Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 7 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: paolot
« on: April 22, 2025, 07:54:53 PM »

TN start, Real stars, dot as decimal separator, 94 years in the game.
I have just discovered a system having the same name (Epsilon Horologii) of another one. See the attached image (I placed them side by side to do the screenshot).
The new system is the 216th that I met. These two systems are very different one another.
I wish to change the name of the most recent system. But, how can I choose a suitable name? especially a name not already present in the DB, and coherent with the real stars environment.
Posted by: Ghostly
« on: April 16, 2025, 11:25:30 AM »

Conventional start, Real Stars, period separator, 60 years in.

Ordering a fleet with a tanker to "Transfer Fuel to Refueling Hub" will exceed the hub's fuel capacity and keep transferring fuel until the tanker is empty. Attached screenshot is how I found it in my game, also managed to replicate with a different tanker design and a brand new hub design (just fuel tanks and the hub module, no other modules). Something similar has been reported here https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10990.msg126741#msg126741 , though in my case one hub in the fleet is enough for the bug to manifest. This is problematic because the "Refuel Stationary Fleet" order is also unreliable as reported here https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13464.msg172115#msg172115 , I had to up my order delay for it from 10 minutes to 1 hour to make it work in increments above 8 hours.
Posted by: Chris Foster
« on: April 14, 2025, 01:07:12 AM »

Error Function #1516 occurs every increment due to ground forces.

Two formations exist as in the picture attached/below. Both were created via the organizations tab, with the 1st being created from the instant org button. Deleting the formations fixes the error. removing the MLRS companies from the formations also fixes the error. but re adding them causes it again. removing all the tank companies also fixes the error, they can be re-added but if there is 4 or more tank companies in one formation, or if there is 3 tank companies and at least one MLRS company, the error persists.

I have noticed from messing around with them that the tank company actually has 0 units of a construction/cap vehicle that i set to zero but forgot to delete, while the MLRS has 1 (intentionally). Im no programmer but i suspect some sort of float error or something with the total formation due to the existence of the 0 units in the tank company, since the error does not occur when the formation consists of only MLRS units. the error does not persist when the tank companies are under no hierarchy.

https://imgur.com/a/zoNuCKy
Posted by: trabber Shir
« on: April 13, 2025, 08:53:40 PM »

The function number - N/A
The complete error text - N/A
The window affected - Naval Organization -> Ship Combat
What you were doing at the time - Launching long range survey missiles at Minerva and it's moons from a 1000t craft with a size 99 box launcher
Conventional or TN start - Conventional
Random or Real Stars - real
Is your decimal separator a comma? - no
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - consistent in attached db
If this is a long campaign? - No, started in 2.5.0 and upgraded to 2.5.1, but only 30ish years in (I don't remember the start year, am currently on 2053)

At first I though it was due to skill of my crew, but when it did not get any better after training got above 30% I decided to get out the calculator and verified exactly 1/10th the number of seconds that pass get removed from the count down. So, probably a format string issue.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: April 04, 2025, 11:48:25 AM »

 --- UPDATE: Turns out, the bug seems to be fixed. Finally, fighter sized colony ships and fighter sized cargo shunts are possible. HUZZAH! ;D

 --- So this was and to my knowledge still is a long-standing bug, but fighter sized ships despite their descriptions / mechanical implications, cannot land on planets to unload / load things w/o a cargo shuttle bay or spaceport. I noticed in my 2.5.1 game that a Shuttle sized Cargo Bay now exists, so I intend to test whether or not this bug is no longer present and will edit the post if it has been. Mostly for future reference for myself and a good tracker for if the bug is still present. Will edit soon.
Posted by: Ghostly
« on: March 29, 2025, 08:29:43 AM »

A commercial carrier with maintenance modules won't maintain its strikegroup if no parasite has any maintenance storage, even if maintenance capacity/support is sufficient. Parasites' maintenance clocks will keep ticking, they won't drain MSP from the carrier and will be susceptible to maintenance failures. If at least one parasite has MSP storage, the rest will also be maintained.

Screenshot one: on the top, a small carrier failing to maintain its MSP-less strike group on the top, a fleet with a carrier successfully maintaining its mixed group of MSP and non-MSP-carrying parasites on the bottom.

Screenshot two: same small carrier one construction increment after SM-adding 5 MSP storage to the parasite design.
Posted by: Ghostly
« on: March 21, 2025, 04:06:41 AM »

Conventional start, Real Stars, period separator, almost 60 years in, DB link (couldn't attach normally, file too large)

My Swarms' AI is apparently broken, their survey and combat ships are stuck at jump points within my buoy range and do absolutely nothing. In-game this is visible in Phi Lyrae and Luyten Palomar 888-64 systems. Additionally, they hardly seem to produce any new ships, with Swarm #2 (Race #618) being somewhat of an exception, having produced 5 ships in a year. Swarm #1 (Race #609), now extinct, has produced a single Pyrovore in 8 years of existence.

Similarly, according to my DB's IndustrialProjects and ShipyardTask tabs, almost no NPR is building any new installations or ships, the only active NPR shipbuilding tasks belong to a near-extinct race.

Observations:
  • No Swarm survey ship, except the sole surviving Lictor of Swarm #2, has any standing orders. However, each known Lictor has entered a new system at least once.
  • Encountering my buoys and mines didn't prevent Swarm survey ships from attempting to carry on with their duties in the past.
  • No Swarm ship has ever attempted a JP transit to catch one of my ships, they'd always camp the JP instead.
  • The only races posessing Swarm Extraction Module tech according to the DB are my two starting NPRs. However, every Swarm Ripper has that module.
  • No weird increment interrupts were observed.

Update:
  • Every functioning survey ship has RedployOrderGiven=1 in FCT_Fleet. Swarm surveyors without a standing order have it set to 0. Not sure what that means.

Update:
  • Swarm #4(#626) has gotten unstuck and resumed gravitational surveys 10 days after getting stuck. Swarm #3(#621) resumed gravsurveys roughly 10 months after getting stuck and still has no new ship entries in the DB.
Posted by: Inglonias
« on: March 15, 2025, 08:41:32 PM »

Not sure if this is intentional or not, but I discovered what I believe is a bug when messing with the database for fun and profit.

I was nervous about my abilities compared to the NPR, and discovered that despite setting the research speed to 20%, the NPR appears to have gotten the full 160k research points to spend at the start of the game, and I got 32k. Now that I know about this, I can compensate for it, but I had no way of knowing besides literally cheating and setting the NPR to a player race for a little bit so I could peek.

EDIT: I want to clarify that setting the NPR to a player race so I could peek was the only database edit I made, and I set it back before continuing gameplay.

EDIT 2: I checked the Known Issues thread and this is working as intended.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: March 14, 2025, 05:24:30 PM »

Quote from: dsedrez on March 12, 2025, 06:45:23 PM
Quote from: Mikasa on January 19, 2025, 06:21:22 AM
Is it bug that naval admin commanders (general or industrial) don't give any bonuses from their Production skill to stabilising lagrange point ship? Only production skill of ship commander gives bonus. Ship is in naval admin radius at this moment of course.

Are you sure they're not contributing? I use this all the time, with 3 stacked naval admins, and my construction ships regularly stabilize JPs almost twice as fast (in little more than half the time).

You probably have ship commanders with ~40% bonus to Production.

NACs do not provide any bonus to stabilization.
Posted by: dsedrez
« on: March 12, 2025, 06:45:23 PM »

Quote from: Mikasa on January 19, 2025, 06:21:22 AM
Is it bug that naval admin commanders (general or industrial) don't give any bonuses from their Production skill to stabilising lagrange point ship? Only production skill of ship commander gives bonus. Ship is in naval admin radius at this moment of course.

Are you sure they're not contributing? I use this all the time, with 3 stacked naval admins, and my construction ships regularly stabilize JPs almost twice as fast (in little more than half the time).
Posted by: dsedrez
« on: March 12, 2025, 06:16:13 PM »

Quote from: Napier on March 11, 2025, 02:38:19 PM
The function number - 391/2397
The complete error text - Object reference not set to an instance of an object
The window affected - multiple
What you were doing at the time - see below
Conventional or TN start - Conventional
Random or Real Stars - real
Is your decimal separator a comma? - no
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - reproducible in attached db
If this is a long campaign - 100+ yrs, this was a 2.  5.  0 game I upgraded to 2.  5.  1


2 bugs to report for 2.5.1, 1 larger one and a 2nd minor one

Bug 1: I encountered error conditions that arise after I capture raider ships via boarding.

Before the capture, no errors. Afterwards, this error: "Function #391: Object reference not set to an instance of an object"
occurs when opening Commanders window and clicking on a naval commander or when selecting options in the drop down like 'Fleet Commander' or 'Military ships' - and no ships appear in the display box underneath the drop down, so user is unable to assign commanders manually.

Also, after a capture, at the beginning of each increment, this error occurs: "Error Function #2397: same description as above"

I'm thinking the code is trying to find the raider ships in the commander window, and assign a CO during the increment turnover, but cannot do either, so throws errors.

The raider ships do not appear in the design window that I can see, so I cannot i.e. toggle that class as 'No officers'

The attached game (game3) has the boardings under way, just need to run through a few boarding combat cycles before the first ship is captured.


I'm not sure it's the same bug, but I've met a similar one in one of my games. I was playing multiple player races and NPRs, and one player race captured a raider. When I tried capturing another raider with another player race, the design wouldn't appear in the design window. I checked the DB and there the 2nd captured ship was classed under the raider copy design attributed to the 1st race with a captured raider. For your game, maybe a NPR captured a raider before you and got the copied design.

Though I don't recall having problems with commanders.
Posted by: Napier
« on: March 11, 2025, 02:38:19 PM »

The function number - 391/2397
The complete error text - Object reference not set to an instance of an object
The window affected - multiple
What you were doing at the time - see below
Conventional or TN start - Conventional
Random or Real Stars - real
Is your decimal separator a comma? - no
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - reproducible in attached db
If this is a long campaign - 100+ yrs, this was a 2.  5.  0 game I upgraded to 2.  5.  1


2 bugs to report for 2.5.1, 1 larger one and a 2nd minor one

Bug 1: I encountered error conditions that arise after I capture raider ships via boarding.

Before the capture, no errors. Afterwards, this error: "Function #391: Object reference not set to an instance of an object"
occurs when opening Commanders window and clicking on a naval commander or when selecting options in the drop down like 'Fleet Commander' or 'Military ships' - and no ships appear in the display box underneath the drop down, so user is unable to assign commanders manually.

Also, after a capture, at the beginning of each increment, this error occurs: "Error Function #2397: same description as above"

I'm thinking the code is trying to find the raider ships in the commander window, and assign a CO during the increment turnover, but cannot do either, so throws errors.

The raider ships do not appear in the design window that I can see, so I cannot i.e. toggle that class as 'No officers'

The attached game (game3) has the boardings under way, just need to run through a few boarding combat cycles before the first ship is captured.


Bug 2: Appears to be a minor display issue with medals.
Using attached db, Open commanders window > Commodores dropdown > click on Bela Radacanu in middle of list > the images for two red medals have the same description in the popup text.  But if you look at the history log for the character, you see they are 2 different medals assigned at different times with different descriptions: 1. Oct 2208 and 2. July 2204. Another example of this is Atshushi, 2nd listed Commodore. I believe in both cases it is the same medal awarded for different purposes.
Posted by: mike2R
« on: March 09, 2025, 12:19:15 PM »

Parasites don't seem to refuel from their carrier, if the carrier is on an order delay.

I've noticed this with carriers that are on a looped order to wait at a picket position, then come back and overhaul.  I set them to wait at the picket position with a long order delay.

If I use its fighters and land them again, they don't start to refuel until the order delay period is up and the carrier starts to actually execute the order.

I've not tested if repairs and ordinance reloads are similarly effected.
Posted by: Ghostly
« on: March 08, 2025, 09:53:53 PM »

Quote from: Andrew on March 08, 2025, 04:31:37 PM
AFAIK, The fleet training percentage effects the delay on firing not the crew grade so you would need that value to tell which ship should respond faster. So probably not a bug

You can see in the screenshots that the -10% grade ship has 0% fleet training as well, I somehow neglected to mention that. In any case, being able to open fire 5 or 10 seconds after a standard transit is definitely a bug.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: March 08, 2025, 04:31:37 PM »

Quote from: Ghostly on March 08, 2025, 02:08:32 PM
Attached are two screenshots of a fleet of two ships, one with maximum crew grade (22%), and one with minimum crew grade (conscript crew, -10%) performing a transit through a jump point blockaded by enemy forces then opening fire as soon as possible:

1. Standard transit:
Transit is performed at 22:12:37, the max crew grade is able to open fire at 22:12:42, the min crew grade ship is able to fire at 22:12:47.

2. Squadron transit:
Transit is performed at 22:51:32, both ships are able to open fire at 22:51:37.

Now, the Fire at Will post does say it will override any existing delay, but the current implementation is very broken and will trivialize any jump point assault. Maybe the order should consider whether the ship is experiencing jump shock before it gets "assigned a fire delay with a modifier of -50% vs normal", where a normal delay would include a transit-induced one when applicable?
AFAIK, The fleet training percentage effects the delay on firing not the crew grade so you would need that value to tell which ship should respond faster. So probably not a bug