Post by: Brian Neumann on April 20, 2008, 11:24:44 AM
On a new game start with choosing the sol system option:
Error in 'GetAvgPlayerRaceTotalPop' lots of error 91 object width or variable not set.
Endless loop of these so I have to go to task manager and close the program. Can not get back into this when I reopen the program.
On a new game start without choosing the sol system I got this error.
Error in create Precurosr Race #3265 Item not found. followed by erorr 3078 can not find input table or query 'PrecursorRaceType'
I do not know if this is just my machine, or a more general problem. I am running Vista and have had problems with other downloads before. That being said I had no problmes running a version 2.5 game.
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 20, 2008, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
I have already run into some bugs that prevent starting a game.
On a new game start with choosing the sol system option:
Error in 'GetAvgPlayerRaceTotalPop' lots of error 91 object width or variable not set.
Endless loop of these so I have to go to task manager and close the program. Can not get back into this when I reopen the program.
On a new game start without choosing the sol system I got this error.
Error in create Precurosr Race #3265 Item not found. followed by erorr 3078 can not find input table or query 'PrecursorRaceType'
I do not know if this is just my machine, or a more general problem. I am running Vista and have had problems with other downloads before. That being said I had no problmes running a version 2.5 game.
This sounds like you are using an old database. Are you definitely using the Stevefire.mdb from v3.0?
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 20, 2008, 12:46:12 PM
That being said, I have a feeling the problem is at my end somewhere. I have already seen some posts from others that indicate they are not having any major problems.
Brian
Post by: Erik L on April 20, 2008, 03:43:51 PM
Post by: Erik L on April 20, 2008, 05:01:51 PM
Post by: Haegan2005 on April 20, 2008, 11:09:55 PM
EDIT-
Didn't have the "No overhauls needed" checkbox checked.
Post by: mavikfelna on April 21, 2008, 01:26:44 PM
I haven't tried playing on Vista yet, but if you UAC enabled in Vista, it's very very hard to remove a file! If you try and overwrite a file, it won't tell you the operation failed, it just won't do it. So make sure the old database file is removed and dumped from the trash before installing the new file.
Hope that helps,
--Mav
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 21, 2008, 01:41:52 PM
Quote from: "mavikfelna"
Brian,
I haven't tried playing on Vista yet, but if you UAC enabled in Vista, it's very very hard to remove a file! If you try and overwrite a file, it won't tell you the operation failed, it just won't do it. So make sure the old database file is removed and dumped from the trash before installing the new file.
Hope that helps,
--Mav
I actually had done this with no effect. Oddly enough after trying for the third time to delete and reinstall from scratch I decided to compact the db that had just been downloaded and that worked.
Brian
Post by: mavikfelna on April 21, 2008, 01:42:53 PM
Thanks,
--Mav
Post by: Manekaalecto on April 22, 2008, 02:22:09 PM
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
Wieslaw Juda
Post by: Erik L on April 22, 2008, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: "Manekaalecto"
Error in SetupSensorChecks
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
Wieslaw Juda
I got this one too. It happened after I created some fighters without having a base for them. (I was expecting them to be "crated" like 2.5)
Post by: Haegan2005 on April 22, 2008, 09:56:37 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 23, 2008, 09:32:53 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 24, 2008, 08:20:36 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I got this one too. It happened after I created some fighters without having a base for them. (I was expecting them to be "crated" like 2.5)
In v2.5, fighters were a completely separate type of unit with their own rules. In v3.0, fighters follow all the same rules as ships (they are really just small ships with access to fighter engines). You can use fighters without a base but a hangar deck on board a ship or PDC is better for several reasons. Reloading using a hangar deck is a lot faster than reloading using maintenance facilities. Fighters inside a hangar don't require maintenance and they are hidden from hostile sensors that might be otherwise be getting tech data.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 24, 2008, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
This one is minor. When designing fighter engines, the name is prefixed as a gunboat engine.
Fixed for v3.1
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 24, 2008, 08:23:02 AM
Quote from: "Manekaalecto"
Error in SetupSensorChecks
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
I can't reproduce it yet but I have been changing this area for v3.1 so its possible I have already fixed it.
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 24, 2008, 05:02:58 PM
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. Teh class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
Using Fast OB with include standard small craft and fighters no fighters are built.
Used FOB to build the needed fighters. In fighter squadrons (F7) I created the squadrons and assigned fighters to squadrons, squadrons to carriers and selected recover to load squadrons in hangers. I get an error/warning that the is not enough hanger space for the last fighter. Even by tonnage the capacity is 4000 and the fighters add up to 3995.
When I look at the fighter tab in the ship display (F6) no fighters are shown. They show up in the parasite tab instead.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 24, 2008, 09:39:57 PM
Error 3075...
syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'raceid=587 and fleetname = Squadron #8 - fightin' samuri...
This error appears in a loop. After cycling over 400 times I had to kill the application. This has caused a terminal error in attempting to resume the game from the fail point.
Post by: Father Tim on April 24, 2008, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
task force has 10 carriers. When launching the squadron from the 8th I get this error:
Error 3075...
syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'raceid=587 and fleetname = Squadron #8 - fightin' samuri...
This error appears in a loop. After cycling over 400 times I had to kill the application. This has caused a terminal error in attempting to resume the game from the fail point.
Blame the single quote in "Fightin' Samurai"
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 25, 2008, 04:55:27 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"task force has 10 carriers. When launching the squadron from the 8th I get this error:
Error 3075...
syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'raceid=587 and fleetname = Squadron #8 - fightin' samuri...
This error appears in a loop. After cycling over 400 times I had to kill the application. This has caused a terminal error in attempting to resume the game from the fail point.
Blame the single quote in "Fightin' Samurai"
doh!! I should have recognized that one. I thought it was wierd that only that squadron was having trouble.
Post by: Cassaralla on April 25, 2008, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Manekaalecto"Error in SetupSensorChecksI can't reproduce it yet but I have been changing this area for v3.1 so its possible I have already fixed it.
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
Steve
Getting this error as well now. Only thing I think of that was different once it popped up was that I'd just started building fighters. Might be to do with that, could be something completely different.
Post by: Kurt on April 25, 2008, 07:54:28 PM
Started a new 3.0 game, just to test it out. Set up my race as usual, fast-oob'd a small fleet, and got started surveying the system. I realized I didn't have any freighters, so I designed a standard freighter design, and retooled a SY to build the new freighter design. I then selected a construction task for that SY, and hit the "Add Task" button. The SY had two slipways, but by accident I hit the button three times. I noticed that the available slipways said "-1" at that point, and when I checked the shipyard task screen, it showed three freighters under construction. When I advanced the time, all three showed 2.4% complete, so work was completed on all three, in spite of the fact that there were only two slipways.
I tested this by selecting a construction task for the same shipyard, and hit the add task button a bunch of times, so that the available slipways ended up as -15. This was too many ships for the task screen, but they all seem to be worked on when the time advances.
Kurt
Post by: sloanjh on April 26, 2008, 03:17:16 PM
John
Post by: sloanjh on April 26, 2008, 11:26:56 PM
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 27, 2008, 09:49:12 AM
In the FOB I added the fighters to the battle task group that contained the carriers. Then built the squadrons in F7 and assigned them to carriers followed by recovering said squadrons with the F7 screen. While embarked the fighters show as members of the parent task group on the F12 screen and are tagged as embarked on thier assigned mothership.
The problem comes post battle. When I recover a damaged fighter it's max speed impact the rest of the TG. Shouldn't the TG max speed ignore ships in hangers?
Post by: sloanjh on April 27, 2008, 07:06:18 PM
Thanks,
John
Post by: schroeam on April 28, 2008, 02:17:41 AM
Post by: Laurence on April 28, 2008, 08:45:48 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Here are a couple more that I've run into.
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. Teh class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
Using Fast OB with include standard small craft and fighters no fighters are built.
Used FOB to build the needed fighters. In fighter squadrons (F7) I created the squadrons and assigned fighters to squadrons, squadrons to carriers and selected recover to load squadrons in hangers. I get an error/warning that the is not enough hanger space for the last fighter. Even by tonnage the capacity is 4000 and the fighters add up to 3995.
When I look at the fighter tab in the ship display (F6) no fighters are shown. They show up in the parasite tab instead.
I've had the same situation. My carrier design should be able to hold one more and won't take the last one in (out of space warning). Also seeing fighters acting only as parasites and not showing up on the old fighter tab.
Laurence
Post by: ZimRathbone on April 28, 2008, 05:39:02 PM
Quote from: "adradjool"
Has anyone else seen a problem with warships undergoing major overhauls? The clock continues to go up. Works fine on civilian ships.
Yes I've seen that behaviour in 2.6 (IIRC), however I had No Overhauls Needed ticked on the Game Details screen so I was not sure that it was a genuine fault.
I haven't got round to re-trying it, or to D/L 3.0 for that matter.
RL(tm) is just too busy.
Slainthe
Mike
Post by: Father Tim on April 29, 2008, 03:29:47 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Here are a couple more that I've run into.
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. The class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
Assuming the program is rounding up fighter sizes, that would be 3 size 5 fighters, 10 size-6 fighters, and 1 size 4 fighter (15+60+4, or 79 spaces), leaving not quite enough room for that last scout.
I'm not sure if that's "working as intended" or not.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 29, 2008, 07:49:07 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Here are a couple more that I've run into.
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. The class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
Assuming the program is rounding up fighter sizes, that would be 3 size 5 fighters, 10 size-6 fighters, and 1 size 4 fighter (15+60+4, or 79 spaces), leaving not quite enough room for that last scout.
I'm not sure if that's "working as intended" or not.
I hope your wrong since the strike group panel in the F6 screen appears to be calc'ing to 1 decimal. It may a querk of the machine I'm running that game on. The one here at work just let me put a squadron of 10 fighters at 4.9 into a 50 point hanger. Then again even with rounding up that should still work.
Post by: schroeam on April 29, 2008, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: "ZimRathbone"
Quote from: "adradjool"Has anyone else seen a problem with warships undergoing major overhauls? The clock continues to go up. Works fine on civilian ships.
Yes I've seen that behaviour in 2.6 (IIRC), however I had No Overhauls Needed ticked on the Game Details screen so I was not sure that it was a genuine fault.
I haven't got round to re-trying it, or to D/L 3.0 for that matter.
RL(tm) is just too busy.
Slainthe
Mike
I looked, but do not have No Overhauls Needed ticked. It works fine on all ships that do not have weapons systems.
Adam.
Post by: sloanjh on April 29, 2008, 08:23:34 PM
"survey next 5 bodies" seems moderately broken. I've now got a survey ship working an asteroid belt around a distant companion star (about a week out by hyperdrive, I think). It keeps telling me that it can't set up all 5 locations because nothing's within range - it looks like it's finding the nearest guy, but then the ones after that are getting missed.
Thinking about it, I think this is actually the same bug as the one that sends survey ships zipping across the system. The closest body appears to be correct, but then the ones after that are far away; in this case probably farther than the distance threshold.
Setting the order to "survey next body" seems to work around the problem ok.
John
Post by: sloanjh on April 29, 2008, 08:45:31 PM
John
Post by: ZimRathbone on April 30, 2008, 10:03:23 AM
Quote from: "ZimRathbone"
Quote from: "adradjool"Has anyone else seen a problem with warships undergoing major overhauls? The clock continues to go up. Works fine on civilian ships.
Yes I've seen that behaviour in 2.6 (IIRC), however I had No Overhauls Needed ticked on the Game Details screen so I was not sure that it was a genuine fault.
OK have now retested this. If no ovehauls is ticked then Major overhaul has no effect on Military ships. If the bix is not ticked then major overhaul works OK. If there is a freighter in the task group then the Major Overhaul does not work either
Mike
Post by: Erik L on April 30, 2008, 05:11:27 PM
Post by: Father Tim on April 30, 2008, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Did you know with max tech, it is possible to build an FTL missile? Unless my brain is futzed, 363600km/s is about 1200 times the speed of light.
Actually it's about 1.2 times the speed of light, but you're right, still FTL.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 02, 2008, 04:49:56 AM
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on May 03, 2008, 12:44:48 PM
John
Post by: waresky on May 04, 2008, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Manekaalecto"Error in SetupSensorChecks
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
Wieslaw Juda
I got this one too. It happened after I created some fighters without having a base for them. (I was expecting them to be "crated" like 2.5)
Damn NOW ive know WHY tihs stupid message come:))..ive build an single Fighter..without a BASE..ive check news board and show: "F400 added to "NewFighter" fleet..""...fleet ARENT anywhere..damn it..and now ive this stupid mess EVERY single step..zzzzz,ive destroy the SECOND F400 because ive build an PDC with hangar..but the FIRST..where?..so ive DELETE the fighter sheet construction...but this message continuing coming..
srry for my terrible english guys..
Post by: Kurt on May 04, 2008, 11:15:58 AM
I've been playing around with 3.0 lately, and I've found a minor bug. I have a ship that went into orbit and then began a major ovverhaul. Immediately after beginning the major overhaul, I put the ship into the yards for a refit. The task group screen notes that the ship is undergoing both a major overhaul and a refit, correctly, but the ship is accumulating time on its maintenance clock.
It has not suffered a maintenance failure since making orbit, but it shouldn't be accumulating time either.
Kurt
Post by: Kurt on May 04, 2008, 12:49:22 PM
The first is related to the Political Stability Modifier. The modifier is dropping on my home planet, in spite of the fact that the Population & Production Summary tab shows an adequate level of protection. The Requested protection level is 1020, while the Actual Protection level is 1330. The Actual Protection level was 1000 before I appointed a fleet commander with a cracker-jack public relations officer that boosted the actual protection level to 1330. I suspect that Aurora is still using the original protection level.
The second is related to PDC refits. I hit the copy design button on the class design screen to design an updated version of a PDC, and got the following error - "Error in cboClass_Click, error 380 was generated by UpDown...".
This didn't really seem to affect anything, and went away after I modified the design, however, when I added the upgrade tasks to my construction queue, I got the following error - "Error in CalculateRefitCost, error 3021 was generated by DAO.field..."
I can't tell if any work is being done on the task, because the task description is very long and stretches off of the right hand side of the box.
Kurt
Post by: IanD on May 05, 2008, 04:47:57 PM
Only a minor bug, assume its a database prob?
regards
IanD
Post by: Erik L on May 05, 2008, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
I am a complete newbie but on my first installation of 3beta while trying to find my way around in the pop and production screen, research - avaiable projects I clicked on reduced-size lazer/20xrecharge, the descriptor then refers to missile tech, not lazers!
Only a minor bug, assume its a database prob?
regards
IanD
That or there was no description, and it kept the description of the last tech viewed.
Post by: sloanjh on May 05, 2008, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
The second is related to PDC refits. I hit the copy design button on the class design screen to design an updated version of a PDC, and got the following error - "Error in cboClass_Click, error 380 was generated by UpDown...".
This didn't really seem to affect anything, and went away after I modified the design, however, when I added the upgrade tasks to my construction queue, I got the following error - "Error in CalculateRefitCost, error 3021 was generated by DAO.field..."
I can't tell if any work is being done on the task, because the task description is very long and stretches off of the right hand side of the box.
I've seen a similar message in my PDC designs when switching to them in the Class Design (F5) screen. I assume it's looking for something like a bridge.... Haven't tried refiting any PDCs yet, though.
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:14:44 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Get name does not work from the Ship Window (F6).
Fixed for v3.1
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:15:49 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Auto-FC button does not assign turretted weapons or gauss weapons.
It was restricted to lasers and mesons for point defence, although turrets seem to work OK. For v3.1 it works for all weapons with a 5 second recharge time.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:16:28 AM
Quote from: "Haegan2005"
I should have a wealth creation of 20, but the income tab shows a WC of 5. Is this a leftover from your chinese modification? I have no financial centres.
Yes, that was the cause. I have removed the lower levels from v3.1
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:20:40 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Here are a couple more that I've run into.There are no longer any small craft left in Aurora as everything is a "ship". I have removed the checkbox for now and I will find a better way to setup carriers with strikegroups.
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. Teh class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
Using Fast OB with include standard small craft and fighters no fighters are built.
Quote
Used FOB to build the needed fighters. In fighter squadrons (F7) I created the squadrons and assigned fighters to squadrons, squadrons to carriers and selected recover to load squadrons in hangers. I get an error/warning that the is not enough hanger space for the last fighter. Even by tonnage the capacity is 4000 and the fighters add up to 3995.This sounds like some type of rounding problem. I'll see if I can figure it out.
Quote
When I look at the fighter tab in the ship display (F6) no fighters are shown. They show up in the parasite tab instead.
The parasite tab is the right place for the fighters. The old fighter-only hangar deck has been removed from the game. I have deleted the fighter list and moved the parasite list to the Fighter / Missile tab.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:21:19 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Blame the single quote in "Fightin' Samurai"
I have been through the fighter squadron nicknames and corrected those with apostrophes.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:22:45 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
This is a fairly significant one.
Started a new 3.0 game, just to test it out. Set up my race as usual, fast-oob'd a small fleet, and got started surveying the system. I realized I didn't have any freighters, so I designed a standard freighter design, and retooled a SY to build the new freighter design. I then selected a construction task for that SY, and hit the "Add Task" button. The SY had two slipways, but by accident I hit the button three times. I noticed that the available slipways said "-1" at that point, and when I checked the shipyard task screen, it showed three freighters under construction. When I advanced the time, all three showed 2.4% complete, so work was completed on all three, in spite of the fact that there were only two slipways.
I tested this by selecting a construction task for the same shipyard, and hit the add task button a bunch of times, so that the available slipways ended up as -15. This was too many ships for the task screen, but they all seem to be worked on when the time advances.
Not sure why this is happening as the Add Task button should be greyed out when there are no slipways available. However, I have added an extra check to the code so you will now be prevented from creating a task in a shipyard with no free slipways.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 06, 2008, 07:24:48 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I'm getting a path not found on "Flags" when I open the galactic map (F11). I do have a "Flags" directory in my install directory (I'm using the same directory that I did for 2.4)
It sounds like a particular flag is missing from the directory. If you can figure out which race is causing the problem (by seeing which flag doesn't appear), see what happens if you open the race window. Its possible that if you have some flags missing from the directory, the create race code setup a flag that doesn't exist.
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on May 06, 2008, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The parasite tab is the right place for the fighters. The old fighter-only hangar deck has been removed from the game. I have deleted the fighter list and moved the parasite list to the Fighter / Missile tab.
Steve
That explains why the launch and land buttons on the F6 screen don't work. Can the release adn recover buttons be modified to function similiar to the F7 screen recover and launch buttons?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 06:48:18 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The problem comes post battle. When I recover a damaged fighter it's max speed impact the rest of the TG. Shouldn't the TG max speed ignore ships in hangers?
The TG speed shouldn't be affected but I have found a bug in the code that means docked ships are included in the speed check in v3.0. Fixed for v3.1
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Here are a couple more that I've run into.Assuming the program is rounding up fighter sizes, that would be 3 size 5 fighters, 10 size-6 fighters, and 1 size 4 fighter (15+60+4, or 79 spaces), leaving not quite enough room for that last scout.
I've got a 10K carrier with 80 points worth of hanger. The class strike group is 3 size 4.7 escort fighters, 10 size 5.8 strike fighters, and 2 size 3.9 scout fighters using a total 79.9 hanger points.
I'm not sure if that's "working as intended" or not.
That is what is happening and it's not working as intended. The sub routine that checks the total size of docked ships is rounding when it shouldn't. Corrected for v3.1.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 06:54:39 AM
Quote from: "adradjool"
Has anyone else seen a problem with warships undergoing major overhauls? The clock continues to go up. Works fine on civilian ships.
Civilian ships don't need major overhauls as they can use the Freighter Maintenance Check order for an instant overhaul at any Commercial Freight Facility. That will also work automatically during the 5-day increment. For warships, please can you double check the maintenance facilities are large enough to handle the size of ship you are trying to overhaul.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 06:56:30 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Hi Steve,
"survey next 5 bodies" seems moderately broken. I've now got a survey ship working an asteroid belt around a distant companion star (about a week out by hyperdrive, I think). It keeps telling me that it can't set up all 5 locations because nothing's within range - it looks like it's finding the nearest guy, but then the ones after that are getting missed.
Thinking about it, I think this is actually the same bug as the one that sends survey ships zipping across the system. The closest body appears to be correct, but then the ones after that are far away; in this case probably farther than the distance threshold.
Setting the order to "survey next body" seems to work around the problem ok.
I have noticed the occasional "zip across the system" problem as well but unfortunately because it's intermittent it's very difficult to pin it down. I will keep looking.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 06:57:53 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Not sure if this is broken or working as intended, but it looks like auto-assign refuses to assign talentless officers to ships. I have ships without commanders (cheap pickets that only require R1) and commanders without assignment, and the auto-assign now button doesn't change this. I suspect that if the "score" for the commander taking up the assignment is zero, i.e. if the training rating is 0, then the commander isn't assigned.
That is working as intended. I didn't want talentless officers taking up a post for a whole tour when new officers might be more suitable.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 07:00:15 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Did you know with max tech, it is possible to build an FTL missile? Unless my brain is futzed, 363600km/s is about 1200 times the speed of light.
Its only about 1.2x the speed of light but the point is still valid. I've added a cap of 300,000 km/s to missile speed.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 07:04:20 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I'm getting a divide-by-zero in PopulatePopGU. I think it's because I've got a colony world with engineers but no factories. It hits whenever I make the colony active in the F2 screen, or when I hit a 5-day update while the colony is active (I think). Doesn't seem to be causing any harm - just something you probably want to clean up.
If you had no actual population (i.e. people) either then I found the bug
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 07:06:55 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
I am a complete newbie but on my first installation of 3beta while trying to find my way around in the pop and production screen, research - avaiable projects I clicked on reduced-size lazer/20xrecharge, the descriptor then refers to missile tech, not lazers!
Only a minor bug, assume its a database prob?
Yes, cut and paste problem
. Corrected for v3.1Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2008, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Another little bug. Actually two.
The first is related to the Political Stability Modifier. The modifier is dropping on my home planet, in spite of the fact that the Population & Production Summary tab shows an adequate level of protection. The Requested protection level is 1020, while the Actual Protection level is 1330. The Actual Protection level was 1000 before I appointed a fleet commander with a cracker-jack public relations officer that boosted the actual protection level to 1330. I suspect that Aurora is still using the original protection level.
Just to check, do you mean a Task Force when you mentioned the public relations officer?
Steve
Post by: Kurt on May 07, 2008, 11:38:58 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Kurt"Another little bug. Actually two.Just to check, do you mean a Task Force when you mentioned the public relations officer?
The first is related to the Political Stability Modifier. The modifier is dropping on my home planet, in spite of the fact that the Population & Production Summary tab shows an adequate level of protection. The Requested protection level is 1020, while the Actual Protection level is 1330. The Actual Protection level was 1000 before I appointed a fleet commander with a cracker-jack public relations officer that boosted the actual protection level to 1330. I suspect that Aurora is still using the original protection level.
Steve
Yes, I was referring to the task force to which the planetary defense PDC's were assigned.
I ended up taking the PDC's out of the task force they were in, and putting them in a new task force with no officers assigned. That way the actual protection level went down to the amount provided by the PDC's, with no officer bonus. I then built more PDC's to boost the actual protection level, and this problem went away. I think there was something wonky with the way the pulbic relations officer assigned to the task group that the PDC's were originally assigned to boosted the actual protection factor.
This isn't a fatal error, though, just a minor annoyance.
Kurt
Post by: sloanjh on May 07, 2008, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"I'm getting a divide-by-zero in PopulatePopGU. I think it's because I've got a colony world with engineers but no factories. It hits whenever I make the colony active in the F2 screen, or when I hit a 5-day update while the colony is active (I think). Doesn't seem to be causing any harm - just something you probably want to clean up.If you had no actual population (i.e. people) either then I found the bug :-)
John
PS - I'm pretty sure the colony was auto-generated when I gave an order to a TG to drop automated mines there.
Post by: sloanjh on May 07, 2008, 05:22:30 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"I'm getting a path not found on "Flags" when I open the galactic map (F11). I do have a "Flags" directory in my install directory (I'm using the same directory that I did for 2.4)It sounds like a particular flag is missing from the directory. If you can figure out which race is causing the problem (by seeing which flag doesn't appear), see what happens if you open the race window. Its possible that if you have some flags missing from the directory, the create race code setup a flag that doesn't exist.
Yep - that was it. "My" race didn't have a flag. I thought I dropped the last set of new flags in, however.
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 07, 2008, 05:43:25 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"Not sure if this is broken or working as intended, but it looks like auto-assign refuses to assign talentless officers to ships. I have ships without commanders (cheap pickets that only require R1) and commanders without assignment, and the auto-assign now button doesn't change this. I suspect that if the "score" for the commander taking up the assignment is zero, i.e. if the training rating is 0, then the commander isn't assigned.That is working as intended. I didn't want talentless officers taking up a post for a whole tour when new officers might be more suitable.
Aha! Not a high priority request, but could you make this an optional behavior? I like to stick talentless officers (especially those with good Governor skills) in a command slot to give them the opportunity to acquire on-the-job training and become talented.
I've also found that I've been overriding the auto-assign (which I love, btw) for important command slots like warships or ground unit HQ. If a new-construction cruiser comes along, I'll look for a DD commander to promote (who's more talented than the auto-assign), even if his or her tour isn't over. I'll then promote someone else into the DD hole, etc. One advantage to this is to breaks up the huge "start time + 2 years" cohort of tour expirations present at start-up.
One side effect of disallowing talented commanders that I think I've noticed (at least early on) - freighters soak up all the talented officers in the initial assingments at startup, so new warship construction ends up without a commander (hence my promotion strategy). This isn't a big deal for me, but here are some ideas if you want to use them:
1) Have a "garbage scow" checkbox for each class on the F5 screen that allows talentless officers to be assigned (or you could just use the existing "conscript crew" flag)
2) Have a numerical rating for each class that is set on the F5 screen that indicates the prestige of the command. A very talented officer in a low-prestige command would be considered (possibly with a "breaking tour" penalty) for higher-prestige commands when they come available. this is essentially what I'm doing by hand. For example, the score of an officer in a command could be multiplied by (1 - prestige_difference/higher_prestige) to represent breaking tour, which would disallow purely horizontal "promotions". This could also be extended to staff positions, a lot of which are irrelevant (fighter ops for logistics command?) but are still sucking up highly qualified officers.
Like I said, though, I'm fine if you don't do any of this.
John
Post by: Charles Fox on May 07, 2008, 09:38:21 PM
I tried deleting and reinstalling Aurora, and made sure that my VB runtime was fully updated. Any other suggestions?
Post by: sloanjh on May 07, 2008, 11:02:29 PM
Quote from: "Charles Fox"
Getting a bug in 3.0 where I can't design any ship classes. I select the pulldown tab for "Type" and try to select "Ship", but that leads to an error box popping up titled "Error in cbo_Type_Click" with the following text: "Error 381 was generated by Aurora. Invalid Property Array Index." That box is followed by another reading "Error 3078 was generated by DAO.database. The Microsoft Jet Database engine cannot find the input table or query 'and ComponentID IN (Select SDComponentID from ShipDesignComponents where TypeAllowed =2)' Make sure it exists and the name is spelled properly."
I tried deleting and reinstalling Aurora, and made sure that my VB runtime was fully updated. Any other suggestions?
Did you hit the "New" button on the F5 screeen yet? When the game first starts, IIRC, there are zero classes in the DB and you get these kinds of errors.
John
Post by: Hagar on May 07, 2008, 11:39:51 PM
Post by: Charles Fox on May 08, 2008, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Did you hit the "New" button on the F5 screeen yet? When the game first starts, IIRC, there are zero classes in the DB and you get these kinds of errors.
John
That did the trick. On the other hand, now I'm getting overrun errors after a few time intervals. Those can probably be traced back to my hardware.
Post by: sloanjh on May 08, 2008, 12:15:48 AM
Quote from: "Charles Fox"
now I'm getting overrun errors after a few time intervals. Those can probably be traced back to my hardware. :-)
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 08, 2008, 12:24:13 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I have noticed the occasional "zip across the system" problem as well but unfortunately because it's intermittent it's very difficult to pin it down. I will keep looking.
That's odd - it was fairly reproducible for me. It seems like whenever there's a big asteroid belt it kicks in (at least that's where I noticed it), and it fixates on the ones it wants to zip about to. It's acting like the sort routine is ignoring the position of the ship after the 1st nearest body is calculated. If I clear the bad orders, survey the nearest, then let it look for the next "5 nearest", it finds a new (presumably correct) "nearest" to survey first, but 2-4 are the same ones it wanted to hit before.
John
Post by: Charles Fox on May 08, 2008, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Do you have any Task Groups with movement orders and 0 or 1 velocity? That's usually where I get overflows (if that's what you mean by "overrun") - it takes a looooooooong time to get anywhere when you're creeping along at 2000 mph.
John
Nope, no Task Groups, or any ships at all for that matter. It happens about 20 - 30 intervals in, before I have a chance to do too much at all.
Post by: ZimRathbone on May 08, 2008, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I have noticed the occasional "zip across the system" problem as well but unfortunately because it's intermittent it's very difficult to pin it down. I will keep looking.That's odd - it was fairly reproducible for me. It seems like whenever there's a big asteroid belt it kicks in (at least that's where I noticed it), and it fixates on the ones it wants to zip about to. It's acting like the sort routine is ignoring the position of the ship after the 1st nearest body is calculated. If I clear the bad orders, survey the nearest, then let it look for the next "5 nearest", it finds a new (presumably correct) "nearest" to survey first, but 2-4 are the same ones it wanted to hit before.
John
Whats probably hapenning is that the code is evaluating the 5 nearest to the start position of the TG, in one query. These may well be in different directions from the origin point, resulting in the zigzag across the system.
What needs to happen is for the routine to evaluate the 2nd nearest using the origin point of the 1st, then the 3rd using the origin point of the 2nd and so on. This will probably be prohibitive in processing (5 queries instead of one).
I suspect that the real solution is not to use the "next 5", and have each unit evaluate its next target as it finishes the current one. Note that if you do this you will tend to have a wave of surveyors moveing through the system, all of them turning up at one planet and surveying 1 or 2 moons then all moving to the next, rather than send one surveyor to each planet, who then surveys the planet & moons, this increasing the efficiency of the survey (which is what I suspect Steve was tring to do with the "next 5" idea.)
To manage this I usually have two Default orders for large survey groups - 1 survey nearest planet, 2 survey nearest body. For singletons I usually manually assign the most promising planet and then 1 survey nearest planet or moon , 2 survey nearest body.
It gives the best avaliable coverage without manually assigning everything
Slainthe
Zim
Post by: James Patten on May 08, 2008, 07:00:14 PM
IE: I have freighters shipping something which takes 4 days to do, and I click on the 5 day button - or a task that takes 20 days to do and I click the 30 day button. The freighters complete the task and wait for the next time period before resuming.
Post by: sloanjh on May 08, 2008, 09:04:47 PM
Quote from: "ZimRathbone"
You might be close, but I'm pretty sure that's not quite it. One of the cases happened at a distant binary with a (very small radius) asteroid belt, where the primary also had an asteroid belt. It found one (the first candidate) survey target, and then said that no others were close enough. After surveying the first, it found the next one, and said that no others were close enough. If it were behaving as you suspect, it would have found five candidates around the binary, but the path might have zipped back and forth in the vicinity of the position when the search was performed.Quote from: "sloanjh"Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I have noticed the occasional "zip across the system" problem as well but unfortunately because it's intermittent it's very difficult to pin it down. I will keep looking.That's odd - it was fairly reproducible for me. It seems like whenever there's a big asteroid belt it kicks in (at least that's where I noticed it), and it fixates on the ones it wants to zip about to. It's acting like the sort routine is ignoring the position of the ship after the 1st nearest body is calculated. If I clear the bad orders, survey the nearest, then let it look for the next "5 nearest", it finds a new (presumably correct) "nearest" to survey first, but 2-4 are the same ones it wanted to hit before.
John
Whats probably hapenning is that the code is evaluating the 5 nearest to the start position of the TG, in one query. These may well be in different directions from the origin point, resulting in the zigzag across the system.
I have a strong suspicion that you've got it right that somehow the start position for calculations 2,3,4,5 are wrong - my guess that it's using something like the position of the primary sun (i.e. 0,0) or the first body to come out of the query or something like that.
Quote
What needs to happen is for the routine to evaluate the 2nd nearest using the origin point of the 1st, then the 3rd using the origin point of the 2nd and so on. This will probably be prohibitive in processing (5 queries instead of one).I actually wouldn't mind the behavior you suspect (as long as the optimization was only turned on in the "lots of unsurveyed bodies" case). It would be a little bit locally sub-optimal (since you might zip back and forth past the search point for the next 5), but it might be an improvement globally - it might pick up "stragglers" that got missed out by the "next closest" algorithm. No algorithm we're going to see here is going to be perfectly optimal, since finding the optimal solution is equivalent to solving the traveling salesman problem, which I don't think Steve really wants to code up
Quote
I suspect that the real solution is not to use the "next 5", and have each unit evaluate its next target as it finishes the current one. Note that if you do this you will tend to have a wave of surveyors moveing through the system, all of them turning up at one planet and surveying 1 or 2 moons then all moving to the next, rather than send one surveyor to each planet, who then surveys the planet & moons, this increasing the efficiency of the survey (which is what I suspect Steve was tring to do with the "next 5" idea.)
I suspect this would put us back in the old, slow performance mode, since (I think) the amount of calculations needed to survey the belt is the same as in the old way of doing it (essentially 1 query/calculation per body). The pauses would be shorter since only one target would be calculated at a time, but there'd be 5 times as many of them.
That being said, I also think it would be nice if it would do what you describe here (evaluate the next contact while doing the sensor check) - right now I'm taking 3-hour timesteps so that my survey ship isn't in a mode of "spend 2 hours surveying an asteroid and 22 waiting to calculate my next target" when I do a 1-day update. I'm pretty sure Steve has said that (unfortunately) there are problems with trying to do this though, given the details of how the turn sequence is processed.
Caio fer now,
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 08, 2008, 09:10:13 PM
The odd thing is that I haven't noticed this in previous versions with maintenance facilities.
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 10, 2008, 07:40:10 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Manekaalecto"Error in SetupSensorChecksI got this one too. It happened after I created some fighters without having a base for them. (I was expecting them to be "crated" like 2.5)
Error 3058 was generated by DAO.Recordset
Index and ?basic?/?fundamental? key cannot contain Null value.
Second line (shows on my computer in Polish) is translated. As I do not work with Access, I do not know which word should be there.
Step 1 day - error shows every 5 days. Step 5 days - the same. Step 30 days - only 1 error.
Nothing serious - does not affect game play so far, but strange.
Finally tracked this down, It is related to fighters but not in the way you might expect. When you first build fighters, if you haven't setup a destination fleet the program creates one called New Fighters - <popname>. Unfortunately the program sets this fleet up without setting a RaceID. During each 5-day the program checks to see if more than one race is in a system. It does this by seeing how many distinct race IDs can be found in the list of populations and fleets for each system. Unfortunately, that means it picks up the null Race ID for the New Fighters fleet and treats it as a separate race. Then it tries to use that null Race ID to setup sensor checks for that system for the non-existent race, which a different part of the program doesn't like and therefore throws the above error.
It is fixed in v3.1. The workaround for v3.0 is to delete the New Fighters fleet and select a new fleet into which fighters will be built.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 10, 2008, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Charles Fox"I tried deleting and reinstalling Aurora, and made sure that my VB runtime was fully updated. Any other suggestions?Did you hit the "New" button on the F5 screeen yet? When the game first starts, IIRC, there are zero classes in the DB and you get these kinds of errors.
I started to fix this by generating a blank class so you wouldn't need to hit new to avoid the error but then I got slightly more involved
When a new race is generated in future the program will create designs for large and small freighters, large and small colony ships, a geological survey ship and, depending on available tech, a grav survey ship, a terraformer and a fuel harvester. To accomplish this the program will create an engine design and some passive sensor designs. There will be some variation in the number of engines, the number of geo/grav sensors and the presence and size of any passive sensors on the survey ships.
This should save a little time and give new players some help. Existing players should save some time as well as they will be able to modify designs rather than starting from scratch.
Steve
Post by: Haegan2005 on May 10, 2008, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "sloanjh"I started to fix this by generating a blank class so you wouldn't need to hit new to avoid the error but then I got slightly more involvedQuote from: "Charles Fox"I tried deleting and reinstalling Aurora, and made sure that my VB runtime was fully updated. Any other suggestions?Did you hit the "New" button on the F5 screeen yet? When the game first starts, IIRC, there are zero classes in the DB and you get these kinds of errors.
When a new race is generated in future the program will create designs for large and small freighters, large and small colony ships, a geological survey ship and, depending on available tech, a grav survey ship, a terraformer and a fuel harvester. To accomplish this the program will create an engine design and some passive sensor designs. There will be some variation in the number of engines, the number of geo/grav sensors and the presence and size of any passive sensors on the survey ships.
This should save a little time and give new players some help. Existing players should save some time as well as they will be able to modify designs rather than starting from scratch.
Steve
Post by: Pete_Keller on May 11, 2008, 12:21:15 PM
Post by: James Patten on May 11, 2008, 02:35:12 PM
Let me explain. I had a task group, Survey 1, which had itself as a superior task group. This was done so that when I manually split off survey ships they would have Survey 1 was their superior group.
I had the order set so that when fuel reached under 20%, the subordinate groups would join the superior group. This order was set for Survey 1. This happened during a 5-day increment. I had other ships set to join Survey 1, and got error messages about a missing task group. When control was returned to me, neither Survey 1 nor any ships belonging to it existed. At all. The task group was missing from the map, from the task group list, and in the ship list all its ships were missing. The ships that had one of the disappeared ships as a mothership no longer had that ship as a mothership.
I figure a mini black hole ate them up or something.
Post by: Cassaralla on May 13, 2008, 08:05:09 AM
On Reduced Size Launcher 0.75 Size / 2xReload
Quote
A modification to missile launchers that reduces their size by removing part of the reloading mechanism, dramatically reducing the reload time
Shouldn't that be dramatically 'increasing' reload time?
Post by: James Patten on May 18, 2008, 01:07:41 PM
I tested removing the TG by going in from another TG that had a ship that I could spare. This ship got deleted when the error prone TG got deleted.
I noticed when I had a similar problem that when I advanced 5 days and revisited the TG window, the problem TG had gone away.
Post by: Shinanygnz on May 18, 2008, 01:24:28 PM
When a new race is generated in future the program will create designs for large and small freighters, large and small colony ships, a geological survey ship and, depending on available tech, a grav survey ship, a terraformer and a fuel harvester. To accomplish this the program will create an engine design and some passive sensor designs. There will be some variation in the number of engines, the number of geo/grav sensors and the presence and size of any passive sensors on the survey ships.
This should save a little time and give new players some help. Existing players should save some time as well as they will be able to modify designs rather than starting from scratch.
Steve[/quote]
Thank you muchly for this. Asked for it some time ago and it'll make life a lot easier. Now if you could just add some warship design themes and "generate" buttons...
Stephen
Post by: Erik L on May 21, 2008, 02:37:53 PM
Shows the history line as "January 1, 500Awarded..." Other lines read "January 1, 500: Assigned..."
Should add the colon and space for conformity.
Post by: Erik L on May 21, 2008, 03:03:16 PM
Created Gauss cannons. Named them "Solon Magnetic Gauss Cannon", but they show up as "Gauss Cannon R1-100", nor can I rename them on the Tech Report.
Post by: Erik L on May 21, 2008, 11:52:54 PM
However I can go into the DB and put in the proper filename and it gets recognized.
Post by: Erik L on May 22, 2008, 01:46:23 PM
Side one
Code: [Select]
Tatsumaki class Destroyer Escort 4550 tons 319 Crew 491 BP TCS 91 TH 125 EM 240
1373 km/s Armour 3-24 Shields 8-225 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 39
Replacement Parts 5
Kuat Drives NT Engine (5) Power 25 Efficiency 0.90 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 22.0 billion km (185 days at full power)
Solon Magnetics Class B Shield Generator (5) Total Fuel Cost 68 Litres per day
Quad Gauss Cannon R2-100 Turret (1x8) Range 20,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 2 ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCD PD Suite (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 12800 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCD Close Search Scanner (1) GPS 12 Range 120k km Resolution 1
HCD Thermal Scanners (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
HCD EM Scanner (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Code: [Select]
Alacorn class Missile Destroyer 4100 tons 463 Crew 453 BP TCS 82 TH 125 EM 240
1524 km/s Armour 3-22 Shields 8-225 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 24
Magazine 204 Replacement Parts 5
Kuat Drives NT Engine (5) Power 25 Efficiency 0.90 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 24.4 billion km (185 days at full power)
Solon Magnetics Class B Shield Generator (5) Total Fuel Cost 68 Litres per day
Racheta Medium Missile Launcher (4) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 90
HCD Missile Control Suite (1) Range 14.4m km Resolution 40
AS-1 Glaive (34) Speed: 10000 km/s End: 27.8 minutes Range: 16.7m km Warhead: 10 MR: 12 Size: 6
HCD Class 12 Active Search Scanner (1) GPS 1200 Range 12.0m km Resolution 100
HCD Thermal Scanners (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
HCD EM Scanner (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
6 Tatsumaki and 2 AlacornSide 2
Code: [Select]
Woden class Cruiser 3700 tons 348 Crew 323 BP TCS 74 TH 125 EM 300
1689 km/s Armour 3-21 Shields 10-300 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 10
Replacement Parts 5
Nuclear Thermal Engine E10 (5) Power 25 Efficiency 1.00 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 24.3 billion km (166 days at full power)
Alpha R300/10 Shields (10) Total Fuel Cost 100 Litres per day
Thermal Torpedo R6 C1 (2) Range 20,000km TS: 1689 km/s Power 5-1 ROF 25 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 10-1000 (1) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 1000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 15 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor S12-R100/100 (1) GPS 1200 Range 12.0m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
3 Woden
Initial range was 45k with the Hathari (Side 1), orbiting a moon of the Darkmoor planet (Side 2). The Hathari opened fire with 2 salvoes of 4 AS-1 Glaive. At that point, the Darkmoor opened fire and closed to 20,000 km. The Tatsumaki were configured for PD. With no fire from the Wodens, the Darkmoor closed to 0 km. After the first Woden blew, the Tatsumaki were reconfigured to fire offensively. Neither the Wodens or the Tatsumakis ever fired once even though Active sensors were active on both sides, and firing orders were given, along with targeting information.
Both sides could see each other, as I kept getting tech scan events. The Darkmoors collected around 400pts on Fuel Efficiency 1 during the battle.
Is there something I'm missing completely, or is this some bizarre bug?
Post by: Erik L on May 22, 2008, 06:07:54 PM
Post by: Erik L on May 23, 2008, 01:37:05 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I had a battle in which one side never fired, even though event log entries show a 100% chance to hit. The ship designs in the fight were
Side oneCode: [Select]Tatsumaki class Destroyer Escort 4550 tons 319 Crew 491 BP TCS 91 TH 125 EM 240
1373 km/s Armour 3-24 Shields 8-225 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 39
Replacement Parts 5
Kuat Drives NT Engine (5) Power 25 Efficiency 0.90 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 22.0 billion km (185 days at full power)
Solon Magnetics Class B Shield Generator (5) Total Fuel Cost 68 Litres per day
Quad Gauss Cannon R2-100 Turret (1x8) Range 20,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 2 ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCD PD Suite (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 12800 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCD Close Search Scanner (1) GPS 12 Range 120k km Resolution 1
HCD Thermal Scanners (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
HCD EM Scanner (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m kmCode: [Select]Alacorn class Missile Destroyer 4100 tons 463 Crew 453 BP TCS 82 TH 125 EM 2406 Tatsumaki and 2 Alacorn
1524 km/s Armour 3-22 Shields 8-225 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 24
Magazine 204 Replacement Parts 5
Kuat Drives NT Engine (5) Power 25 Efficiency 0.90 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 24.4 billion km (185 days at full power)
Solon Magnetics Class B Shield Generator (5) Total Fuel Cost 68 Litres per day
Racheta Medium Missile Launcher (4) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 90
HCD Missile Control Suite (1) Range 14.4m km Resolution 40
AS-1 Glaive (34) Speed: 10000 km/s End: 27.8 minutes Range: 16.7m km Warhead: 10 MR: 12 Size: 6
HCD Class 12 Active Search Scanner (1) GPS 1200 Range 12.0m km Resolution 100
HCD Thermal Scanners (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
HCD EM Scanner (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Side 2Code: [Select]Woden class Cruiser 3700 tons 348 Crew 323 BP TCS 74 TH 125 EM 3003 Woden
1689 km/s Armour 3-21 Shields 10-300 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 10
Replacement Parts 5
Nuclear Thermal Engine E10 (5) Power 25 Efficiency 1.00 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 24.3 billion km (166 days at full power)
Alpha R300/10 Shields (10) Total Fuel Cost 100 Litres per day
Thermal Torpedo R6 C1 (2) Range 20,000km TS: 1689 km/s Power 5-1 ROF 25 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 10-1000 (1) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 1000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 15 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor S12-R100/100 (1) GPS 1200 Range 12.0m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Initial range was 45k with the Hathari (Side 1), orbiting a moon of the Darkmoor planet (Side 2). The Hathari opened fire with 2 salvoes of 4 AS-1 Glaive. At that point, the Darkmoor opened fire and closed to 20,000 km. The Tatsumaki were configured for PD. With no fire from the Wodens, the Darkmoor closed to 0 km. After the first Woden blew, the Tatsumaki were reconfigured to fire offensively. Neither the Wodens or the Tatsumakis ever fired once even though Active sensors were active on both sides, and firing orders were given, along with targeting information.
Both sides could see each other, as I kept getting tech scan events. The Darkmoors collected around 400pts on Fuel Efficiency 1 during the battle.
Is there something I'm missing completely, or is this some bizarre bug?
From what I can tell it is torpedos and gauss cannons that are not firing. The Darkmoor lost a second fleet (6 Woden) to the Hathari with no shots fired by the Darkmoor. They've since created a laser armed ship and started production on it. The Hathari are waiting on Troop transports to be built (and facing a severe mineral crunch). The new Darkmoor design incorporates lasers and GC for point defense.
Code: [Select]
Gotterdammerung class Cruiser 6550 tons 731 Crew 478 BP TCS 131 TH 250 EM 300
1908 km/s Armour 1-31 Shields 10-300 Sensors 5/5/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 38
Replacement Parts 5
Nuclear Thermal Engine E10 (10) Power 25 Efficiency 1.00 Signature 25 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 13.7 billion km (83 days at full power)
Alpha R300/10 Shields (10) Total Fuel Cost 100 Litres per day
10cm C2 Infrared Laser (6) Range 20,000km TS: 1908 km/s Power 3-2 RM 1 ROF 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gauss Cannon R1-100 (2) Range 10,000km TS: 1908 km/s Power 0-0 RM 1 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15cm C2 Plasma Carronade (2) Range 20,000km TS: 1908 km/s Power 6-2 RM 1 ROF 15 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 10-1000 (4) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 1000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (2) Total Power Output 30 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor S12-R100/100 (1) GPS 1200 Range 12.0m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor S12-R1/100 (1) GPS 12 Range 120k km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-5/100 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5m km
Post by: Erik L on May 23, 2008, 03:07:31 PM
I renumbered my Alacorns on upgrade to Alacorn B's. I then proceded with new construction. The new units have the same numbers as the old Alacorns.
Though hitting the renumber again fixed the issue.
Post by: Kurt on May 23, 2008, 03:37:40 PM
From what I can tell it is torpedos and gauss cannons that are not firing. The Darkmoor lost a second fleet (6 Woden) to the Hathari with no shots fired by the Darkmoor. They've since created a laser armed ship and started production on it. The Hathari are waiting on Troop transports to be built (and facing a severe mineral crunch). The new Darkmoor design incorporates lasers and GC for point defense.
[/quote]
Out of curiousity, what do the logs say about what is going on? Are the ships targeting each other, but not firing? Do the logs give any hint about what is going on?
Kurt
Post by: Erik L on May 23, 2008, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
[
The logs show the ship not firing even though they are in range and greater than 0% to hit.
I should have exported the log and saved that part but didn't think of it until it was long gone. And I just checked the db, it gets wiped out of there too. The Hathari are planning to go back into the Darkmoor system soon (as soon as the Jenner C's are done with refits). I'll Fast OOB some Woden's into the Darkmoor fleet, since I've only been building the new Gotterdammerung class.
Post by: Erik L on May 25, 2008, 06:25:09 PM
The selected ship is one of the Jenner C's. The Jenner C refit the Jenner B with newer armor and replaced the VL lasers with UV lasers.
Post by: Erik L on May 25, 2008, 06:26:03 PM
Post by: Erik L on June 04, 2008, 01:50:38 PM
Post by: Erik L on June 04, 2008, 06:46:39 PM
Post by: Erik L on June 05, 2008, 12:22:29 PM
I've not checked to see if this will "grow" a new ship, but I suspect it might. Or crash horribly.
Post by: Erik L on June 05, 2008, 12:38:00 PM
Code: [Select]
SturmFuer class Fighter 290 tons 33 Crew 71.1 BP TCS 5.8 TH 18 EM 0
6206 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/0/0/0 Damage Control 0-0 PPV 2
Kuat Drives Twin Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Efficiency 80.00 Signature 18 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.8 billion km (34 hours at full power)
Krupulon Arms 100mm Fighter Laser (1) Range 64,000km TS: 6206 km/s Power 3-1 RM 3 ROF 15 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
HCD Fighter Suite (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 12800 km/s 84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
Saern Fighter Plant (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
Then created a carrier. The Fighter/Ordnance tab shows a size per fighter of 4.8 which seems right. However the carrier display shows a size per fighter of 5.8.
Post by: Erik L on June 05, 2008, 01:53:56 PM
They ran out of fuel, even though the tanker is at 98%. The construction ships did not refuel from their own tanker.
Post by: Erik L on June 05, 2008, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Got a fleet of 5 construction ships. Attached a tanker since they are light in the fuel storage area. Conditional order to refuel at nearest tanker when under 20%.
They ran out of fuel, even though the tanker is at 98%. The construction ships did not refuel from their own tanker.
I changed the conditional to refuel at nearest tanker in 4 jumps and they used their own tanker to refuel.
It seems that the colony check takes precedence over the tankers. Maybe swap that around?
Post by: Erik L on June 06, 2008, 12:11:28 AM
Capital --- Sys 1 --- Sys 2 --- Colony
Sys 2 has a colony with ~10m pop and is a sector capital. The colony fleet will take colonists from the Capital and unload them at the colony, but then generates an event saying "No acceptable destination in range". By my count that's only 3 hops and should be in range. Unless it is counting the sector as a capital rather than the Imperial capital?
Post by: backstab on June 08, 2008, 11:21:08 PM
Post by: Erik L on June 08, 2008, 11:47:55 PM
Quote from: "backstab"
Every time I advance the game 30 days, I get a ERROR 3421 was generated by DAO.Field data type conversion error.
On the error box, it will say Error in (something). That will help Steve find it
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: "Hagar"
The Technology Report screen (CNTL-F7) does not have Shields, Thermal Sensors, or EM Detection Sensors available in the Category pull down list.
Added for v3.1
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 12:19:36 PM
Quote from: "Pete_Keller"
Copy orders does not copy conditional order a.
That is a feature rather than a bug
. The basic copy order just copies the standard orders list. Checking the Special checkbox (the default checkbox in v3.1) also adds default orders. I have now added a Conditional checkbox, allowing you to also copy all conditions and conditional orders to sub-fleets as wellSteve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 12:24:06 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
When awarding medals -
Shows the history line as "January 1, 500Awarded..." Other lines read "January 1, 500: Assigned..."
Should add the colon and space for conformity.
Corrected for v3.1
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 12:27:23 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I created some images for medals I wanted to create. I gave them descriptive names such as M_SurveyPip.jpg. The program throws an error saying it cannot find Medals/yPip.jpg.
However I can go into the DB and put in the proper filename and it gets recognized.
All the medals are named M###.jpg where ### is a three digit number. This is so the program can recognize a medal picture and can select one at random by generating the number. If you want to add more medals, you will need to use the same naming convention as the existing ones.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 12:30:58 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Initial range was 45k with the Hathari (Side 1), orbiting a moon of the Darkmoor planet (Side 2). The Hathari opened fire with 2 salvoes of 4 AS-1 Glaive. At that point, the Darkmoor opened fire and closed to 20,000 km. The Tatsumaki were configured for PD. With no fire from the Wodens, the Darkmoor closed to 0 km. After the first Woden blew, the Tatsumaki were reconfigured to fire offensively. Neither the Wodens or the Tatsumakis ever fired once even though Active sensors were active on both sides, and firing orders were given, along with targeting information.
Both sides could see each other, as I kept getting tech scan events. The Darkmoors collected around 400pts on Fuel Efficiency 1 during the battle.
Is there something I'm missing completely, or is this some bizarre bug?
Time for a stupid question
Did you press Open Fire for the ships after you setup all the targeting information. Also, you may need to press open fire again if a target is destroyed. In v3.0 once a ship can no longer detect its target, it ceases firing automatically.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Did a refit, stripped out slow (90sec refire) missile launchers to be replaced with faster ones. The F8 combat screen and event logs show both the older, and the newer ones, though the F5 screen only shows the newer launchers, as does the F6 screen.
Interesting. Did you use these ships in combat before refitting them? There may be something in the weapon assignment code that is hanging around after the refit. I will check it out.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on June 09, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Initial range was 45k with the Hathari (Side 1), orbiting a moon of the Darkmoor planet (Side 2). The Hathari opened fire with 2 salvoes of 4 AS-1 Glaive. At that point, the Darkmoor opened fire and closed to 20,000 km. The Tatsumaki were configured for PD. With no fire from the Wodens, the Darkmoor closed to 0 km. After the first Woden blew, the Tatsumaki were reconfigured to fire offensively. Neither the Wodens or the Tatsumakis ever fired once even though Active sensors were active on both sides, and firing orders were given, along with targeting information.Time for a stupid question
Both sides could see each other, as I kept getting tech scan events. The Darkmoors collected around 400pts on Fuel Efficiency 1 during the battle.
Is there something I'm missing completely, or is this some bizarre bug?
Did you press Open Fire for the ships after you setup all the targeting information. Also, you may need to press open fire again if a target is destroyed. In v3.0 once a ship can no longer detect its target, it ceases firing automatically.
Steve
I did. I was using the Fleet Open Fire, rather than the individual ships, if that makes a difference.
Post by: Erik L on June 09, 2008, 01:00:53 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Did a refit, stripped out slow (90sec refire) missile launchers to be replaced with faster ones. The F8 combat screen and event logs show both the older, and the newer ones, though the F5 screen only shows the newer launchers, as does the F6 screen.Interesting. Did you use these ships in combat before refitting them? There may be something in the weapon assignment code that is hanging around after the refit. I will check it out.
Steve
Yes. The Hathari and Darkmoor have had 4 or 5 clashes. Well. Okay. The Hathari have smashed the Darkmoor fleets 4 or 5 times.
There was something I did that cleaned it up. I can't recall exactly what now, but I think it might have been a complete reassignment of fire controls.
Post by: Hawkeye on June 09, 2008, 01:27:23 PM
I had a couple of colony ships returning from a 1.5 year or so trip, being down to like 3 of 5 spares, so, while on route to my HW, I ordered them to undergo a minor refit (I read only later, that the freight facility would provide a free major refit). The ships entered minor refit, but never came out of it.
After about 1.5 years, I deleted the ships and OOBed new ones.
Post by: Erik L on June 09, 2008, 01:39:03 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
I don?t know if this realy is a bug, as it seems to be caused by myself doing something realy stupid.
I had a couple of colony ships returning from a 1.5 year or so trip, being down to like 3 of 5 spares, so, while on route to my HW, I ordered them to undergo a minor refit (I read only later, that the freight facility would provide a free major refit). The ships entered minor refit, but never came out of it.
After about 1.5 years, I deleted the ships and OOBed new ones.
I've had this happen too. I think it's a feature.
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 02:01:35 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
I don?t know if this realy is a bug, as it seems to be caused by myself doing something realy stupid.
I had a couple of colony ships returning from a 1.5 year or so trip, being down to like 3 of 5 spares, so, while on route to my HW, I ordered them to undergo a minor refit (I read only later, that the freight facility would provide a free major refit). The ships entered minor refit, but never came out of it.
After about 1.5 years, I deleted the ships and OOBed new ones.
Assuming you mean minor overhaul, the maintenance facilities won't touch freighters as that would use up minerals unnecessarily so they will never be affected by the overhaul. If you find yourself in the same situation again, you can give them an Abandon Overhaul order. This takes a week for a minor overhaul and a month for a major overhaul.
For v3.1, I have added some code to prevent freighters entering the overhaul state in the first place. The user will be informed if this happens.
Steve
Post by: Kurt on June 09, 2008, 02:09:59 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Did a refit, stripped out slow (90sec refire) missile launchers to be replaced with faster ones. The F8 combat screen and event logs show both the older, and the newer ones, though the F5 screen only shows the newer launchers, as does the F6 screen.Interesting. Did you use these ships in combat before refitting them? There may be something in the weapon assignment code that is hanging around after the refit. I will check it out.
Steve
I have noticed that things tend to persist in the combat screen. I hadn't run into this one, but I've had ships damaged in combat and then repaired, and the repairs don't show up on the combat screen (which still shows the damaged capabilities).
Kurt
Post by: SteveAlt on June 09, 2008, 02:17:15 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Did a refit, stripped out slow (90sec refire) missile launchers to be replaced with faster ones. The F8 combat screen and event logs show both the older, and the newer ones, though the F5 screen only shows the newer launchers, as does the F6 screen.Interesting. Did you use these ships in combat before refitting them? There may be something in the weapon assignment code that is hanging around after the refit. I will check it out.
I have added a routine that removes any fire control, weapon, ECCM or missile assignments when a ship is refitted.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on June 09, 2008, 08:11:55 PM
The Federation of Darkmoor found a nice system with a huge amount of minerals. The decision to colonize was made. I added a colony via the F9 screen on the planet, shipped 5000 infrastructure over and then gave the colony fleet the order to load colonists at 20m + and unload at < 15m. The systems are 2 jumps apart and the colony fleet includes a jump tender of sufficient size. However, I get events say "No acceptable destination in 4 jumps."
Post by: Hawkeye on June 09, 2008, 10:43:31 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"I don?t know if this realy is a bug, as it seems to be caused by myself doing something realy stupid.Assuming you mean minor overhaul, the maintenance facilities won't touch freighters as that would use up minerals unnecessarily so they will never be affected by the overhaul. If you find yourself in the same situation again, you can give them an Abandon Overhaul order. This takes a week for a minor overhaul and a month for a major overhaul.
I had a couple of colony ships returning from a 1.5 year or so trip, being down to like 3 of 5 spares, so, while on route to my HW, I ordered them to undergo a minor refit (I read only later, that the freight facility would provide a free major refit). The ships entered minor refit, but never came out of it.
After about 1.5 years, I deleted the ships and OOBed new ones.
For v3.1, I have added some code to prevent freighters entering the overhaul state in the first place. The user will be informed if this happens.
Steve
Doh!
I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancle the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul).
Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
Talk about being stupid
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 10, 2008, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"Quote from: "Hawkeye"I don?t know if this realy is a bug, as it seems to be caused by myself doing something realy stupid.Assuming you mean minor overhaul, the maintenance facilities won't touch freighters as that would use up minerals unnecessarily so they will never be affected by the overhaul. If you find yourself in the same situation again, you can give them an Abandon Overhaul order. This takes a week for a minor overhaul and a month for a major overhaul.
I had a couple of colony ships returning from a 1.5 year or so trip, being down to like 3 of 5 spares, so, while on route to my HW, I ordered them to undergo a minor refit (I read only later, that the freight facility would provide a free major refit). The ships entered minor refit, but never came out of it.
After about 1.5 years, I deleted the ships and OOBed new ones.
For v3.1, I have added some code to prevent freighters entering the overhaul state in the first place. The user will be informed if this happens.
Steve
Doh!
I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancle the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul).
Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
Talk about being stupid
Nope, not stupid. Just a learning curve issue that has now been resolved. We've all been there.
Post by: backstab on June 11, 2008, 04:27:59 AM
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid Procedure Call or argument
Any Idea on this Bug ???
Post by: IanD on June 11, 2008, 01:54:53 PM
I have the Battlefleet in orbit around the home world and gave it the order to load ordnance. I got the response on the events window that it could not comply with the order because "there shipyard tasks associated with the fleet". The tasks in question were three new builds just started slated to join the Battlefleet in about 3 years!
Any explanation welcome.
Regards
Ian
Post by: Erik L on June 11, 2008, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
Not sure if this is a bug or a feature?
I have the Battlefleet in orbit around the home world and gave it the order to load ordnance. I got the response on the events window that it could not comply with the order because "there shipyard tasks associated with the fleet". The tasks in question were three new builds just started slated to join the Battlefleet in about 3 years!
Any explanation welcome.
Regards
Ian
That's a feature.
What I do is send all new construction to the Shipyard group. Then once complete, break it out to the necessary fleet.
Post by: IanD on June 12, 2008, 04:02:42 PM
Regards
Post by: SteveAlt on June 12, 2008, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Doh!
I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancle the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul).
Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
Talk about being stupid :)
Steve
Post by: Erik L on June 12, 2008, 07:02:35 PM
No current record.
Near as I can tell, it is the special to drop off colonists at a <15 pop colony. The nearest colony that qualifies is same system.
*edit*
It does look like it dropped them off though. The event line reads
Quote
19th September 543 04:32:46,Hatharag,As per secondary orders, Colony Legion I has been assigned the following order:
19th September 543 04:32:46,Unknown,336th Captain Delbert Torrez has been assigned to Tessen 006 (Crew Training 50)
19th September 543 04:32:46,Unknown,1067th Legionnaire Robert Legrande has been promoted to Captain
19th September 543 04:32:46,Unknown,The Political Reliability Bonus of Five Hundred and Thirty-first Legionnaire Fredrick Kunselman has increased to 5%
19th September 543 04:32:46,Unknown,Through training or experience, One Hundred and Twenty-first Commodore Robby Ripple has increased his Training Bonus to 75
19th September 543 04:32:46,Hatharag,Toby Mammen has joined your officer corps. Initiative 124 Shipbuilding 20% GU Const Speed 20% Factory Prod 15% Ground Combat 10% Political Reliability 20% Archaeology 10%
19th September 543 04:32:46,Hatharag,As per secondary orders, Colony Legion II has been assigned the following order:
19th September 543 04:32:46,Hatharag,Support Corps - Heavy Lift I has completed orders: Load Infrastructure Hatharval
19th September 543 04:32:46,Hatharag,Tessen 006 (Tessen class) built on Hatharval and assigned to Hatharval Reserve Legion I
That's the log from that particular stretch. Notice Colony 1 and Colony 2.
Post by: James Patten on June 12, 2008, 07:27:12 PM
Post by: James Patten on June 14, 2008, 08:02:16 PM
Also today had a problem where I click on the bottom shipyard and got a null problem in the construction/refit section of the window. The title of the ship to be built is blank. An error message popped up but I didn't write it down.
Post by: Erik L on June 14, 2008, 09:07:40 PM
Quote from: "James Patten"
In the shipyard list, the bottom shipyard in the list always seems to have problems. When I refit ships with it, the other shipyards advance the list of unrefitted ships (refit Ship A, after a second or two and Ship B shows up) but the bottom shipyard does not advance.
Also today had a problem where I click on the bottom shipyard and got a null problem in the construction/refit section of the window. The title of the ship to be built is blank. An error message popped up but I didn't write it down.
Add the "Add" button does not disable properly on the bottom-most yard.
The second part there almost looks like you had the task area set to refit, but there was no class defined.
Post by: James Patten on June 15, 2008, 01:51:56 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
The second part there almost looks like you had the task area set to refit, but there was no class defined.
Yes you are correct.
Post by: James Patten on June 16, 2008, 06:30:49 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Also today had a problem where I click on the bottom shipyard and got a null problem in the construction/refit section of the window. The title of the ship to be built is blank. An error message popped up but I didn't write it down.
I have to retract this bug, but this error was caused by another bug.
The reason I was getting a null error was because the ship the yard was tooled to work on was larger than the shipyard. The yard was 5000 tons, the ship design was originally 5000 tons but had become 5050 tons. When I looked into it I remembered another bug I occasionally come across.
My original design for the ship brought the "actual" tonnage right up to 5000 tons, with addition of some small fuel tanks (10 ton each). When I checked the design it had turned into 5005 actual tonnage. I've run into this before with other ships, all I do is remove one of the small fuel tanks, it subtracts 15 tons, and add the small tank back in which only adds 10 tons.
Post by: IanD on June 23, 2008, 12:10:56 PM
Quote
Doh! I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancel the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul). Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
OK, I'll bite. I am being particularly dense, but just how do I issue a ship with the order abandon overhaul. I have a jump tender (classed as a non-combatant) which had orders to move to Earth and begin overhaul, but began its overhaul just inside the orbit of Jupiter. I have tried all the screens etc. the answer must be obvious, but it eludes me
Regards
Post by: IanD on June 23, 2008, 01:48:16 PM
Is it too difficult to program the conditional order to exclude the ship in question?
Regards
Post by: sloanjh on June 24, 2008, 09:44:51 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteDoh! I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancel the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul). Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
OK, I'll bite. I am being particularly dense, but just how do I issue a ship with the order abandon overhaul. I have a jump tender (classed as a non-combatant) which had orders to move to Earth and begin overhaul, but began its overhaul just inside the orbit of Jupiter. I have tried all the screens etc. the answer must be obvious, but it eludes me
Regards
This sounds like a bug. My recollection is that if you try to give the TF an order, you'll see something like "abandon overhaul". The fact that you're not in orbit might screw this up, however.
John
Post by: IanD on June 24, 2008, 11:34:19 AM
Quote
This sounds like a bug. My recollection is that if you try to give the TF an order, you'll see something like "abandon overhaul". The fact that you're not in orbit might screw this up, however.
Thanks John.
I have tried giving orders, cancelling them and reissuing them. No joy. To compound the problem, I put 5 freighters into a minor overhaul in Earth orbit, and they refuse to come out of it whatever I do!! I think your answer is the only one viable, delete the ships and OOB new ones.
Having tried another order I now have an option to abandon the Freighter overhaul, still no joy with the jump ship though.Regards
Post by: IanD on June 24, 2008, 04:49:59 PM
Regards
Post by: Kurt on June 24, 2008, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: "IanD"
For the second time I have had a game killed by an "Error 6 was generated by Aurora please report to Steve Walmsley@etc" I had just moved the last ship from a task force without first deleting orders for the task force. It would help us novices if you could stop the program crashing at this point - Please!!!!
Regards
I had this too, and I think it is related to the fact that once you remove the last ship, the Task Group's speed is reduced to 1, which causes massive problems when Aurora tries to calculate the time to complete the remaining orders.
Steve, perhaps this could be solved by having Aurora automatically delete any remaining orders when the last ship is removed from a task group?
Kurt
Post by: IanD on June 25, 2008, 11:15:43 AM
Regards
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 08:24:53 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "IanD"For the second time I have had a game killed by an "Error 6 was generated by Aurora please report to Steve Walmsley@etc" I had just moved the last ship from a task force without first deleting orders for the task force. It would help us novices if you could stop the program crashing at this point - Please!!!!
Regards
I had this too, and I think it is related to the fact that once you remove the last ship, the Task Group's speed is reduced to 1, which causes massive problems when Aurora tries to calculate the time to complete the remaining orders.
Steve, perhaps this could be solved by having Aurora automatically delete any remaining orders when the last ship is removed from a task group?
I have added some code to do that. Whenever speed is checked, such as when a ship is moved from one TG to another, if there are no ships in the fleet then all orders are deleted.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 08:31:04 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
A minor bug, when you scrap a ship on the task force screen it registers as "reactivating".
Regards
There is no way to scrap a ship on the Task Force screen or the Task Group screen (at least I think so). Do you mean on the Population and Production window? I have tried adding a Scrap task and it shows up correctly.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: "backstab"
ERROR IN COMET MOTION
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid Procedure Call or argument
Any Idea on this Bug ???
This is an error generated by the code that moves comets but I don't which part of that code is being affected. Do you get this error every 5-day increment and how many times does it appear? Did it start appearing midway through a game (presumably after you generated a system with some comets) or has it always been there?
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 08:45:06 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
Not sure if this is a bug or a feature?
I have the Battlefleet in orbit around the home world and gave it the order to load ordnance. I got the response on the events window that it could not comply with the order because "there shipyard tasks associated with the fleet". The tasks in question were three new builds just started slated to join the Battlefleet in about 3 years!
Any explanation welcome.
That's a feature. It's to prevent you sending new construction to a task group that just sailed off into the sunset. When you start a new race, there is a task group called Shipyard TG. The best option is to assign that as the default task group for all your shipyards and then move ships from there into the appropriate task groups after construction.
To make this easier in v3.1 I will assign the Shipyard TG task group as the default task group for all shipyards during race creation.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Quote from: "James Patten"Also today had a problem where I click on the bottom shipyard and got a null problem in the construction/refit section of the window. The title of the ship to be built is blank. An error message popped up but I didn't write it down.
I have to retract this bug, but this error was caused by another bug.
The reason I was getting a null error was because the ship the yard was tooled to work on was larger than the shipyard. The yard was 5000 tons, the ship design was originally 5000 tons but had become 5050 tons. When I looked into it I remembered another bug I occasionally come across.
My original design for the ship brought the "actual" tonnage right up to 5000 tons, with addition of some small fuel tanks (10 ton each). When I checked the design it had turned into 5005 actual tonnage. I've run into this before with other ships, all I do is remove one of the small fuel tanks, it subtracts 15 tons, and add the small tank back in which only adds 10 tons.
I have seen this too. For some reason, adding something may take the ship size to 100 but deducting something may leave it at 100.1. For the moment if you find this problem, either remove something and then add it back in or move off the design and re-select it, which will reset the lower value. I will look into what is causing the problem.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on June 29, 2008, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have seen this too. For some reason, adding something may take the ship size to 100 but deducting something may leave it at 100.1. For the moment if you find this problem, either remove something and then add it back in or move off the design and re-select it, which will reset the lower value. I will look into what is causing the problem.
I've always assumed that this was a rounding error due to the armor calculation formula being non-linear. I think its frequency went down significantly when you went to fractional armor sizes, i.e. it used to be a lot worse when the granularity was 1 HS.
Do you have any spots on the design screen where adding or subtracting a component calculates a change in hull size, as opposed to having a single routine that calculates size from scratch and is always called when the design changes?
IIRC this could be worked around by switching to a different class in the F5 screen, then switching back - I think that triggers a size recalculation (but I could be wrong).
John
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 10:49:48 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"I have seen this too. For some reason, adding something may take the ship size to 100 but deducting something may leave it at 100.1. For the moment if you find this problem, either remove something and then add it back in or move off the design and re-select it, which will reset the lower value. I will look into what is causing the problem.I've always assumed that this was a rounding error due to the armor calculation formula being non-linear. I think its frequency went down significantly when you went to fractional armor sizes, i.e. it used to be a lot worse when the granularity was 1 HS.
Do you have any spots on the design screen where adding or subtracting a component calculates a change in hull size, as opposed to having a single routine that calculates size from scratch and is always called when the design changes?
IIRC this could be worked around by switching to a different class in the F5 screen, then switching back - I think that triggers a size recalculation (but I could be wrong).
It is related to armour as it's the amount of armour that is different between adding and subtracting. However, whether you add, subtract, or change classes, its all done in the same calculation. Armour isn't done from scratch, which is no doubt the cause of the problem, because I didn't want older classes suddenly updating to the latest armour type. However, what isn't clear is why the same calculation produces different results for subtraction vs addition/recalculation. I think its probably because the post-subtraction calculation is working out the new amount of armour based on a class size calculation that excludes the subtracted system but not the additional armour used by that system before it was subtracted - if that makes sense
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
It is related to armour as it's the amount of armour that is different between adding and subtracting. However, whether you add, subtract, or change classes, its all done in the same calculation. Armour isn't done from scratch, which is no doubt the cause of the problem, because I didn't want older classes suddenly updating to the latest armour type. However, what isn't clear is why the same calculation produces different results for subtraction vs addition/recalculation. I think its probably because the post-subtraction calculation is working out the new amount of armour based on a class size calculation that excludes the subtracted system but not the additional armour used by that system before it was subtracted - if that makes sense :)
The ship class design code now sets the amount of armour to 0.1 units before doing the whole calculation. This retains the correct armour type and forces the routine to calculate the correct armour, without potentially being affected by armour retained from a version of the class that included an extra system.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
The second part there almost looks like you had the task area set to refit, but there was no class defined.
I have added some code to prevent this error and let the user know the problem.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 11:41:47 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Fleet special orders "When fuel less than 20%" doesn't appear to kick in until fuel is at 10% or less.
I can't reproduce this one. There are conditional orders for both 20% or less and 10% or less. Please could you check that it is the 20% that is selected.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 11:51:40 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteDoh! I have been looking around the Task Group and the Ships window, searching for a button to cancel the overhaul (yes, i meant overhaul). Never realized, I could simply order them to stop overhauling
OK, I'll bite. I am being particularly dense, but just how do I issue a ship with the order abandon overhaul. I have a jump tender (classed as a non-combatant) which had orders to move to Earth and begin overhaul, but began its overhaul just inside the orbit of Jupiter. I have tried all the screens etc. the answer must be obvious, but it eludes me
Regards
I have no idea what is happening here. I have issued a lot of overhaul orders and never seen this so there is definitely something weird going on. The overhaul order can only be given if the destination is a population with maintenance facilities so there should be no way for a ship to suddenly start an overhaul in deep space. Does the ship list on the task group window have " - Major Overhaul" next to each ship? Also, what is in the Plotted Moves list and is the fleet still moving? I just want to check you are not confusing the current order with the actual overhaul as a fleet will show the overhaul order on the system map while it is en route but the overhaul won't start until it arrives.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
I think this is a small bug. When you have a conditional order "Fuel at <20%, refuel at nearest colony or tanker" my lone tankers are attempting to refuel from themselves
Is it too difficult to program the conditional order to exclude the ship in question?
I won't be able to exclude a ship as orders are given to fleets rather than individual ships. I could exclude the fleet with the conditional order but that would stop someone giving an conditional order to Refuel at Nearest Tanker, with the intention that the fleet would refuel from its own tankers.
If you want one tanker to refuel from another its probably best to manually create the order. Otherwise, your tankers should be set to refuel from colonies only.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 29, 2008, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
There is something definitely flaky with the colonist orders.
The Federation of Darkmoor found a nice system with a huge amount of minerals. The decision to colonize was made. I added a colony via the F9 screen on the planet, shipped 5000 infrastructure over and then gave the colony fleet the order to load colonists at 20m + and unload at < 15m. The systems are 2 jumps apart and the colony fleet includes a jump tender of sufficient size. However, I get events say "No acceptable destination in 4 jumps."
I ws going to say they would need jump gates but I checked the code and it looks like it should take any jump ships within the same fleet into consideration.
As a test, please could you go into SM mode and add jump gates to the intervening jump points and see if that makes a difference. You can add and remove jump gates on the F9 window.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on June 29, 2008, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"There is something definitely flaky with the colonist orders.I ws going to say they would need jump gates but I checked the code and it looks like it should take any jump ships within the same fleet into consideration.
The Federation of Darkmoor found a nice system with a huge amount of minerals. The decision to colonize was made. I added a colony via the F9 screen on the planet, shipped 5000 infrastructure over and then gave the colony fleet the order to load colonists at 20m + and unload at < 15m. The systems are 2 jumps apart and the colony fleet includes a jump tender of sufficient size. However, I get events say "No acceptable destination in 4 jumps."
As a test, please could you go into SM mode and add jump gates to the intervening jump points and see if that makes a difference. You can add and remove jump gates on the F9 window.
Steve
Oops. The jump ship was 50 tons smaller than the colonizers
Post by: IanD on June 30, 2008, 07:48:05 AM
Quote
have no idea what is happening here. I have issued a lot of overhaul orders and never seen this so there is definitely something weird going on. The overhaul order can only be given if the destination is a population with maintenance facilities so there should be no way for a ship to suddenly start an overhaul in deep space. Does the ship list on the task group window have " - Major Overhaul" next to each ship? Also, what is in the Plotted Moves list and is the fleet still moving? I just want to check you are not confusing the current order with the actual overhaul as a fleet will show the overhaul order on the system map while it is en route but the overhaul won't start until it arrives.
The task force had orders to "transit to Sol" "move to Earth" and "begin minor overhaul", however soon after transiting the Sol jump point the ship stopped moving and stayed there for several years, I even transferred 5 spares across to see if that had any effect (it didn't). The orders just read, "begin minor overhaul" and stayed like that until I abandoned ship, which incidentally did not leave a wreck, should it have?
Regards
Post by: IanD on June 30, 2008, 07:55:53 AM
Quote
There is no way to scrap a ship on the Task Force screen or the Task Group screen (at least I think so). Do you mean on the Population and Production window? I have tried adding a Scrap task and it shows up correctly
Sorry for my poor sentence construction. I scrapped the ship on the Pop&prod screen, but in the Task Force screen the ship was registering as "reactivating". The ship was one member of a Task Force in orbit at the time and only that ship was being scrapped. When finally scrapped the ship disappeared from the Task Force screen as it should.
Regards
Post by: James Patten on June 30, 2008, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "James Patten"Fleet special orders "When fuel less than 20%" doesn't appear to kick in until fuel is at 10% or less.I can't reproduce this one. There are conditional orders for both 20% or less and 10% or less. Please could you check that it is the 20% that is selected.
Steve
I give this as a standard order for my geo/grav survey ships, which are parasite ships attached to a mothership. It seems as if the ships never are recalled to the mothership until the fuel is below 10% - however, just to be sure, I'll set up some situations where fuel is between 10 and 20% tonight when I play.
Post by: Randy on June 30, 2008, 01:42:02 PM
Quote
The task force had orders to "transit to Sol" "move to Earth" and "begin minor overhaul", however soon after transiting the Sol jump point the ship stopped moving and stayed there for several years, I even transferred 5 spares across to see if that had any effect (it didn't). The orders just read, "begin minor overhaul" and stayed like that until I abandoned ship, which incidentally did not leave a wreck, should it have?
Did the fleet have any conditional orders by any chance? They can sometimes get activated for a ship under refit...
Post by: IanD on July 01, 2008, 02:31:53 AM
Quote
The task force had orders to "transit to Sol" "move to Earth" and "begin minor overhaul", however soon after transiting the Sol jump point the ship stopped moving and stayed there for several years, I even transferred 5 spares across to see if that had any effect (it didn't). The orders just read, "begin minor overhaul" and stayed like that until I abandoned ship, which incidentally did not leave a wreck, should it have?
I have managed to reproduce this bug under more or less controlled conditions, although accidentally. I had a fleet of 3 ship ordered to Earth. 5-10 days later, not totally sure of their location I ordered them ?move to Earth?, ?begin minor overhaul? ?refuel from colony? the next event for the fleet said orders not possible due to ships in fleet undergoing maintenance (or a close approximation). The fleet was stranded just outside the orbit of Earth, no movement vector but a speed noted next to it. I left it for 3-4 5-day turns, then through the task force screen transferred the ships to a task group known to be in Earth orbit. The ships duly completed their overhaul I transferred them back to their original fleet still just outside Earth orbit and off they went. When I checked the event log and the fleet in question had already arrived at Earth before I issued a second ?move to Earth? while they were in Earth orbit and it is this that appeared to upset the process but I don?t understand how they moved from Earth orbit to space! If I order ?move to Earth? then after their arrival ?begin minor overhaul? there is no problem even with conditional orders set.
Regards
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 03:58:48 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteThere is no way to scrap a ship on the Task Force screen or the Task Group screen (at least I think so). Do you mean on the Population and Production window? I have tried adding a Scrap task and it shows up correctlySorry for my poor sentence construction. I scrapped the ship on the Pop&prod screen, but in the Task Force screen the ship was registering as "reactivating". The ship was one member of a Task Force in orbit at the time and only that ship was being scrapped. When finally scrapped the ship disappeared from the Task Force screen as it should.
Found it now. It was a database field that needed updated. Fixed for v3.1
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
I have managed to reproduce this bug under more or less controlled conditions, although accidentally. I had a fleet of 3 ship ordered to Earth. 5-10 days later, not totally sure of their location I ordered them ?move to Earth?, ?begin minor overhaul? ?refuel from colony? the next event for the fleet said orders not possible due to ships in fleet undergoing maintenance (or a close approximation).Once a ship is in overhaul, it won't obey any more orders until the overhaul is completed (to prevent ships under overhaul sailiing off into space). The warning you received would be for the refuel orders. If you are planning an overhaul, its best to make that the last order and refuel beforehand.
Quote
The fleet was stranded just outside the orbit of Earth, no movement vector but a speed noted next to it. I left it for 3-4 5-day turns, then through the task force screen transferred the ships to a task group known to be in Earth orbit. The ships duly completed their overhaul I transferred them back to their original fleet still just outside Earth orbit and off they went. When I checked the event log and the fleet in question had already arrived at Earth before I issued a second ?move to Earth? while they were in Earth orbit and it is this that appeared to upset the process but I don?t understand how they moved from Earth orbit to space! If I order ?move to Earth? then after their arrival ?begin minor overhaul? there is no problem even with conditional orders set.
Just to clarify, if you normally order "Move to Earth" and "Begin Overhaul", there is no problem. If you order "Move to Earth", "Begin Overhaul" and "Refuel" while the fleet is already in Earth orbit, this causes the problem?
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 04:08:14 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
While navigating the System Map window I had problems with displaying the third sytem I explored, eventually cumulating in a white screen which then reverted to blue with the error message "Error 6 was generated by Aurora - Overflow - please report to etc. This then locked up the programme and some PC functions
Can you remember what you were doing and what problems you had before the white screen appeared? Were you zooming in or out for example?
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 04:12:28 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Adding EM and Thermal scanners to missiles adds not the MSP used but the strength of the scanner to the missile.
Fixed for v3.1
Steve
Post by: IanD on July 01, 2008, 04:56:55 AM
Quote
Just to clarify, if you normally order "Move to Earth" and "Begin Overhaul", there is no problem. If you order "Move to Earth", "Begin Overhaul" and "Refuel" while the fleet is already in Earth orbit, this causes the problem?
Yes, if the orders were separate in time, no problem, but if I order "move to Earth" + "begin overhaul" while already in Earth orbit the fleet is spatially dislocated and then overhaul starts with no way of cancelling, except for the way I achieved it in my last post. I am not sure whether another order after the "begin overhaul" is required. For this case and the last the fleets were given orders after the "begin overhaul" order.
Regards
Post by: IanD on July 01, 2008, 05:10:20 AM
Quote
While navigating the System Map window I had problems with displaying the third sytem I explored, eventually cumulating in a white screen which then reverted to blue with the error message "Error 6 was generated by Aurora - Overflow - please report to etc. This then locked up the programme and some PC functions
Can you remember what you were doing and what problems you had before the white screen appeared? Were you zooming in or out for example?
I was zooming in IIRC and seemed to have a problem, then got the overflow message. Unfortunately have now deleted all older games to start over from a saved game file off a memory stick. Found I could not get rid of the old games otherwise even though did a complete delete, re-install, possibly an effect of Vista/Raid 1? Of course I guess I could just have deleted the games using the first popup screen - but why do things the easy way
.Regards
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 05:42:44 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
Yes, if the orders were separate in time, no problem, but if I order "move to Earth" + "begin overhaul" while already in Earth orbit the fleet is spatially dislocated and then overhaul starts with no way of cancelling, except for the way I achieved it in my last post. I am not sure whether another order after the "begin overhaul" is required. For this case and the last the fleets were given orders after the "begin overhaul" order.
This might sound completely unrelated but were there any sensor contacts in the system at the time you had the problem?
Steve
Post by: James Patten on July 01, 2008, 06:33:34 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"..just to be sure, I'll set up some situations where fuel is between 10 and 20% tonight when I play.Quote from: "James Patten"Fleet special orders "When fuel less than 20%" doesn't appear to kick in until fuel is at 10% or less.I can't reproduce this one...
I set up a controlled condition, where I detached a parasite with 15% fuel and told it to join the mothership if fuel less than 20%. In the turn afterward it joined the mothership's TG.
However, it seems when out in the field sailing from place to place, that it gets to where it wants to go before detecting the fuel situation and ordering a return home.
Post by: IanD on July 01, 2008, 07:00:43 AM
Quote
This might sound completely unrelated but were there any sensor contacts in the system at the time you had the problem?
There were no sensor contacts; the only ships in system were mine. I have yet to find an inhabited planet, I usually manage to crash the game before I get that far
.Regards
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteThis might sound completely unrelated but were there any sensor contacts in the system at the time you had the problem?There were no sensor contacts; the only ships in system were mine. I have yet to find an inhabited planet, I usually manage to crash the game before I get that far
I managed to reproduce part of the bug where I ordered a ship in orbit of its homeworld to move to the planet and then begin overhaul. It started the overhaul without executing the move order first and then left the move order in the queue, causing repeated events stating it couldn't move while in overhaul. The cause of this problem was a contact in the system which caused an order delay. It turns out that order delays only affect the first order in the queue and the ship went straight to the next order and began an overhaul - oops! Normally this wouldn't be spotted because the second order will not usually be possible until the first order is completed. However in this case the ship was already in orbit so it was possible. I have fixed this for v3.1 but unfortunately I don't see how this could have caused the problem above, although it must be related in some way.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on July 01, 2008, 08:28:11 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
I set up a controlled condition, where I detached a parasite with 15% fuel and told it to join the mothership if fuel less than 20%. In the turn afterward it joined the mothership's TG.
However, it seems when out in the field sailing from place to place, that it gets to where it wants to go before detecting the fuel situation and ordering a return home.
The conditional orders should override any existing order. Unlike default orders, they should also still be checked even if there are existing orders in the queue. I'll have to set this up and try and recreate the problem.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on July 01, 2008, 02:12:56 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "IanD"While navigating the System Map window I had problems with displaying the third sytem I explored, eventually cumulating in a white screen which then reverted to blue with the error message "Error 6 was generated by Aurora - Overflow - please report to etc. This then locked up the programme and some PC functionsCan you remember what you were doing and what problems you had before the white screen appeared? Were you zooming in or out for example?
Steve
This sounds like the condition that you get occasionally on the System view where it is max zoomed in on the star, which looks like a white screen. You zoom in again, and it errors out with the overflow.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on July 01, 2008, 09:58:23 PM
I was trying to have a war between binary component races.
Post by: SteveAlt on July 02, 2008, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I don't think anyone else are reported this one. I've built a gunboat tender with hyper capable engines and placed 6 GB in the hanger that are not hyper capable. Ship is in a binary system with the B component only accessible by hyperdrive. Once the tender is outside the hyper limit it still is not allowed to engage the hyperdrive.
I was trying to have a war between binary component races.
Fixed for v3.1. I didn't update the fleet hyper-capable check after I introduced parasites.
In v3.1 races in different components of a system may be able to fight over lagrange points as well (if they both have a superjovian).
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on July 02, 2008, 06:30:39 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
This sounds like the condition that you get occasionally on the System view where it is max zoomed in on the star, which looks like a white screen. You zoom in again, and it errors out with the overflow.
This should already be fixed for v3.1. You can zoom into 200 meters (!!) before you have a problem. In fact, I will block the zoom beyond a certain point (1 km zoomed in and about 5 LY zoomed out) to avoid the problem altogether.
Steve
Post by: IanD on July 03, 2008, 05:04:23 PM
Is this a bug or have I missed something?
Regards
Post by: ZimRathbone on July 05, 2008, 07:52:26 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
I just had a geo survey squadron refuse to transit a jump point for no obvious reason. The squadron has a jump tender of 5200 tons while the two survey craft are 2900 tons. the only thing I can think of is that in the past the jump tender damaged its jump engine and had it repaired, there is no damage showing in the damage control display. Since I am expanding very slowly I have not used it as a jump ship since it was damaged. Somewhere the program still thinks the jump engine is off line!
Is this a bug or have I missed something?
Regards
What error or event message is shown (if any)?
Post by: IanD on July 05, 2008, 08:33:35 AM
Quote
What error or event message is shown (if any)?
Event screen showed "Transit Failure, One or more ships is larger than the capacity of the Jump Drive etc"
I tried the jump ship alone and it still wouldn't transit!
Regards
Post by: Erik L on July 05, 2008, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteWhat error or event message is shown (if any)?
Event screen showed "Transit Failure, One or more ships is larger than the capacity of the Jump Drive etc"
I tried the jump ship alone and it still wouldn't transit!
Regards
Check the jump ship on the F6 screen. Make sure "Jump Active" is checked. Upper right area.
Post by: SteveAlt on July 05, 2008, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteWhat error or event message is shown (if any)?
Event screen showed "Transit Failure, One or more ships is larger than the capacity of the Jump Drive etc"
I tried the jump ship alone and it still wouldn't transit!
Have a look at the F6 Ship window for the jump ship and see if the Jump Engine Active checkbox is checked. Its at the top, the right of the commander name.
Steve
Post by: IanD on July 06, 2008, 04:33:42 PM
Quote
Have a look at the F6 Ship window for the jump ship and see if the Jump Engine Active checkbox is checked. Its at the top, the right of the commander name.
No the jump drive Active box was not ticked. Do you have to do this every time a jump drive is repaired?
Regards
Post by: Erik L on July 07, 2008, 10:37:58 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
QuoteHave a look at the F6 Ship window for the jump ship and see if the Jump Engine Active checkbox is checked. Its at the top, the right of the commander name.
No the jump drive Active box was not ticked. Do you have to do this every time a jump drive is repaired?
Regards
Not sure, Steve will correct me if I am wrong, but I think when the jump drive gets damaged/destroyed, that box gets unchecked to show that the ship is not jump capable. Maybe if the repair function turned it back on too.
C3P-O "What do you mean the hyperdrive is off?"
Post by: Steve Walmsley on July 13, 2008, 07:00:48 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Not sure, Steve will correct me if I am wrong, but I think when the jump drive gets damaged/destroyed, that box gets unchecked to show that the ship is not jump capable. Maybe if the repair function turned it back on too.
It's also so you can turn off jump engines manually in order to force a particular ship to be the jump ship during a combat transit
I've added the re-activation of the jump drive as part of the repair process for v3.11
Steve