Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Bugs => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on October 21, 2012, 12:41:11 PM
-
Please post confirmed bugs for v6.10 in this thread. However, please read the guidelines below on reporting bugs before posting. If you had a bug in v6.00 and it still isn't fixed, please report it again in this thread.
Bug Reporting Guidelines (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1930.0.html)
Steve
-
First one off the bat :P
Got a 3061 error in check for missiles "too few parameters. Expected 1" followed by an error 91 "object variable or with block variable not set". Since I haven't designed missiles yet, I'm guessing its an NPR problem
-
Yes I have the same problem.
Also, research points and construction points don't seem to accumulate over time.
-
After updating to 6.10 I get error 3061 followed by error 91 same as the rest.
I have changed my separator to a dot than to a coma than to dot again to make sure. It still happens.
I have played with 6.00 an hour earlier and it seemed to work fine.
-
First one off the bat :P
Got a 3061 error in check for missiles "too few parameters. Expected 1" followed by an error 91 "object variable or with block variable not set". Since I haven't designed missiles yet, I'm guessing its an NPR problem
Fixed it - rather than create a brand new version I have updated the Aurora.exe in the v6.10 patch file. If you have already set up a v6.10 campaign you can download the patch again and only update the Aurora.exe.
Steve
-
I tried an SM game, and got an Error 381 followed by Error 11s when I tried to generate a random system. This happened twice, so it wasn't the specific system generated.
-
Minor one: Conventional start, going to design a conventional engine and the name that appears for the engine is simply "1 EP ", not "1 EP Conventional Engine". Same occurs if you go back to conventional engine tech from a TN start.
Also very minor consistancy issue, in research and on the drop down when designing engines it is "Ion Engine Technology", but "Ion Drive" when naming the designed engine as opposed to "Magneto-plasma Drive Technology" with "Magneto-plasma Drive".
Edit:
Size 50, power x1 engine should be military and are listed as such in the component design screen. However if added to a ship in the class design screen they do not change the class to military, it remains commercial unless another part that would change it to military is added.
Only tested with conventional engine so far.
-
I tried an SM game, and got an Error 381 followed by Error 11s when I tried to generate a random system. This happened twice, so it wasn't the specific system generated.
I got the same problem. I then went into the crusade scenario and had no problem at all in creating new systems. It created them quickly as well. When I tried to create a nebula system it gave me the expected answer of being turned off in a real stars game.
Edit 1. I started a new game using a Sol start, real stars turned off. I then tried to create systems through the F9 screen. Every time I created a system it was given the same name (Ross 154). They all had different system ID numbers. This continued when I tried using the enter/explore button on the jump point tab. It created new systems, but they still had the same name. Both regular systems and nebula systems were created this way.
Brian
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug.
In a new game from a conventional start, and I have not yet started to conduct geosurveys. One of the civilian lines builds a fuel harvester which then heads off to an apparent deposit on unsurveyed Saturn. I was under the impression that minerals on a body were only generated when the body was surveyed, has that now changed? Will it be consuming minerals from a dpeosit that will be revealed when surveyed or is it pulling them out of the ether?
edit:
On the technology report screen, EM Sensors are unable to be renamed. The rename box comes up when selected but it does not save whatever is typed in, it keeps the original name.
-
The Range(km) column of Fuel Report / Fuel Situation has some pretty large (and wrong) values
-
I tried to go with SM race but I can't enter the F9 window (and hence create new systems). It throws some kind of array out of bounds error.
So I tried to work around that and create a Sol system first, but now it gives a new problem.
Error in Launch System Window
Error 713 was generated by Aurora
Class not registered.
You need the following file to be installed on your machine. MSSTDFMT.DLL
This computer was recently formatted, but I ran the Aurora 5.54 installer with the setup and cab file that installs all the DLLs and everything before updating to 6.1.
I did, however, say to keep my own file if it told me I have a newer version.
Edit: Duuuuuh, should learn to read forums. First point holds though.
-
Here is the full bug details. I've done this in 6.00 as well so I assume it is the same bug.
Message:
Error in cboSystems
Error 381 was generated by Aurora
Invalid property array index
Please report... etc.
Followed by:
Error in GetBodySuitability
Error 11 was generated by Aurora
Division by zero
Please report... etc.
After which Aurora crashes.
To reproduce, simply start a new game with SM race. Select SM race as your default and press F9 (possibly generating the Sol system first). It is not the NPRs as I set the starting number to 0 (as well as untick that little box that says generate 1 or more).
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug.
In a new game from a conventional start, and I have not yet started to conduct geosurveys. One of the civilian lines builds a fuel harvester which then heads off to an apparent deposit on unsurveyed Saturn. I was under the impression that minerals on a body were only generated when the body was surveyed, has that now changed? Will it be consuming minerals from a dpeosit that will be revealed when surveyed or is it pulling them out of the ether?
I love this if this is not a bug, That means the corporate have there own survey ships and not sharing the information with the Government.
-
1) Me Too on the F9 system error 381/error 11.
2) I don't know if this is a "bug" or an unforeseen consequence of civilian design..
I generated a new game with a race whose capital is in a level 4 nebula (625 km/s per armor layer).
My civilians are running around, every single ship, at 625 km/s, so I take it they're not adding any additional armor to their designs. I never got them to go outside the nebula (v6.10 showed up), so don't know what their true speed was.
-
Flags only go up to flag0389. jpg, but opening the galactic map in "Crusade" requires flag0391. jpg.
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug.
In a new game from a conventional start, and I have not yet started to conduct geosurveys. One of the civilian lines builds a fuel harvester which then heads off to an apparent deposit on unsurveyed Saturn. I was under the impression that minerals on a body were only generated when the body was surveyed, has that now changed? Will it be consuming minerals from a dpeosit that will be revealed when surveyed or is it pulling them out of the ether?
When a system is created the minerals are allocated. If you create a system without surveying it then click on a planet, better yet, a comet and open up the specify minerals you can see what minerals are present (must be in sm mode, comets because they always have minerals so you are not hunting for one with a mineral on it.)
Brian
-
when you pause a research project the labs are considered inactive and you are spamed this message in the event log.
( ??? the crap out of me as i couldn't figure out how i could have 39 inactive labs as they where all allocated)
-
Error 5 in Use fuel
invalid argument or procedure call
Tractoring shipyards between earth and luna causes this. No fuel is being used to tug the shipyards over. massive orbital habs don't have this problem.
here is the tug in question:
Bayern II class Tug 40000 tons 370 Crew 1454 BP TCS 800 TH 2800 EM 0
3500 km/s Armour 1-104 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control 1 PPV 0
Maintenance Capacity 23 MSP
Spare Berths 4 Tractor Beam
Commercial 200 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (14) Power 200 Fuel Use 5.3% Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 3,000,000 Litres Range 254.7 billion km (842 days at full power)
This ship is classed as a commercial vessel for maintenance purposes
Also a much older one, the armour selection for magazine designs appears to have no effect, the best armour is always used.
-
When a system is created the minerals are allocated. If you create a system without surveying it then click on a planet, better yet, a comet and open up the specify minerals you can see what minerals are present (must be in sm mode, comets because they always have minerals so you are not hunting for one with a mineral on it.)
To expand on this: Normal minerals are generated on system start, they can be geosurvey'd to let you know about them. Sending in teams to survey bodies can create "new" minerals (or change accessibility).
-
I don't know if it's a bug or it's intended, but I have discovered a 125 EM population on a gas giant.
(http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o781/Icecoon/soriumbreathers_zps98f92e16.jpg)
Edit:
After I surveyed the gas giant it turned out, that it has various sorts of minerals that gas giants shoud not have.
Edit2: Nevermind, I've blowed the place into oblivion with my battlefleet and SM-ed everything back to normal + added a new empire to that habitable planet. :)
-
Error 5 in Use fuel
invalid argument or procedure call
Tractoring shipyards between earth and luna causes this. No fuel is being used to tug the shipyards over. massive orbital habs don't have this problem.
Yes, there is a bug with any tractored shipyard. Fixed for next version.
Steve
-
Error 3021 in check crew morale, after capturing swarm workers. in hindsight I shouldn't have done that :)
Update: abandoning ship creates 0 survivor lifepods, that otherwise have no issues. Ground units are considered to be the two ships cargo, not its new crew. also loading them into carriers didn't help. I'll try capturing a ship that should actually have all the stuff that normal ships have to see if there are any issues there.
-
I am also getting the F9 system error 381/error 11. (divide by zero)
-
I found a bug regarding naming of detected alien ships - I was doing a simulated fight between two human cultures starting on Earth, and I noticed that after the first ship detected, all other ships were given their proper class name, despite the two cultures not having established communication.
-
I am also getting the F9 system error 381/error 11. (divide by zero)
That's odd, I get error 7, out of memory.
-
Oh, another bug report - I haven't tested with a regular ship, but when a carrier with fighters landed was struck with enough damage to destroy an engine, it was removed from its taskforce - nothing odd in that. Except it was then removed from it's own task force when another engine went. And another, and another... until there were six copies of the taskforce, one for each destroyed engine.
-
In SM mode with reduced height windows on every thing in the Diplomacy/Intelligence screen below the Spacemaster Options title is cut off and inaccessible. It’s fine in full size windows.
Ian
-
Diplomatic teams still try to make progress with alien race even thought I have put the diplomatic team out of assignment and disbanded the team.
-
In both 6. 00 and 6. 10, the Genome Sequence: Base Gravity tech series appears to be severed from the tech tree, never becoming available for research.
-
In 6. 10 at least, I was able to retroactively increase the fuel storage of my already built Freighter class ship by hitting New Armour in the Class Design window - which reactivates the Unlock option, allowing me to add more components, which then got added in-flight at no additional cost. Increased storage size from 100,000 to 300,000, if I remember right. (The extra storage space came empty, of course, so the damn thing remained stuck in space. )
-
"which then got added in-flight at no additional cost. " - that part atleast is how SM works, and if you do activate SM you can add fuel to your freighters.
-
I don't think "New Armour" is an SM feature, and I didn't get asked for a password (like I would if I activated SM mode). Just clicking on New Armour, even if the armour used didn't actually change, allowed me to unlock the design and add stuff, without ever needing to type in the SM password.
-
the adding components part though, and there are a couple of instances where you can build ships without the appropriate design getting locked, in which case they can be modified as well.
-
Civilian ships using LP's only works if the ship comes from out system not for insystem destinations
they LPed to B star and then took the long way to a planet around A star in the same system :-X
-
In 6. 10 at least, I was able to retroactively increase the fuel storage of my already built Freighter class ship by hitting New Armour in the Class Design window - which reactivates the Unlock option, allowing me to add more components, which then got added in-flight at no additional cost. Increased storage size from 100,000 to 300,000, if I remember right. (The extra storage space came empty, of course, so the damn thing remained stuck in space. )
So is the bug that "New Armour" unlocks the design, rather than failing if the design is locked?
Note that you can unlock designs from SM mode, so the fact that you can modify designs in place is NOT a bug; not being protected against doing it inadvertently (when the design is locked) would be a bug.
John
-
Further too the F9 Bug, not only replacing the missing ones from the 5.54 pack is enough.
I cannot create a new system Space master option. I receive an Error in cboSystem; Error 381: Invalid property Array index followed by Error in GetBodySuitablity; Error 11: Division by zero then a Runtime error '11': Division by zero and then finally a crash to desktop.
To replicate this go to New game -> Tick Create Spacemaster Empire and Turn Real Star Systems off. Select Default Race, Go into SM mode, F9 then create system....crash
-----------------------------------------------------
To test I installed 5.54 from scratch and then 6.1 overtop, to rule out any additions to planets, flags, races, medals
Machine Windows 7 64bit:
-----------------------------------------------------
Good news
All bugs on creating a Spacemaster game are now gone, so you can cross that one off your list.
-
So is the bug that "New Armour" unlocks the design, rather than failing if the design is locked?
Note that you can unlock designs from SM mode, so the fact that you can modify designs in place is NOT a bug; not being protected against doing it inadvertently (when the design is locked) would be a bug.
John
It "un-greys" the Unlock button without ever entering SM mode.
-
It's not really a bug and more of a balance issue, but the new fuel storage techs makes the secret Compressed Fuel Storage tech useless.
-
It's not really a bug and more of a balance issue, but the new fuel storage techs makes the secret Compressed Fuel Storage tech useless.
Don't see how. The new tanks still store fuel at a 50,000:1 liter to hull space ratio vs 75,000:1 for Compressed.
A suggestion of adding matching compressed tech tanks for the new larger capacity tanks would not be out of line. I'd suggest added the relevent tech lines to the tech systems table, but that would not directly address the issue since the tech type 94 entries do not list the required hull spaces.
-
Just ran into a viscous bug. I decided to start with ruins on Venus, and after dropping down my construction brigades they uncovered some AWESOME railguns, so I immediately dropped those on earth and disassembled them, which netted me cap recharge 4. Problem is, that was the current tech my pp guy was researching, and when I gained it through disassembling, he up and disappears! I now have 15 spare research labs, and no sign of him, even though he shows up in officers window
Edit: I cleared all assignments from officers window, closed program, and restarted, and there he is. Dunno what that was about....
-
Hi guys.
I get an error 94 was generated by aurora (invalid use of null) (error in loadorders); and each time i let the time pass, i get one more of these, so after 10 time forward, i have to accept 10 error 94 follewed by only one of:
error 3021 was generated by doa. field followed by a "no actual post"; (error in checkspecialorders)
i use win7 in sm mode
-
First
After 3 or 4 years ingame, I suddently have this bug
Error in RefuelFromPop
Error 6 was generated by Aurora
Overflow
It happens when a ship have a conditionnal order to refuel at my homeworld. And the other strange things is that when I put an order to refuel at my homeworld, in the "events" they said that the order is completed, but there is no loading of fuel into my ship.
In the same way, when a new ship is built, she comes without fuel.
And yes, I have fuel available in my homeworld.
Second
When I design a survey vessel.
For the same design, if I put "Phased gravitational sensors", it's a Military vessel.
But if I put "Phased Geological sensors", it's a commercial Vessel.
Thank you.
-
Second
When I design a survey vessel.
For the same design, if I put "Phased gravitational sensors", it's a Military vessel.
But if I put "Phased Geological sensors", it's a commercial Vessel.
Thank you.
That's not a bug. Steve intentionally made grav survey systems military.
-
Ah, oj, thank you. It was my other hypothesis.
-
I have three Shipping Lines. They have just launched their first ships, all were accompanied by
Error 3201 was generated by DOA.Recordset.
You cannot add or change a record because a related record is required in table "TechSystem".
Please report etc.
The colony ship does zip about between Earth and Mars, but the freighters are stuck at Earth although they have orders to unload trade goods at Mars.
Ian
Edit: The large freighter has apparently made three round trips to Mars although at no time was it observed to travel to Mars, so last remarks on freighters are not accurate.
Edit 2 The error message only appears when the Shipping Lines introduce a new design.
-
I'm having a very weird visual problem when I try to run the game. The menu items in dialog boxes are always squished into one line, even if the text spans multiple lines.
Here's what it looks like for me:
http://i.imgur.com/vv4rY.png
For reference, the appearance from the wiki:
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=File:Splash.jpg
Anyone know what's going on?
-
Jupiter has two moons named Elara. I noticed this in my own save and confirmed the duplication is also in Crusade.
-
Steve! where r u?
:)
many Bugs..urgent ur work eheh
mainly from F9 (System and planet image Bugs).
C'mon Steve..
-
Im not sure if this was a bug or not but at the risk of everyone calling me noob I figured I might as well post it.
Civilian Freight Lines are causing interrupts when they dont have a cargo to load on a planet and a contract set up. For example I set up an infrastructure contract I set up earth to supply say 100,000 and both luna and mars to recive 100,000. I dont actually have 100,000 infrastructure on earth, so when the freight lines use up all the available infrastructure I start getting event messages saying that particular freight line ship cannot load. now when i remove the supply portion from earth, the messages go away, which is why im not sure if they were intended to warn a player when supply ran out, or a just a bug.
-
Im not sure if this was a bug or not but at the risk of everyone calling me noob I figured I might as well post it.
Civilian Freight Lines are causing interrupts when they dont have a cargo to load on a planet and a contract set up. For example I set up an infrastructure contract I set up earth to supply say 100,000 and both luna and mars to recive 100,000. I dont actually have 100,000 infrastructure on earth, so when the freight lines use up all the available infrastructure I start getting event messages saying that particular freight line ship cannot load. now when i remove the supply portion from earth, the messages go away, which is why im not sure if they were intended to warn a player when supply ran out, or a just a bug.
I haven't run into that myself, but I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Normally, you'd want to know if you were out of supplies. Do remember that you don't have to have the same amounts of supply and demand. Just set the supply on Earth every few weeks, and set the Luna and Mars caps wherever.
-
Fighters with jump drives cannot traverse jump points unless they have a missile launcher and a missile fire control. I have provided an account of my tinkering in the Question regarding jump capable fighters thread in The Academy. The problem applies to both squadron transit and standard transit.
-
Fighters with jump drives cannot traverse jump points unless they have a missile launcher and a missile fire control. I have provided an account of my tinkering in the Question regarding jump capable fighters thread in The Academy. The problem applies to both squadron transit and standard transit.
From reading your other topic I don't think that the weapon and/or MFC are the contributing factor. It's more likely that the combination that you found to work had to do with matching the ships hull spaces with the self-jump limit of the jump-drive. And yes that looks to be a bug.
-
I just confirmed this is true. The drive must match the ship's size exactly. Thank you, Charlie.
-
So in my current game. . .
1) I somehow managed to establish communications with the precursors (I increased my translation skill, to be honest, but I was under the impression that communications should fail anyways).
2) I ran into the 6. 00 bug that a buoy on a jump point suspends (parts of) the construction cycle - it definitely paused ship construction and shore leave. It might have suspended commander updates, research, and geoteam surveys. These all caught up once I destroyed the missiles.
3) I have a system that was generated with both an NPR and the precursors, and now they are duking it out, slowing the game down.
-
So in my current game. . .
1) I somehow managed to establish communications with the precursors (I increased my translation skill, to be honest, but I was under the impression that communications should fail anyways).
2) I ran into the 6. 00 bug that a buoy on a jump point suspends (parts of) the construction cycle - it definitely paused ship construction and shore leave. It might have suspended commander updates, research, and geoteam surveys. These all caught up once I destroyed the missiles.
3) I have a system that was generated with both an NPR and the precursors, and now they are duking it out, slowing the game down.
3) Isn't a bug. That will happen sometimes - its no different than any other AI - AI combat. Besides, think of all the wrecks you might salvage :)
Steve
-
Steve! where r u?
:)
many Bugs..urgent ur work eheh
mainly from F9 (System and planet image Bugs).
C'mon Steve..
Well I have a full time job these days (actually more than full time as I usually work 9am - 7pm every day :))
Steve
-
I tried an SM game, and got an Error 381 followed by Error 11s when I tried to generate a random system. This happened twice, so it wasn't the specific system generated.
For v6.00 I changed the species selected for the F9 window from the default species to the species of the capital population. Unfortunately SM Races don't have a capital population so it wasn't selecting a species on the F9 window, without which there are lots of errors. Fixed for v6.2.
Steve
-
Minor one: Conventional start, going to design a conventional engine and the name that appears for the engine is simply "1 EP ", not "1 EP Conventional Engine". Same occurs if you go back to conventional engine tech from a TN start.
Fixed for v6.2
Steve
-
Edit:
Size 50, power x1 engine should be military and are listed as such in the component design screen. However if added to a ship in the class design screen they do not change the class to military, it remains commercial unless another part that would change it to military is added.
Only tested with conventional engine so far.
Could you confirm this one? I'm playing around with engines now and as soon as I change a 50 HS engine from power 0.5 to anything higher, it becomes military.
Steve
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug.
In a new game from a conventional start, and I have not yet started to conduct geosurveys. One of the civilian lines builds a fuel harvester which then heads off to an apparent deposit on unsurveyed Saturn. I was under the impression that minerals on a body were only generated when the body was surveyed, has that now changed? Will it be consuming minerals from a dpeosit that will be revealed when surveyed or is it pulling them out of the ether?
Minerals on a body are always generated when it is created. However, the civilian harvester shouldn't be created until you have found that deposits through surveying. I've fixed that for v6.20
Steve
-
Could you confirm this one? I'm playing around with engines now and as soon as I change a 50 HS engine from power 0.5 to anything higher, it becomes military.
Steve
New Class #3233 class Cruiser 2,950 tons 60 Crew 191.5 BP TCS 59 TH 250 EM 0
4237 km/s Armour 1-18 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 41 Max Repair 125 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Military Large x1.00 EP Nuclear Thermal Engine II (1) Power 250 Fuel Use 30% Signature 250 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 10.2 billion km (27 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
using
Military Large x1.00 EP Nuclear Thermal Engine II
Engine Power: 250 Fuel Use Per Hour: 75 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.3 Litres
Engine Size: 50 HS Engine HTK: 25
Thermal Signature: 250 Exp Chance: 10
Cost: 125 Crew: 50
Materials Required: 0x Duranium 125x Gallicite
Military Engine
Development Cost for Project: 1250RP
I'm not moving the power from the default x1.00, just increasing the size.
Just tested this now using a x1.75 50 HS engine, same behaviour.
New Class #3233 class Cruiser 3,000 tons 97 Crew 295.25 BP TCS 60 TH 438 EM 0
7300 km/s Armour 1-18 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 62 Max Repair 218.75 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
Military Large x1.75 EP Nuclear Thermal Engine II (1) Power 437.5 Fuel Use 121.54% Signature 437.5 Exp 17%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 2.5 billion km (3 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
The designs do show up as military when designing them, they just don't seem to actually change a ship they are put on from commercial to military.
-
On the technology report screen, EM Sensors are unable to be renamed. The rename box comes up when selected but it does not save whatever is typed in, it keeps the original name.
Fixed for v6.2
Steve
-
The designs do show up as military when designing them, they just don't seem to actually change a ship they are put on from commercial to military.
Yes, that was the problem. It was being created as a military system but the design code was checking the size of the engine, not the military system flag. Thanks for looking into it.
Steve
-
I also seem to remember it happening in some of the other catagories of the technology report screen although that was from a pre 6.0 game and I haven't had a chance to test them all yet in 6.1.
Also would it be possible to have the existing name show up in the text box, please. It is a little bit of a pain having to retype the whole name to fix a single character mistake.
-
The Range(km) column of Fuel Report / Fuel Situation has some pretty large (and wrong) values
Yes, it was still using the pre v6.00 values. Fixed for v6.20.
Steve
-
I also seem to remember it happening in some of the other catagories of the technology report screen although that was from a pre 6.0 game and I haven't had a chance to test them all yet in 6.1.
Also would it be possible to have the existing name show up in the text box, please. It is a little bit of a pain having to retype the whole name to fix a single character mistake.
Already fixed both of the above when I fixed the EM Sensors :)
Steve
-
Flags only go up to flag0389. jpg, but opening the galactic map in "Crusade" requires flag0391. jpg.
I'll add the two extra flag files to v6.20
Steve
-
1) Me Too on the F9 system error 381/error 11.
2) I don't know if this is a "bug" or an unforeseen consequence of civilian design..
I generated a new game with a race whose capital is in a level 4 nebula (625 km/s per armor layer).
My civilians are running around, every single ship, at 625 km/s, so I take it they're not adding any additional armor to their designs. I never got them to go outside the nebula (v6.10 showed up), so don't know what their true speed was.
There is no intelligence in the code for civilians building in Nebulae - I will tackle that at some point.
Steve
-
Already fixed both of the above when I fixed the EM Sensors :)
Steve
Ah cool preemptive bug fixing :P
-
when you pause a research project the labs are considered inactive and you are spamed this message in the event log.
( ??? the crap out of me as i couldn't figure out how i could have 39 inactive labs as they where all allocated)
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
Error 5 in Use fuel
invalid argument or procedure call
Tractoring shipyards between earth and luna causes this. No fuel is being used to tug the shipyards over. massive orbital habs don't have this problem.
here is the tug in question:
Bayern II class Tug 40000 tons 370 Crew 1454 BP TCS 800 TH 2800 EM 0
3500 km/s Armour 1-104 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control 1 PPV 0
Maintenance Capacity 23 MSP
Spare Berths 4 Tractor Beam
Commercial 200 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (14) Power 200 Fuel Use 5.3% Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 3,000,000 Litres Range 254.7 billion km (842 days at full power)
This ship is classed as a commercial vessel for maintenance purposes
Also a much older one, the armour selection for magazine designs appears to have no effect, the best armour is always used.
Shipyard tractoring is fixed for v6.20. I ran into this issue in my own game.
Can't remember if this is working as intended. Is there a situation where you would want to use older armour for magazines?
Steve
-
One situation would be in a multi-faction game where a higher tech faction is building a ship to give to a lower tech faction. You may not want to give them your best technology, but give them something a few levels below, so if they just rip it apart to reverse engineer the tech they don't get all your best goodies. Ideally I'd like to be able to do this for ship armour as well.
-
Error 3021 in check crew morale, after capturing swarm workers. in hindsight I shouldn't have done that :)
Update: abandoning ship creates 0 survivor lifepods, that otherwise have no issues. Ground units are considered to be the two ships cargo, not its new crew. also loading them into carriers didn't help. I'll try capturing a ship that should actually have all the stuff that normal ships have to see if there are any issues there.
There are so many issues around capturing Swarm ships, because of their nature. I think it is best to disallow boarding combat vs Swarm in v6.20. It would be reasonable considering they wouldn't have crew areas in the normal sense.
Steve
-
Fighters with jump drives cannot traverse jump points unless they have a missile launcher and a missile fire control. I have provided an account of my tinkering in the Question regarding jump capable fighters thread in The Academy. The problem applies to both squadron transit and standard transit.
This has been explained so I'm just adding additional issue related to jump drives on top. In 5.60 and in 6.10 I've had an issue where troop carriers that should be perfectly capable of making a jump would refuse to do so. The ships were 15000 tonnes and the jump engines were supporting 18000 tonnes. I've recreated the design in a save from 5.6 and 6.1 a moment ago and the issue still occurs. Than I modified the design so that the ship meet the 18000 tonnes exactly and than they were capable of making the jump.
-
I also seem to remember it happening in some of the other catagories of the technology report screen although that was from a pre 6.0 game and I haven't had a chance to test them all yet in 6.1.
Also would it be possible to have the existing name show up in the text box, please. It is a little bit of a pain having to retype the whole name to fix a single character mistake.
Gauss cannons do the same thing.
-
3) Isn't a bug. That will happen sometimes - its no different than any other AI - AI combat. Besides, think of all the wrecks you might salvage :)
Steve
I wasn't certain if it counted as one, but it did strike me as a bit odd to have a system generated with both, so I reported it just in case. :)
-
I found a bug regarding naming of detected alien ships - I was doing a simulated fight between two human cultures starting on Earth, and I noticed that after the first ship detected, all other ships were given their proper class name, despite the two cultures not having established communication.
This is working as intended. In v6.10, if two player races both start on Earth, its assumed they know the actual names of each other's ship classes. This was to make it easier to keep track in multi-race starts.
Steve
-
Oh, another bug report - I haven't tested with a regular ship, but when a carrier with fighters landed was struck with enough damage to destroy an engine, it was removed from its taskforce - nothing odd in that. Except it was then removed from it's own task force when another engine went. And another, and another... until there were six copies of the taskforce, one for each destroyed engine.
That used to be a general bug but I thought I had fixed it by checking the number of ships in the task group. Obviously that doesn't work so well with carriers :)
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
Diplomatic teams still try to make progress with alien race even thought I have put the diplomatic team out of assignment and disbanded the team.
You don't need a diplomatic team to establish comms. They just affect the alien race's perception of your race.
Steve
-
In both 6. 00 and 6. 10, the Genome Sequence: Base Gravity tech series appears to be severed from the tech tree, never becoming available for research.
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
In 6. 10 at least, I was able to retroactively increase the fuel storage of my already built Freighter class ship by hitting New Armour in the Class Design window - which reactivates the Unlock option, allowing me to add more components, which then got added in-flight at no additional cost. Increased storage size from 100,000 to 300,000, if I remember right. (The extra storage space came empty, of course, so the damn thing remained stuck in space. )
That comes under the category of "cheating at solitaire" :)
It's not really any different than unlocking the class using SM mode and doing the same thing. However, I've disabled the New Armour button in v6.2 to avoid accidently unlocking a class.
Steve
-
So is the bug that "New Armour" unlocks the design, rather than failing if the design is locked?
Note that you can unlock designs from SM mode, so the fact that you can modify designs in place is NOT a bug; not being protected against doing it inadvertently (when the design is locked) would be a bug.
John
Yes, that was my conclusion too. I've sorted out the New Armour button issue.
Steve
-
Further too the F9 Bug, not only replacing the missing ones from the 5.54 pack is enough.
I cannot create a new system Space master option. I receive an Error in cboSystem; Error 381: Invalid property Array index followed by Error in GetBodySuitablity; Error 11: Division by zero then a Runtime error '11': Division by zero and then finally a crash to desktop.
To replicate this go to New game -> Tick Create Spacemaster Empire and Turn Real Star Systems off. Select Default Race, Go into SM mode, F9 then create system....crash
-----------------------------------------------------
To test I installed 5.54 from scratch and then 6.1 overtop, to rule out any additions to planets, flags, races, medals
Machine Windows 7 64bit:
-----------------------------------------------------
I've fixed this one. No species ID was being set for SM Races, which caused all the other problems.
Steve
-
First
After 3 or 4 years ingame, I suddently have this bug
Error in RefuelFromPop
Error 6 was generated by Aurora
Overflow
It happens when a ship have a conditionnal order to refuel at my homeworld. And the other strange things is that when I put an order to refuel at my homeworld, in the "events" they said that the order is completed, but there is no loading of fuel into my ship.
In the same way, when a new ship is built, she comes without fuel.
And yes, I have fuel available in my homeworld.
Exactly how much fuel is at your homeworld? I'm just wondering if too much fuel can cause a problem.
Steve
-
I have three Shipping Lines. They have just launched their first ships, all were accompanied by
Error 3201 was generated by DOA.Recordset.
You cannot add or change a record because a related record is required in table "TechSystem".
Please report etc.
The colony ship does zip about between Earth and Mars, but the freighters are stuck at Earth although they have orders to unload trade goods at Mars.
Ian
Edit: The large freighter has apparently made three round trips to Mars although at no time was it observed to travel to Mars, so last remarks on freighters are not accurate.
Edit 2 The error message only appears when the Shipping Lines introduce a new design.
Please could you look at the designs for the civilian ships and see if anything is missing that you would normally expect to see (engines, cargo handling systems, etc). Just click the Show Civilian Designs option on the F5 Class window.
Steve
-
I'm having a very weird visual problem when I try to run the game. The menu items in dialog boxes are always squished into one line, even if the text spans multiple lines.
Here's what it looks like for me:
http://i.imgur.com/vv4rY.png
For reference, the appearance from the wiki:
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=File:Splash.jpg
Anyone know what's going on?
It looks like your font size is larger than normal. Do have large fonts switched on in Windows?
Steve
-
Jupiter has two moons named Elara. I noticed this in my own save and confirmed the duplication is also in Crusade.
Oops! - Excess moon removed
Steve
-
Please could you look at the designs for the civilian ships and see if anything is missing that you would normally expect to see (engines, cargo handling systems, etc). Just click the Show Civilian Designs option on the F5 Class window.
Steve
For the record, this is hidden if you're on reduced-height windows.
-
Exactly how much fuel is at your homeworld? I'm just wondering if too much fuel can cause a problem.
Steve
2 399 870 555 Litres. I have modified the start setting by putting 5 billion for the population.
Edit: I have checked by SM the quantity of fuel in my homeworld, and you are right, no more error message now, and when I give a refuel order to my ship group, they are refueling. 8)
-
That will certainly overflow if it's saved as an integer.
Edit : Obsolete missile engine designs still show up in the missile designer.
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug, but the Technology Report screen doesn't save the status of the "show obsolete tech" checkbox when closed and reopened. If this is not a bug would it be possible to have it unchecked as default?
On the System Map screen the "Planetary Market" button appears to do nothing.
-
Civilian ship designs are buildable as eligible additional classes if a shipyard is tooled for something that can be refitted to them.
-
Civilian ship designs are buildable as eligible additional classes if a shipyard is tooled for something that can be refitted to them.
I don't think that's a bug. It's actually kind of nice sometimes.
-
Guys srry,but Planet JPG error bug are solved? and solution are...?
-
Guys srry,but Planet JPG error bug are solved? and solution are...?
It should be, just copy the images from the 6.1 patch zip over into the Planetjpeg directory. There are a couple of missing images from the flags directory that Steve has already said will be in 6.2 but that should cover all of the reported missing image problems.
-
I ordered 7000 missiles , each using 2.7 units of uridium . End result was 1.4 million units of uridium instead of 20k
Edit : just noticed the requirement per missile (size 5) jumped from 2.7 to 2700.
-
I ordered 7000 missiles , each using 2.7 units of uridium . End result was 1.4 million units of uridium instead of 20k
Edit : just noticed the requirement per missile (size 5) jumped from 2.7 to 2700.
I thought I had fixed this problem. Did this amount change after you designed it or was it incorrectly calculated during missile design?
Also, could you confirm you are on v6.1.
Steve
-
Not entirely sure if this is a bug, but the Technology Report screen doesn't save the status of the "show obsolete tech" checkbox when closed and reopened. If this is not a bug would it be possible to have it unchecked as default?
On the System Map screen the "Planetary Market" button appears to do nothing.
I've changed the default status of the Show Obsolete checkbox to unchecked.
The Planetary Market was a window in an older version. I've changed the button to link to the new Production Overview window
I noticed that the Intelligence/Diplomacy window is behind two buttons so I have changed one of those to show the Race Details (F2) window instead.
Steve
-
When designing a missile, I receive this error:
Title: "Error in DisplayMissile"
Body: "Error 6 was generated by Aurora
Overflow
Please report. . . "
This happens when entering the Missile / Buoy Design screen, or when making changes to fields such as Agility, Fuel Capacity, Number (of engines).
This seems to be related to the range or endurance of the missile. Here are the specs on the missile engine:
Engine Power: 0. 05 Fuel Use Per Hour: 0 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0. 023 Litres
Engine Size: 0. 1 MSP Cost: 0. 0125
Thermal Signature: 0. 05
Materials Required: 7. 5x Tritanium 0. 0125x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 2RP
Someone posted in another topic somewhere about creating a junk 0. 1 size missile as a strategy to determine optimal configuration, so I was trying it out. But with the power/fuel consumption so low (was trying to see how replacing fuel with engines or other components would affect the design), the range for a missile using this is ridiculous. I experimented with changing fuel capacity values, and found that fuel capacity of 0. 262 does not cause an error, but 0. 263 does. At 0. 262, the range value is 1,500,545. 5m km, and at 0. 263, the range value does not update.
Clearly not something that impedes play, though. A missile that can travel for 67 years isn't too useful. . . although if we could launch them ICBM-style against planets/stations at another star. . . :)
-
Also in missile/buoy design screen, deleting the active sensor resolution value or setting it to zero sets Ecm MSP to 1 even if you don't have the required technology for ECM. If you don't have the required technology for ECM the box is greyed out, and although set to 1, you cannot clear it.
-
Also in missile/buoy design screen, deleting the active sensor resolution value or setting it to zero sets Ecm MSP to 1 even if you don't have the required technology for ECM. If you don't have the required technology for ECM the box is greyed out, and although set to 1, you cannot clear it.
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
It looks like your font size is larger than normal. Do have large fonts switched on in Windows?
Steve
I had it set smaller than default actually, but resetting it to default fixed the issue. Thanks!
-
Don't forget to add John F. Kennedy to the US Carrier list (assuming that said list stays in as is.)
-
Don't forget to add John F. Kennedy to the US Carrier list (assuming that said list stays in as is.)
The name was already in the database so I have flagged it for US carriers
Steve
-
Steve , I'm definitely running 6.10 . I'm not sure if the requirement changed or was incorrectly calculated during design though , I just compared it with a similar design.
-
I get an error message every time I open the System Map. Or rather every time I enter the Sol system on the System map or I run any time increment and have the sol system on the view on the System Map.
The error say...
Error in ShowMinerals
Error 35602 was generated by Nodes
Key is not unique in collection
This error just appeared out of nowhere so I have no clue what started it. I have played about five years into this campaign.
-
It should be, just copy the images from the 6.1 patch zip over into the Planetjpeg directory. There are a couple of missing images from the flags directory that Steve has already said will be in 6.2 but that should cover all of the reported missing image problems.
Done.
Ty v much!
-
That comes under the category of "cheating at solitaire" :)
It's not really any different than unlocking the class using SM mode and doing the same thing. However, I've disabled the New Armour button in v6.2 to avoid accidently unlocking a class.
Steve
Disabled entirely? It was useful for modernizing ship designs for refit, even if it did drive the cost up. SM mode only, or maybe an option to pick and choose armor tech, would be appreciated.
Steve , I'm definitely running 6.10 . I'm not sure if the requirement changed or was incorrectly calculated during design though , I just compared it with a similar design.
As a workaround until it gets squashed, in my secondhand experience redesigning and re-researching the missile should fix the costs.
-
Disabled entirely? It was useful for modernizing ship designs for refit, even if it did drive the cost up. SM mode only, or maybe an option to pick and choose armor tech, would be appreciated.
Only disabled when a class is Locked.
Steve
-
Ah, gotcha.
Also, minor typo in the technology description for Capacitor Recharge Rate 5 (haven't checked the others)
The amount of power which am energy weapon will recharge every 5 seconds
edit: Another bug. If the 'Show Waypoint Locations' checkbox in the display pane of the system map is unchecked, the Waypoints list won't update.
-
One of the orders I make a great deal of use of is transit and divide fleet, for various survey craft. Likewise copy orders to subordinate formations is quite useful as well, however I am running into an issue where refueling orders(and apparently only refueling orders) are just getting dropped by subordinate fleets. They'll move back to earth, the order to refuel at earth will be in their list, but their fuel reserves won't change. I have to remember to incorporate subfleets before refueling which still works.
-
Issue with ground combat on a ruin and your colony.
Mars - has ruins (partially intact colony)
Started exploiting ruins.
After a while, also colonized it. As usual, occasionally opened up vaults of robotic soldiers.
This went on for a while, without issue...
Then it looked like the population surrendered and all my ground forces vanished....saw some interesting messages during all of it.
I had A LOT of troops, 4 A.I, 4 M.I., 8 Construction, 2 rep battalions, etc, I didn't lose the battle.
I didn't even noticed these messages at first.
25th March 2034 06:17:16 Sol Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 22%. ID: Assault Battalion #1006 (Unknown Race)
25th March 2034 06:17:16 Sol The alien population on Mars has surrendered!
25th March 2034 06:17:16 Sol Due to the loss of Mars 84.0307 has been looted by the conquering barbarians
By the time I did notice all my ground forces were gone:
28th December 2034 12:17:16 Sol Mars has moved to a political status of Subjugated - this caught my attention
I'll poke around in the Divisions table and see what I can find.
edit:
in 5.7, sometimes new double copies of colonies would be created, and ground units would be moved there. This is likely related...as no second colony was created in this 6.1 game.
edit2:
after looking in the Divisions table, the units were definitely deleted.
-
Error in reloadMGFromCollier
Error 3167
record was deleted
Error 3020
Update or cancelUpdate without addNew or edit
Issuing:
Reload own fleet with colliers
launch missile ats
Reload own fleet with colliers
orders at a jump point occasionally produces these errors, though not every time. I'm firing buoys at jump points with my missile ships, who also have more traditional missiles in their magazines as well(just the two types JP Sat and missile).
Update: I think the issue is that the colliers are reloading from each other. I just got in a situation where 1 collier overloaded itself from another collier, and it destroyed some ammo in both of them.
-
Quote from: Steve Walmsley on October 27, 2012, 01:07:58 PM
Please could you look at the designs for the civilian ships and see if anything is missing that you would normally expect to see (engines, cargo handling systems, etc). Just click the Show Civilian Designs option on the F5 Class window.
Steve
For the record, this is hidden if you're on reduced-height windows.
- Yes I finally worked that out! ::)
For the record this was a conventional start with four Earth bound empires rapidly reduced to two. There was a civilian shipping line for the empires while still a conventional empire, but no ships until the requisite engine tech had been designed, they did not build "conventional" engined vessels. The Error in AutomatedDesign - Error 3201 began to occur as soon as the civilians began to build their own ship classes, it only happens with the lead ship of the class. I did not get the error with player build ships. Lately I have seen the same error with no new ship class or ship being built. This in not NPR shipping lines because at the moment only Precursors are switched on. I have looked at the designs and they look OK to me, I have included the latest civilian designs in case I am being dense, they all generated this error when first introduced. The only thing that occurs to me is that none of the player races had a shipyard with the capacity to build these vessels.
Edit 1: I am playing with SM on in case that makes a difference.
Edit 2: The player race now has a civilian shipyard large enough to build some of the civilian designs and a civilian design capable of being built in that shipyard has just been introduced without the error message, so it appears to be linked to the inability of the player race shipyards to build the civilian designs.
Bolds Large C3 class Colony Ship 47,550 tons 302 Crew 1924.8 BP TCS 951 TH 2400 EM 0
2523 km/s Armour 1-116 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 25 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 3
Cryogenic Berths 100000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (16) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres Range 39.7 billion km (181 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Bolds Large F3 class Freighter 72,650 tons 212 Crew 1037.2 BP TCS 1453 TH 2400 EM 0
1651 km/s Armour 1-155 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 9 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cargo 50000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (16) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres Range 25.9 billion km (181 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Bolds Small C3 class Colony Ship 23,950 tons 156 Crew 1029.4 BP TCS 479 TH 1200 EM 0
2505 km/s Armour 1-74 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 27 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
Cryogenic Berths 50000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (8) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres Range 40.9 billion km (189 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Bolds Small F3 class Freighter 36,550 tons 111 Crew 591.4 BP TCS 731 TH 1200 EM 0
1641 km/s Armour 1-98 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 10 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 3
Cargo 25000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (8) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres Range 26.8 billion km (189 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Constantino Large C3 class Colony Ship 44,850 tons 278 Crew 1828.8 BP TCS 897 TH 2100 EM 0
2341 km/s Armour 1-112 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 25 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cryogenic Berths 100000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (14) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1,100,000 Litres Range 37.0 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Evans L3 class Spaceliner 23,200 tons 614 Crew 1093.3 BP TCS 464 TH 1050 EM 0
2262 km/s Armour 1-72 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 29 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 3
Passengers 1250 Cargo Handling Multiplier 10
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (7) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 19.5 billion km (99 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Evans Large C3 class Colony Ship 44,850 tons 278 Crew 1828.8 BP TCS 897 TH 2100 EM 0
2341 km/s Armour 1-112 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 25 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cryogenic Berths 100000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (14) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1,100,000 Litres Range 37.0 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Evans Large F3 class Freighter 69,950 tons 188 Crew 941.2 BP TCS 1399 TH 2100 EM 0
1501 km/s Armour 1-151 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 8 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cargo 50000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (14) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1,100,000 Litres Range 23.7 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Evans Small C3 class Colony Ship 22,800 tons 164 Crew 992.5 BP TCS 456 TH 1050 EM 0
2302 km/s Armour 1-71 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 27 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cryogenic Berths 50000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 10
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (7) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 550,000 Litres Range 36.4 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Evans Small F3 class Freighter 35,150 tons 99 Crew 527.7 BP TCS 703 TH 1050 EM 0
1493 km/s Armour 1-95 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 9 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 5
Cargo 25000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (7) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 550,000 Litres Range 23.6 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Michel Large F3 class Freighter 64,850 tons 170 Crew 819 BP TCS 1297 TH 1500 EM 0
1156 km/s Armour 1-143 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 8 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 3
Cargo 50000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 15
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (10) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 800,000 Litres Range 18.6 billion km (186 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Michel Small C3 class Colony Ship 20,100 tons 140 Crew 894.1 BP TCS 402 TH 750 EM 0
1865 km/s Armour 1-65 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 28 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 2
Cryogenic Berths 50000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 10
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (5) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres Range 30.0 billion km (186 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Michel Small F3 class Freighter 32,450 tons 75 Crew 429.9 BP TCS 649 TH 750 EM 0
1155 km/s Armour 1-90 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 8 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 1
Cargo 25000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (5) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres Range 18.6 billion km (186 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Neves Small F3 class Freighter 35,150 tons 99 Crew 527.7 BP TCS 703 TH 1050 EM 0
1493 km/s Armour 1-95 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 9 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 5
Cargo 25000
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (7) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 550,000 Litres Range 23.6 billion km (182 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Peveler Large C3 class Colony Ship 37,050 tons 236 Crew 1609.2 BP TCS 741 TH 1200 EM 0
1619 km/s Armour 1-98 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 27 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 6
Cryogenic Berths 100000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 15
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (8) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres Range 26.5 billion km (189 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Peveler Small C3 class Colony Ship 18,750 tons 128 Crew 840.2 BP TCS 375 TH 600 EM 0
1600 km/s Armour 1-62 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 28 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
Cryogenic Berths 50000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 10
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (4) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 350,000 Litres Range 28.2 billion km (203 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Peveler Small F3 class Freighter 31,350 tons 83 Crew 402.8 BP TCS 627 TH 600 EM 0
956 km/s Armour 1-88 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 8 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
Cargo 25000 Cargo Handling Multiplier 10
150 EP Commercial Ion Drive (4) Power 150 Fuel Use 11.93% Signature 150 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 350,000 Litres Range 16.8 billion km (203 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I have noticed if the empire gets its engine tech from an ally (or espionage) the civilians do not advance thier engine tech.
I have one empire allied with other thats doing the engine tech. They are on ion engines but most of the civilians are replacing F1 with F1, except for the new line that is stuck on F2.
-
Every time I create a team of any sort I am now seeing-
Error in cmdTeam_Click
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
Data Type conversion error
Please report to etc"
The error is not restricted to one player race but affects both. I saw this in the 5.6 version as well, but after. I could probably get rid of of it by replacing all officers etc, but it would be a pain to lose all my experienced scientists.
-
Every time I create a team of any sort I am now seeing-
Error in cmdTeam_Click
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
Data Type conversion error
Please report to etc"
The error is not restricted to one player race but affects both. I saw this in the 5.6 version as well, but after. I could probably get rid of of it by replacing all officers etc, but it would be a pain to lose all my experienced scientists.
The above error may be related to a new one that has just arisen which appears to include crew morale as if any ship is away from Earth I get multiple:-
"ErrorinCheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
Data Type conversion error
Please report to etc"
One error message is generated every time increment for each ship away from port.
Edit 1: The two error messages may not be related. the ErrorinCheckCrewMorale only appears if the ships in question have a negative crew grade bonus!
Edit 2: Ignore Edit 1 a change in crew grade to 0 or a positive number does not prevent the error message when ships leave maintenance facilities behind. I have found that a base in orbit of the home planet generates the error message if there are not enough maintenance facilities on planet to maintain it.The message disappears once there are sufficient facilities.
-
That is maybe me that is really unlucky, but the geosurvey teams doesn't seems to work at all. I've used them on nearly 50 worlds (planet, asteroids. . . ) and they NEVER found new minerals or better availlability. I've even noted the last 10 time before and after the team's survey, and no change at all.
My teams have a competence between 120% and 140%.
-
That is maybe me that is really unlucky, but the geosurvey teams doesn't seems to work at all. I've used them on nearly 50 worlds (planet, asteroids. . . ) and they NEVER found new minerals or better availlability. I've even noted the last 10 time before and after the team's survey, and no change at all.
My teams have a competence between 120% and 140%.
They take time to do their jobs :)
-
can confirm they take time but do work, size of body scanning and a few other factors are in play now i believe
-
I'm getting a divide by zero error and some other weirdness when I try to build a turret out of a reduced size laser. Full details can be found in the thread Designing Turrets with Reduced Size Lasers in The Academy.
-
I ordered a collier ship to visit a nearby system, dump ammo, return, and rejoin TG "1st Fleet" at Sol. The ship's name was "Tender 01" and the hull abbreviation was TN. The ship was alone in a TG called "TN Tender 01".
While the collier was off doing his thing, I ordered TG "1st Fleet" to join TG "Earth Shipyard". These two TGs were at the same location, and this order was completed before the collier returned.
When I queued the 5-day pulse on which the collier was to reach Earth, I got a couple error dialogs that I just clicked through, hoping that the game would keep going. In the Event Updates page, I got an "Orders Completed" message stating "TN Tender 01 has completed orders".
I think TN Tender 01 vanished. It's not listed as a member of TG "Earth Shipyard" and it's not listed on the Individual Unit Details pane, nor is it listed on the "Ships In Class" tab for its class on the Ship Design pane.
-
did it transfer back over to the shipyard TG
-
Fighter Overhaul dont work: Maintenance Time RAISE UP (timing) when in Overhaul condition...
r an bug?..never show before 6.1..
Ive an Scout (Fighter-Class) in Overhaul..and from 5.0 years pass to 7.4 when am check "Damned my workers what r doing???"
-
Fighter Overhaul dont work: Maintenance Time RAISE UP (timing) when in Overhaul condition...
r an bug?..never show before 6.1..
Ive an Scout (Fighter-Class) in Overhaul..and from 5.0 years pass to 7.4 when am check "Damned my workers what r doing???"
I don't think fighters can be overhauled, seeing they aren't affected by mantainence facilties on planets.
-
Normally no,dnt need any mainten..strange....but those have some maintenance degree..am must check why..dnt remember same situation before..
Edit: okay..those b..stards arent a "Fighter-Class..am lost today:))) BUT..mainten Clock raise up in Overhaul Work..and NOT raise down...THIS r very strange...
________________
Nelson class Scout/Courier 500 tons 12 Crew 144.4 BP TCS 10 TH 50.5 EM 0
10100 km/s Armour 2-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 3/1/0/0 Damage Control 2 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 9% IFR: 0.1% Maintenance Capacity 271 MSP
Spare Berths 1
100.8 EP Inertial Fusion Drive (1) Power 100.8 Fuel Use 43.83% Armour 0 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 123.2 billion km (141 days at full power)
Thermal Sensor TH0.6-3 (1) Sensitivity 3 Detect Signature 1000: 3m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Time came to scrap ICBM bases on Earth. Couldn't find abandon ship button anywhere so used the destroy ship button on the F6 screen and got
"Error in AddWreckTech
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.Fields
Item not found in this collection
Please report etc"
Curiously not all destroyed ICBM complexes generated the error message and the number of error messages per scrapped installation varied between one and three, in the sequence on the attached file. These installations were both "captured from the enemy" and home grown.
Finally there were no life pods associated with the wrecks, which makes sense, but I thought previously there were survivors with the wrecks of PDCs. Incidentally a destroyed ship in Earth orbit also did not give rise to life pods.
-
Something wierd is going on with current orders when issuing a move order to an LP, but all orders seems to tally the time correctly for how long it will take to move. Is it calculating the optimal path to one of the LP points and using that for current orders time, because that time would be close(but not quite) what I'm getting here, for reference the all orders times are 10:20:something, 13:something, and 130: something.
-
That is maybe me that is really unlucky, but the geosurvey teams doesn't seems to work at all. I've used them on nearly 50 worlds (planet, asteroids. . . ) and they NEVER found new minerals or better availlability. I've even noted the last 10 time before and after the team's survey, and no change at all.
My teams have a competence between 120% and 140%.
Ok not a bug, just GIANT badluck. Finally got +10k . 2 corodium on a big planet (after 5 month of research). First time my team find something on 60 or so attempt (mostly asteroids though).
-
Steve: GROUND UNIT list..pls retooltip an useful feature: when u assign some Units into another (DVS or BRG for example) list change visual point..VERY Boring.
Ty ur attention.
-
If you cancel renaming a tech item from the Ctrl-F7 screen, it throws an error about a zero-length string.
Also, in addition to EM scanners not being able to be renamed, gauss cannon cannot either.
Add Meson cannons, plasma carronades, railguns, shields, and Particle beams to the list of not-renameable.
I also noticed (from a generate tech & ships start) there were some duplicated weapons. Identical in all respects.
Missile engines do not show on the Tech report screen either.
-
When my civillian firms build a new ship type I get a 3201 (checked this time when the message again popped up) about a missing line in the tech database. I think they are using tech I haven't developed. I am using a conventional start if that would affect this.
I have twice now attempted to refit my starting IBM bases, in both cases the refit was billed to me in terms of resources and industrial effort but nothing happened, at the end of the refit the base was not refit and remained the same as before. I eventually just used SM mode to add the new design and remove the old. Added in Edit: ah thank you Nathan now I don't feel like I'm an idiot for doing something simple wrong.
-
Refits can't be done on PDCs yet, the general consensus is to use SM to accomplish that.
Mines don't seem to be separating their payload on thermal detection, I'll try building an active detection mine and see if that works.
Update: Active sensor controlled releases don't appear to work either.
Update 2: Regular mirvs do work.
-
When research labs are inactive, it doesn't say (inactive) on the Population and Production pane's Summary tab.
-
If a tech is completed by component disassembly and there is a person researching it, research on the tech is reset, and other wierd things can happen.
-
when enemy ships are out of ammo they can still trigger interrupts and slow the game to a craw. I've got a situation where an enemy amm craft used up everything it had on my ships, and when it spots missiles headed towards it increments drop to 5 seconds, recovering again when the missile hits the craft.
-
Putting maintainence storage bays on PDCs does not result in actual maintainence supplies being added to the PDC. (I'm trying to create a repair dock, and it would be nice if it could carry some of the supplies itself.)
-
Fighter Overhaul dont work: Maintenance Time RAISE UP (timing) when in Overhaul condition...
r an bug?..never show before 6.1..
Ive an Scout (Fighter-Class) in Overhaul..and from 5.0 years pass to 7.4 when am check "Damned my workers what r doing???"
Fighters can't be overhauled or maintained by maintenance facilities. Just put them in a hangar and they will be overhauled.
Steve
-
I ordered a collier ship to visit a nearby system, dump ammo, return, and rejoin TG "1st Fleet" at Sol. The ship's name was "Tender 01" and the hull abbreviation was TN. The ship was alone in a TG called "TN Tender 01".
While the collier was off doing his thing, I ordered TG "1st Fleet" to join TG "Earth Shipyard". These two TGs were at the same location, and this order was completed before the collier returned.
When I queued the 5-day pulse on which the collier was to reach Earth, I got a couple error dialogs that I just clicked through, hoping that the game would keep going. In the Event Updates page, I got an "Orders Completed" message stating "TN Tender 01 has completed orders".
I think TN Tender 01 vanished. It's not listed as a member of TG "Earth Shipyard" and it's not listed on the Individual Unit Details pane, nor is it listed on the "Ships In Class" tab for its class on the Ship Design pane.
Can you remember the text of the error messages and the titles of the popup boxes?
Steve
-
I don't remember, so I just attempted to reproduce it:
Error in ExecuteOrders
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid procedure call or argument
Please report to http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,11.0.html
When I clear that dialog, I get another one that's identical, and then another. After about 100 of these I give up and terminate the process.
That's new, incidentally. First time I saw this, I was able to plow through the dialogs and keep playing.
A few possibly relevant repro notes:
- The collier ship was carrying some missiles.
- After detaching it from 1st fleet, I gave it instructions to travel one jump away, unload ordnance at a colony there, and then return and rejoin 1st fleet.
- I enabled the Task Groups option in the System Locations Display Options so that I could target 1st fleet and give the join order
- While the collier was off doing his thing, 1st fleet merged with Earth Shipyard by using the "Join" action on the Task Group Orders tab, not by using the "Combine with other Task Group" option on the Special Orders / Organization tab.
-
While I can't imagine it'd make any difference, here's the collier ship:
Polonius class Tender 10,000 tons 102 Crew 1150.92 BP TCS 200 TH 512 EM 0
2560 km/s Armour 3-41 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Maint Life 3.82 Years MSP 1108 AFR 533% IFR 7.4% 1YR 119 5YR 1791 Max Repair 102.4 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 1562
256 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 256 Fuel Use 27.48% Signature 256 Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres Range 49.1 billion km (222 days at full power)
Antimissile Mk3 (202) Speed: 19,200 km/s End: 2.2m Range: 2.5m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 128 / 76 / 38
Wasp Mk3 (90) Speed: 19,200 km/s End: 32.4m Range: 37.4m km WH: 4 Size: 4 TH: 121 / 73 / 36
ASM-4-4 Wasp Mk5 (250) Speed: 19,200 km/s End: 81.1m Range: 93.5m km WH: 4 Size: 4 TH: 115 / 69 / 34
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
It's got the "supply ship" and "collier" checkboxes checked.
-
Time came to scrap ICBM bases on Earth. Couldn't find abandon ship button anywhere so used the destroy ship button on the F6 screen and got
"Error in AddWreckTech
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.Fields
Item not found in this collection
Please report etc"
Curiously not all destroyed ICBM complexes generated the error message and the number of error messages per scrapped installation varied between one and three, in the sequence on the attached file. These installations were both "captured from the enemy" and home grown.
Finally there were no life pods associated with the wrecks, which makes sense, but I thought previously there were survivors with the wrecks of PDCs. Incidentally a destroyed ship in Earth orbit also did not give rise to life pods.
There shouldn't be wrecks for PDCs so I've fixed that. I suspect the errors are related to the ICBM bases specifically, rather than a general problem with wrecks.
Steve
-
If you cancel renaming a tech item from the Ctrl-F7 screen, it throws an error about a zero-length string.
Also, in addition to EM scanners not being able to be renamed, gauss cannon cannot either.
Add Meson cannons, plasma carronades, railguns, shields, and Particle beams to the list of not-renameable.
All the above fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
Is it normal that spoiler ships have no shields or spoiler weapons? They also cause an 'overflow' errors nearly every turn.
-
When I advance a turn or open the system view screen, I get the following error:
Error 35602 was generated by nodes
Key is not unique in collection
-
Landing a carrier on a PDC hangar will delete any fighters landed on the carrier. releasing the fighters allows them all to land in the new hangar without this.
-
The information written about jump drives when you click on it in the tech list says that military engines can't use civilian generated jump points and "vice versa." The "vice versa" is wrong as my ships with civilian engines can use a military jump drive produced jump point. I used civilian engines on things like survey ships and my small tanker class so is was nice to find out my grav survey ships could join in with my science vessel for exloration.
-
When I advance a turn or open the system view screen, I get the following error:
Correction: this happens whenever I advance a turn whilst having the system view open in Sol or move/open the system view to Sol, but not my other systems.
-
Situation: Fighter Squadroon windows open: click over Squadron #5 named: Error:
[ooc]Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable or With block variable not set[/ooc]
and when hit ok:
[ooc]Error 3075 wa generated by DAO.Database
Errore di sintassi (operatore mancante) nellespressione della query 'RaceID = 154
and FleetName = 'Squadron#5 - Outlaw's bandits #71"
please report etc..etc..[/ooc]
and finally when programm DO NOT go ahead and Forcely Close this Error:
[ooc]Error 3420 was generated by DAO.Database
Oggetto non valido o non impostato
etcetc[/ooc]
EDIT:
game launched agai,,run Turn in Auto Turns mode on...all good..fear the bug r hiddend into Fighter Squad
EDIT 2:
Destroy Fighter (ive know Fighter's number who r into selected Fight Squadroon) wreck into space..and ERROR..pufff..vanguished..no more.
-
Situation: Fighter Squadroon windows open: click over Squadron #5 named: Error:
[ooc]Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable or With block variable not set[/ooc]
and when hit ok:
[ooc]Error 3075 wa generated by DAO.Database
Errore di sintassi (operatore mancante) nellespressione della query 'RaceID = 154
and FleetName = 'Squadron#5 - Outlaw's bandits #71"
please report etc..etc..[/ooc]
and finally when programm DO NOT go ahead and Forcely Close this Error:
[ooc]Error 3420 was generated by DAO.Database
Oggetto non valido o non impostato
etcetc[/ooc]
EDIT:
game launched agai,,run Turn in Auto Turns mode on...all good..fear the bug r hiddend into Fighter Squad
EDIT 2:
Destroy Fighter (ive know Fighter's number who r into selected Fight Squadroon) wreck into space..and ERROR..pufff..vanguished..no more.
I think when the squadron launched, a fleet was created with that name and the game didn't like the apostrophe. If you rename the fleet and fighter squadron, that should probably fix it. So, "Outlaws Bandits #71" rather than "Outlaw's Bandits #71".
-
I think when the squadron launched, a fleet was created with that name and the game didn't like the apostrophe. If you rename the fleet and fighter squadron, that should probably fix it. So, "Outlaws Bandits #71" rather than "Outlaw's Bandits #71".
Agree ive been renamed.All done u right.
-
Much as I hate to report this, when troop transport bays are destroyed troops in them are not.
-
I'm not sure if this is an intentional behavior or not, so...
I've got a squadron of Escort Carriers engaged in a running chase with a pair of NPR missile ships. I set my fighters up, who have 12 size 1 box launchers, to do impromptu point defense because I've got nothing else and it's better than losing the ships.
When I pulled the fighters back in to have them reload between waves, I forgot to pop them back out again, yet they're still firing countermissiles out, kind of like they're just... propped up in the bays. It's honestly kind of cool.
-
Civilian fuel harvesters don't care about "ban body" settings and go happily to pillage the strategic reserves of Jupiter....
(well, it's not like ban body is very effective in general, but this is worse than usual)
-
Error 3265 in damage control DAO.Fields
I have a 20,000 ton ship with armor damage landed on a fleet hangar base on Earth, the base has no MSP, but the ship has its own supply. it is repairing armor damage over time, but generating many of these errors.
and an error 6 in set npr move orders. A couple of spoiler missile ships trying to hold range on my vessels while their missiles come towards me. after killing their missiles this behavior ended and they charged my ships.
-
The turret design display incorrectly reports the ranges of advanced lasers as their non-advanced counterparts.
-
I've got a large army on a ruins site. Two full brigades of Mobile Infantry, one brigade of assault infantry, four construction brigades, and a Division HQ over the whole thing. During a routine defense against robots from below, I fight a round of combat:
----------
Ground Combat - Alpha Centauri - Ground Defence on Alpha Centauri Far. Total Defence Strength: 176.885 Combat Ratio: 0.1046.. Chance of unit loss: 1%
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 31%. ID: Assault Battalion #1641 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 9%. ID: Assault Battalion #1642 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 23%. ID: Assault Battalion #1643 (Precursors)
----------
Then seven Officer Updates about ground officers gaining ground combat bonus.
Then two messages about a minor bombardment, killing 0.25m people and doing 0.5 industrial damage.
And then...
----------
Reparations - Alpha Centauri - As a result of conquering a hostile pop on Alpha Centauri Far, suitable reparations to the value of 16.0123 have been appropriated and added to the total racial wealth.
Planet Looted - Alpha Centauri - Due to the loss of Alpha Centauri Far, 16.0123 has been looted by the conquering barbarians.
Population Surrender - Alpha Centauri - The alien population on Alpha Centauri Far has surrendered!
----------
The human population on Alpha Centauri Far now has a Political Status of "Vanquished." The installations appear to be intact. My army is...gone. The entire division has just vanished. It's not listed when I turn the Ground Forces pane to show All Ground Forces. The seven officers who received ground combat bonus upgrades are all listed as unassigned and stationed on Earth. The last entry in all of their service records is an assignment to some unit of the 1st Infantry Division.
-
Minor article issue: the ruins surveyed message says "may be recovered by an construction brigade", a holdover from when it was an engineering brigade.
-
My current game is now stuck in an error loop:
"Error in UseFuel"
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid procedure call or argument
Got 60 of those errors on 5 day increments, only one on 5-sec increments.
The only "weird" action I've done was to seize those civi harvesters (Yarr!) and turned them into scrap metal in high earth orbit for future salvaging.
The human population on Alpha Centauri Far now has a Political Status of "Vanquished." The installations appear to be intact. My army is...gone. The entire division has just vanished. It's not listed when I turn the Ground Forces pane to show All Ground Forces. The seven officers who received ground combat bonus upgrades are all listed as unassigned and stationed on Earth. The last entry in all of their service records is an assignment to some unit of the 1st Infantry Division.
This looks like an old bug that seems to elude steve : refer to http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4835.msg52533.html#msg52533
-
I've just encountered an error that seems caught in an infinite loop. This happened in the Populations and Productions window, Summary tab, when I tried to abandon a recently-conquered colony.
Error title: Error in cmdDelete_Click
Message: Error 3420 wqas generated in DAO. Recordset
Object invalid or no longer set.
I conquered this colony within the last month, but doesn't have a population, so I didn't want to keep it since it has a status of Conquered and my regular colony (with no population) has an Imperial status. The alien colony is listed with race Human, even though it came from an alien population ("Elenteriel"). The alien colony contains: 1 x Ordnance Factory, 1 x Terraforming Factory, 96 x Infrastructure.
After clicking Abandon, and saying Yes to the two confirmations, the above error appears. The error appears to loop infinitely.
Maybe related to two colonies on the same planet for the same race, which seems to have happened because the colony had no population, just defending troops (a few Construction troops and something else, maybe a garrison troop) when I conquered it?
There's another alien population in the same system that I'm going to invade, and the F9 screen (system overview, I think) tells me it has 0 population but has defending ground troops. Looks like the same scenario. I'll make a backup of the database in case it's useful for testing, assuming the db doesn't corrupt.
EDIT: The backup appears not to be useful. Relaunched the game and was able to successfully delete both colonies starting with my original human colony. Reloaded the backup, and was also able to delete both colonies starting with the conquered colony.
-
The human population on Alpha Centauri Far now has a Political Status of "Vanquished." The installations appear to be intact. My army is...gone. The entire division has just vanished. It's not listed when I turn the Ground Forces pane to show All Ground Forces. The seven officers who received ground combat bonus upgrades are all listed as unassigned and stationed on Earth. The last entry in all of their service records is an assignment to some unit of the 1st Infantry Division.
Just to double-check - you're playing 6.1, right? I thought Steve thought he'd squashed this one (as mentioned by Cocyte)....
John
-
A fair question. I'm reasonably certain that I'm playing 6.1. Help->About brings up a dialog that says version 6.1.0.
I'm not sure if I queued a 30-day turn or just a 5-day when it went off. I'm not sure if that matters, but something about Steve's description of the troubles underlying the bug led me to think of that.
-
Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
This is a data type converting error (printed in danish, my OS is localized)
Please report etc.
This error turns up after every five day turn, exactly 19 times. The game is not broken per se, after acknowledging the error messages I can continue playing.
I suspect the following is happening:
Something is broken related to enemy ships; before the errors I had a long series of interrupts, SM told me that those interrupts could be the results of aliens fighting each other. When the interrupts stopped, the error messages took over.
I thought for a while that the culprit was a fighter base on an uninhabitable planet, (I had hoped I could just put a fighter wing on a base with enough crew berths and all would be fine, but it seems that if there are no night-clubs on the planet, then the pilots get homesick when their scheduled deployment time is over (in this case only 4 days)). But now I have transported all fighters back to earth, and the error messages continue. I mention it here, because it might have triggered the error spamming.
-
When using the design menu only a couple of menu items such as the Active Sensors will convert to size in tonnage when the "size in tons" box is clicked at the bottom of the screen .All the other items show an HS size even when the tonnage box is ticked.
I could not see this mentioned before so hope it is not something solely with my 6.1 game.
DavidR
-
When using the design menu only a couple of menu items such as the Active Sensors will convert to size in tonnage when the "size in tons" box is clicked at the bottom of the screen .All the other items show an HS size even when the tonnage box is ticked.
I could not see this mentioned before so hope it is not something solely with my 6.1 game.
DavidR
+1 for this.
-
Playing Aurora 6. 1, my first extra solar colony. As the colony population increased and civilian trade goods became available three of the trade goods(chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and spices) showed a negative value in the current import requirement field. (the values are in parenthesis). The trade goods in question have a positive value for the annual shortfall and when the negative value exceeds 10 they are not fulfilled by civilian ships like the other goods are. The negative values increased for awhile. Now they seem to be slowly coming down as the colony population approaches 25 million. The other trade goods for this colony operate correctly, as do the trade goods for all of my solar colonies.
This is my first post, so I cannot attach an image.
-
Playing Aurora 6. 1, my first extra solar colony. As the colony population increased and civilian trade goods became available three of the trade goods(chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and spices) showed a negative value in the current import requirement field. (the values are in parenthesis). The trade goods in question have a positive value for the annual shortfall and when the negative value exceeds 10 they are not fulfilled by civilian ships like the other goods are. The negative values increased for awhile. Now they seem to be slowly coming down as the colony population approaches 25 million. The other trade goods for this colony operate correctly, as do the trade goods for all of my solar colonies.
This is my first post, so I cannot attach an image.
Seems like your civilian freighters are a bit too efficient and managed to flood the market of your little colony of those items...
The long travel distance mean that a freighter may be ordered to do a particular run even if there's already a lot of freighter doing the very same run already on the way. Things should get back to "normal" once the surplus is consumed.
I suppose those 3 trades goods are produced by your biggest solar colony? (which should be earth, but who knows what may happens in a game with several gigaton warheads casualy flying around...)
-
Fighters in PDCs located in an inhospitable environment suffer morale penalties when their intended deployment period is exceeded. As fighters typically have very, very short deployment times, this means that ground-based fighter facilities are no longer feasible, unless within range of a populated planet.
Carriers can venture deep into empty space without its fighter pilots getting morale penalties, no matter how short their intended deployment period is. A PDC with hangar capacity should be able to keep them happy the same way, no matter where it is placed.
-
Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
Data type conversion error.
Please report etc.
Error seems to be caused by ships with long maximum deployment times (120 months) being away from a population. Each such ship generates one of these reports every 5 days.
Ignore that, seems all new ships cause error reports every 5 days, while older ships don't - even when the two designs are identical.
-
Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
Data type conversion error.
Please report etc.
Error seems to be caused by ships with long maximum deployment times (120 months) being away from a population. Each such ship generates one of these reports every 5 days.
Ignore that, seems all new ships cause error reports every 5 days, while older ships don't - even when the two designs are identical.
This sounds correct. I have 13 ships/PDSs with a deployment time of 120 months, and 12 with 60 months, 17 of those are overdue, and I get exactly 21 errors every 5 minutes. The numbers are not quite right, but that can be caused by the fact that I haul some of them out of orbit and back to earth every so often, right now two are on leave, and two others have just returned to duty. Bingo!
-
It's not just the long deployment times, unless they trigger some other error in the database.
The game was running fine and without errors until I deployed 4 fuel harvesters with 120month deployment times and started moving them toward Uranus. That's when (4) errors appeared every 5 days. Since then I've SMed in a number of ships, and they all cause errors when they are not at an inhabited colony. Even when they are copies of older designs - G.E.C.K.s 1-40 cause no errors, the new G.E.C.K 41 causes errors.
-
Playing with missiles, trying to update my missile calculation sheet, I noticed some weird inconsistencies...
I tried several designs, and I obtained this :
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 10 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 2400 km/s Engine Endurance: 9.2 hours Range: 79.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.6068
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 33.6% 3k km/s 0% 5k km/s 6.7% 10k km/s 3.4%
Materials Required: 2.5x Tritanium 0.1068x Gallicite Fuel x1116.5
Development Cost for Project: 261RP
----------------------------------------
This was with those missiles parameters and techs :
A single 0.12 EP engine (Nuclear pulse, 0.1 MSP, x3)
0.3334 warhead (30 per MSP tech... yes, I had fun with insta teching)
0.4466 fuel (0.9 fuel efficiency tech)
0.12 agility (32 agility/MSP)
And for those who didn't found the issue :
look at the chance to hit a 3k km/s target
G.E.C.K.s 1-40 cause no errors, the new G.E.C.K 41 causes errors.
Nice reference, would be better for terraformers ships however :)
-
They were terraformers :). I mentioned them since they were the ones that most clearly slowed that it was not a 'simple' bug. The old ships (1-40) have been around for decades without causing an error. But any new ones (even of the same class)spawn errors as soon as their timers need to be updated. The fuel harvesters were either the cause of the first victims of this bug, while any older ships were fine.
-
I have an asteroid mining colony on 2001 KC77 in Sol. When it launches a mass driver package the speed shows as something like 13331 km/s. There is a CMC on a "nearby" oort cloud asteroid and I see it launching packets every 5 days with speeds of 1000 km/s and 20 or so of them just stacked up infalling towards earth. I've no idea what is going on here. The mass drivers on both CMCs work fine just this one is generating these high speed packets. The distance to earth from both the CMC and 2001 KC77 are comparable so I'm not sure why this is happening.
-
I have an asteroid mining colony on 2001 KC77 in Sol. When it launches a mass driver package the speed shows as something like 13331 km/s. There is a CMC on a "nearby" oort cloud asteroid and I see it launching packets every 5 days with speeds of 1000 km/s and 20 or so of them just stacked up infalling towards earth. I've no idea what is going on here. The mass drivers on both CMCs work fine just this one is generating these high speed packets. The distance to earth from both the CMC and 2001 KC77 are comparable so I'm not sure why this is happening.
I would guess it has to do with either size of the body they are launching from (bigger gravity = slower speed), or with the size of the packages launched (bigger packages = slower speed). This is just explanations that I would find logical, no idea if this is how it actually works ingame.
-
Alex unfortunately none of that is the case. The two mining complexes and any other mass driver I recall using in the past launched any size packet at 1000 km/s. These are going much faster even though they are heavier then then ones launched from the CMC on the other asteroid. The CMC on the comet Encke which has to be the heaviest of the lots of them are also clocked at 1000 km/s. The arrival times for the minerals from the CMC asteroid are in 70 or so days, while this one has an arrival time of 7 days (they are both 2-3 billion km out). I first caught on to something odd when I saw this gold streak across my screen compared to the few cm long ones of the CMC origin mineral packages. It is really odd. When I zoom out enough I can see the packets at 5 day intervals from the CMC on the other asteroid. They stretch from the asteroid to earth. Same is true when I look at the ones from Encke they are again at 5 day intervals and show stacking (depending on where Encke is of course).
Encke launches 29 ton packages, the asteroid CMC is 3 ton, and 2001 KC77 is launching 5 or so tons (could be more now that more mines are present).
added in Edit: now things are even more wacky...last time I looked the package speeds from 2001 KC77 are 8xxx km/s. There is definitly something very strange going on.
-
There's something screwy with damage templates for Missiles and Plasma Carronades (and whatever else uses the same damage profile) for damages above 100. In all cases, the repair cost matches the armor damage displayed on the F6 screen. I did not test to see whether the shield damage is correct.
Test setup was one ship with one launcher shooting a missile at point blank range into another ship which was just a big ball o' armor, 100 levels deep.
Examples -
For a warhead 101 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 101 damage." Actual: 100 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 106 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 106 damage." Actual: 103 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 110 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 110 damage." Actual: 109 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 115 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 115 damage." Actual: 113 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 120 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 120 damage." Actual: 120 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 135 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 135 damage." Actual: 133 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 165 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 165 damage." Actual: 166 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 168 missile or a size 80 Plasma Carronade, the announcement shows "Hits for 168 damage." Actual: 167 boxes damaged.
As you can see, some of the damage was under, some over, a few right on target -- the 70CM Plasma Carronade is right on, but the 80CM one is off.
Whether this actually has any gameplay impact is debatable - if you're lobbing 100 damage missiles, you're already using overkill doing it right.
-
In my current game, I have the "Jump gates on all jump points" option turned on. Sol has jump points to Nagoya and Yokohama, and I've fully surveyed both Nagoya and Yokohama. Upon following an unexplored jump point in Nagoya, I found that it connected to one in Yokohama. Unfortunately, this seems to have deleted the jump gate in Yokohama connecting to Nagoya, so without jump drives, I can travel directly from Nagoya to Yokohama, or from Yokohama through Sol to Nagoya. This is the first system I've found in this game with a connection to an already-explored system.
-
draanyk i think that you poened a closed jump poing as these are not created when the system is but after a ship passes through the other side it normaly does not have a gate this is one of the few times you need a gateship with that setting
-
Ah, I hadn't realized such were possible. Thought my JP survey would have picked everything up. But that's good if it's not a bug; I'd rather it just be me learning something new. :)
-
Both new groundforces officers and civilian admins seem to still interrupt repeat turns.
-
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. Can anyone clarify? ExChairman posted something similar to this earlier today in http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5587.0.html.
I'm messing around with all tech in SM mode, and a race of aliens has persistently been sending in one or two small ships at a time through one of Sol's jump points, despite being annihilated every time without even returning fire (max cloak plus max thermal sig reduction plus max ecm makes me wonder if they can even see me at 1 mil km distance). Anyway, I just had a hostile translation notice, but no ship appeared, so I sent my cruiser squadron through the JP to see if they were on the other side, and they weren't. Then I received a new contact notification in Sol, so I send my cruiser squadron back through the JP, and there's my contact, 433 mil km from the jp. Now, my fleet would have had to pass really close to them. The fleet doesn't have actives, but has ridiculous passives, and Earth's PDC has ridiculous (really, really ridiculous) actives on. I don't see how the contact could have not been seen. Earth is about 2 bil km from the jump point.
Here's the ship that passed near their ship (Actives are OFF, but passives should pick it up):
Star Knight class Scout Cruiser 30,000 tons 671 Crew 56687 BP TCS 3 TH 90 EM 90000
15000 km/s Armour 9-86 Shields 3000-300 Sensors 3750/3750/0/0 Damage Control Rating 91 PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 1181 AFR 7200% IFR 100% 1YR 244365 5YR 3665479 Max Repair 11250 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months Spare Berths 0
Tractor Beam
4500 EP Photonic Drive (2) Power 4500 Fuel Use 3.84% Signature 45 Exp 9%
Fuel Capacity 1,500,000 Litres Range 234.4 billion km (180 days at full power)
Omega R300/15 Shields (200) Total Fuel Cost 3,000 Litres per day
CIWS-1000 (5x16) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor (Starship) (1) GPS 18000 Range 1,350.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor (Missile) (1) GPS 360 Range 270.0m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor (Fighter) (1) GPS 1800 Range 426.9m km Resolution 10
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) (1) Sensitivity 3750 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 3750m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 0.5% of normal
ECM 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
And here's the sensor PDC on Earth (Actives are ON on two of these):
Sensor Array class Sensor Outpost 12,400 tons 395 Crew 83570 BP TCS 248 TH 0 EM 0
Armour 34-47 Sensors 1/9000 Damage Control Rating 150 PPV 0
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Spare Berths 0
CIWS-1000 (5x16) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
PDC Active Search Sensor (Missile) (1) GPS 9000 Range 6,750.0m km Resolution 1
PDC Active Search Sensor (Starship) (1) GPS 900000 Range 67,500.0m km Resolution 100
PDC Active Search Sensor (Fighter) (1) GPS 90000 Range 21,345.4m km Resolution 10
This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 5 sections
Just to be clear, the contact, which is 2400 tons, is well within the range of the PDC's resolution 1 sensor (which actually covers every planet in Sol). And if you're curious about the designs, the idea is that since Earth has a huge thermal and EM signature anyway, no point in trying to hide it. But since it can paint anything in the solar system, nothing else needs to use actives, so can possibly attack without being seen if the cloak is working like I think it is.
-
.....you do realize if your REZ 1 sensor is covering all the planets in sol, you don't need any other sensor? (HOLY CRAP!!!) :o
as for the issue.....you think they might have developed cloaking tech? ???
-
Fighters in PDCs located in an inhospitable environment suffer morale penalties when their intended deployment period is exceeded. As fighters typically have very, very short deployment times, this means that ground-based fighter facilities are no longer feasible, unless within range of a populated planet.
Carriers can venture deep into empty space without its fighter pilots getting morale penalties, no matter how short their intended deployment period is. A PDC with hangar capacity should be able to keep them happy the same way, no matter where it is placed.
What was the deployment period of the PDCs?
Steve
-
They were terraformers :). I mentioned them since they were the ones that most clearly slowed that it was not a 'simple' bug. The old ships (1-40) have been around for decades without causing an error. But any new ones (even of the same class)spawn errors as soon as their timers need to be updated. The fuel harvesters were either the cause of the first victims of this bug, while any older ships were fine.
Is there any difference at all between the designs of the 1-40 ships and the 41+ ships?
Steve
-
Both new groundforces officers and civilian admins seem to still interrupt repeat turns.
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
Much as I hate to report this, when troop transport bays are destroyed troops in them are not.
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
What was the deployment period of the PDCs?
Steve
120 mnths.
Turtle-10 class Planetary Defence Centre 32,150 tons 319 Crew 4001.2 BP TCS 643 TH 0 EM 0
Armour 19-90 Sensors 1/160 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 6
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months Flight Crew Berths 247
Hangar Deck Capacity 15000 tons
10cm Railgun V2/C4 (2x4) Range 20,000km TS: 4000 km/s Power 3-4 RM 2 ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PDC Fire Control S00.5 18-4000 H70 (1) Max Range: 36,000 km TS: 4000 km/s 72 44 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2) Total Power Output 9 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Medium Range Sensor MR45-R20 (1) GPS 2560 Range 45.8m km Resolution 20
Long Range Sensor MR128-R100 (1) GPS 16000 Range 128.0m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 13 sections
-
No, the 41st ship was of the same exact class. I can send you the database if it would help you diagnose the problem.
-
I'm not sure if this is an intentional behavior or not, so...
I've got a squadron of Escort Carriers engaged in a running chase with a pair of NPR missile ships. I set my fighters up, who have 12 size 1 box launchers, to do impromptu point defense because I've got nothing else and it's better than losing the ships.
When I pulled the fighters back in to have them reload between waves, I forgot to pop them back out again, yet they're still firing countermissiles out, kind of like they're just... propped up in the bays. It's honestly kind of cool.
Cool but definitely not intentional :)
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
No, the 41st ship was of the same exact class. I can send you the database if it would help you diagnose the problem.
That would be useful, thanks. Please send it to stevewalmsleyxx007xx@xxgmail.com (without any of the x's)
Steve
-
Civilian fuel harvesters don't care about "ban body" settings and go happily to pillage the strategic reserves of Jupiter....
(well, it's not like ban body is very effective in general, but this is worse than usual)
Fixed for v6.20
Steve
-
That would be useful, thanks. Please send it to stevewalmsleyxx007xx@xxgmail.com (without any of the x's)
Steve
Thanks - database received and problem found. I'll reply to the original bug post
Steve
-
Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
Data type conversion error.
Please report etc.
Error seems to be caused by ships with long maximum deployment times (120 months) being away from a population. Each such ship generates one of these reports every 5 days.
Ignore that, seems all new ships cause error reports every 5 days, while older ships don't - even when the two designs are identical.
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6.20 but will continue to affect current games.
If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).
Steve
-
I've got a large army on a ruins site. Two full brigades of Mobile Infantry, one brigade of assault infantry, four construction brigades, and a Division HQ over the whole thing. During a routine defense against robots from below, I fight a round of combat:
----------
Ground Combat - Alpha Centauri - Ground Defence on Alpha Centauri Far. Total Defence Strength: 176.885 Combat Ratio: 0.1046.. Chance of unit loss: 1%
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 31%. ID: Assault Battalion #1641 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 9%. ID: Assault Battalion #1642 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Alpha Centauri - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 23%. ID: Assault Battalion #1643 (Precursors)
----------
Then seven Officer Updates about ground officers gaining ground combat bonus.
Then two messages about a minor bombardment, killing 0.25m people and doing 0.5 industrial damage.
And then...
----------
Reparations - Alpha Centauri - As a result of conquering a hostile pop on Alpha Centauri Far, suitable reparations to the value of 16.0123 have been appropriated and added to the total racial wealth.
Planet Looted - Alpha Centauri - Due to the loss of Alpha Centauri Far, 16.0123 has been looted by the conquering barbarians.
Population Surrender - Alpha Centauri - The alien population on Alpha Centauri Far has surrendered!
----------
The human population on Alpha Centauri Far now has a Political Status of "Vanquished." The installations appear to be intact. My army is...gone. The entire division has just vanished. It's not listed when I turn the Ground Forces pane to show All Ground Forces. The seven officers who received ground combat bonus upgrades are all listed as unassigned and stationed on Earth. The last entry in all of their service records is an assignment to some unit of the 1st Infantry Division.
Has there been any previous ground combat on the same planet before this robot attack?
The first two messages are for both sides. Are you in designer mode by any chance at this point?
Finally the "The alien population on " message only appears as a result of orbital bombardment. Where you bombarding the alien ground troops at the same time?
Steve
-
I was not in designer mode. It's possible that I was in SpaceMaster mode, though. I turn that on a fair bit, and sometimes leave it on. I have never enabled designer mode, and I'm not sure what it is. Having just now found it on my Game menu, I'm pretty sure I've never seen that dialog box before.
It's possible that there had been a previous robot attack. I'm not certain. There hadn't been any other kind of ground combat, though.
Re bombardment: I wasn't attacking the robot troops with ships or PDCs. It's possible that I'd given the infantry orders to attack. That's not my usual robot-handling technique and it's not likely, but it's not something I absolutely wouldn't do. I don't remember for certain.
-
Fighters in PDCs located in an inhospitable environment suffer morale penalties when their intended deployment period is exceeded. As fighters typically have very, very short deployment times, this means that ground-based fighter facilities are no longer feasible, unless within range of a populated planet.
Carriers can venture deep into empty space without its fighter pilots getting morale penalties, no matter how short their intended deployment period is. A PDC with hangar capacity should be able to keep them happy the same way, no matter where it is placed.
PDCs were set to ignore morale - unfortunately that meant their clocks were not advancing and fighters in PDC hangars were falling back on their own clocks. PDCs will now behave just like any other ships.
Steve
-
I was not in designer mode. It's possible that I was in SpaceMaster mode, though. I turn that on a fair bit, and sometimes leave it on. I have never enabled designer mode, and I'm not sure what it is. Having just now found it on my Game menu, I'm pretty sure I've never seen that dialog box before.
It's possible that there had been a previous robot attack. I'm not certain. There hadn't been any other kind of ground combat, though.
Re bombardment: I wasn't attacking the robot troops with ships or PDCs. It's possible that I'd given the infantry orders to attack. That's not my usual robot-handling technique and it's not likely, but it's not something I absolutely wouldn't do. I don't remember for certain.
Thanks for the info. Definitely something weird going on here. I'll keep looking into it.
Steve
-
I have a campaign with no ai nprs or spoilers enabled, and no npr generation, and occasionally build orders from what I presume are your campaign are leaking into mine on various colonies. No messages are being brought up that I can't build things(probably because there are no construction resources on these empty worlds), and it is not otherwise causing any issues or problems. I deleted yours from my copy of the database, so that might be responsible. My reasoning for that is simply to get the smallest database possible per game, but I'm not sure how much if any that helps me out.
-
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6. 20 but will continue to affect current games.
If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).
Steve
I would love to fix this as I have an extra 12 clicks each turn now. . . however, do I not need a password?
-
On the Technology Report window, which you bring up by pressing "View Tech" on the Class Design window, renaming missile engines doesn't seem to work.
-
On the Technology Report window, which you bring up by pressing "View Tech" on the Class Design window, renaming missile engines doesn't seem to work.
In addition you cannot obsolete old designs. By that I mean you can obsolete them in the tech report screen but they still appear in the missile design screen.
-
There's a freighter with a capacity of 100,000 tons. In its hold are 4,000 units of Corbomite and 4,000 units of Uridium. Available cargo space is 84,000 / 100,000. This freighter is a one-ship TG.
I've got a colony, Alpha Centauri Tertius, that has no mines and is building financial centres. It has 330 corbomite on hand, and no other minerals. Its reserve levels of Corbomite and Uridium are 600. Reserve levels for all other minerals are 0.
I instruct the freighter to move to Alpha Centauri Tertius and queue a 1-day time slice. 23 hours later, the freighter arrives without errors.
A few packets have landed in the meantime. Now the colony has 30 Neutronium, 350 Corbomite, and 17 Tritanium.
I instruct the freighter to "Load/Unload Minerals to Reserve Level" at Alpha Centauri Tertius and queue a 1-day time slice. I get an "Error 3420 generated by DAO.Recordset, Object invalid or no longer set."
I dismiss that dialog and it pops up a second time. I dismiss it again and the turn generates normally. 30 minutes elapse and I get a message that the freighter has completed orders. The colony has 350 corbomite and no other minerals. The freighter has 30 Neutronium, 4,000 Corbomite, 17 Tritanium, and 4,000 Uridium.
I expected the freighter, in addition to picking up the neutronium and tritanium, to unload 250 corbomite and 600 uridium to bring the colony up to its reserve levels. Is that what it's supposed to do?
-
.....you do realize if your REZ 1 sensor is covering all the planets in sol, you don't need any other sensor? (HOLY CRAP!!!) :o
as for the issue.....you think they might have developed cloaking tech? ???
Huh, good point. That'll save me 100HS and the likely huge build cost of those sensors. I actually didn't realize how much range 6.7b km really is in relation to a solar system. The result was that I decided I didn't need sensor outposts on every colonized planet. ;)
As for cloaking, I don't have any confirmation, but this seems unlikely considering how early in the game I was. And this was a generated NPR, so it would have had even less time to develop, I think. Would their cloak, if they had one, even be effective at 2b km considering the ranges for all of the actives I was using, and the range/power of my passives? Plus I had seen all of the other versions of that same ship enter my system (at least 3 other instances).
-
All of a sudden I am getting the following error:
Error in Orbiting Fleet
Error 11 was generated by Aurora
Division by 0
If I keep clicking ok for a while it goes away the turn advances so I'm not sure what is causing this.
-
Happened during a 5 day increment with Auto-turns enabled:
Error in CreateGameLog
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid procedure called or Argument
-
I currently have a problem with auto assignment of naval commanders. Any commander with the rank of Commodore and above will not assign to ships with that level as the minimum required rank. They will, however, happily assign to ships with a lower requirement.
In my game Commodores is a rank 4 naval officer.
I don't know if this is intended behavior or not, but I suppose it is not.
-
All of a sudden I am getting the following error:
Error in Orbiting Fleet
Error 11 was generated by Aurora
Division by 0
If I keep clicking ok for a while it goes away the turn advances so I'm not sure what is causing this.
I get that if I try to orbit an asteroid. I imagine there's a divide by zero or an overflow because of the nil gravity.
-
yes it was orbiting an asteroid the odd thing is that it worked fine before this...it was just suddenly attempting to do a 5k km extended orbit caused this problem. What is very very wierd is that this is the 4th Asteroid I have done this for, and the second time I've done it with this particular asteroid and only now do I get the error.
I stopped doing the extended orbit and the error messages stopped. I'm somewhat confused though why they started...
-
If I click on the gray blank space under the list of imminent events on the Player Race Production Overview screen, I get the following every single time:
Error in cmdStepTime_Click, Error 3078
Clicking through that leads to a pile of errors 91, then a bunch of errors 381, then a 3075, then some more 91. Somewhere during this process the game seems to forget what race you were controlling and all the menus go blank. If you select default race again the game seems to play normally afterwards.
I'm on Windows 7 64 bit, running in compatibility mode for XP-SP3.
-
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6.20 but will continue to affect current games.
If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).
Steve
I think I may be getting this too now. 6th fleet is mostly identical to 5th and 4th, but the ships of 6th were all built at or after 2092, in a game that started in the default 2025. If 6th fleet isn't on a shore leave site, I get one error every five days for every ship in the fleet.
Is 67 years a "long time"? What is "Access" in this context? It's not too bad yet, but this error is going to grow steadily worse as I keep building ships, and this is a really interesting game. I'd hate to abandon it.
-
Not sure if this is a bug or not. My Sorium Harvesters (and the civilian ones) don't seem to be actually taking any sorium from the gas giants... Searched and can't find any mention of this phenomenon.
-
Not sure if this is a bug or not. My Sorium Harvesters (and the civilian ones) don't seem to be actually taking any sorium from the gas giants... Searched and can't find any mention of this phenomenon.
The sorium is harvested and processed into fuel. So the civillian harvesters have fuel asking to be bought to feed your thirsty ships. Your harvesters need to also have large fuel tanks which they will over time fill.
-
Aurora is frequently hanging and becoming unresponsive (perhaps one out of three times I advance the clock). I have to kill it with Task Manager, and when I restart it the last entry in Event Updates is "Increment Placeholder" rather than an actual time.
-
The sorium is harvested and processed into fuel. So the civillian harvesters have fuel asking to be bought to feed your thirsty ships. Your harvesters need to also have large fuel tanks which they will over time fill.
That's not the problem. The fuel is being generated just fine. The problem is that the gas giant isn't being depleted. It had in effect infinite sorium! (Is that really a problem, but still ;) )
-
Upon checking again, the harvesters (now a total of six) have used about 50 tons of Sorium in the space of a year. That still seems a bit low, but I guess it is indeed updating the minerals, just very slowly...
-
Upon checking again, the harvesters (now a total of six) have used about 50 tons of Sorium in the space of a year. That still seems a bit low, but I guess it is indeed updating the minerals, just very slowly...
65 planet based fuel refineries use about 570 tons of sorium per year (that is my yearly demand based on memory), you have 1/10th of that in terms of harvesters so the rate of use seems reasonable.
-
The surrender bug is still with us, not sure if Steve found it before, lost 2 divisions, one of heavy combat troops and 1 of construction engineers, but I still own the colony/planet... Getting a bit annoying, won the fight for the third time and barbarians have conquered my planet and all troops lost.... Again....
-
I've recently developed a serious case of Error 6 overflow in ExecuteOrders. Up to a hundred of these per turn. The year is 2112 in a trans-newtonian start. I think maybe NPR problems? I don't have a hundred things to give orders to afaik.
Cheers
-
65 planet based fuel refineries use about 570 tons of sorium per year (that is my yearly demand based on memory), you have 1/10th of that in terms of harvesters so the rate of use seems reasonable.
Well the harvester rates are more variable, but I see your point. Though I have no proof, I swear for a few years the counter was stuck, but as long as it's working now.
-
This came up in a thread over in the mechanics section. Fighters placed into hangars on PDC's do not get repaired, even if damage control modules are installed on the PDC and there are plentiful maintainance supplies on the planet/in maintainance storage bays in the PDC. Presumably this is because the repair code is linked to the engineering spaces, which PDC's can't possess.
-
metalax -- Did you try this with v6. 10? Just want to clarify that I haven't upgraded from v5. 60 yet.
-
Has there been any previous ground combat on the same planet before this robot attack?
The first two messages are for both sides. Are you in designer mode by any chance at this point?
Finally the "The alien population on " message only appears as a result of orbital bombardment. Where you bombarding the alien ground troops at the same time?
Steve
I just got this bug again, so I can give a clearer report about exactly how it went down:
The site of the action is Altair-A IV. There's a division HQ, four brigade HQs, eight mobile infantry battalions, four battalions of some kind of infantry that I don't recall, four construction brigades, and maybe 3 replacement battalions.
The first set of robot guardians was a few weeks ago, a single battalion, and was destroyed in a couple rounds of combat. Things were peaceful for a time. On 25 August 2095 we turn up another set of guardians composed of two assault battalions. Here's their appearance and the first round of combat:
====================
Robotic Guardians - Altair - 33rd Construction 1st Brigade has disturbed an underground vault on Altair-A IV that contains hostile robotic soldiers
Ground Combat - Altair - Ground Defence on Altair-A IV. Total Defence Strength: 188.153 Combat Ratio: 0.1063 Chance of unit loss: 1.1%
Enemy Casualties - Altair - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 35%. ID: Assault Battalion #1942 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Altair - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 5%. ID: Assault Battalion #1943 (Precursors)
(five officers gain XP)
Bombardment Losses - Altair - Altair-A IV suffered 1 hits for a total of 0 points of damage. Casualties: 0m. Infrastructure Loss: 0. Industrial Damage as follows:
Bombardment Losses - Altair - Altair-A IV Environmental Update: Radiation Level: 0 Dust Level: 0
====================
I'm queueing 5-day turns here, and I've given my infantry no attack orders. They're just defending.
On 30 August 2095 we fight another round:
====================
Ground Combat - Altair- Ground Defence on Altair-A IV. Total Defence Strencth: 190.3214 Combat Ratio: 0.0775 Chance of unit loss: 0.8%
Enemy Casualties - Altair - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 48%. ID: Assault Battalion #1942 (Precursors)
Enemy Casualties - Altair - Casualties inflicted on enemy ground unit. Estimated losses: 24%. ID: Assault Battalion #1943 (Precursors)
Officer Update - N/A - As a result of experience gained in the performance of his duties, Colonel Katherine Law has increased his Ground Combat Bonus to 16%.
Officer Update - N/A - As a result of experience gained in the performance of his duties, Colonel Isobel Parkin has increased his Ground Combat Bonus to 16%.
Officer Update - N/A - As a result of experience gained in the performance of his duties, Colonel Anna Higgins has increased his Ground Combat Bonus to 7%.
Bombardment Losses - Altair - Altair-A IV suffered 1 hits for a total of 1 points of damage. Casualties: 0.025m. Infrastructure Loss: 0.5. Industrial Damage as follows:
Bombardment Losses - Altair - Altair-A IV Environmental Update: Radiation Level: 0 Dust Level: 0
Reparations - Altair - As a result of conquering a hostile pop on Altair-A IV, suitable reparations to the value of 0 have been appropriated and added to the total racial wealth.
Planet Looted - Altair - Due to the loss of Altair-A IV, 0 has been looted by the conquering barbarians.
Population Surrender - Altair - The alien population on Altair-A IV has surrendered!
====================
I'm not bombarding. The only ships in that system are a couple civilian colony ships. Possibly relevant: The first colonists would have arrived not long before this incident. I recovered some infrastructure very recently.
Hope that's helpful. I've saved a copy of my stevefire.mdb right after receiving these messages, in case I can use it to answer any more questions, or in case it's useful in any other way.
-
Getting the same as above, my planet has Desterted Intact Cities on it... I lost a third group of troops so it seems to happen every time as new robotic guardians are disturbed... :'(
-
Legit bug this time. We all know how the planet numbering used to be wonky, but I think that was fixed last version, right? Well anywho, now whenever a super jovian generates for me the moon numbers are off. For instance, I just discovered two systems, and one had a planet with moons 32-71, and this new one has a planet with moons 51-56. Coincidentally, in the latter example, there's an asteroid belt with 50 asteroids, didn't check the other system. I searched but didn't see this reported yet.
Quick Edit: The last example was actually a binary system, and the B component had asteroids starting at 51, and another super jovian with moons 18-40, so maybe the asteroids aren't related.
-
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6.20 but will continue to affect current games.
If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).
Steve
I downloaded an Eval copy of Access to try this. It looks like the database is password-protected. Is this password known to the player community? Am I overlooking something obvious?
-
I downloaded an Eval copy of Access to try this. It looks like the database is password-protected. Is this password known to the player community? Am I overlooking something obvious?
You have to ask Steve nicely for the db password. And don't pass it around.
Plus if you modify the database and encounter errors, make sure you can reproduce them with an unaltered db :)
-
Refits can't be done on PDCs yet, the general consensus is to use SM to accomplish that.
Mines don't seem to be separating their payload on thermal detection, I'll try building an active detection mine and see if that works.
Update: Active sensor controlled releases don't appear to work either.
Update 2: Regular mirvs do work.
I think I have tracked this one down. Buoys no longer require endurance in v6.1. Unfortunately their trigger code was being bypassed because old code was checking their endurance (which they didn't have) but then new code was leaving them in place anyway.
Steve
-
I just got this bug again, so I can give a clearer report about exactly how it went down:
The site of the action is Altair-A IV. There's a division HQ, four brigade HQs, eight mobile infantry battalions, four battalions of some kind of infantry that I don't recall, four construction brigades, and maybe 3 replacement battalions.
The first set of robot guardians was a few weeks ago, a single battalion, and was destroyed in a couple rounds of combat. Things were peaceful for a time. On 25 August 2095 we turn up another set of guardians composed of two assault battalions. Here's their appearance and the first round of combat:
Thanks for the detail. When ground combat takes place, it generates collateral damage. This is resolved as planetary bombardment after all ground combat is resolved. If your population is small, I think it surrendered to the bombardment caused by the collateral damage. In such a case, all defending ground units are removed. What I can't understand is why you seem to be getting messages from both sides.
I'll change the code so you can't surrender to collateral damage and it is stated as such, rather than planetary bombardment. Then I need to look at this in more detail.
Steve
-
Thanks for the detail. When ground combat takes place, it generates collateral damage. This is resolved as planetary bombardment after all ground combat is resolved. If your population is small, I think it surrendered to the bombardment caused by the collateral damage. In such a case, all defending ground units are removed. What I can't understand is why you seem to be getting messages from both sides.
I'll change the code so you can't surrender to collateral damage and it is stated as such, rather than planetary bombardment. Then I need to look at this in more detail.
Steve
That makes sense. The very first colonists had arrived not long before this round of combat. The population would have been very tiny. In the future, I'll take care to not start digging until the population is big enough to soak a stray round or two.
-
Minor bug:
When on the Ordnance/Fighters tab of the Ship Design window, the ranges listed for the fighters in the Select Fighters Type box are not the actual ranges of the craft in question. The ranges shown appear to be in hundreds of thousands of km, while it's listed as billions of km.
-
This isn't a game breaker but what I am getting is that during turn advance a message window pops up and says "No Ranks Found, please set up ranks before creating officers" (or something to that effect). I click ok and the turn proceeds. I assume it is related to an NPR but even in SM mode I can't see how to fix the issue. Any suggestions?
Edited in the correct error message
-
First of all, I apologize for my english.
I don't know if this is a bug but, when I'm at the class design view, I don't see anything else than the ship's name and the size in Ktons of the class in the summary window.
For example I should see Fletcher class Geological Survey Vessel 3 500 tons 50 Crew 338.8 BP TCS 70 TH 240 EM 0
3428 km/s Armour 1-20 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/2 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 61 Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Spare Berths 2
Commercial Massive Ion Drive (1) Power 240 Fuel Use 3.54% Signature 240 Exp 4%
Fuel Capacity 100 000 Litres Range 145.3 billion km (490 days at full power)
Geological Survey Sensors (2) 2 Survey Points Per Hour
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
But I only see Fletcher class Geological Survey Vessel 3
That didn't happen in previous versions and it's very annoying since I don't have a general vision of what I am doing.
And yes, this is my first message, yet I have been playing Aurora for several weeks now.
-
Probably not worth reporting now 6. 2. 1 is out, but finally my game got into a seemingly endless loop. I was in a 5 second combat turn phase, probably 20 or so turns into this (NPR combat) when it just stopped progressing. Waited about 45 minutes and not a 5 second advance. Closed out the game with task manager and tried again. Same result. Repeated this a couple of more times and canned the game. Starting on the newest version now. . .
-
First off, let me state that this bug (I believe it is a bug at this point) relates to the issues initially encountered and outlined in this thread: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5737.0.html
On further investigation I believe that it is the star system itself that is bugged as opposed to a specific ship or missile design. Essentially, the star system GJ 1289 in my game appears to be confused about the position of planetary bodies and possibly the secondary star as well. The system is a binary star system which appears at first glance to simply be large, with the secondary star and accompanying bodies being very far away from the primary star system. I have attached screenshots for context. The first screenshot shows a zoomed in view of the primary star and the jump points leading into the system while the second screenshot shows a zoomed out view which shows the secondary star as well. Note the small blue circle around "GJ-1289-A (G4-V)" in the second shot. That blue circle is an orbital comparison range marker set to 10x Pluto. So, again, this system appears to be massive in size.
Screenshot 1
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9zcm6okqbyk4scl/starsystem1.PNG)
Screenshot 2
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ihzlx5q505sp0v2/starsystem2.PNG?m)
So the issues I have encountered in this system beyond the thread listed above is that any ship that is set to go to planetary bodies around the secondary star initially show a small distance to travel as well as a relatively short ETE. However, as I advance time the distance as well as the ETE grows as opposed to shrinks. Three more screenshots to illustrate this. Note that between each screenshot time was advanced by exactly 1 day. Also note that the destination is a wreck that is in orbit of one of the planets which itself is orbiting the secondary star in this system.
Screenshot 3
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ev1026dcpcbutvn/capture1.PNG)
Screenshot 4
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7x36dhublpwk2d3/capture2.PNG)
Screenshot 5
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5hc56qdhopiam6/capture3.PNG)
Beyond ships inability to actually go to these planets, as well as the issues with launching long range probes towards the planetary bodies, things seem more or less normal in the system. I have colonies on planets around the primary star and am able to travel between them with no problems. It may also be important to note that I am 95% certain that there is, at the least, a NPR colony on one or more of the planetary bodies around the secondary star. I think it may actually be a homeworld but I have been unable to confirm it.
I'm not sure what other information I can provide since there isn't an overt error message or anything but if more details are required I'll be happy to provide what I can, just let me know. Additionally, I am interested in ways to "bandage" this problem if possible as I am not quite ready to start a new game yet. If there is anything I can do to that effect I'd appreciate it.
-
My current game is now stuck in an error loop:
"Error in UseFuel"
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid procedure call or argument
Got 60 of those errors on 5 day increments, only one on 5-sec increments.
The only "weird" action I've done was to seize those civi harvesters (Yarr!) and turned them into scrap metal in high earth orbit for future salvaging.
+1 on this. It started to happen after I tried towing a orbital habitat.
EDIT: I've discovered the problem, aparently my tug crew (Named hercules btw) decided they are too badass to follow the laws of trans-newtonian physics and tried creating another field of physics; the trans-trans-newtonian one. They tried towing the 1/2 KK tons habitat without actually being near it, from venus. (The habitat was on mars.)
-
I have a problem. For any version of Aurora, or pre-installed versions, I got an error message whenever I try to advance past 5 days. The error message goes like this: Errors in LoadFleets: Error 3159 was generated by DAO database Not a valid bookmark Please report to etc, etc, then when I exit out of that I get this: Error 91 generated in Aurora Object variable or block variable not set Please report to etc, etc. Message my profile you have any help!
-
Posting this here as it is the official 6.10 bug list and this is from v6.10...
When I attempt to launch fighters from the fighter mangement panel I get the following error (in version 6.1)
Upon Clicking the Launch button:
Error in cmdLaunch_click
Error 3163 was generated by DAO.field
"The field is too small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add."
I then click OK to remove the error message and get the following error message window
Error in cmdLaunch_click
Error 94 was generated by Aurora
"Invalid use of null."
When I click ok to remove this error window then the first shows up again, and when I click on that the second shows up. I have to use Cntr-alt-del to open up the manager and manual terminate the fighter management panel.
When I then look in the TG list of the TG control panel I find the TG "Guardian Early Warning Pinnance-Big Ears" is present with the fighters I just attempted to launch. Only this is the wrong squadron name...it is the first squadron name in my list of squadron names but it is not the squardon I attempted to launch.
Subsiquently when I got back to the fighter management panel I find the correct squadron is in space and can recover it.
This is completely reproducable, and is independent of which squadron I attempt to launch first. That one will mess up, but after ending the fighter management pannel and reopening it things function normally.
-
When I then look in the TG list of the TG control panel I find the TG "Guardian Early Warning Pinnance-Big Ears" is present with the fighters I just attempted to launch. Only this is the wrong squadron name...it is the first squadron name in my list of squadron names but it is not the squardon I attempted to launch.
Have you tried changing this (and any similarly long name in the squadron name list) to something shorter to see if there error goes away?
John
-
I think the problem isn't the name...as that isn't an issue later...the problem seems to be it is putting the fighters from Fort Dublin Early Warning Pinnaces into "Guardian Early Warning Pinnance -- Big Ears" for no obvious reason.
If in the fighter management screen I set the mothership to Fort Dublin, and click on the Fort Dublin Squadron in the list and then click Launch. I get the error. When I kill the fighter management screen with the task manager and look in my TG listing I find the fighters are in the "Guardian Early Warning Pinnance -- Big Ears" TG. If I open the Fighter Management Screen I find the Fort Dublin Squadron is in Sol and I can manipulate them. Including recovery or actually at this point launch other squadrons without this error showing up.
I can get around this problem depending on how I launch the parasites. If I use the fighter management screen it is pretty much guarenteed to show up...but if I use the TG display I can avoid it.
The Guardian Early Warning Pinnance Squadron is the first squadron in my list of squadrons in my Figher Management screen. If this is relevant or not is not clear.
I will try changing the name of Fort Dublin's squadron to somethig shorter though and see if the problem goes away...I'm just dubious about the problem being the length of the name.
-
Alright I changed the name to something shorter and the problem went away. I will try a few more times opening and closing things and see if it stays away.
ADDED IN EDIT:
I have checked a bit more in detail. The problem comes if the name is longer than the window that has the list of squadron names can display. By making the squadron name shorter than that the problem has gone away.
-
Alright I changed the name to something shorter and the problem went away. I will try a few more times opening and closing things and see if it stays away.
From the behavior you've described, it sounds like Steve didn't put enough characters in the max size for the entry in the DB - at least that's what the error seemed to be saying was going on (and we've had problems of that sort in the past). I assume the weird behavior you were seeing (where you were getting the wrong squadron selected) was due to a problem in the error recovery code when the DB complained.
STEVE - Is there a way to programmatically limit the size of the text boxes in the dialogs used to set names to the sizes of the corresponding DB fields? That idiom might be a general fix for this problem - if the user isn't able to type any more characters in the box they'll notice their name is too long....
John
-
Assigning naval officers to fighters and leaving them there for a 24-month tour of duty seems to increase their Fighter Combat Bonus and promotion score to completely ridiculous levels. After one tour of duty, one of my officers had a Fighter Combat Bonus rating of 800%, and a promotion score of 161,989. Every other officer who has spent time in a fighter command has ended up with similarly inflated numbers.
-
====Possible Bug 1=====
I don't know if this is a bug or not but during the last battle I got four times the same event.
9 pt warhead strikes 4500 tonne ship with shield strength of 6.
Shield is reduced to 3. 3 points of damage are done to armour. No internal hits.
Somehow 3 pts of damage was not applied to the shield, its strength didn't go to 0 but only to 3.
When the 9 pt warhead strikes the 9000 tonnne ship with shield strength of 9 the shield is reduced to 0. In that case it seemed to work as expected.
====Possible Bug 2====
Ship signature 179 jumps into a mine field and mines don't trigger. Mine stage 1 has active sensors (resolution 60 range 230 000 km) and seperation distance set to 150 000 km. Mines deployed at 4 points 90° apart on a ring 100 000 km from jump point. Target ship jumped in ~24 000 km from the jump point. Target ship has ECM strength 50. Mines had been deployed by using the "launch at waypoint" command.
Not sure if this is a bug or not.
-
On my laptop where I just moved the files from my main computer to the laptop rather than re-installing I am getting the following error when I click on the system details button (the sun symbol):
Error in LaunchSystemWindow
Error 713 was generated by Aurora
Class not registered.
You need the following file to be installed on your machine MSSTDFMT.DLL
Anyone know where I can get this dll? Or even what it for?
-
On my laptop where I just moved the files from my main computer to the laptop rather than re-installing I am getting the following error when I click on the system details button (the sun symbol):
Error in LaunchSystemWindow
Error 713 was generated by Aurora
Class not registered.
You need the following file to be installed on your machine MSSTDFMT.DLL
Anyone know where I can get this dll? Or even what it for?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,2031.0.html Second post. :)
-
Thanks Eric, just for information the two links in that post can't be displayed. I think they point at non-existent web pages right now.
-
Try here http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1715.msg21036.html#msg21036
The links in the other are from a very old iteration of the boards.
-
Ok I downloaded the .dll and put it in the aurora folder...but that didn't work. So I tried that shutdown program (installed and immediately uninstalled) and that fixed it.
Thanks to everyone involved in this over the last years...
I am running Windows 8 on my laptop so this is not just a windows 7 issue. It wasn't an issue with my Vista Home Premium tower but I also have Office installed on that machine.
-
Ok I downloaded the .dll and put it in the aurora folder...but that didn't work. So I tried that shutdown program (installed and immediately uninstalled) and that fixed it.
Thanks to everyone involved in this over the last years...
I am running Windows 8 on my laptop so this is not just a windows 7 issue. It wasn't an issue with my Vista Home Premium tower but I also have Office installed on that machine.
The MS Standard Format .dll (MSSTDFMT.DLL) was dropped from Windows installs on all MS OS's after Vista. It's an older protocol that VB6 needs though.
-
Thanks Charlie...at least I know what the stupid thing is now!
-
I'm not sure this is exactly a bug but it is certainly something that is a tad odd.
When I look at the signature (thermal and EM) from a CMC complex it is 5. This value is independent on the number of CMCs present. It is also not related to the fact that each CMC is 10 automines plus there is a functional mass driver in orbit. When I look at my government run mine with 10 automines and a mass driver I see a signature of 55 (thermal and EM).
So a civillian mining colony with 19 CMCs should have 19*10*5+5=955 signature.
-
I have encountered another bug that is related to player actions.
I had a geosurvey team on a moon. They had completed their survey. I gave the ship in orbit the order to pick them up and move to the next moon and drop them off.
I then abandoned the colony on the moon.
When I ran the turn I got a 2430 (not absolutely sure it was this but 24x0 for certain) error. The team had been moved to my capitol and I had to use Ctrl-Alt-Del to stop the looping error. The ships orders borked up as well. After stopping the error loop I recovered by the SM tool but I don't see why abandoning a non-existant colony should affect a team present on the moon. I don't really understand why landing a geosurvey team makes a planet/moon/asteroid automatically a colony though.
-
I don't really understand why landing a geosurvey team makes a planet/moon/asteroid automatically a colony though.
The answer is a computer science one. Basically, the way Steve wrote the code, the scientists/team have to be somewhere, i.e. in a "location". A ship is a location, a colony is a location, but a planet is not a location. So when you killed the colony you killed the bucket that held the team and the program didn't know where to go. I different way to think about it is that Steve misnamed "colony" - he should have called it "planetary location". In order to put something on a planet you have to create a planetary location. If you delete the planetary location while something's still in it, bad things happen - either the stuff (like factories) goes away, or it goes into limbo.
The bug here is that Steve isn't preventing operator error. The fix would be something analogous to what windows does if you try to rename a word doc that you're in the middle of editing - it says "can't move while the file is open" and refuses to do what you just told it. Similarly, Steve could put in a check that you don't have any teams on the colony when you try to kill it. The problem with that is that his likely to miss something else that will have the same effect (like "move to" orders in a ship) and then we'll get the same errors.
John
PS - I just reread your post. The answer to "why landing a team ..." creates a colony on the moon was that it was an enhancement that people requested. In the old days you had to create a colony by hand before giving orders to land a team on a body - the computer would do the check " is there a colony present" and refuse if there wasn't. This was a pain in the butt, so Steve set it up so that a "land" order would automatically create a colony under the covers.
-
John,
Ok, now I understand. I didn't think it was necessary to worry about the timing of the abandon colony command as there was no colony there just the team. I'll remember it for the future. As you explain the situation I also now understand why the object becomes a colony. Thank you very much for the explaination.
-
Two things I have noticed that seem to be bugs:
1. In my gravitational survey of Ross 695 I had two ships doing the survey. When they were down to the last two survey locations, ship 1 completed the survey of the survey location but ship 2 still had 151 pts to go. At this point I got the message that the gravitational survey was complete. I would have thought that message would have come after the 2nd ship was finished not while it was still surveying.
2. Mineral packages from CMC's internal mass driver travel at 1000 km/s yet those from player owned mass drivers travel at variable speeds seemingly chosen to reduce the transit time from the sender to the reciever to under 2 days. Is this what is supposed to happen? I've seen speeds from 3600 km/s to 17000 km/s from government run mass drivers.
-
2. Mineral packages from CMC's internal mass driver travel at 1000 km/s yet those from player owned mass drivers travel at variable speeds seemingly chosen to reduce the transit time from the sender to the reciever to under 2 days. Is this what is supposed to happen? I've seen speeds from 3600 km/s to 17000 km/s from government run mass drivers.
IIRC, packet speed scales inversely with packet size. So if your mass driver is saturated, it will produce slow packets, but if you've only got a single mine going with low accessibilities they'll scream along. Don't know if this is sufficient to explain what you're seeing, though.
John
-
I'll assume that the civilians simply don't install enough mass drivers so the packets are always overloaded, the cheap bastards.
-
The civillian packets are always moving at 1000 km/s and they vary in size from 40 tonnes to 250 tonnes. I will have a harder look as I have packets of <1 tonne, 3 tonnes, 9 tonnes and 19 tonnes from my colonies. All launched by a single mass driver. I can say that the 9 and 19 tonne packets seem to have velocities nearly a factor of 2 appart. I don't think in any case I have saturated the capacity of the launcher since I produce around a maximum of 1200 tonnes per year (150 tonnes per year * 8 minerals)
Also each CMC comes with a mass driver so in principle the civillian packets are being launched by upwards of 20 mass drivers.
added in edit: Ok looking at the velocities and such they seem to scale reasonably well, within anyway rounding errors for the packet size I'd say. So the packet that is "0" is moving at 93K km/s, 9 is moving at 6500 km/s and 20 is moving at 3500 km/s. However, civillian packets all move at 1000 km/s...regardless of size. However no mass driver is saturated at this point.
-
I have been getting the following error the last little while, seems to come every 5 1 day turns:
ErrorInCheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 created by DAO.field
Data Conversion Error
I have looked and all my ships, bases, and pinances have morale of 100% and so I'm not sure what is causing this. Any ideas?
-
While I would really like to know what is causing the error above as it seems to be related to new ship construction and I don't want to have to click to clear it every five days for every ship I build in the future I also have gotten the following error.
The circumstances were my salvager finished operations, I stopped playing and the next day when I started the error showed up. I use the task manager to end Aurora and then restarted Aurora and the error didn't show up.
Error in SetNPRMoveOrders
Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable of With Block not set
-
I have been getting the following error the last little while, seems to come every 5 1 day turns:
ErrorInCheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 created by DAO.field
Data Conversion Error
I have looked and all my ships, bases, and pinances have morale of 100% and so I'm not sure what is causing this. Any ideas?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5448.msg57502.html#msg57502
Steve
-
Thanks Steve...the perpetrators are therefore the first ships I launched not the last...I'll have to see if Starslayer can fix this then he has access.
-
In 6.10 I have made a 0.2 HS passive EM sensor (for pinance use) and it gives me a rating of 1.2 (I have EM sensitivity 6). I then tried the same thing once I developed Thermal sensitivity 6 and found that the resulting system has a rating of 1 for the same 0.2 HS Thermal sensor system. I noticed that there seems to be truncation or rounding on the thermal system which isn't present in the passive EM sensor.
EM sensor 0.2 HS gives rating 1.2
Thermal sensor 0.2 HS gives rating 1
-
Also in 6.10 I have been getting the following error message:
Error in RecoverSurvivors
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
so far as I can tell (in SM mode) two NPRs are fighting one another. This is coming up at the start of each turn of combat.
-
Not really sure this is a bug, but I am observing something very odd.
I have an asteroid with 10 auto-mines, when its mass driver launches minerals I see the mineral package on the map and it weighs in at around 17 tonnes. I have a new 1 CMC asteroid and when it launches minerals I see a pagkage with 241 tonnes. I turned on the "show contents of mineral packages" and I see they are launching essentially the same size package (the number of minerals is about the same), so both should be around 17 tonnes. There seems to be some sort of artificial inflation of the size of civillian mass driver packages. They don't correspond to the size of the minerals in them.
I'm not sure if this is big deal or not but it is certainly curious.
-
Question, why are you posting here? Did you just misclick or are you reporting a bug for 6.10. Because If the latter, the game has been updated and the bug most likely solved. If former, Copy and paste to the current and delete this post.
-
Because my current game is in 6.10.
-
But there's no need to report bugs for this version as there are several newer versions. I get that you are using this one but hes not working on this stuff. Plus this bug has been fixed as of the latest update already.
-
But there's no need to report bugs for this version as there are several newer versions. I get that you are using this one but hes not working on this stuff. Plus this bug has been fixed as of the latest update already.
Steve has requested that people log bugs in the thread corresponding to the game that they're playing.
John
-
This is a bug, I can but hope, that has been fixed. I just noticed that the "crew" value of docked small craft have increases with the time their mothership is deployed. But this means that when you launch the small craft their morale drops like a rock since they exceed their planned endurance by possibly significant margines. This seems a bit odd to say the least...
-
Does the mothership have flight crew berths (in the design screen)? Not having those would cause something like what you're describing.
-
To the best of my knowledge the ship has flight crew berths yes. I have noticed it now with all of the pinnaces so it is very odd. I will have a look through but I'm sure the ships have flight crew berths...yes just looked on the AAR the Enchanter Mod1.3 has 11 flight crew berths and the C3 pinnace has a flight crew of 3.
Another even more bizzarre bug was found during OP Ivanhoe. I had broken the 4th Sqn up into a lead ship and all the other (including their pinnaces) and gave the lead ship orders to move to LP2 and do a transit to LP1. I then used the "copy orders" command to give it to all the other ships. When it executed the lead ship went to LP1 every other ship went to the star. I used SM tools to move them all back but it was very very odd.
-
I am clearly experiencing a bug with regards to small craft deployment time. The time is increasing while the small craft is docked except where the mothership is at a maintenance facility or is a PDC. The ships all have sufficient spare berths to cover the flight crew (and in one case even the passengers of the EW/SAR).
I assume this is fixed in a later version but right now I can clearly see it happening. As I am using boat bays and not hanger decks I don't know if it the issue goes away once hanger decks become available but with boat bays I'm seeing it. It will be a few game years before I have hanger decks though.
-
I just spotted an issue with Titan (as I was ground surveying it). The base temperature of titan is -196.4°C. This seems to be so that it has the same temperature as the other moons (-178°C) after adjusting for its greenhouse effect. However, it should have a base temperature of -178°C...I'd love to adjust that value but it doesn't seem possible. I also didn't orginal see the proper green house effect for that moon. I spotted that a number of the other moons have a green house factor of 0...so something seems to be wonky here.
-
I just spotted an issue with Titan (as I was ground surveying it). The base temperature of titan is -196.4°C. This seems to be so that it has the same temperature as the other moons (-178°C) after adjusting for its greenhouse effect. However, it should have a base temperature of -178°C...I'd love to adjust that value but it doesn't seem possible. I also didn't orginal see the proper green house effect for that moon. I spotted that a number of the other moons have a green house factor of 0...so something seems to be wonky here.
I probably rigged the temperature ten years ago to match the wiki entry for Titan. I probably should go through all the moons and fix them as I suspect we know a lot more about the conditions after Cassini and all the wiki data has been updated.
-
Well at least what I quickly looked up makes the -178°C final temperature correct (give or take a few degrees). The green house factor being 0 on some of the outer solar system moons probably is the only thing you have to look at.
When I first looked at the entry for Titan the green house factor showed as 1 and the abedo showed as 1. The temperature was still calcuated properly at -178°C but it took me going into SM mode and clicking update atmospher for the proper numbers to show up in the table.
A few looks here and there on the net show the temperature values of the Galliliean moons are also fairly close to reality. That surprised me; I thought the moons had more heating from Jupiter itself but seems that while that may generate interal heat their surface temperature is still very cold.
-
Steve, I have access from my office2016 package but when I open the data base to correct the variable issue that is causing me so much frustration I get a password request.
1. it is in the database I have to correct this variable issue right? Switch it from long to double as I read.
2. If the answer to 1 is "yes" can you email me the password so I can attempt to fumble finger my way through this...if it was more complex then this I'd not even try but swapping a variable should be easily within my competence even if I have never touched access in my life.
Thanks.
-
Steve, I have access from my office2016 package but when I open the data base to correct the variable issue that is causing me so much frustration I get a password request.
1. it is in the database I have to correct this variable issue right? Switch it from long to double as I read.
2. If the answer to 1 is "yes" can you email me the password so I can attempt to fumble finger my way through this...if it was more complex then this I'd not even try but swapping a variable should be easily within my competence even if I have never touched access in my life.
Thanks.
You will have to refresh my memory as to the issue. However, there are usually matching variables in the DB and the EXE in terms of data type. Changing the DB will only work if the EXE already has the double data type. I probably can't tell you the EXE variable data type as there have been several versions since and if it was a problem I have probably updated it. Nothing lost by trying though.I will PM password.
-
Steve, I have access from my office2016 package but when I open the data base to correct the variable issue that is causing me so much frustration I get a password request.
1. it is in the database I have to correct this variable issue right? Switch it from long to double as I read.
2. If the answer to 1 is "yes" can you email me the password so I can attempt to fumble finger my way through this...if it was more complex then this I'd not even try but swapping a variable should be easily within my competence even if I have never touched access in my life.
Thanks.
And no matter what Access says, don't convert the database!
-
Ok to put the issue all in one place....here is my original post and your reply...
from: Me on March 25, 2014, 10:47:54 PM
I have been getting the following error the last little while, seems to come every 5 1 day turns:
ErrorInCheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 created by DAO.field
Data Conversion Error
I have looked and all my ships, bases, and pinances have morale of 100% and so I'm not sure what is causing this. Any ideas?
Steve replied with the following link:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5448.msg57502.html#msg57502
Expanding the above link...your full reply would have been:
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6.20 but will continue to affect current games.
If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).
Steve
You will have to refresh my memory as to the issue. However, there are usually matching variables in the DB and the EXE in terms of data type. Changing the DB will only work if the EXE already has the double data type. I probably can't tell you the EXE variable data type as there have been several versions since and if it was a problem I have probably updated it. Nothing lost by trying though.I will PM password.
Now...thanks for the password, but before I do something stupid....
Is it sufficient to change just the LastLaunchTime in the database to double or do I have to edit the .exe somehow? If I have to edit the .exe what program do I use for that?
I will also NOT allow access to convert the database!
-
Ok to put the issue all in one place....here is my original post and your reply...
Now...thanks for the password, but before I do something stupid....
Is it sufficient to change just the LastLaunchTime in the database to double or do I have to edit the .exe somehow? If I have to edit the .exe what program do I use for that?
I will also NOT allow access to convert the database!
From my original response, it looks like the exe was OK and just the DB was the problem so you should be fine just changing the DB (which is good as you can't edit the exe).
-
Thank you Steve, I will proceed with all due caution and attention to detail!
-
I have ran into a rather odd situation that is clearly "not working as intended."
The 8th Battlegroup was in Sol and was undergoing task force training, everything was working as usual. But this particular formation has a high fuel need so I thought I'll move it to AD Leonis and let Forge deal with the fuel for it. I move the 8th Battlegroup to Forge give them orders to refuel and waited till they are finished shore leave. Then I click "Task Force Training" and ignore them.
A month or so later I go back to check on their progress, fuel status and so on and I notice they are still in Forge orbit, apparently never having moved, with their speed still set to maximum. Odd, so wondering if they are infact training; as it looked indeed like they were, I note down the number of a ship and advance a few weeks and check again. The result is that training is clearly happening but the ships remain in Forge orbit and aren't burning fuel.
Basically the random movement at 25% of maximum speed is not occuring but the ships are still considered to be in training. I also don't see "Training" for this time period in the order history.
-
Yeah. That happens whenever a unit is training and they're not in the same system as their fleet HQ. It also allows you to give orders by double-clicking on things in the orders menu. I tend to do that with any units that are forward-deployed.
-
I had my suspicion that it was due to not being in the same system as their HQ. Now I have to decide how long I allow this to go on, as these are big (for the NCN) ships with high fuel use normally, off the top of my head the 8th must have close to 8 million litres of fuel in their tanks. I figure I'll cheat for about another month until I have to send them back home to refit. In fairness then I'll have to do the rest of their training in Sol. This out of Sol training will have to wait it seems as the CA is the first ship that will have a flag bridge and that is held up due to the jump engine.
Thanks for clearing that up Byron.
-
Just getting to Jabberwocky and something odd happened. I had a Gargolye class frigate undergoing refit in the 8th Sqn SG and since I needed to move things around I moved the ship to my training/shakedown group. It was part way through its refit.
I then gave orders for the 7th and 8th Sqn to start moving to the jump point. I noticed that the 8th Sqn SG stayed put. I could not SM them to the JP but SMed them to Forge. They then stayed put there. So I created a new TG and moved the ships to it. Then I tried to delete the old one after the new one actually followed orders. It said "not allowed as ship are associated with shipyard tasks"...the TG at this time is empty. I look in the shipyard and find out that the Gargolye class frigate now in the 9th Sqn is still showing that it is part of the 8th. The fact that it was moved after the start of the refit did not get updated.
-
Just noticed an issue in an old game I've resurrected. Where swarm queens deploy their FACs it looks like they don't remember to recall them before trying to jump through a warp point. As a result they are constantly trying to do a squadron drop where they don't have the ability to do so and are stuck on the jump point constantly retrying to jump. Obviously they need to order a recovery before jumping or use a standard transit to be able to keep going.
-
I ran into a bug caused by using an "'" in a squadron name. In this case the name was "Pwn'd" and it caused the following non-(outside of the use of the task manager)-recoverable error sequence:
Error in Check Fleet Name
Error 91
Object variable or with Block variable not set
This was followed by:
Error 3075 was generated by DAO.Database
Syntax error (missing operator) in querry expression 'Race ID = 164 and Fleet Name 'Paunee Early Warning Pinnace-Pwn'd#27"
These two were in a never ending loop. After changing "Pwn'd" to "Pwnd" the problem went away. A warning to avoid "'" in squadron short names is perhaps a good idea.
-
I have run into a bug with distance calculations during point defence fire. It was occurring during point blank point defence mode shots.
I had CLE(1) stationed 10k km at offset -5° from a CL. I then had CLE(2) stationed at 10k km offset -10° from that same CL. I had CLE(3) stationed at 10k km offset +5° from the same CL.
When I zoomed in I could see that both CLE(2) and CLE(3) were within 10k km of CLE(1). CLE(1) was being subjected to a magic missile bombardment. When I looked into the logs CLE(2) firing in defence of CLE(1) was getting a range of 10.7k km. The CL that it was using as its reference point was also not firing at 10k km but a greater distance as well. When I looked there seemed to be issues all over the place with the ranges given for the final fire in PBDM. But in the case of the 3 CLEs they were referenced against the same ship so they had to be inside of 10k km from each other.
I suspect this may be a rounding error issue, but that is only a guess.