
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2007, 10:50:28 AM »
You can put a fleet with ships in the yards into fleet training mode and they gain experience.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Erik Luken »
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2007, 04:05:16 PM »
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
You can put a fleet with ships in the yards into fleet training mode and they gain experience.


I am not sure that this is a bad thing.  There are simulators that those crew and officers could be using while their ship is in the yard.  This way they get some time to train while the ship is shot up.

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Brian »
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2007, 02:34:13 PM »
1)
Error in MoveFleets
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.fields
Item not found in collection

3 times per time advance for each fighter group in flight.

2) Fighters will launch missiles while on board ship if ceasefire isn't initiated.

3)  If I don't have sub-pulses activated, slower ships will over take faster ships even though the faster ships have been given greater standoff ranges.  (ie 1800kps with min of 50 will over take a 3000kps ship with min of 1000)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2007, 07:59:22 PM »
I missed this one.

The fighter group button in the fighter/missiles tab of the ships screen (F6) doesn't appear to function.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
(No subject)
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2007, 01:26:23 AM »
Steve-

I've noticed that on the "Technology Report" window, the following tech systems are not listed:

Thermal Sensors
Shields
Grav pulse sensors
EM detection sensors
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Kurt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2007, 05:44:23 AM »
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Clicking on a shipyard tooled for an obsolete class generates an error invalid index.

I can't recreate the error but I have noticed that you can't build a class in a shipyard if it is obsolete, even if that is the class for which the shipyard is tooled. However, I don't want to allow all obsolete classes to be built or that would make the obsolete option obsolete :)

Therefore, I have changed it you can always build the tooled class, even if it is obsolete, but you still can't build any other obsolete class in the same shipyard, even if it fits within the refit cost requirement. I thnk that will solve the above error for v2.5

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2007, 06:00:52 AM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
More news on the PDC weirdness - it looks like trying to move a PDC triggers a reordering in the construction queue.  Try putting 2 PDCs of different classes into the queue, along with some non-PDC stuff.  If you start changing priorities with the arrows you'll eventually see spontaneous reordering when you pop away (e.g. to another planet) and pop back.  I had actually deleted everything except my 2 PDC build orders and adding the non-PDC stuff back in (so it would go in at the bottom).  Moving non-PDC didn't seem to do much, but when I tried to change the order of the 2 PDCs they decided they wanted to be interspersed with the non-PDC orders.

Thanks, this extra detail helped. It looks like the problem only occurs when there are two different type of PDC in the queue. There seems to be no problem with multiples instances of a single class of PDC - weird.

Anyway, to the problem. Aurora reorders by letting you move something and then runs through the list box and resets the order in the database to match the order in the listbox. This same piece of code is used for several different queues, such as ordnance, fighters, installations and ground units, all of which are stored in the ProductionQueue table but with different Production Types. So if you look all the entries in the table for Production Type 1 for example, you will get only the Ordnance production items. Production Type 3 is for installations. However, PDCs are listed as Production Type 5, so I can distinguish them from regular installations. This meant they were not being picked up along with the regular installation when the queue was reordered for Type 3 so they retained their original positions. I have changed the code so that Type 3 and Type 5 are sorted together, which has fixed the problem.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: 2.4 Bugs
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2007, 06:35:24 AM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The minimum is supposed to be 10,000 km, which is range 1 as far as the program is concerned.
I think you're saying that you're using fixed width range bands (at 10,000 km intervals) when calculating damage, i.e. a laser shot at 19,999 km does the same damage as one at 10,000 km.  So my "4 4 2 2" laser damage line really means that it won't ever do 3 points of damage?  Is this correct?
No I am just saying that minimum range is 10,000 km. I do use 10,000 km range bands for ease of reference but you can fire at range 1.57 for example, just not less than 1. The weapon damage calculation is :

TargetX = Abs(Contact Xcor - Firing Ship Xcor)
TargetY = Abs(Contact Ycor - Firing Ship Ycor)
Contact Distance = (Sqr((TargetX ^ 2) + (TargetY ^ 2))) / 10000
Effective Range = Contact Distance / Weapon Range Modifier
If Effective Range < 1 Then Effective Range = 1
(All the above except the weapon range modifier are currency variables. Effective range is calculated to the nearest km.)
Weapon Damage = Int(Damage Output / Effective Range)

So you would see a potential 3 damage for your 4 4 2 2 weapon perhaps somewhere in the 20,000 to 25,000 range

The Weapon Range Modifier is the RM # displayed on the class summary for every weapon. For lasers for example, each higher wavelength increases it by 1. Infrared = 1, Visible light = 2, Near Ultraviolet = 3, etc.

Quote
An alternative would be to calculate the damage in floating point using (target distance/laser range) as the parameter in your damage formula and then round down to the nearest integer.
That is what happens now.

Quote
Also, are you doing the same thing for the hit probability vs. range calculation?  The 4K fire control I was trying was giving "0 0 0 0" as the hit probabilities.  Does this mean the fire control has no chance of hitting anything, even at point blank range?

The minimum fire control range is 10,000 km, which is the range at which point blank fire takes place. A fire control with a lower range will be treated as having a 0% chance to hit.

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2007, 06:39:15 AM »
Quote from: "Brian"
I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself.  It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.

Update.  This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est

Where are you seeing the problem. The signature of the engine itself on the Engine line of the class summary or the TH value in the upper right of the class summary? Or both?

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2007, 08:13:09 AM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I just awarded my first medal.  Shouldn't medals show up as a log entry in the officer's history?

Yes they should. I have added that for v2.5

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2007, 08:13:55 AM »
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Has anyone been having problems with movement orders and damage allocation after a ship is destroyed in combat?

I've been doing some quick and dirty games to play with beam v missile and beam v fighter/missile combat.  So my problems may be of my own making.

What type of problems are you having?

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2007, 09:18:14 AM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Has anyone been having problems with movement orders and damage allocation after a ship is destroyed in combat?

I've been doing some quick and dirty games to play with beam v missile and beam v fighter/missile combat.  So my problems may be of my own making.
What type of problems are you having?

Steve


Sorry,  I should have edited the orginal post.  Please reference my Nov 19 and 25 posts for details.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Charlie Beeler »
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
(No subject)
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2007, 01:25:02 PM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Brian"
I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself.  It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.

Update.  This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Where are you seeing the problem. The signature of the engine itself on the Engine line of the class summary or the TH value in the upper right of the class summary? Or both?

Steve

I am seeing it on the ship design screen (F5) for the thermal signature of the ship.  It does not seem to be taking account of the reduction built in to the engine.  It always shows the full amount.  I did a test case where the base engine had a thermal signature of 100.  5 engines gave a thermal signature of 500 regardless of the level of thermal reduction that I had designed into the engines.  (I used a 75%, 50%, and 25% levels)

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Brian »
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
(No subject)
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2007, 01:25:25 AM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Clicking on a shipyard tooled for an obsolete class generates an error invalid index.
I can't recreate the error but I have noticed that you can't build a class in a shipyard if it is obsolete, even if that is the class for which the shipyard is tooled. However, I don't want to allow all obsolete classes to be built or that would make the obsolete option obsolete :)

Therefore, I have changed it you can always build the tooled class, even if it is obsolete, but you still can't build any other obsolete class in the same shipyard, even if it fits within the refit cost requirement. I thnk that will solve the above error for v2.5

Steve

Don't know if this is the same one or not - I think I've been seeing an error when picking a SY while the construction activity is "refit" and the tooled class is obsolete (i.e. the list is empty).  Not sure since I've been gone a week.

John
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by sloanjh »
 

Offline SteveAlt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
(No subject)
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2007, 10:10:27 AM »
Quote from: "Brian"
I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself.  It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.

Brian

Update.  This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Brian

The thermal signature was being set correctly on the ship design summary (the TH rating in the top right) but not in the Thermal Sign textbox in the Ratings section. The correct value is being saved so this is just a display error. Fixed for v2.5

Steve
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by SteveAlt »