v1.13.0 Bugs Thread

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Orbital Population Capacity is currently set to use Int32 data type, which has a maximum value of 2,147,483,647.   This means you can have a maximum orbital population capacity of 2,147,483,647 people on your orbital stations before it overflows.   I suggest changing it to match whatever the planet uses, whether it's WAD or not.   "Should" be easy, though I don't know what the code looks like.   

I'm not going to post the error codes, because I don't feel like recreating the problem.   Something something Int32.   Something something divide by zero.   Pretty sure it's a simple cause.   If you overflow, your population gets set to zero, and that causes the error log to yell at you for having 0 population in the construction phase.   

Kind of a problem for me though, because I'm at capacity for people on Earth, and I need to run my stupidly large shipyards somehow.   Gonna have to tug some of them to Venus I guess.   

How to reproduce:
Build a combination of stations that supports more than 2,147,483,647 people and put them in orbit of a single planet.

OrbitalPopulation is stored as a decimal, so it won't cause an overflow for an Int32 value. Without the the error message code and text I can't track down what is causing the issue, but a divide by zero error is not the same as an overflow error.

[nuclearslurpee]

Its WAI. The program orders the list of potential CMC sites by score and then goes through the list with a 1/3rd chance for each to be selected. Therefore the best option is not always selected and in a system with only a small number of possible sites, none of them may be selected. You are more likely to see CMC appear in a system with more potential options.

Finally confirming this undocumented-but-observed piece of the CMC behavior, thanks Steve!

[skoormit]

CMC not spawning on highest scoring body.

...

Its WAI. The program orders the list of potential CMC sites by score and then goes through the list with a 1/3rd chance for each to be selected. Therefore the best option is not always selected and in a system with only a small number of possible sites, none of them may be selected. You are more likely to see CMC appear in a system with more potential options.

Ah, that's an interesting wrinkle.
It might be worthwhile to add that detail to the post about C# CMC changes.

[alex_brunius]

I noticed an odd thing with SM Add/Edit Installations in the Civilian Economy tab - Economics window. Not sure if it's to be considered a bug or not.

There is a built in check (error input string is not in correct format) forcing you to input a non decimal number when changing numbers of installations. However using normal game mechanics you can easily end up with non decimal numbers here when moving installations in smaller cargo holds that can't move the full installation at once. So what is the purpose of this limitation if the game already supports decimal numbers of installations?

SJW: Fixed for v2.0

[Vandermeer]

Its WAI. The program orders the list of potential CMC sites by score and then goes through the list with a 1/3rd chance for each to be selected. Therefore the best option is not always selected and in a system with only a small number of possible sites, none of them may be selected. You are more likely to see CMC appear in a system with more potential options.

Finally confirming this undocumented-but-observed piece of the CMC behavior, thanks Steve!

I really like that, because such randomness keeps every game fresh. I would like to see this more in the NPR spawn statistics, instead of current gametime based calculation. Or maybe some hybrid between some actual progression metric (because gametime can in some RP scenarios be deceiving), and then a broad gauss curve around that center of random potentialities, so extremely high or low tech encounters are never quite off the table. Just unlikely.

[Vivalas]

Very strange one that stumped me for a while. Having a neutral race can bug out the intel screen and prevent the hostile/neutral ratio boxes from showing up to be checked, if the neutral race is the highest race alphabetically. The reason seems to be that the neutral race displays first on the intel screen when you open it, and the game really doesn't like that...

SJW: I've excluded Neutral races from this window.

[nakorkren]

If you receive Research Points toward a tech from disassembling "found" components higher than your tech level, but you are currently researching the predecessor tech (e.g. got points towards Cap Recharge 5, but currently researching Cap Recharge 4), you don't get the points.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

If you receive Research Points toward a tech from disassembling "found" components higher than your tech level, but you are currently researching the predecessor tech (e.g. got points towards Cap Recharge 5, but currently researching Cap Recharge 4), you don't get the points.

You get the points towards Cap Recharge 4 instead.

[nakorkren]

If you receive Research Points toward a tech from disassembling "found" components higher than your tech level, but you are currently researching the predecessor tech (e.g. got points towards Cap Recharge 5, but currently researching Cap Recharge 4), you don't get the points.

You get the points towards Cap Recharge 4 instead.

I just got another few components and tried it again, paying attention to the points currently going toward Fuel Consumption: 0.5 liters, and while I got events stating I received a bunch of points (450, 600, etc), the Research screen did not reflect any change due to that, even after I tried closing and reopening the Economics screen, advancing time several 5 day periods, etc.

However, if I cancel the research project, THEN disassemble the components, the points are applied correctly. Hence it appears that if a Research project is in queue, the points from disassembly do not get applied.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

If you receive Research Points toward a tech from disassembling "found" components higher than your tech level, but you are currently researching the predecessor tech (e.g. got points towards Cap Recharge 5, but currently researching Cap Recharge 4), you don't get the points.

You get the points towards Cap Recharge 4 instead.

I just got another few components and tried it again, paying attention to the points currently going toward Fuel Consumption: 0.5 liters, and while I got events stating I received a bunch of points (450, 600, etc), the Research screen did not reflect any change due to that, even after I tried closing and reopening the Economics screen, advancing time several 5 day periods, etc.

However, if I cancel the research project, THEN disassemble the components, the points are applied correctly. Hence it appears that if a Research project is in queue, the points from disassembly do not get applied.

I thought I fixed the research queue bug a while ago. Its working fine in my current game. Are you definitely on v1.13?

[Ragnarsson]

If you receive Research Points toward a tech from disassembling "found" components higher than your tech level, but you are currently researching the predecessor tech (e.g. got points towards Cap Recharge 5, but currently researching Cap Recharge 4), you don't get the points.

You get the points towards Cap Recharge 4 instead.

I just got another few components and tried it again, paying attention to the points currently going toward Fuel Consumption: 0.5 liters, and while I got events stating I received a bunch of points (450, 600, etc), the Research screen did not reflect any change due to that, even after I tried closing and reopening the Economics screen, advancing time several 5 day periods, etc.

However, if I cancel the research project, THEN disassemble the components, the points are applied correctly. Hence it appears that if a Research project is in queue, the points from disassembly do not get applied.

I've observed this as well, though in my case I disassembled a Salvage Module 500 while researching that same tech, and the points were not applied. However, in other identical circumstances I've seen it work properly. I'd speculate it requires the tech to be being actively researched but that there's some other factor also required - I'm not sure what that might be.

My similar bug reported here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12522.msg158952#msg158952

Absolutely occurred in version 1.13

[dsedrez]

Wealth bug

I've been running a (relatively) longer campaign and found a ruin and began exploiting it. However I noticed that the wealth didn't seem to reflect the gains from the ruins. It also made me remember that the wealth recovered from scrapped ships and components were strange as well, and that my reported annual wealth gains didn't seem to be fully reflected on my wealth balance. I don't remember ever reading a bug report about it (though I might have missed it). So I started a new game in an unmodded DB to check for it. Mostly default settings (no NPR), added a ruin to Earth, SM-built a Xeno brigade and a number of Construction brigades.

I waited for the ruins to be IDed and then began tracking the total wealth and added wealth per turn, and got this:

2026-01-26   26659 (+828)
2026-01-31   26797 (+137)
2026-03-02   27624 (+828)
2026-04-01   28453 (+828)
2026-05-01   29284 (+832)
2026-05-31   30098 (+814)
2026-06-30   30915 (+817)
2026-07-30   31735 (+820)
2026-08-29   37960 (+6224)   5400 from ruins
2026-09-28   43365 (+5405)    6600 from ruins
2026-10-28   37013 (-6352)

I can make no sense from these numbers after the weird second wealth from ruins event. It's interesting though. I haven't tested scrapping ships/components but I believe there's something similar happening with them (the wealth added in one increment disappears soon after). I have no idea whether this bug affects anything else, but something is off with the annual wealth calculations and the effective wealth evolution (it seems much less than it should).

I've annexed the DB file after the wealth disappeared, and some screenshots.

The function number - N/A
The complete error text - N/A
The window affected - N/A
What you were doing at the time - exploring ruins
Conventional or TN start - TN
Random or Real Stars - Real
Is your decimal separator a comma? - No
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - Easy
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well - No

[nakorkren]

I thought I fixed the research queue bug a while ago. Its working fine in my current game. Are you definitely on v1.13?

Yep, definitely v1.13

[JacenHan]

Wealth bug

[cut for conciseness]

In C# there was a change for the wealth balance to be limited to double annual wealth. It looks like the ruin is allowing you to go over the limit (which is 37836, according to your annual wealth of 18918), but then being corrected on the next tick.

[dsedrez]

In C# there was a change for the wealth balance to be limited to double annual wealth. It looks like the ruin is allowing you to go over the limit (which is 37836, according to your annual wealth of 18918), but then being corrected on the next tick.

Ah that explains it! Thanks JacenHan! Don't know how I missed that earlier.