Official v6.10 Bugs Thread

[Paul M]

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...

[JacenHan]

Does the mothership have flight crew berths (in the design screen)? Not having those would cause something like what you're describing.

[Paul M]

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. 

[Paul M]

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.

[Paul M]

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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[Paul M]

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.

[Paul M]

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 Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[boggo2300]

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!

[Paul M]

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! 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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).

[Paul M]

Thank you Steve,  I will proceed with all due caution and attention to detail!

[Paul M]

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.

[bean]

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.