Quote from: Kurt on May 14, 2025, 09:42:55 AM

I discovered a bit of a complex issue, not sure exactly what happened or why.

The situation:
1. Main Fleet is named the 1st Expeditionary Fleet.  This fleet contains several sub-fleets, including four assault groups and two carrier groups.  Three Assault Groups are currently detached from the main fleet
2. I detached the two carrier groups using the "Detach" button.
3. I launched fighters from the 1st carrier group using the "Launch All" button.
4. I detached the six scout fighters from the rest of the fighter group, again using the "Detach" button
5. I split the scout fighters into three two-ship groups, and sent them across the system to scout possible enemy locations. 
6. I landed the 1st carrier group's fighters on their carriers using the "Land on Assigned Carriers/mothership" command.  At this point only the scout fighters remain in space
7. The scout fighters discover enemy ships, and I detach one carrier from the 1st Carrier Group and launch its fighters using the "Launch All" button.  The fighters launch an ultimately unsuccessful attack and head back to their carrier.
8. I launch all fighters from the 2nd Carrier Group to end the problem. 
9. At this point I decide to consolidate the fleet and move to a location closer to potential targets.  I order the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Assault Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the "Join as Sub-Fleet" command.  I also order the 1st and 2nd Carrier Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the same command. 

The problem appears when I hit the five second advance.  The five groups join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet as intended, however, approximately half of the 2nd Carrier Group's detached fighter wing simply disappears, as does four of the six scout fighters from the 1st Carrier Group.  Their fleets (containers) on the Naval Organization window still exist, but they have no ships within them, or, in the case of the 2nd's fighters, just under half of what should be there.  They aren't in their correct fleets, and they aren't on their motherships.  They appear to have just disappeared.  At the time of disappearance they were approximately a billion kilometers from their carriers. 

I was a bit frustrated, as there appeared to be no easy way to fix this.  I could add in the missing fighters, but they would be at 0% training, which would be annoying given how much effort i put into getting them trained.  Fortunately I found the thread on how Aurora makes backup saves, and restored to a previous save before the incident happened. 

Still, annoying and worrying for the future.  I suspect that the problem lies within the nested relationships between the fighters and their carriers, and their carriers moving from being independent to becoming a sub-fleet.

I fixed a bug for v2.6 that involved disappearing fighters. It manifested after fighters were part of a fleet that was drag-dropped to another and then the original fleet was deleted. The fighters were duplicated rather than moved (but the originals were invisible), so when the fleet with the invisible originals was deleted, it also removed their duplicates.

Does it sound like that might have been the cause in this situation?

Similar.  I didn't drag/drop, but rather gave the parent fleet orders to join another fleet as a sub-fleet.  The effect sounds the same, though.  I suspected that it might be something like what you say, the fighters still being in existence but invisible.  It reminded me of something that used to happen with the SA program. 

In any case, going back to a previous save resolved the problem, and I won't do something like that again, hopefully. 

I discovered a bit of a complex issue, not sure exactly what happened or why.

The situation:
1. Main Fleet is named the 1st Expeditionary Fleet.  This fleet contains several sub-fleets, including four assault groups and two carrier groups.  Three Assault Groups are currently detached from the main fleet
2. I detached the two carrier groups using the "Detach" button.
3. I launched fighters from the 1st carrier group using the "Launch All" button.
4. I detached the six scout fighters from the rest of the fighter group, again using the "Detach" button
5. I split the scout fighters into three two-ship groups, and sent them across the system to scout possible enemy locations. 
6. I landed the 1st carrier group's fighters on their carriers using the "Land on Assigned Carriers/mothership" command.  At this point only the scout fighters remain in space
7. The scout fighters discover enemy ships, and I detach one carrier from the 1st Carrier Group and launch its fighters using the "Launch All" button.  The fighters launch an ultimately unsuccessful attack and head back to their carrier.
8. I launch all fighters from the 2nd Carrier Group to end the problem. 
9. At this point I decide to consolidate the fleet and move to a location closer to potential targets.  I order the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Assault Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the "Join as Sub-Fleet" command.  I also order the 1st and 2nd Carrier Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the same command. 

The problem appears when I hit the five second advance.  The five groups join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet as intended, however, approximately half of the 2nd Carrier Group's detached fighter wing simply disappears, as does four of the six scout fighters from the 1st Carrier Group.  Their fleets (containers) on the Naval Organization window still exist, but they have no ships within them, or, in the case of the 2nd's fighters, just under half of what should be there.  They aren't in their correct fleets, and they aren't on their motherships.  They appear to have just disappeared.  At the time of disappearance they were approximately a billion kilometers from their carriers. 

I was a bit frustrated, as there appeared to be no easy way to fix this.  I could add in the missing fighters, but they would be at 0% training, which would be annoying given how much effort i put into getting them trained.  Fortunately I found the thread on how Aurora makes backup saves, and restored to a previous save before the incident happened. 

Still, annoying and worrying for the future.  I suspect that the problem lies within the nested relationships between the fighters and their carriers, and their carriers moving from being independent to becoming a sub-fleet. 

What an odd naming thing this is.

I can't find GJ 3210. Searching online, nothing.

It seems that it exists in this catalogue: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/TblView/nph-tblView?app=ExoTbls&config=gjstars Don't know how helpful that is.

...
I couldn't find Epsilon Horologii in the star names in the database at all. 
Do you use a modded database ?

No. No modded DB.
I can open the DB using the program "DB Browser (SQLite)". In the table "Dim_KnownSystems", I applied the filter to the column "ConstellationName", so the names appear. In the attached image, the filtered content.
As you see, the "KnownSystemID"s are 36 and 384, and the names in the column "Name" are different. But in the galactic map the same name appeared.

If the "real Stars" database doesn't have duplicates (Sirius + Alpha Canis Majoris) which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, then you can decide that, as astronomers have in the past, that Epsilon Horologii is an optical double star (two stars in the same place in our sky, but different places in the 3-D universe, and name it Epsilon(2) Horologii.

Yes. Thanks, Steve!
I did so: Epsilon2 Horologii.   

@Andrew.
Thank you.
In the list, the star GJ 1061 appears. It is the first Epsilon Horologii that I met.
I can't find GJ 3210. Searching online, nothing.

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).

I couldn't find Epsilon Horologii in the star names in the database at all. 

Do you use a modded database ?

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.

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

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

 --- 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.