Official v7.10 Bugs Reporting Thread

[Andrew]

If I remember correctly I had 2 espionage teams deployed so possibly one team shot the other one. 

[Balrogue]

hello, I report a bug.  When I want my Fuel Harvester unload 90% of fuel at colony and move to giant gaze with sorium when fuel tank is full, my ships go to the colony but they don't unload fuel.  Somebody have an idea ?

[DaMachinator]

when fuel tank is full

Unless you actually put empty, that's part of your problem.

Also make sure you don't have any OTHER special orders that might conflict.

[Kytuzian]

Unless you actually put empty, that's part of your problem.

Also make sure you don't have any OTHER special orders that might conflict.

It's not part of the problem. The full text of the correct order (I know it's correct because I'm using it) is "Unload Fuel at Colony and Move to Sorium Gas Giant" on the condition "Fuel tanks full."

[Hades]

Hi!

Bug: AFR grows 100x for 10x increase in ship size.  For a quick test create a new ship, slap a 1HS engine on, and keep adding armor.  At 500t AFR is 2%, at 5000t 200% and at 50000t  20000%.

Also, at high tonnage, removing the engineering bay dramatically reduces the AFR, replacing it with a smaller one, especially the fighter version, makes the AFR become even more ridiculous.

Apart from that, computing the AFR just on the size of the ship is a bit too simplistic in my opinion, at least for a game like this.  It means some huge carrier with some low power engines and otherwise pretty much just hangar and armor will have a very high AFR, while a small ship crammed full with high power components will have a low AFR.  Or just replacing a big, low power engine with small, high power one will also decrease your AFR.  But of course, that's just a minor gripe, keep doing what your doing!

[lennson]

Hi!

Bug: AFR grows 100x for 10x increase in ship size.  For a quick test create a new ship, slap a 1HS engine on, and keep adding armor.  At 500t AFR is 2%, at 5000t 200% and at 50000t  20000%.

Also, at high tonnage, removing the engineering bay dramatically reduces the AFR, replacing it with a smaller one, especially the fighter version, makes the AFR become even more ridiculous.

Apart from that, computing the AFR just on the size of the ship is a bit too simplistic in my opinion, at least for a game like this.  It means some huge carrier with some low power engines and otherwise pretty much just hangar and armor will have a very high AFR, while a small ship crammed full with high power components will have a low AFR.  Or just replacing a big, low power engine with small, high power one will also decrease your AFR.  But of course, that's just a minor gripe, keep doing what your doing!

Maybe the maintenance workers are so over worked that they start breaking things instead of fixing them  .

One things is with high power components is that they are typically more expensive to fix (use more maintenance supplies) when they do break. So in terms of maintenance lifetime I am not sure if there's a big advantage to using  small high power engines over big low power ones.

[sublight]

Hi!

Bug: AFR grows 100x for 10x increase in ship size.  For a quick test create a new ship, slap a 1HS engine on, and keep adding armor.  At 500t AFR is 2%, at 5000t 200% and at 50000t  20000%.

Also, at high tonnage, removing the engineering bay dramatically reduces the AFR, replacing it with a smaller one, especially the fighter version, makes the AFR become even more ridiculous.

Not a bug. Your 5000t ship in the example above has 10x of stuff that can break but only 1/10th the maintenance crew per kTon to keep it running vs the 500t ship.

Supposedly two ships with an equal percentage of tonnage dedicated as engineering bays will have an equal maintenance life: i.e. 10x 1kTon ships each with a single engineering bay should last just as long as a single 10kTon ship with 10x engineering spaces while cumulatively experiencing approximately the same number of maintenance failures.


To avoid divide by zero errors ships without any engineering spaces appear to pretend they have 0.2% of their tonnage dedicated to engineering. That's why a massive 50,000 ton warship with only a single engineering space (0.1% engineering tonnage) could be computed as having a lower AFR without any engineering at all.

[Hades]

Not a bug.   Your 5000t ship in the example above has 10x of stuff that can break but only 1/10th the maintenance crew per kTon to keep it running vs the 500t ship.   

So, please explain to me how this is supposed to work, as a 5000t ship with 10x engineering has 20% AFR and a 50000T ship with 100x engineering has 200% AFR?

Edit: Ok, scratch that, I get it, but in practice it makes really big carriers and similar things very problematic.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Don't worry about the AFR - the maintenance life is the key.

AFR just indicates the chance that something will break in any given period. It is a lot more likely that something will break on a carrier compared to a fishing boat but the carrier will be geared up to deal with it, so the two ships may have similar maintenance lives.

[MarcAFK]

Just in case Steve wasn't clear, your ship have 10 times the stuff on it so there's 10 times as much likelihood of something breaking (not quite Because engineering does decrease that somewhat) but when a break occurs maintenence supplies ensure the broken component is fixed immediately so the ship continues on its way. What's important therefore is that your maintenence life remains high as you add additional engineering.

[Sheb]

Although if his exemple with armor is true, that could be problematic no? Armor doesn't really break from lack of maitainance. Maybe armor tonnage shouldn't count for AFR purpose?

[Balrogue]

It's not part of the problem.  The full text of the correct order (I know it's correct because I'm using it) is "Unload Fuel at Colony and Move to Sorium Gas Giant" on the condition "Fuel tanks full. "

It doesn't work.  If the order is "Unload 90% of fuel at colony" on the condition "Fuel tanks full", a box appear with the message "error 5".  And the ship doesn't unload fuel.

[Garfunkel]

Uh it works for me. Are you certain that there isn't something interfering?

[83athom]

Is the design marked as a "Tanker" in the ship design window?

[Balrogue]

No, the design marked as a "Comercial Vessel for maintenance purposes" in the ship design window.