Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 21, 2008, 12:35:31 PM
I just realised that when I sent out the patch, I might have had some SM events turned off. To check, click on Event List on the Events windows and scroll down to see if any events have a gray background. If they have, double click to turn them back on. The one I am particularly concerned about is the New Contact event - oops!
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 21, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
When fixing this I also realised that because I directly entered the Earth's characteristics into the database, rather than working out the correct base temperature, when you update the atmosphere on Earth you end up with a much higher temperature. This is fixed in the next version because I have worked backwards and ensured the Earth's base temperature is set correctly so that using the game rules, the actual surface temperature will end up at the right amount. Of couse, this is only a problem if someone nukes the Earth in the first place
Steve
Post by: backstab on November 22, 2008, 04:07:03 AM
When I am designing a Race I get
Error 3265 was generated by DAO. Fields Item no found in this collection
Just before it works out the industry
Post by: Erik L on November 22, 2008, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: "backstab"
Steve,
When I am designing a Race I get
Error 3265 was generated by DAO. Fields Item no found in this collection
Just before it works out the industry
This happens to me on pre-TN races when it is generating starting ship designs.
Post by: alanwebber on November 22, 2008, 12:20:12 PM
Alan
Post by: Shinanygnz on November 22, 2008, 12:34:10 PM
Error 6 was generated by Aurora
Overflow
Started with pre-TN (and got the same error as already reported). I designed and built a geosurvey ship no problem. Shipyard is up to 2500 capacity. Designed a new 2500 warship, but Aurora told me completion of retooling would be immediate (i.e. same date/time as current) then blanked the boxes on clicking Set Activity, but hasn't set the class. Tried a couple more times, but get this error. Now get it when hitting F2 after loading up and when I try to retool it says "First Shipyard is currently retooling to build the Karhae class. are you sure you want to change the shipyard activity?" If I click Yes, I get the error again. I tried adding another 500 capacity, designing a smaller warship and retooling back to the survey ship. Same error.
I then built a new shipyard complex, added capacity (using SM mod) and I can set retool tasks now
Post by: Father Tim on November 22, 2008, 10:38:44 PM
Post by: rdgam on November 23, 2008, 07:48:24 AM
Also the pickup of a prefabbed PDC just deletes it. I built one and tried to move it to mars. It was going to require 3 trips of my cargo fleet. After the first pickup there was nothing on the ships, at mars or on earth.
Post by: alanwebber on November 23, 2008, 01:44:30 PM
Alan
Post by: Father Tim on November 23, 2008, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
(copied from the Installation thread)
I just realised that when I sent out the patch, I might have had some SM events turned off. To check, click on Event List on the Events windows and scroll down to see if any events have a gray background. If they have, double click to turn them back on. The one I am particularly concerned about is the New Contact event - oops!
Steve
For the record, the Events turned off in SM View are 'Missile Launch', 'New Contact', and 'Weapon Reloading'. The Asian Federation, Terran Commonwealth and Tulan Confederation have no events turned off, and the Japanese Empire and the Union of South American States have only 'New Contact' turned off.
I mention this because - and I don't know if it's my eyes or my (flatscreen LCD) monitor - I can't see a difference between events that are turned on and those that are turned off unless get right next to the screen and look across it, basically parallel. Ideally, I'd like the events that are turned on to show up (on the on/off list) in the same colours as they do in the event list, and have 'off' events show a much darker background. Oh, and while I'm on the subject of ideal, is there any chance we could get the one long list of events to show up as three or four columns that all fit on the screen at once?
Post by: Father Tim on November 24, 2008, 12:55:25 AM
Post by: Father Tim on November 24, 2008, 03:29:59 AM
Post by: James Patten on November 26, 2008, 06:36:54 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2008, 07:19:14 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
The Max Tracking Time vs Missiles line of tech can be researched prior to discovering trans-newtonian tech, as can Crew Quarters (Small), Fuel Storage (Small), Magazine (Small), and Magazine (Large).The Max Tracking is a bug, which I have fixed for v3.3. The others are intended as you get the basic version of each as a Pre-TN race.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2008, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
There seems to be a problem with retaining multiple levels of armor. I'm designing a replacement for my ICBM missile bases and try to add armor, but when I come back to it afterward it has only 1 level of armor. I have Duranium Armor tech, so it's not conventional armor.Just to check, did this new design start from scratch or did you copy the ICBM base and modify it?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2008, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
A size 1 missile launcher costs 6. All other missie launchers (size 2 through 24) cost 4 per space - except for size 9 missile launchers, which cost 38 instead of 36. It makes sense to me to charge a premium on the smallest launcher, but clearly the size 9 tubes are out of whack.Firstly, well spotted! They were both caused by typoes in the database which I have fixed for v3.3
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2008, 07:25:55 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
The 'SM Mods' window has no entry for maintenance supplies, as I recently discovered after creating my empire on the wrong planet. I was able to move everything else by hand, but was forced to abandon two years' worth of maintenance. No real harm done, as I credited the mineral stockpiles with the appropriate raw materials, and I'll have plenty of time to re-manufacture.I have added the entry for v3.3
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 26, 2008, 07:34:42 AM
Quote from: "alanwebber"
If you have an item in the research queue which is completed via active scanning, it is not removed from the list and Is researched again at full cost.I have added some code to v3.3 to remove any item completed by active scanning from research queues and also from the current researchable item of pops other than that to which it was downloaded (which is already handled)
Steve
Post by: Hawkeye on November 26, 2008, 07:59:10 AM
It looks like every time I lock or unlock a new PDC design, the armor level is reduced by 4 (I made a PDC with 32 armor, and the level was reduced every time by 4 until it reached level 1)
The same seems to happen, whenever you later look at a design on the design screen.
Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to the vanishing PDC armor post
Post by: James Patten on November 26, 2008, 09:12:10 AM
Post by: Laurence on November 26, 2008, 11:28:42 AM
It appears that the civies don't do any maintenance at all.
When buying ships it looks like you get them with their maintenance clock run up from the start of their existence (got one freighter with 22 years on the clock).
Post by: James Patten on November 27, 2008, 07:03:25 AM
Post by: Kurt on November 28, 2008, 09:20:46 AM
I am still using 3.1, but I suspect that this bug is the same in both. In a recent battle one of my governments had two jump ships take heavy damage, knocking out each of their jump drives. In the aftermath of the battle they had time to perform damage control/repairs, and one of the jump ships was able to repair its jump drive enabling the squadron to return to the solar system. Or so I thought. I gave the squadron with the repaired jump ship orders to transit out of the system and advanced the time enough that they should have jumped. They did not jump, and the log had the following message: "Squadron cannot carry out its order as at least one ship is larger than the ship with the highest jump rating."
I checked, and none of the ships were larger than the jump ship (they couldn't have been, since the same jump ship conveyed them into the system in the first place). Just to be sure of what was going on, I took all of the ships out of the squadron except the repaired jump ship, and then ordered it to transit again. Once again it did not transit, and the same message was generated, indicating to me that while the jump drive was repaired, somewhere in Aurora it thinks that the ship still has no jump drive. The Individual Unit display shows that the ship has a jump drive, but obviously there is some array somewhere that was zeroed out when the ship received damage, and then not restored when the ship was repaired through damage control.
Kurt
Post by: Cassaralla on November 28, 2008, 09:32:12 AM
Of course I could be remembering this completely wrong.
Post by: Kurt on November 28, 2008, 11:04:51 AM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Didn't we have this bug mentioned previously. Or lack of bug if I remember correctly. You have to recheck the drive as active on the Individual Ship Screen I think. It gets repaired in the offline mode.
Of course I could be remembering this completely wrong.
Once you mentioned it, I realized that you were right, I could remember something along those lines. I checked, and sure enough the "Jump Engine - Active" box was not checked. Oops.
Kurt
Post by: Hawkeye on November 30, 2008, 12:11:48 PM
Edit 2:
The Fuel Refineries are working now. I noticed this after the first civil spaceport was build. The first 5-day-turn afterwards, production started with only 8,000l (I calculated 26.000 per 5-day-turn), but afterwards, the amount produced was pretty much spot on with what I had calculated.
Post by: Kurt on November 30, 2008, 01:17:13 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Oh, btw, I noticed one of the american officers name: Commander Andrea Weatherwax !!!!!
Now the next thing will be Corporal Carrote coming around and telling everyone how noughty it is to shoot at each other and that we will all go to jail :) :D .
Kurt
Post by: James Patten on December 01, 2008, 06:36:04 AM
I researched the first level power plant, and before I could start researching the first level engine I found that I could design a missile with an engine. Once I started researching the missile engine that ability went away.
I also researched the first level engine, then went to design my first engine and research it. Before the research was started that engine was available for putting on ships.
It may only happen if you have one option available for each of the selections for engines.
Post by: Kurt on December 02, 2008, 09:12:00 PM
I've been playing around with 3.2 and pre-trans-newtonian-tech (PTNT) nations, and I noticed that my PTNT race can build all types of ground units, not just the two low tech versions. This isn't right, is it? Should a PTNT nation be able to build high tech ground units? Perhaps the high tech ground units could be a research item with a prerequisite of trans-newtonian tech.
Kurt
Post by: Hawkeye on December 03, 2008, 10:01:12 AM
I finally started upgrading the missile complexes to full blown PDCs.
Every 5-day-turn, Aurora would throw a
Error in calculate Refit Cost
Error 3021 was generated by DAO.Field
Kein aktueller Datensatz ==> No set of data present (or something to that effect)
at me (one error for each missile complex in refit)
I´m not sure this is a pure 3.2 issue, as I seem to remember something like this happening earlier when updating regular PDCs to a newer ones.
Post by: Cassaralla on December 03, 2008, 10:28:27 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
There appears to be a bug of some sort related to research and design relating to engines.
I researched the first level power plant, and before I could start researching the first level engine I found that I could design a missile with an engine. Once I started researching the missile engine that ability went away.
I also researched the first level engine, then went to design my first engine and research it. Before the research was started that engine was available for putting on ships.
It may only happen if you have one option available for each of the selections for engines.
I've had this one as well. Started Pre TransNewtonian and researched the first engine tech. Immediately went to design the engine from that to discover there was one already available. Not sure if it popped up on researching the tech or had always been there as I hadn't looked at the Technology Summary screen before that point.
Post by: waresky on December 03, 2008, 11:34:57 AM
Do u have encounter this situation,steve? ive a italian keyboard...some trouble for those?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 04, 2008, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: "backstab"
Steve,Found and fixed for v3.3. While annoying, this bug has no effect on the game. Its caused by a missing field on the NPR Classes table in the databases.
When I am designing a Race I get
Error 3265 was generated by DAO. Fields Item no found in this collection
Just before it works out the industry
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 04, 2008, 11:13:32 AM
Quote from: "Laurence"
Buy Ships From the Civilian Fleet
It appears that the civies don't do any maintenance at all. :)
I have corrected this for v3.3 so that the overhaul clocks on any civilian ships are set to zero when bought by Empires.
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 04, 2008, 04:24:15 PM
EVERY time am playing.and every time am pass 7 january 2084 (year beginning:2015) am stopped into this message: "Error in AddHistory-Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field "error in conversion of data type"..am click ok and pass forward..but..
when am typiyng or inquiring an Earthling taskGroup windows am found this follow message: "Error in DisplayHistory-Error 94 was generated by Aurora-Invalid use of Null"
ive 3 races but this bug coming first in mankind Fleet then 1month next another Alien TG are hit by this "virus"..very strange.
And at last: if am continue in next step "30days advance" are a newly bug message: "Error in SaveGameTime-Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field-error in conversion of data type-(roughly traslation from italian).
Good work...i cant understand where the mistake or trouble.
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 04, 2008, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Laurence"Buy Ships From the Civilian FleetHow about have the clock be set to a random time between 0 and 5 years. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the civilian owners will not pay for an overhaul just before selling it to the government.
It appears that the civies don't do any maintenance at all. :)
I have corrected this for v3.3 so that the overhaul clocks on any civilian ships are set to zero when bought by Empires.
Steve
Brian
Post by: waresky on December 06, 2008, 08:15:56 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 06, 2008, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
in 3rd restart ive encounter a recurrent bug:Its a bug and a fairly big one too. Game TIme is stored in a currency variable, which means the game can last up to thirty million years
EVERY time am playing.and every time am pass 7 january 2084 (year beginning:2015) am stopped into this message: "Error in AddHistory-Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field "error in conversion of data type"..am click ok and pass forward..but..
when am typiyng or inquiring an Earthling taskGroup windows am found this follow message: "Error in DisplayHistory-Error 94 was generated by Aurora-Invalid use of Null"
ive 3 races but this bug coming first in mankind Fleet then 1month next another Alien TG are hit by this "virus"..very strange.
And at last: if am continue in next step "30days advance" are a newly bug message: "Error in SaveGameTime-Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field-error in conversion of data type-(roughly traslation from italian).
Good work...i cant understand where the mistake or trouble.
. Unfortunately in a couple of places in the database it is stored as a long variable, which holds a lot less. One of those places is in the new History table, which is used for ships and fleets, and the other is in tracking the Previous Game Time in the Game table. Because these are too small to store the game time for longer games (70 years+), you get the above errors. Both have been corrected for v3.3.Anyone with a long campaign who is concerned about this, email me. I will be able to modify your existing database to fix the problem.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 06, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
Now am re-install full 3.2 from zero.And am play your (STEVE) preservation Campaign..for now all good (3 years ongoing)--hope for not encounter stupid bug "SaveGame" or "AddHistory"..see ya.You won't get the bug for about 70 years
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 06, 2008, 02:51:25 PM
Post by: waresky on December 07, 2008, 12:27:35 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 08, 2008, 07:24:59 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
mmmm...so am send mine campaign database at steve at 2083 situation..one question for u Steve..ur Campaign (original_Preservation II) are very cool..for fix it from bug (above look) am must send the stevefire db related?:D...pfffffff...I've received the database in a zip file (thanks) but I am having a problem extracting it. I get a popup box with the title "Blocked File Notification" and the text "Windows has blocked the file C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\wz4c6d\Stevefire.mdb from being extracted"
Anyone any idea why this might happen and how I get around it (or if I should)?
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 08, 2008, 08:45:42 AM
GRRRRRRRRRRRR am waitn DAYS for play...this bug left me the pleasure to play..
Post by: waresky on December 08, 2008, 08:48:11 AM
Post by: waresky on December 08, 2008, 02:11:32 PM
Am rest in waitn for news..
see ya and ty
Post by: Randy on December 11, 2008, 09:15:29 AM
I noticed it started with 1 naval acadamy, and the teams screen sys it will produce 5 officers per year.
1 year later, I have 10 new officers...
Built a second one, and 6 months later there are another 10 new officers (ie 20/year now).
Either they are producing at 10/year and the teams screen is wrong, or they are producing too fast...
Post by: waresky on December 11, 2008, 10:51:11 AM
1 weeks from ur last words..
Hope u can help us.
Post by: Randy on December 11, 2008, 04:07:19 PM
You can go into the database and change the required fields on your own to double instead of long and then still be able to use it...
Or if Steve could remember which tables and fields needed this done, it would not be hard to do.
Post by: Erik L on December 11, 2008, 06:48:36 PM
Post by: waresky on December 12, 2008, 10:13:44 AM
IVE read so Steve tell us: "MAIL ME your database and me..etceter etcera..."--ARE ALL CLEAR?
so am send him 1 week ago the database.
IF STEVE had understand BAD from last post are STEVE and not anyone who can REPLY at ME on MAIL.
So am repeat: am ever tankfull to steve for awesome game.
Am post 6 QUESTIONS: "WHYNOT steve mail db" "..whynot steve can post YOUR DB and we c an download it"...and STEVE never answer me.
Am read only strnge answer and MISUNDERSTANDING answerrs from Erik and from OTHERS who IVENT never tell.
So am WAITIN STEVE's Answer.
ty for patient.
Anyone pls think for HIMSELF and not think too bad.
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 13, 2008, 04:47:07 AM
Brian
Post by: Randy on December 13, 2008, 11:44:31 PM
- Lower Grid on the Mining/Maintenance tab (economics form) is labelled "Atmospheric Terraforming". Probably should be "Maintenance Report"
- Civilian ships are having officers from my empire assigned to them
- Reports say the civilians have built 1 ship, but two ships always are appearing...
- clicking on an item in the reseach queue should still show the notes on that item in the technology description box...
Post by: Randy on December 14, 2008, 08:54:38 AM
Why are civilian ships being counted in the maintenance grid? Surely they maintain their own ships (and should provide their own commanders). If not, then how much do we get paid for the reources theya re stealing for maintenance?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 08:55:42 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Re vanishing armor: Hawkeye is correct in that this problem is only with PDCs. I'm able to add and subtract armor from ships with no problems.The missile bases given to pre-TNT races are marked with a PreTNT flag so they don't get the armour bonus. This is to create the situation where they are vulnerable to attack whereas a TN PDC is quite difficult to destroy. I think this flag is either being transferred if you copy them or is being somehow set for new PDCs. Unfortunately I can't recreate the problem yet.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 08:57:40 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
am in WAITN for re-open and re-play ur game Steve.Any news from "critical" bug and my database? am repeat: why u cant upload UR database FREE from "Savegame" and "DataHistory" bugs? so we can download ur and play without trouble next 2000000 years.I've modified the original v3.2 database and posted it in the installations thread.
1 weeks from ur last words..
Hope u can help us.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
wait and quiet pls.My english r very far from good,so prob my tone and words r too bad for your.Unfortunately real life (or playing Aurora, or work, or occasionally EVE, or maybe CIV4
IVE read so Steve tell us: "MAIL ME your database and me..etceter etcera..."--ARE ALL CLEAR?
so am send him 1 week ago the database.
IF STEVE had understand BAD from last post are STEVE and not anyone who can REPLY at ME on MAIL.
So am repeat: am ever tankfull to steve for awesome game.
Am post 6 QUESTIONS: "WHYNOT steve mail db" "..whynot steve can post YOUR DB and we c an download it"...and STEVE never answer me.
Am read only strnge answer and MISUNDERSTANDING answerrs from Erik and from OTHERS who IVENT never tell.
So am WAITIN STEVE's Answer.
ty for patient.
Anyone pls think for HIMSELF and not think too bad.
) interferes sometimes and I don't check my email or the forum for several days. As this is a free game, I can't promise to always answer emails and enquiries as fast as I would like.Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 09:03:38 AM
Quote from: "Randy"
Another question-Its a display bug. Although they are shown on the maintenance grid, you aren't actually being charged for them. Fixed for v3.3
Why are civilian ships being counted in the maintenance grid? Surely they maintain their own ships (and should provide their own commanders). If not, then how much do we get paid for the reources theya re stealing for maintenance?
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 14, 2008, 09:13:06 AM
AM "LERMONTOV" and DIVEGA on EVE tooooooo!!DDDDDD
pls tell me!! "LERMONTOV" am with KARSTEN corps LWM..KARSTEN am think had request in ur forum registrati9on loool
and ty for reply.Ty v much Steve.see ya in EVE! +
now we r on IDERION
GENESIS region
feel free to join us!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: "Randy"
- Lower Grid on the Mining/Maintenance tab (economics form) is labelled "Atmospheric Terraforming". Probably should be "Maintenance Report"Both fixed for v3.3
- Civilian ships are having officers from my empire assigned to them
Quote
- Reports say the civilians have built 1 ship, but two ships always are appearing...They will sometimes build more than one ship so you could get a small fleet of 3 or more colony ships for example but as far as I can tell from the code, the message should state the correct number of ships that have been built.
Quote
- clicking on an item in the reseach queue should still show the notes on that item in the technology description box...Added for v3.3
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 14, 2008, 10:06:41 AM
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Under the missile design screen the box for em sensors does not seem to be tied to anything. I do not get any sensor value, no matter what size sensor, or the base tech. I even did it with the em sensors maxed out and a 20msp sensor and the value was still 0.There is a bug on the missile design window. Its not picking up the value from the MSP box for EM so it's multiplying the EM strength by zero
Fixed for v3.3
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2008, 10:08:38 AM
Steve
Post by: dammrebel on December 18, 2008, 08:49:01 AM
What happens is that after I create a game and exit and come back later I am able to open the events window (it shows up on my windows task bar) but it is minimized and I am unable to unminimize it and view it. That sort of makes the game unplayable if I can't see what events are going on
Any thoughts, fixes, suggestions?
Jeff
Post by: Hawkeye on December 18, 2008, 09:50:54 AM
Post by: dammrebel on December 18, 2008, 10:58:58 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
This happens sometimes to me too, if I have the "Recall Window Position" checked in the game setup screen (the one, where you select the game you want to load). Once unchecked (and saved) the problem goes away (for me at last)
Problem solved, thanks again Hawkeye.
Post by: Randy on December 18, 2008, 02:08:06 PM
I have turned off my fuel refineries (clicked the stop production for my only planet), but every turn there is more fuel available...
Curious as to the source, and if it is consuming minerals...
Also just a bump on the difference between actual number of officers generated and the stated rate (on the teams screen, the number is 5/training facility, actual is more like 10/facility).
Randy
Post by: Erik L on December 18, 2008, 05:01:01 PM
Post by: Erik L on December 18, 2008, 07:04:54 PM
Post by: Kurt on December 18, 2008, 10:08:43 PM
At any rate, at the time this came up I had already started my campaign, and I didn't want to quit, so I figured that if targeting populations came up I would be able to fudge it, or something. Well, it came up recently, and I realized I had no way to "fudge it", at least not realistically. I was left with the realization that I could either 1) ask Steve if he could fix it, 2) avoid targeting populations for the remainder of the campaign, 3) discontinue the campaign, or 4) transfer the campaign to 3.2. Numbers 2 and 4 were unrealistic at best, and 3 was something I really, really didn't want to do. So I went to Steve. After some back and forth, and a few suggestions from Steve intended to help diagnose what was going on, I discovered what was going on. It isn't fixed, but now when one of my ships or PDC's targets a population I can crack the database and correct the critical entry and Aurora will work as it is supposed to. Yea!!!
Thanks to Steve the Six Powers Campaign will continue! Oh, and Steve, I'm sorry to say that you are directly responsible for the death of 13.2 million citizens of...oops, I won't be able to reveal that until I post the next installment.
Kurt
Post by: Cassaralla on December 19, 2008, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
Mystery Fuel Production..
I have turned off my fuel refineries (clicked the stop production for my only planet), but every turn there is more fuel available...
Curious as to the source, and if it is consuming minerals...
Also just a bump on the difference between actual number of officers generated and the stated rate (on the teams screen, the number is 5/training facility, actual is more like 10/facility).
Randy
Do you still have pre Newtonian Factories? They produce some fuel.
Post by: Randy on December 19, 2008, 03:41:16 PM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Do you still have pre Newtonian Factories? They produce some fuel.
Nope, converted them all to other things...
Only Pre-TN left is a bunch of PDC (Missile bases).
And due to the armor problem with PDC, its kinda tempting to nuke em all...
Post by: waresky on December 26, 2008, 12:09:14 PM
Error 6--Overflow
+ or - this r a messagge.
Where ive found it?
Ive 5 shipyard on Earth..and ALL done..
Ive found an RUINS on Pluto,and time pass,my archeo and cybernetics found a single Shipyard on Pluto..
WHEN am click directly up shipyard line this error come EVER..
In another Game when this BUG come,log me EVER and EVER..without possibility to click ok.Bug come and game stopp immediately..runtime
SO..in 2 different GAMES come "same" bug but in one i can click OK and go on (Error 6) and in another this bug stopp game entirely.
Srry my english guys.
Good work STEVE..AH! one thing: ONLY if am click up the "extra-earth" shipyard,this bug come..NEVER when am click on earth shipyard.
Post by: James Patten on December 26, 2008, 01:44:14 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on December 26, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: "James Patten"
I tried scrapping a pre-TN missile base by clicking on "destroy ship" because I was hoping to recoup some material. Now there's a wreck on planet.
There is a shipyard function for scrapping ships.
Post by: Kurt on December 28, 2008, 12:31:28 PM
I've encountered this bug several times in 3.1, and I don't remember hearing about it before so it probably hasn't been fixed in 3.2. This problem is in the survey orders, specifically the "Survey Next Five system bodies". This bug seems to come up only when there is a planet more than 10 billion kilometers from its primary. I'll get the survey message that a planetary survey group has no more valid survey locations, and when I check the system I'll notice that there is a planet that hasn't been surveyed yet, or its moons. When I check, sure enough the planet has a distant orbit more than 10 billion km's out, so that is why it wasn't seen by Aurora as a valid survey location. No problem if it is within reasonable travel distance I manually assign the planet as a travel destination for the survey ship and leave the ships orders (Survey next five system bodies) as is, so that when the ship arrives it will begin surveying the planet and its moons. I've noticed more than once that this does not work. When the ship arrives I get the notification that there are no acceptable survey locations within 10 billion km's, even though there is a planet and 10 moons within less than one million km's of the ship. If I change the orders to "survey nearest body" then the ship will survey the planet and its moons, albiet slowly.
I haven't noticed if this bug comes up every time this situation is encountered, or only occasionally, as it isn't very common. I will pay attention from now on.
Kurt
Post by: sloanjh on December 29, 2008, 12:46:52 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
When the ship arrives I get the notification that there are no acceptable survey locations within 10 billion km's, even though there is a planet and 10 moons within less than one million km's of the ship. If I change the orders to "survey nearest body" then the ship will survey the planet and its moons, albiet slowly.Hi Kurt,
This sounds a lot like a bug with "next 5 locations" that used to (a year or so ago?) show up frequently when surveying asteroid belts. IIRC it had something to do with an optimization trick Steve used to sort the list of candidate survey locations, to avoid re-scaning every body in the system (to see which is closest) for each of the 5 locations. I think it would only happen with the 2-5 locations; the first one was ok (I might be mis-remembering, though). When you get the "no acceptable survey locations message", do you remember if it actually found the first one, but then wasn't able to find the 2-5 locations, or is it not finding any? I suspect that it's finding the first one, since "survey nearest body" works. That sounds very much like the bug from days gone by.
The weird thing is that I thought Steve fixed this one a long time ago. On the other hand, before I remember it happening mostly for asteroids, so maybe it's the same bug in a different code location.
John
Post by: SteveAlt on December 29, 2008, 06:15:22 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -This is a bug in v3.1 but it was fixed for v3.2. For v3.1, its probably best to avoid the next 5 option and just use next system body
I've encountered this bug several times in 3.1, and I don't remember hearing about it before so it probably hasn't been fixed in 3.2. This problem is in the survey orders, specifically the "Survey Next Five system bodies". This bug seems to come up only when there is a planet more than 10 billion kilometers from its primary. I'll get the survey message that a planetary survey group has no more valid survey locations, and when I check the system I'll notice that there is a planet that hasn't been surveyed yet, or its moons. When I check, sure enough the planet has a distant orbit more than 10 billion km's out, so that is why it wasn't seen by Aurora as a valid survey location. No problem if it is within reasonable travel distance I manually assign the planet as a travel destination for the survey ship and leave the ships orders (Survey next five system bodies) as is, so that when the ship arrives it will begin surveying the planet and its moons. I've noticed more than once that this does not work. When the ship arrives I get the notification that there are no acceptable survey locations within 10 billion km's, even though there is a planet and 10 moons within less than one million km's of the ship. If I change the orders to "survey nearest body" then the ship will survey the planet and its moons, albiet slowly.
I haven't noticed if this bug comes up every time this situation is encountered, or only occasionally, as it isn't very common. I will pay attention from now on.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 29, 2008, 06:16:34 AM
Quote from: "Randy"
Mystery Fuel Production..Do you have any civilian space centres? I used to have them producing fuel so maybe I didn't turn that off when I changed the way civ ships work.
I have turned off my fuel refineries (clicked the stop production for my only planet), but every turn there is more fuel available...
Curious as to the source, and if it is consuming minerals...
Steve
Post by: Hawkeye on December 30, 2008, 03:40:26 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Randy"Mystery Fuel Production..Do you have any civilian space centres? I used to have them producing fuel so maybe I didn't turn that off when I changed the way civ ships work.
I have turned off my fuel refineries (clicked the stop production for my only planet), but every turn there is more fuel available...
Curious as to the source, and if it is consuming minerals...
Steve
I just tested this in a new game I started. Yes, Civil Space Centers produce about 5.500 liters of fuel per 5-day turn.
On a related note:
This is, however, the only fuel I get, even with 100+ fuel refineries running.
This is a pre-trans-newton game with 5 races in 4 systems and its the same with all of them
There was fuel produced by the conventional industry
Non of the fuel refineries that the conv. ind was transformed into did produce anything.
When the first civ SC was build and I saw the fuellevel rising, I thought the problem was gone, but soon I realized the amount was far too low for my refineries.
There were no "new" fuel refineries build, only converted conventional industrie. Hm, I will build a single refinery and see if there is something wrong with the converting.
Post by: Hawkeye on December 30, 2008, 07:01:33 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
On a related note:
This is, however, the only fuel I get, even with 100+ fuel refineries running.
This is a pre-trans-newton game with 5 races in 4 systems and its the same with all of them
There was fuel produced by the conventional industry
Non of the fuel refineries that the conv. ind was transformed into did produce anything.
When the first civ SC was build and I saw the fuellevel rising, I thought the problem was gone, but soon I realized the amount was far too low for my refineries.
There were no "new" fuel refineries build, only converted conventional industrie. Hm, I will build a single refinery and see if there is something wrong with the converting.
Ok, I tested it, and no, even with a genuinely build fuel refinerey, no fuel produced
As those are all homeworlds, there are plenty of workers and a nice environment.
The refineries also have not been shut down (this time nothing was ever shut down in the Industry status screen)
I´m at a total loss here
Post by: James Patten on December 30, 2008, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Quote from: "James Patten"I tried scrapping a pre-TN missile base by clicking on "destroy ship" because I was hoping to recoup some material. Now there's a wreck on planet.
There is a shipyard function for scrapping ships.
True, but PDCs cannot be scrapped by a shipyard. It does not appear that the construction factories can either.
Post by: ZimRathbone on December 31, 2008, 08:53:28 AM
As those are all homeworlds, there are plenty of workers and a nice environment.
The refineries also have not been shut down (this time nothing was ever shut down in the Industry status screen)
I´m at a total loss here[/quote]
Maybe a stupid question, but do you have Sorium stockpiled?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 31, 2008, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
I've removed the fuel production by Civilian space centres for v3.3 but I can't find any problems with fuel production from normal refineries. Try using instant research on the next level of fuel production and see if that has any effect.Quote from: "Hawkeye"On a related note:
This is, however, the only fuel I get, even with 100+ fuel refineries running.
This is a pre-trans-newton game with 5 races in 4 systems and its the same with all of them
There was fuel produced by the conventional industry
Non of the fuel refineries that the conv. ind was transformed into did produce anything.
When the first civ SC was build and I saw the fuellevel rising, I thought the problem was gone, but soon I realized the amount was far too low for my refineries.
There were no "new" fuel refineries build, only converted conventional industrie. Hm, I will build a single refinery and see if there is something wrong with the converting.
Ok, I tested it, and no, even with a genuinely build fuel refinerey, no fuel produced
As those are all homeworlds, there are plenty of workers and a nice environment.
The refineries also have not been shut down (this time nothing was ever shut down in the Industry status screen)
I´m at a total loss here
Steve
Post by: James Patten on December 31, 2008, 06:09:17 PM
1. I tried to compact the database (in order to hopefully send it somewhere). The backup db was made, but instead of compacting the Stevefire.mdb, it deleted it. Fortunately I had the backup.
2. I had two fleets that I wanted to join. I intended to order Fleet B to join Fleet A. Instead I ordered Fleet B to absorb Fleet A. Fleet B disappeared from the universe. The ships are gone. The officers are still active, but in an unknown state. I'm hopeful that Fleet B is still in the database somewhere but the front end doesn't know anything about it. Steve can you help?
Post by: Hawkeye on January 01, 2009, 09:22:45 AM
Steve[/quote]
Done that, (fuel production raised to 24.000l per anno) still no joy
All 4 races have the same problem.
Fuel production for civilian space centers went up to about 6.650l per 5-day-turn (pretty close to the 20% increase supposed to happen for refineries, was this linked to the refinery tech?) for each one, but the fuel refineries still don´t generate anything.
As the database is about 50Mb by now (I have to look into it, maybe I can shrink it a bit), I am not eager to mail this thing to you, but I can upload it to rapidshare, so you can download it, if you want to.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 01, 2009, 11:41:55 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
As the database is about 50Mb by now (I have to look into it, maybe I can shrink it a bit), I am not eager to mail this thing to you, but I can upload it to rapidshare, so you can download it, if you want to.
Ok, uploaded the database (winrar compressed it to about 4.8 Mb)
You can get it at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/178765897/Stevefire.rar (http://rapidshare.com/files/178765897/Stevefire.rar)
Post by: waresky on January 02, 2009, 06:25:51 AM
Srry,for now my 3.2v still going good,and nothing bug upcoming for now..45years game over..
Post by: Cassaralla on January 04, 2009, 06:38:11 AM
Post by: saw on January 04, 2009, 08:25:28 AM
One thing that usually seems to re-start the actual production is when a unit draws fuel. It almost seems as if there is a flag somewhere that gets reset, allowing fuel production to begin again.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on January 05, 2009, 05:27:19 AM
I always get an error from the Galactic Map that it can't find the 'Flags' directory, even though the Flags sub-directory exists and has the flags files in it. Since nobody else has reported this, I assumed I did something wrong when I installed, but I've double checked everything and I was wondering if perhaps everyone else upgraded from 3.1 and I'm the only one to do a clean install so far? The odd thing is that the error isn't that it can't find a particular file, but that it can't find the Flags sub-directory which is clearly there.
If a ship is max speed zero (either no engines or all engines damaged) I get errors on the Task Force window. It may have to do with whether the 'center on system map' check box is checked on the TF window.
Sometimes I get errors on the system map for freshly explored systems. It seems to go away after awhile as surveying continues. Sorry I don't have the exact error here to paste in but if that is needed I can write it down the next time I encounter it.
Perhaps not strictly a bug, but it would be nice if when transferring ships between TF's that it didn't deselect the destination TF every time forcing you to manually reselect it each time.
I keep running in to an oddball problem with ships being overhauled. I'll order them to move to Earth and then start an overhaul. Then I forget about them for awhile until I noticed they are falling apart. I'll check and although they show as being in overhaul status, the clock keeps increasing. Apparently they are not exactly at Earth despite the orders telling them to move to Earth first. If I manually move them to Earth, then the clock starts decreasing. This can be quite frustrating when I don't notice it until the clock is up to 7 years for example. Then I have to wait another 3.5 years for that ship to be available.
I've also seen a few times where a ship ordered to make several transits and move to Earth and begin an overhaul, spontaneously goes to overhaul status in some distant start system in deep space. Of course the clock keeps increasing and the ship will eventually fall apart. I can find no way to cancel an overhaul. If there is a way to cancel an overhaul, someone please let me know. The only solution I've found for this is to manually teleport the ship to Earth via SM mode. I've not figured out what causes this situation because it only happens now and then. The orders are still there for it to make the journey back to Earth but it seems to skip those and execute the last order (which is to being overhaul, even though it is not at Earth yet).
Tied in to the above, I do not think ships undergoing overhaul should continue to fall apart. It is very annoying for an intact ship to start a long overhaul, then during the overhaul enough things fall apart that it runs out of maintenance parts and then things start breaking for real. So when the overhaul finishes, the ship then has to spend months or years in a shipyard being repaired. If it is being overhauled, it should not keep falling apart. I thought the maintenance system was a wonderful detail/feature but after playing awhile I'm thinking of joining the no maintenance crowd because it becomes a time sink to micro manage it. If the failure rate was cut by a factor of 5x or 10x, I think it would be a nice "random event" feature I would use. Perhaps an option could be added in addition to no maintenance to allow a multiplier to how often failures occur? I just can't see running a big empire with the current maintenance system but I hate to not use it because it is so well done otherwise.
A few times research completions where not mentioned in the events list. I've gone back and double checked this.
For someone that reported a problem with not being able to un-minimize a window, it may be that that windows is just "off screen". I had several windows start off-screen when I first started the game. If using microsoft windows, you can right click on the program in the task bar and select "move", and then you must use the arrow keys to move the window (not the mouse) on to the screen.
An asteroid with nothing but automated mines on it somehow spawned a fraction of a population unit and started bitching about not having enough infrastructure. I didn't go digging back through the events to see if a civilian colonizer put them there. I kind of tune out the civilian events as clutter so could have very well missed it, but I'm 100% certain that I didn't send any pop there.
Once a civilian non jump capable freighter went through a one way jump gate (no jump gate on the other side) then apparently got stuck. Fortunately they then offered to sell it to me so I bought it and sent a jump ship so it could come home.
Things not really bugs; more like wishes, so maybe they should go somewhere else on this BBS?
I wish ships in a TF would pool their maintenance parts (MSP's).
When the events window references a ship (such as when something falls apart), I wish it would also list what TF that ship is in. Otherwise what I have to do to find it is look in the Individual Unit window to find what TF it is in (maybe this information is elsewhere?) then go open that TF. I'm guessing there is a better way but I've not found it yet.
I wish there was some way to edit orders. Sometimes I enter a long list of orders and then realize I made a mistake early in the list and have to redo them all.
I wish for the conditional order to refuel when fuel gets down to a certain percentage, in addition to 10%, 20%, and 30% options, that there was a 50% option so I could have ships turn around when they reach the half way point.
I wish for an additional conditional order to return home (or the nearest stockpile) for more MSP's once they get below a certain percentage similar to the fuel percentage conditional order.
I wish that I could set defaults for new TF's such as to accelerate to max speed. It would save repeating the same clicks every time I create a TF.
If ships are going to continue falling apart when being overhauled, I wish there was a way to load or transfer MSP's to them.
Finally, I want to thank Steve for sharing his creation the same way he shared Starfire Assistant.
Post by: waresky on January 05, 2009, 06:42:48 AM
So lonely bugs are a very strange but am success to eliminate from "windows" news:):am try to explain.
Ive found in 2012 an RUINS Colony on PLUTO..all done,ive send Archeo,Geo and some Cybernetics teams to exploit this awesome new..
WHEN my archeo found a "Shipyard" and my Cybern get online and functionally..a BUG come.
It's a vicious bug,runtime and log from game.
IN DM mode ive ERASED TOTALLY the SHIPYARD from PLUTO sheet..and BUG not coming further.
Probable the bug are because on PLUTO not are population...and STeve's program calculate something in conjuction to SHIPYARD and POPULATION but Population ARE ZERO..it's my obviously stupid idea..
Srry for very terrible english.
it's lonely bug ive encounter..so am play without trouble from 2012 to 2058,now..and hope go on:)
CYA!!
Post by: Erik L on January 05, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
Post by: jfelten on January 06, 2009, 06:39:58 AM
BTW, I also verified I get errors every time I enter a new unsurveyed system if I have the task force window box checked to center the task force on the system map. Eventually that error goes away, perhaps as the grav survey progresses, but I don't know exactly what is triggering it or resolving it.
Post by: jfelten on January 06, 2009, 07:20:16 AM
Post by: jfelten on January 06, 2009, 07:25:54 AM
Follow up: I confirmed that the mineral needed for fuel refineries (Sorium or whatever it's called) was being consumed. If I toggle off fuel production, it stops being consumed, and if I toggle it back on, it resumes being consumed, but no fuel is produced. I finally used the SM option to edit the stockpiles and manually add fuel once my stock was exhausted so I could keep playing.
Also, I finished researching increased fuel production and that did not help.
Post by: Erik L on January 06, 2009, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
When designing some new engines, I tried to give them a very descriptive name and used most of the space in the input field. When I tried to create the engine design I received an error that its name was too big for the database. I removed a few characters and tried again. Same error. And once again before I shortened it enough to fit. This was during race creation so I then used the instant research button (instant RTS or whatever it is called). What ended up happening is I now have those 3 nameless engines as available ship components. That wouldn't be bad except every time I open the class design window it throws 3 error dialogs which isn't fatal, but is annoying.
Hit crtl-F7 and you can mark the nameless ones obsolete.
Post by: Erik L on January 06, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
Could this also be related to the refinery issue?
Post by: Kurt on January 06, 2009, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Was just checking on something in the SM Mods screen, and I noticed that the Shipyards entry for the colony was .652, but there are 5 yards with a good 25 slips.
Could this also be related to the refinery issue?
IIRC, the Shipyards entry on the SM Mods screen no longer relates to the actual shipyards/slipways now that Steve changed the SY's from the old version to the current SY/Slipways. Now, how .652 got in there, what it means, and what it will affect is a whole other question.
Kurt
Post by: Father Tim on January 06, 2009, 10:14:21 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Was just checking on something in the SM Mods screen, and I noticed that the Shipyards entry for the colony was .652, but there are 5 yards with a good 25 slips.
Could this also be related to the refinery issue?
IIRC, the Shipyards entry on the SM Mods screen no longer relates to the actual shipyards/slipways now that Steve changed the SY's from the old version to the current SY/Slipways. Now, how .652 got in there, what it means, and what it will affect is a whole other question.
Kurt
Were you perhaps building a shipyad at the time? Normally the SM Mods value for Shipyards is 1, regardless of how many (if any) you have. Planetary bombardment, collateral damage from ground combat, and/or building a new shipyard may alter the number displayed on SM Mods.
Post by: Erik L on January 07, 2009, 02:41:12 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Kurt"Quote from: "Erik Luken"Was just checking on something in the SM Mods screen, and I noticed that the Shipyards entry for the colony was .652, but there are 5 yards with a good 25 slips.
Could this also be related to the refinery issue?
IIRC, the Shipyards entry on the SM Mods screen no longer relates to the actual shipyards/slipways now that Steve changed the SY's from the old version to the current SY/Slipways. Now, how .652 got in there, what it means, and what it will affect is a whole other question.
Kurt
Were you perhaps building a shipyad at the time? Normally the SM Mods value for Shipyards is 1, regardless of how many (if any) you have. Planetary bombardment, collateral damage from ground combat, and/or building a new shipyard may alter the number displayed on SM Mods.
That there was. 1.348. Guess that adds up to 2
Post by: jfelten on January 07, 2009, 04:22:43 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Hit crtl-F7 and you can mark the nameless ones obsolete.
Thanks. And now that I know to look for it, I found the "View Tech" button that opens a window to let you do that. I marked those "nameless" engines as obsolete and now it doesn't pester me with 3 errors every time I open the class design window. I think the best "fix" would be to make the input field smaller so the user couldn't enter name that is too long, although it wouldn't hurt to truncate it to the maximum length of the field as well just in case.
Before I did that, I had a very weird thing happen when I restarted Aurora. When I first opened the Class Design window I received no errors but the Class Design window showed no Engines whatsoever. Apparently those "blank engines" caused it to ignore all engines when I restarted it. Fortunately marking those 3 "blank engines" as obsolete has worked around that as I restarted Aurora after marking them as obsolete and I do see engines now.
Post by: jfelten on January 07, 2009, 04:24:38 AM
Post by: jfelten on January 07, 2009, 04:33:17 AM
Post by: Father Tim on January 07, 2009, 10:08:27 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
This one is more user error than a bug, but I accidentally started a research project on a small colony (thinking I had my HW selected) and the bug aspect was I could find no way to cancel it. Worse, I couldn't research that important tech on my HW because the colony was researching it. There is a button to remove queued research but unless I'm missing it, no way to cancel a research project once it has been started. I also couldn't find a way to instant finish it even in SM mode since it was being researched and not in the researchable list (couldn't instant it even by displaying already researched techs). I finally had to cheat and SM edit the colony to give it a bunch of pop and research centers so it could research that tech (then set it all back).
It's actually very easy - research something else. Aurora will toss a confirmation box, but if you say yes it will switch to the new project and the old one will pop back onto the list. Any research points accumulated towards the tech will be noted.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 07, 2009, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I've seen this one too and I still haven't figured out the problem. I don't think its related to the engines you mentioned. I think Aurora is listing components for PDCs rather than ships but I am not sure yet why it occasionally does that.Quote from: "Erik Luken"Hit crtl-F7 and you can mark the nameless ones obsolete.
Thanks. And now that I know to look for it, I found the "View Tech" button that opens a window to let you do that. I marked those "nameless" engines as obsolete and now it doesn't pester me with 3 errors every time I open the class design window. I think the best "fix" would be to make the input field smaller so the user couldn't enter name that is too long, although it wouldn't hurt to truncate it to the maximum length of the field as well just in case.
Before I did that, I had a very weird thing happen when I restarted Aurora. When I first opened the Class Design window I received no errors but the Class Design window showed no Engines whatsoever. Apparently those "blank engines" caused it to ignore all engines when I restarted it. Fortunately marking those 3 "blank engines" as obsolete has worked around that as I restarted Aurora after marking them as obsolete and I do see engines now.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 07, 2009, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Was just checking on something in the SM Mods screen, and I noticed that the Shipyards entry for the colony was .652, but there are 5 yards with a good 25 slips.That entry on the SM Mods window should no longer be there. It's been replaced by the SY mod section on the economics window and I have removed it for v3.3. What it is probably showing is the state of any shipyard currently under construction.
Could this also be related to the refinery issue?
Steve
Post by: jfelten on January 07, 2009, 11:12:25 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"I've seen this one too and I still haven't figured out the problem. I don't think its related to the engines you mentioned. I think Aurora is listing components for PDCs rather than ships but I am not sure yet why it occasionally does that.Quote from: "Erik Luken"Hit crtl-F7 and you can mark the nameless ones obsolete.
Thanks. And now that I know to look for it, I found the "View Tech" button that opens a window to let you do that. I marked those "nameless" engines as obsolete and now it doesn't pester me with 3 errors every time I open the class design window. I think the best "fix" would be to make the input field smaller so the user couldn't enter name that is too long, although it wouldn't hurt to truncate it to the maximum length of the field as well just in case.
Before I did that, I had a very weird thing happen when I restarted Aurora. When I first opened the Class Design window I received no errors but the Class Design window showed no Engines whatsoever. Apparently those "blank engines" caused it to ignore all engines when I restarted it. Fortunately marking those 3 "blank engines" as obsolete has worked around that as I restarted Aurora after marking them as obsolete and I do see engines now.
Steve
I was pretty sure it was because the name I was entering for the engines was too long.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 07, 2009, 11:21:45 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Done that, (fuel production raised to 24.000l per anno) still no joyI think I have tracked down the fuel refinery problem. It's caused by an old bug that wasn't actually causing a problem until I added the ability to shut off sections of industry. As part of the production code I have a variable called MaxUnits, which is the maximum number of something that is produced, be it missiles for ordnance factories, fighters for fighter factories or minerals for mines. Production only takes place if MaxUnits is greater than zero. A long time ago I copied and pasted this section of code to the fuel refinery section but nowhere in that section is MaxUnits actually set so it picks up the value from the previous code sections, which in this case are mines and fuel harvesters. Because they always produced in the past, MaxUnits was always greater than zero and therefore the MaxUnits in the fuel production section was always greater than zero and the fuel was produced despite the bug. Now if the last population to be checked for mines has its manned mines switched off and doesn't have any conventional industry or automated mines (which can't be swtiched off), then its MaxUnits value for mining will be zero. If there are also no fuel harvesters operating for any Empire then the MaxUnits variable will not be set by that section of code either and will remain at zero (if it was set to zero by the previous set of circumstances). Or if there are fuel harvesters in operation but the last one to be checked is not at a gas giant with Sorium then MaxUnits will also end up as Zero (this latter situation would have happened prior to v3.2 but rarely enough so that no one would notice). In either case, with MaxUnits set at zero the fuel production code will not run and refineries will therefore not produce any fuel.
All 4 races have the same problem.
Fuel production for civilian space centers went up to about 6.650l per 5-day-turn (pretty close to the 20% increase supposed to happen for refineries, was this linked to the refinery tech?) for each one, but the fuel refineries still don´t generate anything.
As the database is about 50Mb by now (I have to look into it, maybe I can shrink it a bit), I am not eager to mail this thing to you, but I can upload it to rapidshare, so you can download it, if you want to.
I have obviously fixed this for v3.3. For v3.2 there is no easy workaround except not switching off mining production. Although I guess you could create a small fuel harvester and set it going on some remote gas giant as that would also reset the variable correctly :)
Steve
Post by: Cassaralla on January 07, 2009, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"I've seen this one too and I still haven't figured out the problem. I don't think its related to the engines you mentioned. I think Aurora is listing components for PDCs rather than ships but I am not sure yet why it occasionally does that.Quote from: "Erik Luken"Hit crtl-F7 and you can mark the nameless ones obsolete.Before I did that, I had a very weird thing happen when I restarted Aurora. When I first opened the Class Design window I received no errors but the Class Design window showed no Engines whatsoever. Apparently those "blank engines" caused it to ignore all engines when I restarted it. Fortunately marking those 3 "blank engines" as obsolete has worked around that as I restarted Aurora after marking them as obsolete and I do see engines now.
Steve
I've noticed something very similar a couple of times. I was trying to design a new ship but no ship based detection systems appeared on the Design Screen until after I'd added an Engine to the Design. I checked and I was on Ship design and not PDC design at the time. As it corrected itself once I'd added an Engine I didn't really think anything more of it.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 07, 2009, 12:26:16 PM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
I've noticed something very similar a couple of times. I was trying to design a new ship but no ship based detection systems appeared on the Design Screen until after I'd added an Engine to the Design. I checked and I was on Ship design and not PDC design at the time. As it corrected itself once I'd added an Engine I didn't really think anything more of it.
Happend to me sometimes too.
What I do is reselecting "Ship" in the Ship/PDC selection.
Apparently, sometimes PDC stays selected, even if it says Ship.
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 04:43:25 AM
---------------------------
Aurora
---------------------------
No Record of task group in cboFleets_Click
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 04:49:55 AM
Does anyone have a work around for this in 3.2? I don't need that colony anymore since the ruins have been exhausted but I can find no way to delete it. The stupid civilian freighters keep dragging my valuable infrastructure to it. It makes me tempted to shoot any civilian freighter that heads that way. Could a delete colony button be added in 3.3? Perhaps make it viable for 0 pop colonies for the player and viable for any colony (destroying it) in SM mode?
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 04:52:14 AM
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 04:55:30 AM
Post by: Father Tim on January 09, 2009, 07:17:21 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Does anyone have a work around for this in 3.2? I don't need that colony anymore since the ruins have been exhausted but I can find no way to delete it. The stupid civilian freighters keep dragging my valuable infrastructure to it. It makes me tempted to shoot any civilian freighter that heads that way. Could a delete colony button be added in 3.3? Perhaps make it viable for 0 pop colonies for the player and viable for any colony (destroying it) in SM mode?
At the bottom of the F2 'Population & Production' screen is a button to Delete the colony. Make sureyou have the correct colony selected, because as I recall the confirmation box doesn't tell you which colony you're trying to delete, itonly asks "Are you sure you want to delete this population?"
Post by: jfelten on January 09, 2009, 07:58:32 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "jfelten"Does anyone have a work around for this in 3.2? I don't need that colony anymore since the ruins have been exhausted but I can find no way to delete it. The stupid civilian freighters keep dragging my valuable infrastructure to it. It makes me tempted to shoot any civilian freighter that heads that way. Could a delete colony button be added in 3.3? Perhaps make it viable for 0 pop colonies for the player and viable for any colony (destroying it) in SM mode?
At the bottom of the F2 'Population & Production' screen is a button to Delete the colony. Make sureyou have the correct colony selected, because as I recall the confirmation box doesn't tell you which colony you're trying to delete, itonly asks "Are you sure you want to delete this population?"
Thanks. I'll give that a try. I guess I need to wait until that civilian ship is on its way back as I don't know what may happen if I delete that "colony" while it is en route there.
Post by: Erik L on January 10, 2009, 08:32:51 PM
I had one odd glitch awhile ago. I think it was after I entered a new
system the game paused and I was hopeful that meant it was generating
a NPR (the system did have a 19% Oxygen planet but it is totally
uninhabitable by my species due to other factors), but then it threw a
torrent divide by zero errors. I held down the Enter key a good while
and must have O.K.'ed hundreds of them. I was getting close to giving
up and killing the game when they finally stopped. But when all the
dust settled, I couldn't find anything wrong so kept playing.
---------------------------
Error in SetupPlanet
---------------------------
Error 11 was generated by Aurora
Division by zero
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
Post by: jfelten on January 12, 2009, 05:54:11 AM
Post by: jfelten on January 12, 2009, 06:20:07 AM
Post by: James Patten on January 12, 2009, 06:29:10 AM
Post by: Father Tim on January 12, 2009, 12:50:28 PM
Quote from: "James Patten"
The missile design window has a strange tab arrangement, hitting tab takes you all over the place.
Pretty much all of the windows are like that. I think it's a problem with VB.
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2009, 01:39:40 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "James Patten"The missile design window has a strange tab arrangement, hitting tab takes you all over the place.
Pretty much all of the windows are like that. I think it's a problem with VB.
Ahh... not VB per se, but the order of the tabs in generated by the order the controls are placed on the window. It is possible to change this order (fairly easily in VB6). We just need to convince Steve to take the time to do it
Post by: Sotak246 on January 12, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
Post by: sloanjh on January 13, 2009, 12:07:57 AM
Quote from: "Sotak246"
**SNIP** Well, about 10 turns later on the other side of my empire the exact same thing happened again not the running out of fuel but the abosorb TF command and dissapearing ships(this time I took notes but just realized I can't find them, typical). The spacers are worried. My question is, is this a bug others have had or am I just lucky.
You might want to check that the shipyard didn't switch the "absorb" and "self-destruct" labels on the command consoles. It's such a bother when your helmsman hits the wrong button....
(I've not seen this bug, but I don't use that command.)
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 13, 2009, 07:20:46 AM
Quote from: "Sotak246"
I don't remember seeing anyone with a similar problem but has anyone lost ships in a task force no the TF but the ships in it? I had a single ship run out of fuel and sent the other 4 ships of its task force to it with the absorb subfleet command. When they got there, I got about a dozen error messages (of which I don't remember a single one, so much for my decision to take constant notes). After the error messages I noticed the TF wasn't continuing on, I opened it up to check its orders and 5 the ships were gone :cry: . My question is, is this a bug others have had or am I just lucky.
I have seen something similiar, but it was in v3.1 and thought Steve had fixed it for v3.2. In my case it was related to "rescuing" civilian ships that had run out of fuel.
Post by: Sotak246 on January 14, 2009, 07:47:06 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 19, 2009, 01:46:52 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 19, 2009, 02:51:07 PM
1/21/09 edit
Nevermind, I think I did this one to myself with a database edit. I was trying to make those areas available for pre-TNT research by changing the check box in the tech table.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 21, 2009, 05:42:40 AM
PS The geology rating is not showing up in the officer corps screen at all. I checked a couple of names from the team list that had a geology rating and they did not show anything in the officer window.
Brian
Post by: backstab on January 21, 2009, 06:07:50 AM
ERROR IN CHECKFORTECHOFFER
Error3420 was generated by DAO.RecordSheet
Objective invalid or no longer set
Post by: Cassaralla on January 21, 2009, 11:18:32 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
In the officer screen there is no choice for searching using the geology rating of the officer. All the others do seem to be there.
PS The geology rating is not showing up in the officer corps screen at all. I checked a couple of names from the team list that had a geology rating and they did not show anything in the officer window.
Brian
Doesn't the geology rating go off the officer's Survey rating . . . or did I just pick that one out of thin air?
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 21, 2009, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Doesn't the geology rating go off the officer's Survey rating . . . or did I just pick that one out of thin air?Thin air I do believe.
Brian
Post by: Kurt on January 21, 2009, 08:16:44 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "Cassaralla"Doesn't the geology rating go off the officer's Survey rating . . . or did I just pick that one out of thin air?Thin air I do believe.
Brian
Nope, he is right. Geology Teams use the survey rating.
Kurt
Post by: jfelten on January 22, 2009, 06:46:32 AM
Post by: rdgam on January 22, 2009, 05:31:46 PM
I checked the gallicite in the minerals window (the only thing showing), but the offer turns into duranium.
It looks like the market has a problem with minerals when all are not present.
Post by: Kurt on January 25, 2009, 11:51:36 AM
I've been playing around with 3.2, just testing out a couple of concepts, and I've noticed a persistent set of bugs on the shipyard tab of the economic/population window. I have noticed these bugs before, but I hadn't put them all together, and I don't know if you've encountered or fixed them for the next version.
Basically, these bugs seem to be associated with whichever shipyard is listed last (at the bottom). The bugs include the following:
1. When refitting ships, the ship selected for refit won't advance to the next eligible ship (you have to manually select it);
2. When adding tasks, the "Add Task" button won't gray out even when there are no more slipways available;
There may be other problems, but these are the two I just noticed. A clue may be that this behavior is always associated with the bottom-listed shipyard.
Kurt
Post by: James Patten on January 25, 2009, 03:36:15 PM
Post by: welchbloke on January 25, 2009, 04:49:58 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -I've also had exactly the same problem with my game.
I've been playing around with 3.2, just testing out a couple of concepts, and I've noticed a persistent set of bugs on the shipyard tab of the economic/population window. I have noticed these bugs before, but I hadn't put them all together, and I don't know if you've encountered or fixed them for the next version.
Basically, these bugs seem to be associated with whichever shipyard is listed last (at the bottom). The bugs include the following:
1. When refitting ships, the ship selected for refit won't advance to the next eligible ship (you have to manually select it);
2. When adding tasks, the "Add Task" button won't gray out even when there are no more slipways available;
There may be other problems, but these are the two I just noticed. A clue may be that this behavior is always associated with the bottom-listed shipyard.
Kurt
Post by: Cassaralla on January 26, 2009, 01:16:04 AM
I've also noticed the refit problem Kurt has and it seems to also apply when scrapping ships.
Post by: jfelten on January 26, 2009, 05:18:47 AM
Also along the fighter factory theme, on the "SM Mods" windows, fighter factory is called "Small Craft Factories" instead. I noticed that when I went to recreate the transmogrified fighter factory.
Post by: Father Tim on January 26, 2009, 01:10:41 PM
Quote from: "Cassaralla"
Not sure if this is a bug or something I've been doing wrong, but it's on the shipyard theme. I have a shipyard on a colony, recovered from ruins. I notice that the build date on anything I build there keeps slipping by 4 days every time I advance 5 days. It has enough minerals, enough workforce and enough security at the colony, so I can't figure out why the date keeps slipping. At the same time, all my shipyards on my homeworld are working just fine.
Radiation perhaps? The only reason for construction time to get longer is that you are suffering some sort of penalty.
Post by: welchbloke on January 26, 2009, 01:20:53 PM
. I amended the ship class to include some of those pesky engines and even though the individual ships showed a maximum speed of 1552 kms the current speed was set to 1kms. I tried to look for a method of refitting/reparing them and, although I was allowed to start a task with the first in class, the second in class has a blank progress field in the shipyard tasks bug and everytime I do a time increment I get an error 6. I can fix this for myself by deleting the ships and recreating them. I thought I'd report it in case it was another symptom of the previously reported shipyard bug. The shipyard trying to perform the repair is not the last on the list of avaialable shipyards.Edited to add:
This got more interesting. I move the ships back and fore between fleets to see if the current speed would change to 1552 kms. When I moved the ships using the arrows, the fleet containing the ships always dropped to 1 kms. When I moved the ships using double click the speed updated correctly to 1552 kms.
Post by: Erik L on January 26, 2009, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I've had a bug appear when I screwed up and designed a ship with no engines
Edited to add:
This got more interesting. I move the ships back and fore between fleets to see if the current speed would change to 1552 kms. When I moved the ships using the arrows, the fleet containing the ships always dropped to 1 kms. When I moved the ships using double click the speed updated correctly to 1552 kms.
Did you try the "Max Speed" button on the fleet screen?
Post by: welchbloke on January 26, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Yes it made no difference as the max speed available was 1kms.Quote from: "welchbloke"I've had a bug appear when I screwed up and designed a ship with no engines
Edited to add:
This got more interesting. I move the ships back and fore between fleets to see if the current speed would change to 1552 kms. When I moved the ships using the arrows, the fleet containing the ships always dropped to 1 kms. When I moved the ships using double click the speed updated correctly to 1552 kms.
Did you try the "Max Speed" button on the fleet screen?
Post by: jfelten on January 27, 2009, 04:40:59 AM
Post by: welchbloke on January 27, 2009, 05:52:50 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
What about the conditional order to set speed to max?Made no difference; whenever the ships moved to a fleet the fleet dropped to 1kms max speed. All I did differently when I moved the ships and the fleet adopted the max speed was use double clisk rather than the arrows. Very odd.
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 03:56:22 AM
The one that is getting worse instead of better I didn't notice for the first year or two. Then when I noticed something fishy I recorded the habitability at 2.9803. One year of terraforming later the habitability was up to 2.9853. Unfortunately I didn't write down the other environmental specifications the first time. Below is the only data I've recorded so far. The planet started with zero atmosphere and hot (it is the inner most planet) but due to mineral resources was still worth colonizing even though it was near 3x. Since there was no atmosphere at all I just started adding oxygen. Why would going from no atmosphere to 0.0103 O2 cause the habitability to go down? Is the O2 making the planet hotter?
Just for color and to perhaps help someone else out that decides to try something pre TN, I'll also add here that I have surveyed 30 systems and have yet to find a TN alien, which is O.K. (if a bit boring) since I've not yet invested a lot of resources in to the military. The bulk of shipbuilding has gone in to freighters and refitting freighters to faster engines which is a long slow process. I did encounter one pre TN alien very early on just 2 jumps from the home system, and decided rather than squash them to try to play them up to TN, but that is going extremely slowly. After almost 20 years of effort they are still struggling to build an economy. Duranium (sp?) shortage is stunting their growth severely so they've been concentrating on building mines but can only produce about 4 mines per year now (just recently reached the point where their Duranium production about balances their BP production for mines). If they built more factories at this point it would just outstrip their Duranium production which is around 500 / yr now. Their research is stuck at 400 RP / yr since they can't afford to add to their 2 starting research labs. So despite almost 20 years of research they are just now researching the first engine tech and are about 1/3 through it. Then I think they'll still need things like geo instruments before they can do much, and of course the 5,000 RP to research jump point theory is just a dream until they can finally afford to build at least a 3rd research lab. But they are not going anywhere and don't take any real effort to run.
Here is the little data I've collected so far on the planet that is getting worse with adding O2 to what was a vacuum.
Romulus A1 2.9803 on 2/23/2028
Romulus A1 2.9853 on 2/19/2029 (Went Up??)
O2: 100.42% 0.0103 atm
Total Atm Pressure: 0.0103
Base C: 134.14
Surf C: 142.69
GH Pres: 0
Anti GH Pres: 0
GH Factor: 1
Planetary Albedo: 1.02
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 04:07:07 AM
If that doesn't make sense, here is an example. I found some jump gate components in some ruins and sent a freighter fleet that could carry 6. I wanted to drop 1 off on the way back past the home system and take the remaining 5 on to a distant system where a jump gate constructor ship needed 5 of them. It seemed a waste of time to unload all 6 on the HW then reload 5, so I entered the orders to unload 1 which seemed to be accepted O.K. But after the unload I checked and the fleet still had 6 loaded. The unload 1x order executed but didn't unload any.
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 04:08:50 AM
---------------------------
Error in ShowFleetList
---------------------------
Error 35602 was generated by Nodes
Key is not unique in collection
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 28, 2009, 05:01:37 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I don't know what caused it but I am now getting the below error when trying to display the System Map window. It sounds like a duplicate key in the database but I've never encountered a DBMS that would actually allow you to insert a duplicate key.Do you have two fleets with the same name? The TreeView control in VB6 uses a string-based key, which is the fleet name in this case.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 28, 2009, 05:16:15 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I spent some more time on my 3.2 test game and I'm past the 20 year mark now. I might have mentioned here somewhere that a couple large colonies I set up are increasingly sucking the life out of the Empire by demanding more and more infrastructure. I long ago stopped sending colonists there but their own growth rate plus the efforts of the pesky civilian colonizer ships have them both over 60m pop now and growing at a rate the it takes most of the HW's production just to keep them supplied with infrastructure.If you stop supplying them with infrastructure, they will stop growing
. They might slightly exceed the capacity of the infrastructure at times but will then change to a negative growth rate. Civilian ships won't take colonists to a planet that has a pop exceeding its infrastructure.Quote
I saw this train wreck coming quite some time ago and learned I need to terraform them so started work on that but terraforming takes a long time. Each is up to about 5 net terraformers operating. The problem I discovered is one of the worlds is actually showing worse habitability as the terraforming progresses. The other has yet to show any reduction but started at 1.8x with some Oxygen in the atmosphere already so I think it just needs more time and more O2, and then once O2 is within limits work on the temperature.Identifying the right planet for terraforming is very important. Planets without atmosphere will take a LONG time to terraform. Good candidiates are those that have the right temperature and have sufficient atmospheric density so that adding the required atm of oxygen won't take that oxygen over the 30% limit. Another good candidate is a planet with a breathable atmosphere where the temperature isn't a long way outside the tolerance zone. The best place to identify colony sites is the Available Colony window (Ctrl-A) which allows you to filter planets to find the best candidates.
Quote
The one that is getting worse instead of better I didn't notice for the first year or two. Then when I noticed something fishy I recorded the habitability at 2.9803. One year of terraforming later the habitability was up to 2.9853. Unfortunately I didn't write down the other environmental specifications the first time. Below is the only data I've recorded so far. The planet started with zero atmosphere and hot (it is the inner most planet) but due to mineral resources was still worth colonizing even though it was near 3x. Since there was no atmosphere at all I just started adding oxygen. Why would going from no atmosphere to 0.0103 O2 cause the habitability to go down? Is the O2 making the planet hotter?
Any increase in atmospheric density will increase the temperature slightly, although greenhouse gases have a much more noticeable effect. If the col cost is almost 3 then the temperature will be the major issue. Add anti-greenhouse gas to lower the temperature. Once the col cost stops falling at 2.0, the lack of a breathable atmosphere will be the main problem and that is the time to add oxygen.
Quote
Just for color and to perhaps help someone else out that decides to try something pre TN, I'll also add here that I have surveyed 30 systems and have yet to find a TN alien, which is O.K. (if a bit boring) since I've not yet invested a lot of resources in to the military.One of the problems I found with Starfire is that too many alien races bogged the game down very quickly so there are far fewer in Aurora. If you want to encounter more though you can increase the chance of alien races on the Game window. With v4.0 it will prove easier as the computer can control the NPRs.
Quote
The bulk of shipbuilding has gone in to freighters and refitting freighters to faster engines which is a long slow process. I did encounter one pre TN alien very early on just 2 jumps from the home system, and decided rather than squash them to try to play them up to TN, but that is going extremely slowly. After almost 20 years of effort they are still struggling to build an economy. Duranium (sp?) shortage is stunting their growth severely so they've been concentrating on building mines but can only produce about 4 mines per year now (just recently reached the point where their Duranium production about balances their BP production for mines). If they built more factories at this point it would just outstrip their Duranium production which is around 500 / yr now. Their research is stuck at 400 RP / yr since they can't afford to add to their 2 starting research labs. So despite almost 20 years of research they are just now researching the first engine tech and are about 1/3 through it. Then I think they'll still need things like geo instruments before they can do much, and of course the 5,000 RP to research jump point theory is just a dream until they can finally afford to build at least a 3rd research lab. But they are not going anywhere and don't take any real effort to run.It sounds like they have a fairly small population or they still have a lot of conventional industry. Have you converted all of their conventional industry to trans-newtonian industry?
Steve
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 05:46:39 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"I don't know what caused it but I am now getting the below error when trying to display the System Map window. It sounds like a duplicate key in the database but I've never encountered a DBMS that would actually allow you to insert a duplicate key.Do you have two fleets with the same name? The TreeView control in VB6 uses a string-based key, which is the fleet name in this case.
Steve
I'll double check. I have ended up several times with two fleets with the exact same name due to the detach order or whatever it is called that splits a TF up in to individual ships (not the actual split order, the button to the right of that one). I use that for my WP/Geo survey fleets when they go to work in a new system.
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 06:14:37 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
If you stop supplying them with infrastructure, they will stop growing :). They might slightly exceed the capacity of the infrastructure at times but will then change to a negative growth rate. Civilian ships won't take colonists to a planet that has a pop exceeding its infrastructure.
But then their unrest rises and I assume at some point it will affect their production and perhaps they'll rebel? I have let them run for a few months at a time short of infrastructure as I simply couldn't keep up, but not for too long at a stretch.
Civilian colonizers might not add pop to a colony that is short of infrastructure but civilian freighters will add infrastructure making the colony for a brief time not over populated. It isn't really what I would term a problem at present but I'm concern that since the civilian ships keep growing in number and have a mind of their own that eventually there will be hundreds of them running amok. I can envision them grabbing population and infrastructure from the HW faster than I can grow/build it eventually, but it hasn't actually happened yet. Fortunately a lot of them are currently busy hauling things to far off 0 pop "colonies" due to the 3.2 bug.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Identifying the right planet for terraforming is very important. Planets without atmosphere will take a LONG time to terraform. Good candidiates are those that have the right temperature and have sufficient atmospheric density so that adding the required atm of oxygen won't take that oxygen over the 30% limit. Another good candidate is a planet with a breathable atmosphere where the temperature isn't a long way outside the tolerance zone. The best place to identify colony sites is the Available Colony window (Ctrl-A) which allows you to filter planets to find the best candidates.
Any increase in atmospheric density will increase the temperature slightly, although greenhouse gases have a much more noticeable effect. If the col cost is almost 3 then the temperature will be the major issue. Add anti-greenhouse gas to lower the temperature. Once the col cost stops falling at 2.0, the lack of a breathable atmosphere will be the main problem and that is the time to add oxygen.
This planet is in the home system with large mineral deposits so I figured it was worth colonizing despite the 3x cost. I didn't realizae at the time that the infrastructure costs would eventually grow so large. I was reluctant to have colonization ships sitting idle but should have shut them down earlier. What I ended up doing was starting a new colony 2 jumps out to keep them busy but greatly reduce the colony growth rate, although that one is starting to get up around 10m already. I've found plenty of 1.8x cost worlds to colonize but nothing below that yet except the one the pre TN NPR is on which I've left alone (Prime Directive?).
Thanks for the feedback. This is a learning game and I don't really understand terraforming fully yet. What exactly is an anti-GH gas? What is the 30% O2 limit? Currently the O2 is 100% since I started with vacuum and have been adding O2. Is O2 > 30% what is causing the attrition rate to increase? Should I switch to adding Nitrogen for awhile?
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
One of the problems I found with Starfire is that too many alien races bogged the game down very quickly so there are far fewer in Aurora. If you want to encounter more though you can increase the chance of alien races on the Game window. With v4.0 it will prove easier as the computer can control the NPRs.
No, I agree. I was mostly just stating that I've managed to get by so far producing so much infrastructure because there has been no incentive to invest in the military. Of course I hope to eventually encounter a TN NPR so there will be more to do.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It sounds like they have a fairly small population or they still have a lot of conventional industry. Have you converted all of their conventional industry to trans-newtonian industry?
Steve
I don't recall their population but I think a good bit of it is unemployed. I did convert all of the conventional; just didn't watch the mineral stockpiles close enough and should have converted more of it to Mines instead of Factories than I did. They built a small missile armed PDC as early as possible due to fear of the aliens (trying to role play them a tiny bit) which burned up some of their starting mineral stockpiles. Basically they just started so small it was hard to get things jump started. There was no way they could produce the 2400 BP or whatever it is for a 3rd research lab early on. So they built up their industry to where they are producing about 500 BP / yr, but their mines were only producing about 400 Duranium / yr which was the new limiting factor, so they've been building mines. But that only yields about 4 mines / yr which is slow going. I would like to build their industry and mining up to about 1,200 / year so they could build a 3rd research lab in "only" 2 years of game time. If they had started with larger stockpiles or a 3rd or even 4th research lab, it would have dramatically increased their jumpstart speed. I don't think a pre TN should be able to leap to full TN in just a few years, but it would be nice if they could do so within a reasonable game time frame, say 5-20 years or something like that. Of course in Starfire you had pre industrial races that had no hope of getting anywhere on their own within the time frame of the game.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 28, 2009, 06:30:23 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I don't recall their population but I think a good bit of it is unemployed. I did convert all of the conventional; just didn't watch the mineral stockpiles close enough and should have converted more of it to Mines instead of Factories than I did. They built a small missile armed PDC as early as possible due to fear of the aliens (trying to role play them a tiny bit) which burned up some of their starting mineral stockpiles. Basically they just started so small it was hard to get things jump started. There was no way they could produce the 2400 BP or whatever it is for a 3rd research lab early on. So they built up their industry to where they are producing about 500 BP / yr, but their mines were only producing about 400 Duranium / yr which was the new limiting factor, so they've been building mines. But that only yields about 4 mines / yr which is slow going. I would like to build their industry and mining up to about 1,200 / year so they could build a 3rd research lab in "only" 2 years of game time. If they had started with larger stockpiles or a 3rd or even 4th research lab, it would have dramatically increased their jumpstart speed. I don't think a pre TN should be able to leap to full TN in just a few years, but it would be nice if they could do so within a reasonable game time frame, say 5-20 years or something like that. Of course in Starfire you had pre industrial races that had no hope of getting anywhere on their own within the time frame of the game.
It sounds like a large part of the problem here might be their very small starting size. At a guess they had around 200million population. If you think about it, that is actually quite small for an industrialized planet to have. My own games have started out with between 1-3 billion popuplation. This helps in two ways. There are a lot more bp available from the conventional industry which while it takes longer to convert gives more flexability. I learned about half way through the conversion process that I needed more mines than I was building. The second point being that the number of reasearch labs is 1 per 100million population roughly. At 1billion population I started with 10 reasearch labs. That let me reasearch things a whole lot faster, which in turn let me build an early generation survey ship fairly quickly. This in turn found me another source of minerals before I had run all of mine out (the moon luckily enough) and so the benifits increased.
Brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 28, 2009, 08:00:31 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I spent some more time on my 3.2 test game and I'm past the 20 year mark now. I might have mentioned here somewhere that a couple large colonies I set up are increasingly sucking the life out of the Empire by demanding more and more infrastructure. I long ago stopped sending colonists there but their own growth rate plus the efforts of the pesky civilian colonizer ships have them both over 60m pop now and growing at a rate the it takes most of the HW's production just to keep them supplied with infrastructure. <snip>
Not sure about your terraforming issues. But the way to stop the civilians from sending more colonists fairly easy to do. On the Economics screen (F2) open the Ind Status/Civilians tab. Lower left is the Civilian Colonization Status flag. I'm betting that it is set for destination. Change that to source and the civilian should stop sending colonists.
Post by: Cassaralla on January 28, 2009, 09:11:04 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 28, 2009, 09:42:25 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"If you stop supplying them with infrastructure, they will stop growing :)QuoteThis planet is in the home system with large mineral deposits so I figured it was worth colonizing despite the 3x cost. I didn't realizae at the time that the infrastructure costs would eventually grow so large. I was reluctant to have colonization ships sitting idle but should have shut them down earlier. What I ended up doing was starting a new colony 2 jumps out to keep them busy but greatly reduce the colony growth rate, although that one is starting to get up around 10m already. I've found plenty of 1.8x cost worlds to colonize but nothing below that yet except the one the pre TN NPR is on which I've left alone (Prime Directive?).An anti-greenhouse gas (one example is sulfate aerosols) will lower the temperature of a planet if you add it to the atmosphere because it reflects or block sunlight. The 30% O2 limit is the maximum amount of O2 is terms of percentage (rather than density) that is breathable. Beyond that limit it becomes dangerous to humans and the atmosphere is classed as non-breathable. It's also not a good idea to light a cigarette in that atmosphere either
Thanks for the feedback. This is a learning game and I don't really understand terraforming fully yet. What exactly is an anti-GH gas? What is the 30% O2 limit? Currently the O2 is 100% since I started with vacuum and have been adding O2. Is O2 > 30% what is causing the attrition rate to increase? Should I switch to adding Nitrogen for awhile?
The best gas to add depends on the situation. If you look at the colony cost factors in the lower left of the System Generation window (F9), you will see various numbers relating to different environmental concerns. The colony cost of the planet will be equal to the worst of these numbers so that's the one you should try to remedy first. If the colony cost is greater than 2.0, then its usually based on temperature or there is a dangerous gas in the atmosphere, such as ammonia. If its is a dangerous gas, get rid of that first. If it's temperature, then use a greenhouse oranti-greenhouse gas to modify the temperature, depnding on whether you want to raise or lower it. Once the temperature cost factor falls below 2.0 but the overall colony cost is still 2.0 then its usually because the atmosphere is not breathable. In that case, add oxygen until it reaches the lower limit of the racial tolerance (shown in the Environmental Tolerances in the upper right) or in rare cases, remove oxygen until it drops to the upper limit. Once that is done, check that oxygen levels are not above 30%. If they are, add a different gas. Either a greenhouse or anti-greenhouse if you want to modify the temperature further or nitrogen if you are happy with the temperature.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The unrest rise should be very small. if you want to eliminate is completely, put a ground units on the colony. Even one small unit will be enough to remove the minimal unrest.
Good to know. It is small. Of course now I'll have to design and build a troop transport . . . Might be faster to build a troop training facility and build the troops there.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The infrastructure from civilian freighters is free - you don't have to build it and it doesn't cost you any wealth or minerals. It's picked up by the freighters from a civilian space centre. One of the advantages of civilian ships it that they allow you to colonise worlds without worrying about the infrastructure cost or the fuel cost (which is also free for civilians).
That is much better. I was afraid they were helping themselves to the government stockpile.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
If the civilians do start running amok, you can always shoot them :)
What!? The peace loving Romulan Star Empire fire on civilians? Nothing but vicious rumors spread by a few malcontents I assure you. Official investigations proved lax civilian maintenance was to blame in every instance of disappearing civilian ships.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
An anti-greenhouse gas (one example is sulfate aerosols) will lower the temperature of a planet if you add it to the atmosphere because it reflects or block sunlight. The 30% O2 limit is the maximum amount of O2 is terms of percentage (rather than density) that is breathable. Beyond that limit it becomes dangerous to humans and the atmosphere is classed as non-breathable. It's also not a good idea to light a cigarette in that atmosphere either :)
Given the current pressure, smoking isn't going to be a problem. It will be a long time before that is a danger.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The best gas to add depends on the situation. If you look at the colony cost factors in the lower left of the System Generation window (F9), you will see various numbers relating to different environmental concerns. The colony cost of the planet will be equal to the worst of these numbers so that's the one you should try to remedy first. If the colony cost is greater than 2.0, then its usually based on temperature or there is a dangerous gas in the atmosphere, such as ammonia. If its is a dangerous gas, get rid of that first. If it's temperature, then use a greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gas to modify the temperature, depending on whether you want to raise or lower it. Once the temperature cost factor falls below 2.0 but the overall colony cost is still 2.0 then its usually because the atmosphere is not breathable. In that case, add oxygen until it reaches the lower limit of the racial tolerance (shown in the Environmental Tolerances in the upper right) or in rare cases, remove oxygen until it drops to the upper limit. Once that is done, check that oxygen levels are not above 30%. If they are, add a different gas. Either a greenhouse or anti-greenhouse if you want to modify the temperature further or nitrogen if you are happy with the temperature.
Steve
It must be the temperature then. The planet is hot but no poisonous gasses (started as a vacuum) so I'll switch the terraformers to working on anti-GH gases. The current O2 is 100% but the pressure is very very low so can't be dangerous.
I assume once the temperature is lower I'll have to remove the anti-GH gasses to avoid an ice age?
Would it be hard to add an automatic option to terraforming to automatically do what was best? Or at least a suggestion box. It sounds like there is only one best course so why bother the player most of the time? Plus you'll want that for your automated NPR's anyway.
For some reason I have found a wealth of planets with 1.8x attrition but none below that. Plenty above that of course. 1.8x must be some sort of attrition plateau.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 28, 2009, 01:31:12 PM
Also untill you get some more gasses in the planet to bring the O2 level below 30% it will be considered a toxic gas. Once it is under 30% it is just fine. Currently you will need to keep track of the temprature to make sure the temp does not go to far in one direction by accident. I usually put the greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gas setting to be double that of the O2 setting, and then adjust based on where that comes out at. Doing it this way means that when the message of terraforming ending is posted that the atmosphere is not quite breathable, but close enough that it doesn't take much more work. If the temprature is in the habitable range then I use N2, if it is still outside that range then the appropriate greenhouse gas is used instead.
Brian
Post by: jfelten on January 28, 2009, 01:38:16 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
The 1.8 cost for planets sounds like you have researched the 10% reduction in colony cost. (the first line of the racial research page. 10% is the second level and costs 20000 points normally.) The standard cost for a planet without a breathable atmosphere is 2.0 It only goes to 3.0 for some nasty gasses (surfer dioxide?) and can be any amount based on the temperature. If the temp. factor is less than the breathable then the gasses are the controlling amount. If the temperature is the larger then that is what the cost will be.
Also until you get some more gasses in the planet to bring the O2 level below 30% it will be considered a toxic gas. Once it is under 30% it is just fine. Currently you will need to keep track of the temperature to make sure the temp does not go to far in one direction by accident. I usually put the greenhouse or anti-greenhouse gas setting to be double that of the O2 setting, and then adjust based on where that comes out at. Doing it this way means that when the message of terraforming ending is posted that the atmosphere is not quite breathable, but close enough that it doesn't take much more work. If the temperature is in the habitable range then I use N2, if it is still outside that range then the appropriate greenhouse gas is used instead.
Brian
You are almost certainly right about the 1.8. I didn't think of that.
How do you achieve the perfect greenhouse gas balance once you get the temperature right so that it doesn't drift up or down? Or are you constantly tweaking it for the rest of the game?
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 28, 2009, 02:34:05 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
You are almost certainly right about the 1.8. I didn't think of that.
How do you achieve the perfect greenhouse gas balance once you get the temperature right so that it doesn't drift up or down? Or are you constantly tweaking it for the rest of the game?
The temprature is static based on the proportions of gasses. just because there are greenhouse gasses does not meen that the temprature will keep shifting over time.
Brian
Post by: Father Tim on January 28, 2009, 11:34:22 PM
1. It appears that Terraforming Modules can be built into PDCs. This means they can be pre-fab'd and sent to another planet for assembly (by Engineering Divisions if necessary). This makes them better than actual terraforming ships in some cases (the primary being no maintenance required, secondarily the lack of shipyard time/space - and possibly skipping shipyards entirely), though they're immobile once assembled.
2. Terraforming Modules cost 400 to build (200 duranium, 200 boronide), whereas an actual Terraforming Installation costs 600 (again, half duranium & half boronide). Adding a Bridge & Crew Qurters to the PDC version means an 'armoured TI' costs ony 450ish instead of 600 for the civilian version. Thus, once Terraforming Modules are reasearched the standard TI is obsolete.
Okay, so maybe this isn't a bug. Maybe 'Terraforming Modules' should be considered a newer, more advanced system that rightfully make their predecessor obsolete. I'm okay with that, as long as the tech system description mentions it. TMs cost two-thirds as much and requir no workers - that's quite an improvement.
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 03:36:26 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
On the terraforming front, two thoughts:
1. It appears that Terraforming Modules can be built into PDCs. This means they can be pre-fab'd and sent to another planet for assembly (by Engineering Divisions if necessary). This makes them better than actual terraforming ships in some cases (the primary being no maintenance required, secondarily the lack of shipyard time/space - and possibly skipping shipyards entirely), though they're immobile once assembled.
2. Terraforming Modules cost 400 to build (200 duranium, 200 boronide), whereas an actual Terraforming Installation costs 600 (again, half duranium & half boronide). Adding a Bridge & Crew Qurters to the PDC version means an 'armoured TI' costs ony 450ish instead of 600 for the civilian version. Thus, once Terraforming Modules are reasearched the standard TI is obsolete.
Okay, so maybe this isn't a bug. Maybe 'Terraforming Modules' should be considered a newer, more advanced system that rightfully make their predecessor obsolete. I'm okay with that, as long as the tech system description mentions it. TMs cost two-thirds as much and requir no workers - that's quite an improvement.
Great idea. I could not fathom why pretty much every installation in the game could be moved by freighter but not terraforming installations, especially considering you could build one small enough to fit in a spaceship. And there they sit useless after a world is finally fully terraformed.
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 03:40:27 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"I don't know what caused it but I am now getting the below error when trying to display the System Map window. It sounds like a duplicate key in the database but I've never encountered a DBMS that would actually allow you to insert a duplicate key.Do you have two fleets with the same name? The TreeView control in VB6 uses a string-based key, which is the fleet name in this case.
Steve
Steve, that turned out to be the problem. I had accidentally named two TF's with the same name and didn't realize it. You might want to add a check to the rename TF button to prevent name collision.
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 03:51:20 AM
Later I had this different and very strange problem occur.: I had a different ship/TF also fall below 30% fuel and trigger automatic refueling. This time the ship in question was not a tanker and it correctly identified a tanker in the adjacent system to refuel from. I thought it was neat that this was going to work well. I checked the TF's orders and indeed its orders had been replaced with the proper orders to transit to the adjacent system (the TF was jump capable) and refuel from the tanker there. Then I went on playing. A good while later I received a warning that that TF was below 10% fuel. That shouldn't have happened so I investigated and this is the odd part. The TF was showing as moving towards the appropriate WP at full speed, but as I advanced time the TF never moved on the System Map. It has the "vector tail" showing it should move to the WP in the next time increment, but it never moved. It still had fuel and velocity and was consuming fuel but it was stuck in space. I deleted its orders and re-entered them but it wouldn't budge. Finally I got it unstuck by having another TF that was fortunately nearby "Join" it. Then the newly combined TF moved normally and I was able to move it to the tanker in the adjacent system and refuel it. The only thing I can think of is perhaps some sort of conflict between the standing orders for it to survey and the conditional orders for it to refuel. But that shouldn't have made any difference once the new conditional orders were entered for it to transit to the adjacent system and refuel. And I saw no evidence of such conflict in the event log.
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 04:00:30 AM
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 04:14:21 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"The one that is getting worse instead of better I didn't notice for the first year or two. Then when I noticed something fishy I recorded the habitability at 2.9803. One year of terraforming later the habitability was up to 2.9853. Unfortunately I didn't write down the other environmental specifications the first time. Below is the only data I've recorded so far. The planet started with zero atmosphere and hot (it is the inner most planet) but due to mineral resources was still worth colonizing even though it was near 3x. Since there was no atmosphere at all I just started adding oxygen. Why would going from no atmosphere to 0.0103 O2 cause the habitability to go down? Is the O2 making the planet hotter?
Any increase in atmospheric density will increase the temperature slightly, although greenhouse gases have a much more noticeable effect. If the col cost is almost 3 then the temperature will be the major issue. Add anti-greenhouse gas to lower the temperature. Once the col cost stops falling at 2.0, the lack of a breathable atmosphere will be the main problem and that is the time to add oxygen.
Steve
This turned out to just be my not fully understanding the terraforming system. I switched that planet from producing O2 to producing the generic anti greenhouse gases and after 1.6 years the temperature had dropped 1.7C and the attrition rate started going down a fraction. I would like to suggest however that the 30% O2 being toxic rule not apply until there is a meaningful atmospheric pressure (or perhaps its negative effect be multiplied by the pressure or such). I know you are not going for perfect climate modeling but still, that tiny fraction of an atmosphere I had going at 100% O2 wasn't going to be breathed by anyone therefor it couldn't have been toxic.
The new stats which show the temperature dropping 1.7 degrees and the attrition improving a tiny fraction are.:
9/9/2030
Planetary Suitability (Colony Cost): 2.9342 (A decrease of 0.0511)
O2 73.5% 0.0135atm
Anti-GH 26.72% 0.0049 atm
Total pres: 0.0184
Base Temp C 134.14
Surface Temp C 140.99 (a drop of 1.7C after 1 year 7 months of terraforming (5? terraformers)).
Anti-GH Pressure 0.0049
GH Factor 1
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 29, 2009, 04:35:31 AM
Brian
Post by: jfelten on January 29, 2009, 07:07:17 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "jfelten"I don't recall their population but I think a good bit of it is unemployed. I did convert all of the conventional; just didn't watch the mineral stockpiles close enough and should have converted more of it to Mines instead of Factories than I did. They built a small missile armed PDC as early as possible due to fear of the aliens (trying to role play them a tiny bit) which burned up some of their starting mineral stockpiles. Basically they just started so small it was hard to get things jump started. There was no way they could produce the 2400 BP or whatever it is for a 3rd research lab early on. So they built up their industry to where they are producing about 500 BP / yr, but their mines were only producing about 400 Duranium / yr which was the new limiting factor, so they've been building mines. But that only yields about 4 mines / yr which is slow going. I would like to build their industry and mining up to about 1,200 / year so they could build a 3rd research lab in "only" 2 years of game time. If they had started with larger stockpiles or a 3rd or even 4th research lab, it would have dramatically increased their jumpstart speed. I don't think a pre TN should be able to leap to full TN in just a few years, but it would be nice if they could do so within a reasonable game time frame, say 5-20 years or something like that. Of course in Starfire you had pre industrial races that had no hope of getting anywhere on their own within the time frame of the game.
It sounds like a large part of the problem here might be their very small starting size. At a guess they had around 200million population. If you think about it, that is actually quite small for an industrialized planet to have. My own games have started out with between 1-3 billion popuplation. This helps in two ways. There are a lot more bp available from the conventional industry which while it takes longer to convert gives more flexability. I learned about half way through the conversion process that I needed more mines than I was building. The second point being that the number of reasearch labs is 1 per 100million population roughly. At 1billion population I started with 10 reasearch labs. That let me reasearch things a whole lot faster, which in turn let me build an early generation survey ship fairly quickly. This in turn found me another source of minerals before I had run all of mine out (the moon luckily enough) and so the benifits increased.
Brian
I checked last night and they currently have about 600m population which is a lot. Perhaps they started with 200m and have grown that much as it has been about 20 years of game time. I don't recall their growth rate.
To update, after a couple more years of game time they built maybe another 10 mines and are now producing a little more Duranium than their industry consumes. So now they'll build a few factories to finally increase their industrial base a tad. The compounding interest effect should kick in but it will be very slow going for a long while yet. Their 2 research labs also completed about another 1/3 of the research towards their first engine.
They do have a huge treasury built up, IIRC around 90K MCr or whatever the unit of currency is. They just can't really spend much so it is building up. Unfortunately there is nothing they can do with plain cash. I wish they could spend extra money to increase production or such even if it wasn't efficient.
Post by: Erik L on January 29, 2009, 09:06:17 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I found I can build ships and add slipways/capacity to the same shipyard at the same time. Is that a bug or should it be allowed?
That is working as intended.
Post by: jfelten on January 30, 2009, 04:33:04 AM
I copied an existing ship design in order to refit it and one thing I upgraded was the armor via the "new armor" button I think it is called. That seemed to work as it now shows the new armor type in the design windows, but on the ship display it still shows the armor starting with a 1. I am assuming that the first number is the armor generation and the 2nd is the number of "hit points" the armor provides?
Before the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-25". After the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-24". I believe since I upgraded from starting 1st generation (Duranium armor or whatever it is called) to 3rd generation armor ("ceramic composite"? Whatever it is) the ship display should show "3-24" instead of "1-24". Or is that first number the thickness of the armor? I did not change the thickness and left it at the minimum value of 1 since this ship hopes to never see combat. Hopes.
Also, I'm not sure why the 2nd number went down by 1. Perhaps the new refitted design is a tad smaller. But shouldn't that number go up due to the improved protection provided by the new armor?
Post by: jfelten on January 30, 2009, 04:36:06 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 30, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Before the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-25". After the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-24". I believe since I upgraded from starting 1st generation (Duranium armor or whatever it is called) to 3rd generation armor ("ceramic composite"? Whatever it is) the ship display should show "3-24" instead of "1-24". Or is that first number the thickness of the armor? I did not change the thickness and left it at the minimum value of 1 since this ship hopes to never see combat. Hopes.What the armor code is showing is how many points of armor you have (the first number) which translates to how many rows of armor a weapon needs to get through. The second number is how many columns of armor there are on the ship. This is based on the total size of the ship. When you upgraded the armor on the ship by two tech levels, you got the same amount of protection (rows) for less tonnage. If nothing else changed on the ship, then your overall size probably went down somewhat. That is why you have one less column. If you had upped the total armor to 2 you would probably not have seen any change on the number of columns of armor. One of the things which makes big ships survive longer in this game than smaller ships is once the damage starts hitting the armor, a big ship is going to have a lot more surface to spread it out on. This translates to fewer hits overlapping, and needing more hits to get through the same thickness of armor.
Also, I'm not sure why the 2nd number went down by 1. Perhaps the new refitted design is a tad smaller. But shouldn't that number go up due to the improved protection provided by the new armor?
Brian
Post by: jfelten on January 30, 2009, 06:26:57 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "jfelten"Before the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-25". After the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-24". I believe since I upgraded from starting 1st generation (Duranium armor or whatever it is called) to 3rd generation armor ("ceramic composite"? Whatever it is) the ship display should show "3-24" instead of "1-24". Or is that first number the thickness of the armor? I did not change the thickness and left it at the minimum value of 1 since this ship hopes to never see combat. Hopes.What the armor code is showing is how many points of armor you have (the first number) which translates to how many rows of armor a weapon needs to get through. The second number is how many columns of armor there are on the ship. This is based on the total size of the ship. When you upgraded the armor on the ship by two tech levels, you got the same amount of protection (rows) for less tonnage. If nothing else changed on the ship, then your overall size probably went down somewhat. That is why you have one less column. If you had upped the total armor to 2 you would probably not have seen any change on the number of columns of armor. One of the things which makes big ships survive longer in this game than smaller ships is once the damage starts hitting the armor, a big ship is going to have a lot more surface to spread it out on. This translates to fewer hits overlapping, and needing more hits to get through the same thickness of armor.
Also, I'm not sure why the 2nd number went down by 1. Perhaps the new refitted design is a tad smaller. But shouldn't that number go up due to the improved protection provided by the new armor?
Brian
So are you saying even though I upgraded the armor by 2 levels I ended up with essentially the same amount of protection? The only benefit of better armor is saving a very small amount of tonnage?
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 30, 2009, 07:20:26 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
The type of upgrade your talking about (as an example Duranium Armour to Composite Armour) only upgrades the type as Brian points out. The new types require less mass for the same requested protection level. So, to answer your question, the type of upgrade your discribing adds no additional protection. The mass freed by the lighter armor can potentially be used for more protection or used for addition internal systems or add nothing and have a lighter/faster version of the orginal ship.Quote from: "Brian"Quote from: "jfelten"Before the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-25". After the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-24". I believe since I upgraded from starting 1st generation (Duranium armor or whatever it is called) to 3rd generation armor ("ceramic composite"? Whatever it is) the ship display should show "3-24" instead of "1-24". Or is that first number the thickness of the armor? I did not change the thickness and left it at the minimum value of 1 since this ship hopes to never see combat. Hopes.What the armor code is showing is how many points of armor you have (the first number) which translates to how many rows of armor a weapon needs to get through. The second number is how many columns of armor there are on the ship. This is based on the total size of the ship. When you upgraded the armor on the ship by two tech levels, you got the same amount of protection (rows) for less tonnage. If nothing else changed on the ship, then your overall size probably went down somewhat. That is why you have one less column. If you had upped the total armor to 2 you would probably not have seen any change on the number of columns of armor. One of the things which makes big ships survive longer in this game than smaller ships is once the damage starts hitting the armor, a big ship is going to have a lot more surface to spread it out on. This translates to fewer hits overlapping, and needing more hits to get through the same thickness of armor.
Also, I'm not sure why the 2nd number went down by 1. Perhaps the new refitted design is a tad smaller. But shouldn't that number go up due to the improved protection provided by the new armor?
Brian
So are you saying even though I upgraded the armor by 2 levels I ended up with essentially the same amount of protection? The only benefit of better armor is saving a very small amount of tonnage?
Post by: jfelten on January 30, 2009, 07:38:31 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The type of upgrade your talking about (as an example Duranium Armour to Composite Armour) only upgrades the type as Brian points out. The new types require less mass for the same requested protection level. So, to answer your question, the type of upgrade your describing adds no additional protection. The mass freed by the lighter armor can potentially be used for more protection or used for addition internal systems or add nothing and have a lighter/faster version of the original ship.
Thanks, that explains that then. I was incorrectly assuming the same "thickness" of better armor would provide better protection.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 30, 2009, 08:18:56 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"The type of upgrade your talking about (as an example Duranium Armour to Composite Armour) only upgrades the type as Brian points out. The new types require less mass for the same requested protection level. So, to answer your question, the type of upgrade your describing adds no additional protection. The mass freed by the lighter armor can potentially be used for more protection or used for addition internal systems or add nothing and have a lighter/faster version of the original ship.
Thanks, that explains that then. I was incorrectly assuming the same "thickness" of better armor would provide better protection.
Actually it does. You select the thickness when your designing the ship. Use the up/down arrows that are too the right of the armor rating to effect this change.
Post by: Erik L on January 30, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I'm not 100% sure what the armor codes in the ship design display windows are but something doesn't seem right when upgrading armor.
I copied an existing ship design in order to refit it and one thing I upgraded was the armor via the "new armor" button I think it is called. That seemed to work as it now shows the new armor type in the design windows, but on the ship display it still shows the armor starting with a 1. I am assuming that the first number is the armor generation and the 2nd is the number of "hit points" the armor provides?
Before the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-25". After the upgrade the armor was showing as "1-24". I believe since I upgraded from starting 1st generation (Duranium armor or whatever it is called) to 3rd generation armor ("ceramic composite"? Whatever it is) the ship display should show "3-24" instead of "1-24". Or is that first number the thickness of the armor? I did not change the thickness and left it at the minimum value of 1 since this ship hopes to never see combat. Hopes.
Also, I'm not sure why the 2nd number went down by 1. Perhaps the new refitted design is a tad smaller. But shouldn't that number go up due to the improved protection provided by the new armor?
The number represents rows by boxes. 1-24 would be 1 row of 24 armor boxes on the ship display.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 30, 2009, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
So are you saying even though I upgraded the armor by 2 levels I ended up with essentially the same amount of protection? The only benefit of better armor is saving a very small amount of tonnage?Duranium gives 5 points of strength per ton while Composite gives 8 points. This means that Composite effectively provides sixty percent more protection for the same tonnage of armour. However, tonnage and thickness aren't the same thing. The armour model calculates the surface area of the ship and then works out the required armour strength based on that area divided by 4. The required total armour strength divided by the armour strength per ton provides the tonnage of armour required for armour thickness 1. So if a ship had a surface area of 160, it would need armour strength 40, which is eight tons of Duranium Armour or five tons of Composite Armour. This breakdown is shown in the Primary Information section of the Class Design window.
If you decide to increase the thickness to 2 then the design code calculates how much strength is required to add a new layer of armour on top of the existing thickness 1 armour. In other words, the surface area required for each additional layer of armour is greater than for the previous layer because it needs to cover the larger surface area of a ship that includes those previous layers.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on January 30, 2009, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Quote from: "jfelten"So are you saying even though I upgraded the armor by 2 levels I ended up with essentially the same amount of protection? The only benefit of better armor is saving a very small amount of tonnage?The type of upgrade your talking about (as an example Duranium Armour to Composite Armour) only upgrades the type as Brian points out. The new types require less mass for the same requested protection level. So, to answer your question, the type of upgrade your discribing adds no additional protection. The mass freed by the lighter armor can potentially be used for more protection or used for addition internal systems or add nothing and have a lighter/faster version of the orginal ship.
A subtlety: you probably didn't add extra systems to your ship to replace the mass freed up. This means that the overall mass of the ship was reduced by the amount of mass savings, i.e. the ship was smaller. This in turn led to a smaller surface area, which led to fewer columns of armor, i.e. the drop from 25 --> 24. In reality, this represents a ~4% mass savings. If you assume that the "payload" (non-engine/armor/crew/fuel/...) of the design is only 30-40%, then this represents something like a 10% increase in payload, which is a significant increase.
John
Post by: Erik L on January 30, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Of course you could use that mass savings and add more weapons.
Post by: Father Tim on January 31, 2009, 01:36:44 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2009, 06:16:08 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
A minor display bug: a world with a colony cost of more than 20 requires more than 100% of its population to engage in Agricultural and Environmntal work to keep everyone alive & fed. The F2 Population & Production window 'Summary' tab therefore displays the A&E sector employing more people than are actually on the planet, and the Service sector employing a negative number of people. Apparently the robots really have taken over.Fixed for v4.0
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 01, 2009, 02:54:44 PM
Edited to add:
I'm also getting an Error 11 report everytime I advance the timeline.
Post by: Father Tim on February 01, 2009, 05:25:10 PM
Earlier in the game a three cargo ship task group also suffered identical engine failures simltaneously. I origianlly put that one down to coincidence, but now either there's a bug in the maintenance code, or Aurora is calling the RNG so quickly in succession it hasn't updated between calls (as happens frequently with clock-based RNGs).
Post by: Father Tim on February 01, 2009, 11:22:40 PM
Post by: Hagar on February 02, 2009, 02:33:08 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 04:35:50 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I've just had a civilian non-jumpp capable survey ship suddenly come up for sale in a new system. Two new systems have been created and I have not built my first jump tender yet. One of the systems showing on the Galactic Map is not connected to any JP in my home system (the only system my race was aware of until this glitch). Any ideas what caused it? I'd just run a 5 day step after starting running the game for the first time today.
I've not seen that but I had something odd happen recently with civilian freighters. Early on in my test game a couple civ freighters came up for sale in an adjacent system. They were not jump capable and at that time the adjacent system was accessible via a 1-way jump gate. I'm guessing they wandered through, couldn't get back, so then came up for sale. For the next ~25 years of game time not a single civilian ship came up for sale. Then suddenly there was a civilian ship fire sale. I think about 20 came up for sale within a 1-2 month time frame. All in the home system so they were not "trapped". Since MCr are a lot easier to come by IME than minerals I started scarfing them all up. But after buying more than a dozen I got more choosy and only bought the cheaper ones since the price seemed to vary by a factor of about 2. I have no idea what triggered this civilian fire sale. It came out of the blue and then soon stopped. Most of them I have to refit so they'll still cost me most of the cost of a new freighter (upgrading engines which are the biggest cost of a freighter) but I save a few minerals at the expense of a lot of MCr. I'm not 100% certain it is a good deal. Has anyone ran the numbers to check whether it is more economical to scrap and rebuild rather than refit in such a situation? When refitting do I get any credit for the old engines that are being replaced?
I have yet to notice a civilian geo survey ship actually do anything useful. I see them moving around a lot but I've never seen one survey anything. Perhaps I just missed it but they seem totally useless as is.
BTW, you have to be careful when refitting freighters. You can accidentally pick a civilian freighter and give it a free upgrade. Is there any way to abort a refit?
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 04:45:47 AM
While they were trapped on their HW I formed a geo team on the slim hope it would find some additional minerals on their HW. Once it had made its attempt the event log was cluttered every turn with that geo team reporting in that they couldn't do anything. After several hundred times seeing that I tried to get rid of it by assigning the team to a PDC they had built. That worked for muting that message but now I can find no way to get that first team off of the PDC. It is trapped there as far as I can tell. I can't order the PDC to offload the team as that is not a valid PDC order. And the teams tab of the econ window I used to assign them to the PDC doesn't seem to have a way to reverse that assignment.
Later, when they finally researched engines and built their first geo survey ship, I formed a new 2nd geo team to go along since the 1st geo team was trapped in the PDC's brig. But when I created the 2nd team, it showed as "[unknown species] rating 0" and I can't load it and it keeps giving geo reports that it can't find new minerals on the HW but with the team's name blank.:
"29th September 2035 20:05:06,New Home,New Home,The does not believe any new mineral deposits can be found by the further geological survey of New Home-A III"
(note the double space between "The" and "does", that is where the team's name is supposed to go).
I can not load this no-name team on a ship. And I could find no way to disband this dysfunctional team. Is there any way to disband a team? I even looked on the F4 officers window and could find no way to see who was on this team or how to remove them from the team.
I then formed a 3rd team which formed O.K. and that I was able to load on a ship. But I still have that no-name team sitting on the HW and I'm back to getting that message every turn cluttering up the event log. And I still have the original geo team stuck on the PDC.
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 04:47:22 AM
other totaling approximately 50 total. Once I "O.K." past all ~50 the program then goes on normally. Nothing special seems to happen that cycle so I don't know why the occur. I think they occur about once or twice a year, but they do not seem to occur in the same month every time.
---------------------------
Error in MoveFleets
---------------------------
Error 3021 was generated by DAO.Field
No current record.
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com (http://mailto:stevewalmsley@btinternet.com)
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
---------------------------
Error in MoveFleets
---------------------------
Error 3020 was generated by DAO.Field
Update or CancelUpdate without AddNew or Edit.
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 04:51:33 AM
---------------------------
Error in CompactDB
---------------------------
Error 429 was generated by Aurora
ActiveX component can't create object
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com (http://mailto:stevewalmsley@btinternet.com)
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
---------------------------
Error in CompactDB
---------------------------
Error 3024 was generated by DAO.Workspace
Could not find file 'Stevefire.mdb'.
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com (http://mailto:stevewalmsley@btinternet.com)
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
There was a backup .mdb but no Stevefire.mdb after this series of errors.
Tried compacting a 2nd time after restoring Stevefire.mdb from a backup copy I had made.:
This one came up twice:
---------------------------
Error in CompactDB
---------------------------
Error 429 was generated by Aurora
ActiveX component can't create object
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com (http://mailto:stevewalmsley@btinternet.com)
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
---------------------------
Error in CompactDB
---------------------------
Error 3024 was generated by DAO.Workspace
Could not find file 'Stevefire.mdb'.
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
No backup and no Stevefire.mdb after this 2nd attempt. If I hadn't made a copy, I would have been screwed.
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 05:39:47 AM
Quote from: "Hagar"
A minor display bug: I had a cybernetic team restore a Mass Driver on Mars. The event window text just says "... Cybernetic Team has restored an abandoned on Mars". The text "Mass Driver" is missing.I've just had the same thing for one of my colonies except i have no idea what was recovered as I cannot see anything new on the summary view.
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 08:31:46 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I've encountered an issue with shipbuilding. I have 3 ships 99.5% completed that should have been completed the following day. Advance by one day and the ships are still 99.5% and due tomorrow. I repeated a single day advance 4 times and still the task hasn't completed. In the end I had to advance by a fifth day and the task then completed. Is shipbuilding managed in 5 day increments? If so why was the completion date reported as 4 days earlier?
I can't authoritatively answer your question and I will be interested in the official answer, but until Steve answers I can say that in my own limited experience there does seem to be some sort of 5 day breakpoints to the game.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 02, 2009, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Background: This is from my test game where I early on discovered a pre TN NPR which for 25 years have been trying to claw themselves up to TN tech. They just recently built their first ship and are researching Jump Theory which will take them about 12 years at their current research pace.
While they were trapped on their HW I formed a geo team on the slim hope it would find some additional minerals on their HW. Once it had made its attempt the event log was cluttered every turn with that geo team reporting in that they couldn't do anything. After several hundred times seeing that I tried to get rid of it by assigning the team to a PDC they had built. That worked for muting that message but now I can find no way to get that first team off of the PDC. It is trapped there as far as I can tell. I can't order the PDC to offload the team as that is not a valid PDC order. And the teams tab of the econ window I used to assign them to the PDC doesn't seem to have a way to reverse that assignment.
Later, when they finally researched engines and built their first geo survey ship, I formed a new 2nd geo team to go along since the 1st geo team was trapped in the PDC's brig. But when I created the 2nd team, it showed as "[unknown species] rating 0" and I can't load it and it keeps giving geo reports that it can't find new minerals on the HW but with the team's name blank.:
"29th September 2035 20:05:06,New Home,New Home,The does not believe any new mineral deposits can be found by the further geological survey of New Home-A III"
(note the double space between "The" and "does", that is where the team's name is supposed to go).
I can not load this no-name team on a ship. And I could find no way to disband this dysfunctional team. Is there any way to disband a team? I even looked on the F4 officers window and could find no way to see who was on this team or how to remove them from the team.
I then formed a 3rd team which formed O.K. and that I was able to load on a ship. But I still have that no-name team sitting on the HW and I'm back to getting that message every turn cluttering up the event log. And I still have the original geo team stuck on the PDC.
In the Ships screen (F6) you should be able to transfer the team using the cargo/ground units tab.
Post by: Erik L on February 02, 2009, 01:22:26 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "welchbloke"I've encountered an issue with shipbuilding. I have 3 ships 99.5% completed that should have been completed the following day. Advance by one day and the ships are still 99.5% and due tomorrow. I repeated a single day advance 4 times and still the task hasn't completed. In the end I had to advance by a fifth day and the task then completed. Is shipbuilding managed in 5 day increments? If so why was the completion date reported as 4 days earlier?
I can't authoritatively answer your question and I will be interested in the official answer, but until Steve answers I can say that in my own limited experience there does seem to be some sort of 5 day breakpoints to the game.
The game setup, the 400,000 value controls this.
Post by: Father Tim on February 02, 2009, 01:47:53 PM
Post by: sloanjh on February 03, 2009, 12:20:55 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "jfelten"Quote from: "welchbloke"I've encountered an issue with shipbuilding. I have 3 ships 99.5% completed that should have been completed the following day. Advance by one day and the ships are still 99.5% and due tomorrow. I repeated a single day advance 4 times and still the task hasn't completed. In the end I had to advance by a fifth day and the task then completed. Is shipbuilding managed in 5 day increments? If so why was the completion date reported as 4 days earlier?
I can't authoritatively answer your question and I will be interested in the official answer, but until Steve answers I can say that in my own limited experience there does seem to be some sort of 5 day breakpoints to the game.
The game setup, the 400,000 value controls this.
Economic activity doesn't update with every time step. Instead, the game records the amount of time that has passed since the last update. When that cumulative time passes ~5 days (the 400,000 seconds Erik mentions) an update happens, with the amount of production proportional to the elapsed time. This has some weird side effects:
- If you always advance using the "5 days" button, you can actually go ~10 days between updates. If an interrupt (e.g. due to a new alien contact) happens during a movement sub-pulse just before the 400,000 seconds is up, your elapsed time will be ~5 days, but not quite enough to trigger an update. Hitting the 5-day update button will advance the clock another 5 days, for a total of 10 days between updates. This is not a catastrophe, however, since your factories will have produced twice as much stuff as during a typical 5 day update.
The incredible creeping completion dates
If you watch the "time left" box on ships while continuously hitting the 1-day advance button, you'll see the estimated completion date advance by 1 day 4 times, then jump back by 4 days. This is because 4 of the 1-day advanced don't actually contribute any build points to the ship - all the build points for the 5-day span are contributed on the last day (when the update happens).Officer promotions all happen simultaneously during an update, so when a major promotion takes place (e.g. R5 -->R6) the promotions will cascade through the officer tree over the course of the next few weeks.
I never found any of these features to be a problem, however, once I figured them out.
John
Post by: welchbloke on February 03, 2009, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
*SNIP*Thanks for the explanation. Same as you, now that I know the underlying mechanism I don't think I'll have a problem with these features.
Economic activity doesn't update with every time step. Instead, the game records the amount of time that has passed since the last update. When that cumulative time passes ~5 days (the 400,000 seconds Erik mentions) an update happens, with the amount of production proportional to the elapsed time. This has some weird side effects:If you always advance using the "5 days" button, you can actually go ~10 days between updates. If an interrupt (e.g. due to a new alien contact) happens during a movement sub-pulse just before the 400,000 seconds is up, your elapsed time will be ~5 days, but not quite enough to trigger an update. Hitting the 5-day update button will advance the clock another 5 days, for a total of 10 days between updates. This is not a catastrophe, however, since your factories will have produced twice as much stuff as during a typical 5 day update.
The incredible creeping completion dates
Officer promotions all happen simultaneously during an update, so when a major promotion takes place (e.g. R5 -->R6) the promotions will cascade through the officer tree over the course of the next few weeks.
I never found any of these features to be a problem, however, once I figured them out.
John
Post by: Randy on February 03, 2009, 01:15:42 PM
Minor if it doesn't bother ya, and configurable if it does
Post by: welchbloke on February 03, 2009, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
This creeping days thing is why I usually use 86,400 instead of 400,000 (1 day instead of 5 days). Especially for shipyard related tasks. You can't start building a new ship until the previous one completes. And frequently you would end up with less than a day needed, but need to wait 5 days to complete, also forcing a delay in the start of the next ship...I hadn't really noticed the game setting for construction cycle but now that I know I think I might set it to 86 400 as well.
Minor if it doesn't bother ya, and configurable if it does
Post by: sloanjh on February 03, 2009, 10:10:20 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Randy"This creeping days thing is why I usually use 86,400 instead of 400,000 (1 day instead of 5 days). Especially for shipyard related tasks. You can't start building a new ship until the previous one completes. And frequently you would end up with less than a day needed, but need to wait 5 days to complete, also forcing a delay in the start of the next ship...I hadn't really noticed the game setting for construction cycle but now that I know I think I might set it to 86 400 as well.
Minor if it doesn't bother ya, and configurable if it does
I would recommend something a little less, e.g. 86000. If you set it to be exactly the span of an update cycle (i.e. "1 day") then you're going to be sensitive to whether Steve used ">" or ">=" in the code (i.e. there's a chance you could actually update every two days - see the "interrupt" scenario above).
One other thing I just remembered - the way that the uncertainty of the exact length of an update cycle (i.e. somewhere between 5 and 6 days due to interrupts if you're doing 1-day updates) is most tricky is when you try to gauge the burn rate of minerals; a 6 day cycle will make the deltas 20% bigger than a 5 day cycle.
John
Post by: welchbloke on February 04, 2009, 01:53:55 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I hadn't thought the implications of the 86400 setting through; I shall go with a lower number thanks for pointing out my fuzzy thinking.
I would recommend something a little less, e.g. 86000. If you set it to be exactly the span of an update cycle (i.e. "1 day") then you're going to be sensitive to whether Steve used ">" or ">=" in the code (i.e. there's a chance you could actually update every two days - see the "interrupt" scenario above).
One other thing I just remembered - the way that the uncertainty of the exact length of an update cycle (i.e. somewhere between 5 and 6 days due to interrupts if you're doing 1-day updates) is most tricky is when you try to gauge the burn rate of minerals; a 6 day cycle will make the deltas 20% bigger than a 5 day cycle.
John
Post by: jfelten on February 05, 2009, 06:08:25 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "jfelten"Thanks. And now that I know to look for it, I found the "View Tech" button that opens a window to let you do that. I marked those "nameless" engines as obsolete and now it doesn't pester me with 3 errors every time I open the class design window. I think the best "fix" would be to make the input field smaller so the user couldn't enter name that is too long, although it wouldn't hurt to truncate it to the maximum length of the field as well just in case.I've seen this one too and I still haven't figured out the problem. I don't think its related to the engines you mentioned. I think Aurora is listing components for PDCs rather than ships but I am not sure yet why it occasionally does that.
Before I did that, I had a very weird thing happen when I restarted Aurora. When I first opened the Class Design window I received no errors but the Class Design window showed no Engines whatsoever. Apparently those "blank engines" caused it to ignore all engines when I restarted it. Fortunately marking those 3 "blank engines" as obsolete has worked around that as I restarted Aurora after marking them as obsolete and I do see engines now.
Steve
This has happened again. I tried to look for clues that might help track down the bug. I didn't see much that looked useful but here is what I saw.:
<Ctrl>F7 Technology Report
Select Engines
Have 3 blank ones with this error 3 times:
---------------------------
Error in PopulateEngines
---------------------------
Error 94 was generated by Aurora
Invalid use of Null
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------
This was after researching new engines
Magneto-plasma Drive E6 (Pwr 80, Fuel 0.6)
and
Magneto-plasma Drive (Pwr +15% 92, Eff -30%, Fuel 0.6)
Those were there O.K. so I don't know if they caused the 3 blank ones or if those happened earlier. I don't know when the last time I opened Engines in the Technology Report window so they could have been there quite some time.
See graphic.
Post by: jfelten on February 05, 2009, 06:22:40 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
In the Ships screen (F6) you should be able to transfer the team using the cargo/ground units tab.
Thanks. That worked but is there any way to disband a team? That team was formed when the pre-TN race was very "young" so only has a rate of 69 which isn't very good and they have much better teams now.
Post by: Father Tim on February 05, 2009, 06:26:24 AM
Post by: jfelten on February 05, 2009, 06:29:48 AM
"Cybernetic team has recovered on Pompeii-A II"
Since there was already a variety of installations there, I have no idea what the blank one became or even if it created anything new.
Also, while trying to get to that text, I ran in to another problem. I used the "Text File" button to create a new SMEventLog.txt file, and after 28 years of game time, the event log seemed to have become confused. Note the 15 day jump in dates here despite my using the "5 Days" button every time.:
9th May 2038 22:27:01,Romulan,Romulus,Contact Re-established with Hrothgar #1029 - Hrothgar (Romulus Aliens #663), TCS 100 T280
(Existing) (TP: Hrothgar) (Existing)
24th May 2038 22:27:01,Romulan,Romulus,Contact Re-established with Hrothgar #1055 - Hrothgar (Romulus Aliens #663), TCS 100 T280 (Existing) (TP: Hrothgar) (Existing)
And the text log completely stopped after about 28 years. None of the new events were in the log. The file was only 6,375 KB so wasn't huge. I used whatever the button is to delete everything prior to the last year. That seemed to work O.K. But there appears to be some some sort of limit after which point it becomes confused and then stops logging. The actual event window itself was still showing events of course. Only when saving to a text file did I notice these problems.
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:39:42 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
This has happened again. I tried to look for clues that might help track down the bug. I didn't see much that looked useful but here is what I saw.:The only way I can think of for this problem to occur is if you create research projects without a name in the Ctrl-F6 Create Project window. Could that have happened in this case? I have added some code to the Create Project window so that you will get a warning and no project will be created if the name field is blank.
<Ctrl>F7 Technology Report
Select Engines
Have 3 blank ones with this error 3 times:
---------------------------
Error in PopulateEngines
---------------------------
Error 94 was generated by Aurora
Invalid use of Null
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:42:08 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
The reason it is set for 5 days is because the construction cycle takes a lot longer than a normal increment. If you set it for one day, then that much longer increment will happen every 24 hours. If that doesn't bother you, then setting for one day should be fine.Quote from: "Randy"This creeping days thing is why I usually use 86,400 instead of 400,000 (1 day instead of 5 days). Especially for shipyard related tasks. You can't start building a new ship until the previous one completes. And frequently you would end up with less than a day needed, but need to wait 5 days to complete, also forcing a delay in the start of the next ship...I hadn't really noticed the game setting for construction cycle but now that I know I think I might set it to 86 400 as well.
Minor if it doesn't bother ya, and configurable if it does
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Is there any way to abort a refit?Yes, just click the Delete Task button on the Shipyard Tasks tab.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Civilian ships will go on sale when they cannot find anything to do. For freighters and colony ships this may happen when you have no eligible colonies for colonist or infrastructure delivery. For geosurvey ships it will happen when there are no more system bodies to survey. When new colonies became available or you build a jump gate to create access to one, they will be withdrawn from sale and begin operations again.Quote from: "welchbloke"I've just had a civilian non-jumpp capable survey ship suddenly come up for sale in a new system. Two new systems have been created and I have not built my first jump tender yet. One of the systems showing on the Galactic Map is not connected to any JP in my home system (the only system my race was aware of until this glitch). Any ideas what caused it? I'd just run a 5 day step after starting running the game for the first time today.
I've not seen that but I had something odd happen recently with civilian freighters. Early on in my test game a couple civ freighters came up for sale in an adjacent system. They were not jump capable and at that time the adjacent system was accessible via a 1-way jump gate. I'm guessing they wandered through, couldn't get back, so then came up for sale. For the next ~25 years of game time not a single civilian ship came up for sale. Then suddenly there was a civilian ship fire sale. I think about 20 came up for sale within a 1-2 month time frame. All in the home system so they were not "trapped". Since MCr are a lot easier to come by IME than minerals I started scarfing them all up. But after buying more than a dozen I got more choosy and only bought the cheaper ones since the price seemed to vary by a factor of about 2. I have no idea what triggered this civilian fire sale. It came out of the blue and then soon stopped. Most of them I have to refit so they'll still cost me most of the cost of a new freighter (upgrading engines which are the biggest cost of a freighter) but I save a few minerals at the expense of a lot of MCr. I'm not 100% certain it is a good deal. Has anyone ran the numbers to check whether it is more economical to scrap and rebuild rather than refit in such a situation? When refitting do I get any credit for the old engines that are being replaced?
I have yet to notice a civilian geo survey ship actually do anything useful. I see them moving around a lot but I've never seen one survey anything. Perhaps I just missed it but they seem totally useless as is.
While working with NPRs I found a bug in the code that checks out routes though multiple systems, which means that some systems are never checked. Its fixed for v4.0 but it will occasionally affect civilian ships in v3.2
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
The civilian spaceport in a dead-end system built a (non-jump-capable) geo survey vessel which, having nothing to survey, moved through the jump gate into the next system. Since this system is also fully geologically surveyed, it then turns around and goes back. This ship spends all its time going back and forth through the same jump gate rather than continuing across this second system to the next jump gate 168 million km away.Yes, I have come across this bug in my own game. It's fixed for v4.0 and civilian (and NPR) geosurvey ships are now acting more rationally
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: "Hagar"
A minor display bug: I had a cybernetic team restore a Mass Driver on Mars. The event window text just says "... Cybernetic Team has restored an abandoned on Mars". The text "Mass Driver" is missing.Fixed for v4.0
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
JFelton and I just found a bug in the missile design screen. You can't make a missile with any em sensors. No matter how much space you allocate or your em sensor rating the actual em sensor rating for the missile/buoy stays at 0.Fixed for v4.0
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
I found I can build ships and add slipways/capacity to the same shipyard at the same time. Is that a bug or should it be allowed?No, that's allowed. However, once you start retooling a shipyard, you can't start building new ships of the class for which it is currently tooled.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
Something else I don't know if it is a bug or just the way things work. I keep getting scan reports of my race's civilian ships with some really weird numbers such as speed capabilities of 42 Km/sec. The number is all over the place but is often ludicrously low. In any event it should only report the speed scan if it is higher than the best known speed for that class.The speed reported for a contact, be it a civilian ship or an alien ship, is based on how far a ship moved during the last increment. So if the increment is 5 seconds and the ship moved 10,000 km. the speed will be reported as 2000 km/s. Sometimes, a freighter or colony ship will spend most of an increment loading or unloading or may appear through a jump point close to the end of an increment. In that case, the distance traveled during that increment will be relatively small and therefore the average speed reported will be low. If you observe it moving for the whole increment, you will get an accurate rating. Only higher speeds than previously seen are reported, so if you see a very low speed it is likely for a class of contact for which you have no previous speed information.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 02:03:24 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
On the terraforming front, two thoughts:I do need to get around to moveable terraforming installations at some point. Now that research labs can be moved in pieces and (in v4.0) shipyards can be towed to other planets, it is something of an abberation that terraforming installations can't be moved. As they are larger than regular factories though, how about requiring a double-size freighter (10 cargo holds) to move one?
1. It appears that Terraforming Modules can be built into PDCs. This means they can be pre-fab'd and sent to another planet for assembly (by Engineering Divisions if necessary). This makes them better than actual terraforming ships in some cases (the primary being no maintenance required, secondarily the lack of shipyard time/space - and possibly skipping shipyards entirely), though they're immobile once assembled.
2. Terraforming Modules cost 400 to build (200 duranium, 200 boronide), whereas an actual Terraforming Installation costs 600 (again, half duranium & half boronide). Adding a Bridge & Crew Qurters to the PDC version means an 'armoured TI' costs ony 450ish instead of 600 for the civilian version. Thus, once Terraforming Modules are reasearched the standard TI is obsolete.
Okay, so maybe this isn't a bug. Maybe 'Terraforming Modules' should be considered a newer, more advanced system that rightfully make their predecessor obsolete. I'm okay with that, as long as the tech system description mentions it. TMs cost two-thirds as much and requir no workers - that's quite an improvement.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 10, 2009, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I've been using 86000 for a couple of game years now and I have no issues with the time taken for each increment.Quote from: "welchbloke"The reason it is set for 5 days is because the construction cycle takes a lot longer than a normal increment. If you set it for one day, then that much longer increment will happen every 24 hours. If that doesn't bother you, then setting for one day should be fine.Quote from: "Randy"This creeping days thing is why I usually use 86,400 instead of 400,000 (1 day instead of 5 days). Especially for shipyard related tasks. You can't start building a new ship until the previous one completes. And frequently you would end up with less than a day needed, but need to wait 5 days to complete, also forcing a delay in the start of the next ship...I hadn't really noticed the game setting for construction cycle but now that I know I think I might set it to 86 400 as well.
Minor if it doesn't bother ya, and configurable if it does
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 10, 2009, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
This seems reasonable to me, but it still leaves the question of what is the advantage of a TI over a TM?Quote from: "Father Tim"On the terraforming front, two thoughts:I do need to get around to moveable terraforming installations at some point. Now that research labs can be moved in pieces and (in v4.0) shipyards can be towed to other planets, it is something of an abberation that terraforming installations can't be moved. As they are larger than regular factories though, how about requiring a double-size freighter (10 cargo holds) to move one?
1. It appears that Terraforming Modules can be built into PDCs. This means they can be pre-fab'd and sent to another planet for assembly (by Engineering Divisions if necessary). This makes them better than actual terraforming ships in some cases (the primary being no maintenance required, secondarily the lack of shipyard time/space - and possibly skipping shipyards entirely), though they're immobile once assembled.
2. Terraforming Modules cost 400 to build (200 duranium, 200 boronide), whereas an actual Terraforming Installation costs 600 (again, half duranium & half boronide). Adding a Bridge & Crew Qurters to the PDC version means an 'armoured TI' costs ony 450ish instead of 600 for the civilian version. Thus, once Terraforming Modules are reasearched the standard TI is obsolete.
Okay, so maybe this isn't a bug. Maybe 'Terraforming Modules' should be considered a newer, more advanced system that rightfully make their predecessor obsolete. I'm okay with that, as long as the tech system description mentions it. TMs cost two-thirds as much and requir no workers - that's quite an improvement.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on February 10, 2009, 02:29:37 PM
Post by: Erik L on February 10, 2009, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Father Tim"On the terraforming front, two thoughts:I do need to get around to moveable terraforming installations at some point. Now that research labs can be moved in pieces and (in v4.0) shipyards can be towed to other planets, it is something of an abberation that terraforming installations can't be moved. As they are larger than regular factories though, how about requiring a double-size freighter (10 cargo holds) to move one?
1. It appears that Terraforming Modules can be built into PDCs. This means they can be pre-fab'd and sent to another planet for assembly (by Engineering Divisions if necessary). This makes them better than actual terraforming ships in some cases (the primary being no maintenance required, secondarily the lack of shipyard time/space - and possibly skipping shipyards entirely), though they're immobile once assembled.
2. Terraforming Modules cost 400 to build (200 duranium, 200 boronide), whereas an actual Terraforming Installation costs 600 (again, half duranium & half boronide). Adding a Bridge & Crew Qurters to the PDC version means an 'armoured TI' costs ony 450ish instead of 600 for the civilian version. Thus, once Terraforming Modules are reasearched the standard TI is obsolete.
Okay, so maybe this isn't a bug. Maybe 'Terraforming Modules' should be considered a newer, more advanced system that rightfully make their predecessor obsolete. I'm okay with that, as long as the tech system description mentions it. TMs cost two-thirds as much and requir no workers - that's quite an improvement.
Steve
Or break them into components like research labs.
Post by: welchbloke on February 10, 2009, 02:44:12 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I've encountered what appears to be a display bug. In one of my systems there is a JP with a Jump Gate, this JG appears in the task groups window with a [JG] after it; however, on the system map there is no square around the JP. For aother systems with gated JPs the square does appear, it is just this one system. Any ideas?Ignore this, a precursor JG has suddenly appeared on the map
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 10:44:54 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
This seems reasonable to me, but it still leaves the question of what is the advantage of a TI over a TM?Assuming that you can move TIs, the three options have the following advantages/disadvantages
Terraforming Installation
A: No maintenance required. Can be moved
D: Requires manpower
TM on a ship
A: Flexibility in terms of location. No manpower required
D: Requires maintenance and overhauls, plus the supporting systems on the ship.
TM on a PDC
A: Cheapest way to build them. No manpower required. No maintenance required.
D: Can't be moved once built
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on February 10, 2009, 11:22:12 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Or break them into components like research labs.I have decided go with this suggestions. In v4.0 terraforming installations can be moved in the same way as research labs. As they are smaller they only have five components, compared to twenty for research labs.
Steve
Post by: jfelten on February 13, 2009, 05:24:26 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "jfelten"This has happened again. I tried to look for clues that might help track down the bug. I didn't see much that looked useful but here is what I saw.:The only way I can think of for this problem to occur is if you create research projects without a name in the Ctrl-F6 Create Project window. Could that have happened in this case? I have added some code to the Create Project window so that you will get a warning and no project will be created if the name field is blank.
<Ctrl>F7 Technology Report
Select Engines
Have 3 blank ones with this error 3 times:
---------------------------
Error in PopulateEngines
---------------------------
Error 94 was generated by Aurora
Invalid use of Null
Please report to stevewalmsley@btinternet.com
---------------------------
Steve
TTBOMK that did not happen. It always starts with a default name so I would have had to have blanked that out but not entered one which I did not do, at least not willingly. But putting a trap in for blank names is a good idea.
I do like to append descriptive tags such as "(Pwr=80, Str=12, Range 1.2Gm)". Perhaps some "special character" is causing something to choke, although I use similar successfully so that seems unlikely to be the cause as well. I also thought perhaps I was entering names that were too long but that also didn't seem to be the case when I tried to reproduce the problem.
Post by: jfelten on February 13, 2009, 05:30:35 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Or break them into components like research labs.I have decided go with this suggestions. In v4.0 terraforming installations can be moved in the same way as research labs. As they are smaller they only have five components, compared to twenty for research labs.
Steve
I like that. It would have been unnecessary administrivia to build special freighters to move that one installation.
Post by: waresky on February 15, 2009, 10:38:16 AM
am in 2077 (72 years play) and from 12 turns (5-days each) ,with 8 Aliens race around, coming this bug..not everytime..but sometimes..:
"Error in CheckforTechOffer
Error 3420 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Object not valid or not..."
am click 6-7 time and then game goes ok...r third times who return this bug..when my race play solo this bug never come...(so before 20years ago ca.)
Post by: backstab on February 15, 2009, 02:39:57 PM
Quote from: "waresky"
Cya SteveI'm getting this error also but early in the game
am in 2077 (72 years play) and from 12 turns (5-days each) ,with 8 Aliens race around, coming this bug..not everytime..but sometimes..:
"Error in CheckforTechOffer
Error 3420 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Object not valid or not..."
am click 6-7 time and then game goes ok...r third times who return this bug..when my race play solo this bug never come...(so before 20years ago ca.)
Post by: waresky on February 18, 2009, 01:33:55 PM
My Sharnhost launch salvo,prob enemy use PD and sensors..hard to check,too many thinkg made in battle..
"Error in GetContacttrackbonus
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.fields
Cant found element in this "insieme" (on italians)"
EDIT ive understand WHEN come this bug message:when enemy missile enter into 12cm railgun PD area...hope r useful this info.
Post by: welchbloke on February 21, 2009, 05:15:06 AM
Both Engineering spaces and Engineering spaces-small seem to only require 0.5HS. The design window shows Engineering spaces as 1HS but when I was designing my FACs recently it appeared that both system only occupied 0.5 HS. Have I missed something?
Post by: waresky on February 21, 2009, 01:14:32 PM
Key is not unique in collection
............."
this window mess come after am give command: one Squadroon "Deploy Escort at Waypoint" and another Squadroon (same position waypoint 3) "Divide fleet in single ship"..
hmm..ive understand what r the trouble.
Too difficult to explain,but ive found an strangely.ive lost a 2nd ES leader Ship..2 days ago,so ive renamed whole task group after the vanguished of them..BUT..now the Leader ship r returned on map..so ive 2 TG with SAME name.
ive renamd second and bug not come.
hope u understand.
..all good so.
Post by: waresky on February 23, 2009, 10:44:36 AM
Another strange,first time,bug,on F4 officer,open window:
"Error in grdCommanders_SelChange
Subscript out of range"
ive 1548 Leutnant,516 Commander,171 Commodore,57 rear Admiral,28 Squad Admiral,14 Fleet Admiral,3 Great Admiral,1 Prince Of Sector
actually,
Bug come when am click up the leutnant list.
Post by: Beersatron on March 04, 2009, 06:38:57 PM
Error 3201 was generated by DAO.Recordset
You cannot add or change a records because a related record is required in the table 'Race'
It just started happening, I noticed that the progress on the production of a ship had stopped even though I had plenty of resources so thought maybe that was the issue so I just deleted the job but no joy.
I am still in Sol, only have a few ships running about and Earth just went over a billion pop. Have recently started mining outpost on Oberon and a small colony on Venus. No grav surveys have been done, i'm just playing away in my little corner of the galaxy getting used to the steep learning curve.
Post by: James Patten on March 05, 2009, 09:05:09 AM
Sometimes a ship name will come up with two names actually attached to it. Looks like it was entered in the data with a line feed but not a carriage return (or maybe the other way around). In displays it resembles Name||Name in name listings, but you don't notice it in the shipyard window because the second name is on another line. It also causes problems in the log file.
An Example is under Robert Jordan names: Amrylin Seat||Amys.
Post by: Beersatron on March 06, 2009, 10:06:16 PM
I'm a programmer myself, and have to debug old code nearly everyday as well as create new code and take a certain pride in being able to fix things. This is annoying me because I can not fix it myself, I know it shouldn't annoy me since I can not even see the code behind it and it is Steve's love child.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 07, 2009, 07:59:26 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
I have managed to get access to the database and had a quick look at the tables to try and debug why my error is appearing, but alas I do not notice any entries with an invalid Race ID. I did not look at everything single table though, just at the ones that I thought were the likely culprits.
I'm a programmer myself, and have to debug old code nearly everyday as well as create new code and take a certain pride in being able to fix things. This is annoying me because I can not fix it myself, I know it shouldn't annoy me since I can not even see the code behind it and it is Steve's love child.
IIRC, that error is saying that the race id (number) was not present in the table being queried. The message should tell you which table was the object of the query but not the source. Pull up the relations and back track from table listed in the error and you should find the bad reference. Hope that helps.
Post by: Kurt on March 07, 2009, 08:18:24 AM
I am having a problem with the 6 Powers Campaign. Basically, if I try to open the Diplomacy window when any of my human races is the active race, I get the following error message, followed by a crash to desktop:
"No record of Race in cboRace_Click"
When I click on "Okay" for that error box, I get:
"Runtime error '13': Type mismatch"
and Aurora crashes. Based on the errors above, I think that what is happening is that there is a remnant record left in some table that isn't matching up. I originally created a new "empire" on Earth to represent the North African's during the African civil war. When I transferred the North African population to the Reich, I ultimately went to the "View Race Details" tab and deleted the North African empire because it had no populations. I suspect that when I try to open the Diplomacy window, Aurora tries to populate the window with data about every race that race has detected, and a record remains pointing to the North Africans, who no longer exist.
I have trolled through the database, looking for a likely culprit, but cannot find it. I've deleted a lot of remnant records pointing to old, no longer existing races, but this doesn't seem to have changed anything. Can you tell me what is likely going wrong here? I can use the Diplomacy window for the non-human races, no problem, but when I try to open it for any of my human races it crashes Aurora.
Kurt
Post by: waresky on March 07, 2009, 10:54:36 AM
Ive try to "absorb" the conquerer race on my Empire (transfer button) then,when all done,ive try to cancel race..
Now ive in Diplo same Bug above.
Amen.
Another strangety: EVERY campaign am pass 70years game..am run itno some stupid bug.
1 is for Update allSensors
2 is in F4,Officers..ive been explain some of this above.
Ive noted occur AFTER (every) 70years pass..
Posible r some bug into "dating"?
(am huge unknow on software program so pls take my apologies)
Post by: Beersatron on March 07, 2009, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Quote from: "Beersatron"I have managed to get access to the database and had a quick look at the tables to try and debug why my error is appearing, but alas I do not notice any entries with an invalid Race ID. I did not look at everything single table though, just at the ones that I thought were the likely culprits.
I'm a programmer myself, and have to debug old code nearly everyday as well as create new code and take a certain pride in being able to fix things. This is annoying me because I can not fix it myself, I know it shouldn't annoy me since I can not even see the code behind it and it is Steve's love child.
IIRC, that error is saying that the race id (number) was not present in the table being queried. The message should tell you which table was the object of the query but not the source. Pull up the relations and back track from table listed in the error and you should find the bad reference. Hope that helps.
I brought up the Race table relationships and look through every single one, but there was no errornous RaceID.
There are two Races in my game at the moment, mine (651) and another one that is flagged as NPR and Precursor (652). All RaceID references in the related tables have either one of these IDs.
I think the error is around the ship part of the database since my shipyards do not progress when a new ship is added to the construction task. Just remembered also that civilian ships just appeared around the time the error started, so maybe that is related.
*EDIT*
went through the tables again and removed what appears to be some really old references from Steve's previous games and now everything appears to be working fine!
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:18:03 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -I am not sure what is happening here. I think you might be on the right lines regarding the deleted African race so one option could be to delete any AlienRace record relating to that race. See if there is a record in the AlienRace table that doesn't have a matching record in the Race table.
I am having a problem with the 6 Powers Campaign. Basically, if I try to open the Diplomacy window when any of my human races is the active race, I get the following error message, followed by a crash to desktop:
"No record of Race in cboRace_Click"
When I click on "Okay" for that error box, I get:
"Runtime error '13': Type mismatch"
and Aurora crashes. Based on the errors above, I think that what is happening is that there is a remnant record left in some table that isn't matching up. I originally created a new "empire" on Earth to represent the North African's during the African civil war. When I transferred the North African population to the Reich, I ultimately went to the "View Race Details" tab and deleted the North African empire because it had no populations. I suspect that when I try to open the Diplomacy window, Aurora tries to populate the window with data about every race that race has detected, and a record remains pointing to the North Africans, who no longer exist.
I have trolled through the database, looking for a likely culprit, but cannot find it. I've deleted a lot of remnant records pointing to old, no longer existing races, but this doesn't seem to have changed anything. Can you tell me what is likely going wrong here? I can use the Diplomacy window for the non-human races, no problem, but when I try to open it for any of my human races it crashes Aurora.
Kurt
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:19:12 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
Steve,ive been made same error on Kurt.I think there is a problem with the capacity of one of the variables after you get past seventy years. It is fixed for v4.0
Ive try to "absorb" the conquerer race on my Empire (transfer button) then,when all done,ive try to cancel race..
Now ive in Diplo same Bug above.
Amen.
Another strangety: EVERY campaign am pass 70years game..am run itno some stupid bug.
1 is for Update allSensors
2 is in F4,Officers..ive been explain some of this above.
Ive noted occur AFTER (every) 70years pass..
Posible r some bug into "dating"?
(am huge unknow on software program so pls take my apologies)
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:21:20 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
"Error 35602 was generated by NodesThe nodes bug is because the Microsoft TreeView control uses strings as IDs. If you have two fleets with the same name you will get this bug. I need to find a way to add a unique ID to the fleet names within that control.
Key is not unique in collection
............."
this window mess come after am give command: one Squadroon "Deploy Escort at Waypoint" and another Squadroon (same position waypoint 3) "Divide fleet in single ship"..
hmm..ive understand what r the trouble.
Too difficult to explain,but ive found an strangely.ive lost a 2nd ES leader Ship..2 days ago,so ive renamed whole task group after the vanguished of them..BUT..now the Leader ship r returned on map..so ive 2 TG with SAME name.
ive renamd second and bug not come.
hope u understand.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:28:12 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I checked and any associated AlienRace records don't get deleted when a race is deleted (they do get deleted for v4.0). You will also get the "No record of Race in cboRace_Click" popup if you open the diplomacy window and there is an AlienRace record matching a previously deleted race. I assume the crash is related to that somehow but I haven't tracked that one down yet and it may already be fixed.Quote from: "Kurt"Steve -I am not sure what is happening here. I think you might be on the right lines regarding the deleted African race so one option could be to delete any AlienRace record relating to that race. See if there is a record in the AlienRace table that doesn't have a matching record in the Race table.
I am having a problem with the 6 Powers Campaign. Basically, if I try to open the Diplomacy window when any of my human races is the active race, I get the following error message, followed by a crash to desktop:
"No record of Race in cboRace_Click"
When I click on "Okay" for that error box, I get:
"Runtime error '13': Type mismatch"
and Aurora crashes. Based on the errors above, I think that what is happening is that there is a remnant record left in some table that isn't matching up. I originally created a new "empire" on Earth to represent the North African's during the African civil war. When I transferred the North African population to the Reich, I ultimately went to the "View Race Details" tab and deleted the North African empire because it had no populations. I suspect that when I try to open the Diplomacy window, Aurora tries to populate the window with data about every race that race has detected, and a record remains pointing to the North Africans, who no longer exist.
I have trolled through the database, looking for a likely culprit, but cannot find it. I've deleted a lot of remnant records pointing to old, no longer existing races, but this doesn't seem to have changed anything. Can you tell me what is likely going wrong here? I can use the Diplomacy window for the non-human races, no problem, but when I try to open it for any of my human races it crashes Aurora.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:29:59 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
I am getting the following:Not sure what is causing this. If you are still having the problem you could zip up your database and send it to me so I can take a look. Its the Stevefire.mdb file.
Error 3201 was generated by DAO.Recordset
You cannot add or change a records because a related record is required in the table 'Race'
It just started happening, I noticed that the progress on the production of a ship had stopped even though I had plenty of resources so thought maybe that was the issue so I just deleted the job but no joy.
I am still in Sol, only have a few ships running about and Earth just went over a billion pop. Have recently started mining outpost on Oberon and a small colony on Venus. No grav surveys have been done, i'm just playing away in my little corner of the galaxy getting used to the steep learning curve.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 12, 2009, 06:34:00 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
went through the tables again and removed what appears to be some really old references from Steve's previous games and now everything appears to be working fine!Glad to hear you got it fixed!
I am a little lazy sometimes with my cascade deletes (or tidying up associated tables when that isn't an option) when I am adding new functionality and new tables so its probably related to that. I really need to do a thorough review of every table in the database. I also should release a clean database but the existing game usually helps new players play around without having to setup a game from scratch.
Steve
Post by: Kurt on March 12, 2009, 08:22:37 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Kurt"Steve -I am not sure what is happening here. I think you might be on the right lines regarding the deleted African race so one option could be to delete any AlienRace record relating to that race. See if there is a record in the AlienRace table that doesn't have a matching record in the Race table.
I am having a problem with the 6 Powers Campaign. Basically, if I try to open the Diplomacy window when any of my human races is the active race, I get the following error message, followed by a crash to desktop:
"No record of Race in cboRace_Click"
When I click on "Okay" for that error box, I get:
"Runtime error '13': Type mismatch"
and Aurora crashes. Based on the errors above, I think that what is happening is that there is a remnant record left in some table that isn't matching up. I originally created a new "empire" on Earth to represent the North African's during the African civil war. When I transferred the North African population to the Reich, I ultimately went to the "View Race Details" tab and deleted the North African empire because it had no populations. I suspect that when I try to open the Diplomacy window, Aurora tries to populate the window with data about every race that race has detected, and a record remains pointing to the North Africans, who no longer exist.
I have trolled through the database, looking for a likely culprit, but cannot find it. I've deleted a lot of remnant records pointing to old, no longer existing races, but this doesn't seem to have changed anything. Can you tell me what is likely going wrong here? I can use the Diplomacy window for the non-human races, no problem, but when I try to open it for any of my human races it crashes Aurora.
Kurt
Steve
Thanks Steve - that's done it. I hadn't checked the AlienRace table, and once I did delete all records relating to the North Africans the diplomacy window worked fine.
Kurt
Post by: ocie on March 16, 2009, 03:56:24 PM
Post by: welchbloke on March 20, 2009, 08:28:22 AM
Post by: SteveAlt on March 23, 2009, 01:45:25 PM
Quote from: "ocie"
I am getting a Error in Updateallsensors , "error 6 overflow" whenever i advance time in my current game. Any suggestions?Are you more than 70 years into the game? There is a bug that is causing a general problem at that point.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on March 23, 2009, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
I'm getting 2 identical errors. The error is in SetupSensorChecks and is 'Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset. Index or Primary key cannot contain a Null value'. I how I caused it, I tried to build fighters on 2 different planets without specifying a destination fleet for the construction. Any idea how I can fix it?I vaguely remember a bug in this area. If Aurora has created a destination fleet for the fighters because you hadn't specified one, transfer the fighters out of it and delete that fleet. See if that helps.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on March 23, 2009, 02:17:18 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I guessed a destination fleet had been automatically created but they aren't showing up on the TG window so I can't delete themQuote from: "welchbloke"I'm getting 2 identical errors. The error is in SetupSensorChecks and is 'Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset. Index or Primary key cannot contain a Null value'. I how I caused it, I tried to build fighters on 2 different planets without specifying a destination fleet for the construction. Any idea how I can fix it?I vaguely remember a bug in this area. If Aurora has created a destination fleet for the fighters because you hadn't specified one, transfer the fighters out of it and delete that fleet. See if that helps.
Steve
Post by: Kurt on March 23, 2009, 07:47:00 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"I guessed a destination fleet had been automatically created but they aren't showing up on the TG window so I can't delete themQuote from: "welchbloke"I'm getting 2 identical errors. The error is in SetupSensorChecks and is 'Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset. Index or Primary key cannot contain a Null value'. I how I caused it, I tried to build fighters on 2 different planets without specifying a destination fleet for the construction. Any idea how I can fix it?I vaguely remember a bug in this area. If Aurora has created a destination fleet for the fighters because you hadn't specified one, transfer the fighters out of it and delete that fleet. See if that helps.
Steve
I had this same problem, as I failed to set a destination fleet for the new Reich fighters built on Venus. What I think happened is that Aurora created a fleet, but something was missing and Aurora essentially treated it as if it were a civilian fleet, which I can't see or effect. I had to crack the database and put in the proper entries before I could see it and manipulate the ships, as they were missing entries as well.
Kurt
Post by: welchbloke on March 23, 2009, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
So without a database password I'm at an impasse.Quote from: "welchbloke"Quote from: "SteveAlt"I vaguely remember a bug in this area. If Aurora has created a destination fleet for the fighters because you hadn't specified one, transfer the fighters out of it and delete that fleet. See if that helps.I guessed a destination fleet had been automatically created but they aren't showing up on the TG window so I can't delete them
Steve
I had this same problem, as I failed to set a destination fleet for the new Reich fighters built on Venus. What I think happened is that Aurora created a fleet, but something was missing and Aurora essentially treated it as if it were a civilian fleet, which I can't see or effect. I had to crack the database and put in the proper entries before I could see it and manipulate the ships, as they were missing entries as well.
Kurt
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 24, 2009, 09:46:46 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
So without a database password I'm at an impasse.
Can you see them in the figher assignments screen(F7)? If so try assigning them to a random ship. It'll probably throw an error but worth a try.
Post by: welchbloke on March 24, 2009, 11:39:46 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Charlie, I've just assigned them to sqns and then recoveredd them and launched them to fighters in their locations. Hey presto, the fighters are visible and the error has gone away. Thank you very muchQuote from: "welchbloke"So without a database password I'm at an impasse.
Can you see them in the figher assignments screen(F7)? If so try assigning them to a random ship. It'll probably throw an error but worth a try.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 24, 2009, 12:07:53 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Charlie, I've just assigned them to sqns and then recoveredd them and launched them to fighters in their locations. Hey presto, the fighters are visible and the error has gone away. Thank you very muchQuote from: "welchbloke"So without a database password I'm at an impasse.
Can you see them in the figher assignments screen(F7)? If so try assigning them to a random ship. It'll probably throw an error but worth a try.
Glad I could help.
Post by: Kurt on April 06, 2009, 02:32:46 PM
This just popped up in the 6P campaign. I have a first contact situation. Both races have detected the other with active sensors, and I've gone to the "Tactical Intelligence" screen, verified that both races see each other, which they do, and renamed the detected race appropriately. However, when I go to the "Diplomacy" screen for the relatively new alien race (as opposed to the human government involved), Aurora crashes to the desktop with the error message "Runtime Error '6': Overflow". I can get into the diplomacy screen with the other human race, and they see the alien race there fine, but every time I attempt to open the diplomacy screen from the perspective of the alien race I get the same crash.
I cracked the DB and trolled around looking for an obvious error, but didn't find anything. I'm hoping that you can point me in the right direction.
Kurt