Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 17, 2010, 06:30:19 AM
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1930 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1930)
Steve
Post by: ndkid on August 17, 2010, 09:16:40 AM
Error in CreateGameLog
Error 76 was generated by Aurora
Path not found
I get this every few 30-day turns in my newest conventional start game... The only interesting thing that occurred before was my attempt to delete my previous game has been met with separate errors.
Same as I got in 5.10 (did a clean install this time). I am running under Windows 7; could the default of Program Files (x86) confuse something? Any hard-coded paths stuck in there somewhere?
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 17, 2010, 10:53:19 AM
Brian
Post by: tamariel22 on August 17, 2010, 09:03:07 PM
Post by: martinuzz on August 18, 2010, 10:50:38 AM
"Error in cmdPromote_Click
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.Fields
Cannot find the element in this collection. (Translated from Dutch)
Please report to viewforum.php?f=11 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewforum.php?f=11)"
This is reproducable (it happens all the time)
However, it seems to have no other effect, as the officer in question does get promoted to the brigadier position
Post by: laz on August 18, 2010, 01:38:31 PM
The required crew numbers is not showing the correct number when you add components to a fighter design that increase the number of crew. It sticks on the original number from when you added your first component.
Doesn't have any other impact just annoying when designing
Post by: Erik L on August 18, 2010, 04:32:04 PM
Pickup automated mines/Drop off result in the continuous order of "Load mines at <colony>". TG does not execute the drop off mines conditional.
Post by: wilddog5 on August 19, 2010, 02:42:48 AM
I OBed 10 orbital habitats and sent them to mars there is sufficent infrastructure for 0.23M pop with the habitats giving an extra 0.50M, after the pop of mars hit 0.24 the civilan ships stopped delivering colonists. I assume that the code only looks at the max pop of infrastructure in order to stop them sending colonists to filled up planets rather than the total suported population.
Post by: laz on August 19, 2010, 06:32:07 AM
For some reason the fighters attached to my carrier are in a permanent state of overhaul which I can't seem to get them out of. It's left 4 of my CVL's stuck at Earth i'm tempted to disconnect their fighters and scrap them all n start again but your talking 100 fighters i'd have to replace
Oh whoops figured it out (had to launch them out of carrier first) nevermind ignore
Post by: martinuzz on August 19, 2010, 09:55:23 AM
It spams me now with the following error:
error 3201 was generated by DAO.Field
no present record (translated from Dutch)
please report to.....
I'll try clicking the message away a few more times, to see if it stops spammingme eventually. If not, I guess I need to use my taskmanager to shut down Aurora
Post by: martinuzz on August 19, 2010, 09:56:14 AM
"Error in TransferShip"
Post by: martinuzz on August 19, 2010, 09:57:46 AM
Error in TransferShip
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.Fields
cannot find the element in this collection
Pls report..
Post by: martinuzz on August 19, 2010, 10:00:03 AM
Error in TransferShip:
error 3201 was generated by DAO.Recordset
can't add or change record, because a related record is needed in the table Race (translated)
Pls rprt
Post by: martinuzz on August 19, 2010, 10:04:11 AM
after this error, I get the same error as in my first report, next, I get:
error 3020 was generated by DAO.Fields
Update or CancelUpdate without AddNew or Edit
pls rprt
this error continued 8 times
Now I get no more error messages. Good. No taskmanager process-kill needed at least.
Hope those error reports help
Post by: darkevilme on August 20, 2010, 06:26:54 AM
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
Post by: Vanigo on August 20, 2010, 06:48:29 AM
Quote from: "darkevilme"
Game has been moving in one minute increments for days and days(BOTH in game and out of game days) due to ships being in firing range and not firing.Move your mouse over the auto-turn checkbox and click like crazy. Eventually you'll hit it in the brief window between time increments where it's actually clickable.
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
Post by: DatAlien on August 20, 2010, 06:51:20 AM
if I delet one of the two Command Modul (20 Lifesupport) from the Phyton (6 Crew) its say "Insufficient life support for crew"
(another little thing is that modules shows the amount of crew they need on a non-figther craft while design a figther)
Post by: darkevilme on August 20, 2010, 07:58:42 AM
Quote from: "Vanigo"
Quote from: "darkevilme"Game has been moving in one minute increments for days and days(BOTH in game and out of game days) due to ships being in firing range and not firing.Move your mouse over the auto-turn checkbox and click like crazy. Eventually you'll hit it in the brief window between time increments where it's actually clickable.
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
This doesn't change the fact it's REAL TIME days before anything occurs in the game. I can actually interact with the game, it's just the game world is now progressing so creepingly slow it's almost like i'm running the space empire in real time.
Post by: welchbloke on August 20, 2010, 09:02:46 AM
Quote from: "darkevilme"
Game has been moving in one minute increments for days and days(BOTH in game and out of game days) due to ships being in firing range and not firing.This is the kind of yo-yo bug that Steve is trying to eliminate. He would probably appreciate a zipped version of the DB
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
Post by: darkevilme on August 20, 2010, 09:36:28 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Then He shall have one.Quote from: "darkevilme"Game has been moving in one minute increments for days and days(BOTH in game and out of game days) due to ships being in firing range and not firing.This is the kind of yo-yo bug that Steve is trying to eliminate. He would probably appreciate a zipped version of the DB
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
Though apparently the uploader does not allow me to upload it. so here's a media fire link to it.
http://www.mediafire.com/?e85gvkptmh2ga0o
Post by: martinuzz on August 20, 2010, 11:00:20 AM
In the right tab, I selected 'ground forces training rating'
There I selected the first unassigned officer with combat training rating (50), and then, in the list on the left (rank 1), I found an assigned officer that did not have any skills at all.
I retired that officer (while he was assigned)
Then, I (accidentally) chose the 'teams' option from the potential assignments dropdown.
I got this error:
Error in GrdCommanders_Selchange
Code: [Select]
Error 30009 was generated by MSFlexGrid
Invalid Row Value
Please Report....etcAfter doing some testing, I narrowed the error down, and can reproduce it.
It has to do with the scrollbar
How to reproduce:
-select groundforce officers
-select ground forces from the potential assignments dropdown (should be there by default)
-drag the scrollbar a bit
-select teams from the potential assignments dropdown
voila, error
I suspect that it will give the error for any switch from a potential assignment group that has a scrollbar to a potential assignment group that has no scrollbar. I just do not have enough ships yet to test that.
Post by: ndkid on August 20, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
In the "New Mineral Deposit" message, the original mineral amount is showing in scientific formatting, while the new mineral amount shows in standard numeric format.
Post by: ndkid on August 20, 2010, 03:28:03 PM
Error in cmdTeam_Click
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
Data type conversion error.
As per usual, this one springs up without any warning, and then occurs with every team creation I make in that game forevermore.
Post by: Vanigo on August 20, 2010, 06:20:49 PM
Quote from: "darkevilme"
Oh. When you said anything with more sense than processing power would have abandoned the game, I thought you meant you had given up on it but your computer was stubbornly chugging away at it.Quote from: "Vanigo"Quote from: "darkevilme"Game has been moving in one minute increments for days and days(BOTH in game and out of game days) due to ships being in firing range and not firing.Move your mouse over the auto-turn checkbox and click like crazy. Eventually you'll hit it in the brief window between time increments where it's actually clickable.
I consider this a bug as anyone with more sense than processing power would of abandoned the game by now.
This doesn't change the fact it's REAL TIME days before anything occurs in the game. I can actually interact with the game, it's just the game world is now progressing so creepingly slow it's almost like i'm running the space empire in real time.
Post by: Vanigo on August 20, 2010, 09:14:51 PM
Post by: Erik L on August 20, 2010, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: "Vanigo"
Something screwy is going on with the expand civilian economy tech on a random-tech startup. My latest game, I've got the base 20 per capita income, but the first rank of expand economy would cost me a whopping 40,000. Other games, I've seen an expand civilian economy tech in completed projects, and none in the available projects.
It's always 20% increase. Sounds like your random tech included some expanded economy.
Post by: Vanigo on August 20, 2010, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Right, except I didn't get the benefits of my expanded economy. I managed to fix it by SMing myself the 40,000 RP one and then removing it three times, and deleting the extra 80,000 RP ones that got made. This expanded my economy by 20% three times, just like it would have been if I had actually gotten the benefits of the 5K, 10K, and 20K ones that were pre-researched.Quote from: "Vanigo"Something screwy is going on with the expand civilian economy tech on a random-tech startup. My latest game, I've got the base 20 per capita income, but the first rank of expand economy would cost me a whopping 40,000. Other games, I've seen an expand civilian economy tech in completed projects, and none in the available projects.
It's always 20% increase. Sounds like your random tech included some expanded economy.
Post by: Andrew on August 21, 2010, 01:21:13 AM
Quote from: "Vanigo"
I have seen this before , I have started out with the fitst expand exonomy tech costing several hundred thousand to researchQuote from: "Erik Luken"Right, except I didn't get the benefits of my expanded economy. I managed to fix it by SMing myself the 40,000 RP one and then removing it three times, and deleting the extra 80,000 RP ones that got made. This expanded my economy by 20% three times, just like it would have been if I had actually gotten the benefits of the 5K, 10K, and 20K ones that were pre-researched.Quote from: "Vanigo"Something screwy is going on with the expand civilian economy tech on a random-tech startup. My latest game, I've got the base 20 per capita income, but the first rank of expand economy would cost me a whopping 40,000. Other games, I've seen an expand civilian economy tech in completed projects, and none in the available projects.
It's always 20% increase. Sounds like your random tech included some expanded economy.
Post by: martinuzz on August 21, 2010, 05:50:45 AM
Upon pressing the 30-day turn button, I got this error message:
Error in CheckAlienShip
Code: [Select]
Error 3077 was generated by DAO.Recordset
The expression contains a syntax error (operator missing). (translated from Dutch)
Please report...etcPressing OK on the error continued the game normally.
I also entered a new system on this turn, so it might be either related to the alien fleet in my system, or to new aliens that I have not detected yet in the new system.
Post by: Caplin on August 21, 2010, 02:55:30 PM
Thermal sensors are described as "sensor sterngth 10."
Post by: Vanigo on August 21, 2010, 03:36:40 PM
Edit: In fact, looking again, you don't seem to be taking EM sensor strength into account, either.
Post by: Chairman on August 22, 2010, 01:36:58 PM
But only when I starting Econimics and aswell if I am having Economics up and running when I using any time button.
But if I closes down Economics and uses Time on Sytem Map no problem, but as soon as I starts it upp again Error 6.
It works in Space Race....
Can it have something to do that I got almost an pop of 25 Billion???
Post by: Erik L on August 22, 2010, 01:47:24 PM
Also. Once the battle is done. MY troops disappear from the Ground Unit tab.
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 22, 2010, 02:59:48 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Dealing with... [spoiler:fcrmi9vy]ruin robots[/spoiler:fcrmi9vy]. Post battle there is a series of errors "Not in this collection" in sub TransferShip.I had this happen once. They were in a new colony on the same planet, the one they had attacked with the enemy ground forces in it. Hopefully you have not already deleted that colony.
Also. Once the battle is done. MY troops disappear from the Ground Unit tab.
Brian
Post by: Erik L on August 22, 2010, 03:56:03 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Dealing with... [spoiler:3gllagiy]ruin robots[/spoiler:3gllagiy]. Post battle there is a series of errors "Not in this collection" in sub TransferShip.I had this happen once. They were in a new colony on the same planet, the one they had attacked with the enemy ground forces in it. Hopefully you have not already deleted that colony.
Also. Once the battle is done. MY troops disappear from the Ground Unit tab.
Brian
Found a workaround. On the ground unit tab, change the display to "All Ground Units" and then put them back on your colony.
Post by: Della on August 22, 2010, 06:03:06 PM
Most descriptions of new components work fine, like this CIWS-200:
Code: [Select]
Rate of Fire: 8 shots every 5 seconds
Dual GC: 5HS Turret: 1.25 HS Fire Control: 0.5 HS Sensor 0.1071 HS ECCM: 0.5
Overall Size: 7.4 HTK: 2
Tracking Speed: 20000 km/s ECCM Level: 1
Cost: 44.25 Crew: 8
Materials Required: 6.25x Duranium 5x Corbomite 20x Vendarite 13x Uridium
Base Chance to Hit: 50%
Development Cost for Project: 442RP
Others however are inexplicably cut short:
Active Search Sensor MR39-R100
Code: [Select]
Active Sensor Strength: 28 Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Sensor Size: 1 HS Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 100 Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 39Fire Control S01 40-5000
Code: [Select]
50% Accuracy at Range: 4025cm C6 Far Ultraviolet Laser
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 16 Rate of Fire: 15 seconds Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 800I don't know if it's important: i'm running this on an italian-localized windows XP. i accidentally executed once Aurora (first time after redownloading it) without setting "." as my decimal separator, instead of ",". I thought it was that, so i deleted the campaign and started a new one after having set my decimal separator to ".". Apparently it wasn't the problem.
I tried with a fresh install and your "the space race" campaign, and this problem kept showing up.
It's nothing critical, but it's very annoying not being able to see what kind of sensor I'm designing.
EDIT: Ahahaha, problem solved, apparently I'm an idiot. It wasn't enough to set "." as decimal separator, i also had to set "," as the thousands sign. (where i live it's the other way around, so in the end I had "." as both decimals separator and thousands sign - duh, well, of course it didn't work).
Post by: Vanigo on August 24, 2010, 04:47:14 PM
Post by: Chairman on August 25, 2010, 05:12:13 AM
My second system is working alright...
Post by: martinuzz on August 26, 2010, 05:18:42 AM
A civilian mining colony was abandoned, because it was empty.
I had already picked up the garrison squad that was installed by the civilians with my troop transporter, in preparation for abandoning the colony.
I clicked abandon.
This message pops up, and keeps coming back after clicking OK for more than 300 times:
error in cmdDelete_Click
Code: [Select]
Error 3420 was generated by DAO.Recordset
object invalid or no longer assignedDunno if this has to do with it, but I forgot that civilians automatically install a mass driver, so I did not take that off the colony.
For the rest, the colony was totally empty.
Post by: Aures on August 27, 2010, 02:04:45 AM
When you first enter the screen "Trans-Newtonian Empire" is selected by default but the "No Missle Bases for Convential Start" tickbox is available even though it only applies when the "Conventional Empire" option is selected. I am not sure if having this option enabled when starting with a Trans-Newtonian Empire has any in game effect but it does let you create a game with these options. If you change from "Trans-Newtonian Empire" to "Conventional Empire" and then back to "Trans-Newtonian Empire" the "No Missle Bases for Convential Start" option is greyed out and is then only available if "Conventional Empire" is selected until you exit the new game form an re-enter it.
If you change from "Trans-Newtonian Empire" to "Conventional Empire" and then back to "Trans-Newtonian Empire" the items that have been researched at the start of the game change. This is with all new game options set to default values except "assign starting tech points automatically" is disabled (has no effect on the issue but I wanted to confirm this wasn't something to do with that option). For example, if you leave the option for "Trans-Newtonian Empire" enabled you have gravitational sensors at the start of the game. If you change to "Conventional Empire" and then back to "Trans-Newtonian Empire" you do not have gravitational sensors at the start of the game.
I have reproduced both issues in 5.20 and 4.91.
Post by: martinuzz on August 27, 2010, 04:58:46 AM
When playing conventional start, the number of starting shipyards does not set the number of starting shipyards.
Instead, it seems to set the number of ground unit training facilities.
Don't know if it does that with TN start as well, I've never played a TN start.
Post by: Jeltz on August 27, 2010, 09:50:47 AM
Post by: Erik L on August 27, 2010, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: "Jeltz"
On a System Map windows by clicking System View button. Aurora 5.20, Windows7 on VirtualBox virtual machine. Screenshoot:
Do a search here on the forums for MSSTDFMT.DLL and that will be fixed.
Post by: Shinanygnz on August 27, 2010, 10:51:13 AM
Stephen
Post by: Vanigo on August 28, 2010, 12:12:55 PM
Post by: martinuzz on August 28, 2010, 02:54:29 PM
I posted it here originally:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2873 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2873)
Post by: Andrew on August 29, 2010, 07:19:44 AM
Error 5 was generated by Aurora
Invalid procedure call or Arguemnt
It's a fatal error as it comes up constantly. I don't have any idea what caused it I don't think I was doing anything unnusual or had issued any new orders.
Database available
Post by: martinuzz on August 30, 2010, 05:21:43 PM
Summary:
begin situation:
-1 colony on Mars, with empire population status
ground forces present: 4 Heavy Assault + HQ, 4 Engineer + HQ, 1 Garrison, 1 Replacement, all at full readiness
-1 colony on Mars, human archeological dig, formed automatically by Aurora when defeating some robotic guardians previously
no units/structures present
-1 freighter fleet (5 ships) in orbit of Mars
-1 civilian freigther in orbit of Mars
event 1: robotic guardians disturbed
event 2: player interaction: order ground forces in Mars colony to attack non-PDC(unknown race)
end situation:
-1 colony on Mars, vanquished population status
no ground units. They disappeared without mention in the event log.
(second colony was deleted automatically by the program)
-6 freighter fleets (1 ship). The civilian freighter had come under player control.
link with screenshot of event log here: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2875 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2875)
Post by: martinuzz on August 31, 2010, 07:59:00 AM
orbital bases (ships without engine) do age on their mainenance clock, and suffer mainenance failures.
However, they cannot be overhauled at maintenance facilities of the planets they are orbiting.
They *do* get the 'overhaul' status in their TG window, but instead of going back, the mainenance clock keeps ticking.
Unlimited replied to my original post, telling me that orbital bases should not require maintenance at all.
More info in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2878&p=28214#p28214 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2878&p=28214#p28214)
Excuse me for posting a lot of bugs in the Acadamy first, but when I'm not sure if something is a bug, I have to ask there first.
Post by: martinuzz on August 31, 2010, 10:28:15 AM
So, even though it is no fighter, is it possible that the program classifies it as a fighter for maintenance purposes? That would explain why it's impossible to maintain / overhaul them. Still does not explain why it does suffer maintenance failures, while it's design says it has a 0% chance of breakdown.
Post by: Vanigo on August 31, 2010, 01:00:44 PM
Quote from: "martinuzz"
Still does not explain why it does suffer maintenance failures, while it's design says it has a 0% chance of breakdown.IIRC, the percentage given is after one year; as the maintenance clock ticks up, failure chance gets higher and higher.
Post by: Kurt on August 31, 2010, 01:01:30 PM
I was playing around with 5.20 and noted something when I poked around in designer mode. One of the two NPR's had approximately 15+ research programs set up. Almost all were only partially staffed with research labs, some with only one or two labs each. When I started going through the research projects, I noticed that there were no less than four duplicates, i.e., two research projects under different researchers for the same technology. In one case there was research on both an old tech and a newer tech - both fuel efficiency 4 and 5 were being researched at the same time.
It appears that any time a research lab or two was available Aurora started up a new research project rather than staffing others already active. I can't imagine how the duplicate projects happened, though. I suspect that the older/newer research issue happened when there were duplicate fuel efficiency 4 projects, one finished and went on to fuel efficiency five while the duplicate continued.
Kurt
Post by: Andrew on August 31, 2010, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -I have noticed the same issue. Also poor scientist choice in several cases there has been a researcher with a 0% modifier while a spare scientist has 25 or 30% in the same field
I was playing around with 5.20 and noted something when I poked around in designer mode. One of the two NPR's had approximately 15+ research programs set up. Almost all were only partially staffed with research labs, some with only one or two labs each. When I started going through the research projects, I noticed that there were no less than four duplicates, i.e., two research projects under different researchers for the same technology. In one case there was research on both an old tech and a newer tech - both fuel efficiency 4 and 5 were being researched at the same time.
It appears that any time a research lab or two was available Aurora started up a new research project rather than staffing others already active. I can't imagine how the duplicate projects happened, though. I suspect that the older/newer research issue happened when there were duplicate fuel efficiency 4 projects, one finished and went on to fuel efficiency five while the duplicate continued.
Kurt
Post by: gunkan on September 02, 2010, 11:21:56 AM
[edit] haven't been able to reproduce yet, unless it has something to do with the destruction of the mothership...
The other error happened in the same fight, but I haven't found a workaround yet. My fighter Carrier/Flag Bridge ship was taken out when someone accidentally turned off the Hyper drive that was letting us outrun the enemy [spoiler:29vqnmta]torpedoes, which cannot be shot down with Counter-Missiles it seems.[/spoiler:29vqnmta] Now I have the ghosts of the flag bridge (direct hit, all hands lost) gumming up my Fleet Command Task Force. I cant relocate the task force from Unknown Sector even if I retire all the ghosts (with pensions!) and I've never figured out how to assign Task Groups to new Task Forces. I've made a back-up of the DB file if that helps anything.
Post by: Vanigo on September 02, 2010, 03:47:11 PM
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on September 05, 2010, 09:40:04 AM
Post by: Caplin on September 07, 2010, 02:06:43 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 07, 2010, 06:54:09 PM
Quote from: "georgiaboy1966"
IN this version and several previous, I have had combat ships under AI control, drop the weapons assigned to firecontrols. Therfore leaving the ship/base undefended.Were they box launchers? I've seen this happen with box launchers, and I figured it was intended behavior. Definitely a bug if it's happening with other weapons, though.
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on September 07, 2010, 08:47:44 PM
Quote
Quotegeorgiaboy1966 wrote:Were they box launchers? I've seen this happen with box launchers, and I figured it was intended behavior. Definitely a bug if it's happening with other weapons, though.
IN this version and several previous, I have had combat ships under AI control, drop the weapons assigned to firecontrols. Therfore leaving the ship/base undefended.
No, they were size 1 and 2 missile launchers, and rof 5 lasers
Post by: Father Tim on September 08, 2010, 03:30:27 AM
Post by: gunkan on September 08, 2010, 10:11:32 PM
Post by: GDS_Starfury on September 09, 2010, 11:54:59 AM
Post by: Caplin on September 09, 2010, 12:34:40 PM
I suspect in this case it probably isn't a bug.
Did you assign a commander for Fleet Headquarters?
If not, you won't be able to train properly.
Hope this helps,
Zack.
Post by: GDS_Starfury on September 09, 2010, 01:29:46 PM
Post by: Caplin on September 09, 2010, 06:12:20 PM
I found Alpha Centauri with my jump scout today and wanted to paste its summary into my AAR. In looking the summary over I noticed that it claimed I could colonize a planet with around 26 times the gravity of Earth.
The F9 table classifies this planet as a superjovian and uncolonizable.
See below:
Alpha Centauri-A G2-V Diameter: 1.39m Mass: 1.02 Luminosity: 1.42
Alpha Centauri-A I: Temperature: 1265.4, Gravity: 2.03, Orbit: 39m
Carbon Dioxide 96%, Sulphur Dioxide 4.0%, Pressure: 168.00
Alpha Centauri-A II: Temperature: 952.2, Gravity: 2.06, Orbit: 70m
Carbon Dioxide 95%, Nitrogen Dioxide 5.0%, Pressure: 118.27
Alpha Centauri-A III: Colony Cost: 2.00, Temperature: 67.8, Gravity: 0.53, Orbit: 99m
Nitrogen 68%, Oxygen (0.01) 32%, Pressure: 0.03
Alpha Centauri-A IV: Colony Cost: 2.00, Temperature: -6.0, Gravity: 26.0, Orbit: 163m
Alpha Centauri-A IV - Moon 12: Colony Cost: 2.00, Temperature: -14.0, Gravity: 0.31, Orbit: 1.06m
Total Moons: 22
Alpha Centauri-A V: Colony Cost: 5.32, Temperature: -117.1, Gravity: 0.62, Orbit: 292m
Alpha Centauri-A VI: Colony Cost: 3.45, Temperature: -75.9, Gravity: 0.72, Orbit: 423m
Nitrogen 82%, Carbon Dioxide 18.0%, Pressure: 0.51
Total Moons: 1
Alpha Centauri-B K1-V Diameter: 1.25m Mass: 0.79 Luminosity: 0.39. Orbits Alpha Centauri-A at 23.0 AU.
Alpha Centauri-B I: Colony Cost: 59.26, Temperature: 1347.8, Gravity: 0.58, Orbit: 28.1m
Carbon Dioxide 97%, Nitrogen Dioxide 3.0%, Pressure: 4.67
Alpha Centauri-B III: Colony Cost: 1.80, Temperature: -39.7, Gravity: 1.06, Orbit: 170m
Nitrogen 81%, Oxygen (0.21) 19.0%, Pressure: 1.11
Alpha Centauri-B IV: Colony Cost: 6.52, Temperature: -143.5, Gravity: 0.36, Orbit: 288m
Total Moons: 1
Alpha Centauri-B V: Temperature: -128.3, Gravity: 0.02, Orbit: 389m
Alpha Centauri-B VI: Temperature: -170.9, Gravity: 1.87, Orbit: 637m
Total Moons: 27
Jump Points
1) Sol: Distance: 5.8b Bearing: 280
I suspect the summary generation is neglecting gravitational considerations.
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 11, 2010, 12:17:31 AM
Brian
Post by: Vanigo on September 11, 2010, 03:07:41 PM
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 11, 2010, 04:16:58 PM
Brian
Post by: Vanigo on September 11, 2010, 08:17:47 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 11, 2010, 08:29:49 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 11, 2010, 09:53:41 PM
Post by: Erik L on September 11, 2010, 09:55:51 PM
I just captured a ship after crippling it with strength 4 missiles, and this is what its armor looked like. Obviously armor damage is either being applied wrong or displayed wrong, because a size 4 missile's damage template can't possibly do damage like this.Possibly it was in another fight and not repaired?
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 01:25:49 PM
Possibly it was in another fight and not repaired?I suppose it's possible, but the I couldn't find anything to that effect in the event log, and the first salvo or two didn't hit any holes.
Post by: Erik L on September 12, 2010, 02:31:51 PM
I suppose it's possible, but the I couldn't find anything to that effect in the event log, and the first salvo or two didn't hit any holes.Don't recall, does damage collapse through to the next open spot?
Post by: sloanjh on September 12, 2010, 03:45:36 PM
I just had my homeworld colony deleted on me. I had a conventional start and there were ruins on the planet. After finding some components I dissasembled them to aid my reasearch. It was Engine tech and when I finished the fuel efficiency upgrade that I was currently reasearching I thought it would be fine as I still needed to upgrade the engine tech as well. Instead I noticed it was generating points for the same fuel efficiency that I had just finished reasearching, and when it finished it again (80+ components) the entire colony was deleted. There didn't seem to be any other changes in the database but it was quite unpleasent. I had a couple of colonies with about 1m people total on them and no manufacturing.
Brian
Are you using 5.2? This happened to me once a long time ago (a couple of years? Early 4.x?) and I posted it, and thought Steve had found and fixed it. IIRC, it was exactly as you described - I had gotten research points from passive scans of bad guys (back when you could do so) and obtained the same tech through research, at which point Earth went to bit heaven....
John
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 04:02:05 PM
Don't recall, does damage collapse through to the next open spot?...what?
Post by: Erik L on September 12, 2010, 04:07:49 PM
...what?
If you hit a spot that has been partially wiped away, does the damage destroy a red box, or drop to the next highest white box.
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 04:15:50 PM
If you hit a spot that has been partially wiped away, does the damage destroy a red box, or drop to the next highest white box.Oh, you mean if you hit next to a column that already has a bunch of damage? I'm pretty sure it drops down. And if you hit a hole that's next to less-damaged column, the spillover jumps up to the top of that column.
Post by: Erik L on September 12, 2010, 04:58:11 PM
Oh, you mean if you hit next to a column that already has a bunch of damage? I'm pretty sure it drops down. And if you hit a hole that's next to less-damaged column, the spillover jumps up to the top of that column.
That could account for the pattern too I think
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 05:04:00 PM
That could account for the pattern too I thinkNo, it can't. Look at the far right. There's a hole all the way through the armor, with completely undamaged columns on either side. You can't do that with anything that does any damage at all to adjacent columns. There are other problem spots, but that's the most obvious.
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 12, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
I do recall the problem you are talking about, and that it was fixed. I have started other games where I had ruins on the planet and this did not happen untill recently. 5.2 for sure, I don't think it happened under 5.14 but I could be wrong.
Brian
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Edit: Oh, and when I first open the map I get an error saying "WP Link not found in GetWarpPointData".
Edit 2: Oh, this must be the problem. I found out about a star system from espionage, and four warp points were already located. One of them goes to a system I've explored, but haven't surveyed yet, so there's a warp point link going in one direction only.
Edit 3: Discovering the jump point on the other side seems to have fixed the problem, even though I haven't explored it yet - although the system in question was not linked to the system I thought it was.
Post by: Vanigo on September 12, 2010, 11:14:54 PM
Civilian ships are still sometimes taking stupid routes when moving from system to system if there are loops in the jump gate network. Shouldn't it be pretty easy to use A* for this? Edit: Or just Dijkstra's Algorithm, since I have no idea what kind of heuristic you'd use and there aren't many nodes anyway.Heh... following up on this, I've got civilian ships taking four jump gates to get from Earth to Mars. Seriously, why are they even looking at the jump gates on a trip like that?
Post by: martinuzz on September 13, 2010, 02:02:52 AM
My estimate is, that he is over 95 years old now. I can't reach his stats in any way to check though.
He's still happily researching for me :)
Post by: ZimRathbone on September 13, 2010, 03:50:26 AM
I just captured a ship after crippling it with strength 4 missiles, and this is what its armor looked like. Obviously armor damage is either being applied wrong or displayed wrong, because a size 4 missile's damage template can't possibly do damage like this.
I don't see a lot impossible about that damage profile - remember white is where there is armour remaining, red has been plastered flat - basically that ship has been pretty sandpapered, there are only a few columns of armour left - the only funny one I see is on the far Right (2nd col from the end) which could be an artifact of damage allocation routine not scoring damage on the last column correctly (an array limit error).
Whoops I take that back - just noticed the other side. Yes there does seem to be some laser like damage - havent seen this before in my games
Post by: Vanigo on September 14, 2010, 10:03:35 PM
(I'd just destroy the buoys, but, hey, making them waste missiles is cool.)
Post by: Vanigo on September 14, 2010, 11:21:09 PM
Edit: No, wait, it does, it's just only shown in the target hit and target missed events, which I turned off to cut down on message spam. Maybe the effects of fire control tracking speed should be shown in the Targeting event, even though weapon tracking speed might be lower.
Post by: Laurence on September 16, 2010, 09:47:10 AM
Did a Conventional start with me running multiple nations on Earth. Diplomatic settings between them are Neutral, Friendly or Allied. Nobody is set to share technology or geo/grav data.
When the country that is the most advanced goes forward, the previous technogy is shared to the allied races.
For example, country A gets Engineering Section - Tiny. Country B, an ally of A, is given Engineering Section - Small.
When country A gets Gas-Cooled Reactor Technology, Country B (ally) is given Pebble Bed Reactor Technology. Countries C & D, set to Friendly, are given Pressurised Water Reactor (two levels back).
Again, country A is not set to share any tech data. Should this be happening?
Post by: martinuzz on September 16, 2010, 10:58:25 AM
Turns out, it is intended.
Amongst populations on the same planet, there always is a chance of the other races acquiring a (lower level) tech of something you researched.
This is to simulate, how hard it is, to keep commonly used technologies a secret.
Post by: Laurence on September 16, 2010, 11:20:32 AM
I asked about that as well about a week ago, thinking it was buggy behaviour.
Turns out, it is intended.
Amongst populations on the same planet, there always is a chance of the other races acquiring a (lower level) tech of something you researched.
This is to simulate, how hard it is, to keep commonly used technologies a secret.
Thanks for the explanation. I must have missed your asking/getting answered when I skimmed through the boards this morning.
I don't mind the effect, it does seem to be realistic in that they could "follow along". I guess the official sharing of tech data affects the items as they are currently researched then.
Post by: darkevilme on September 18, 2010, 12:03:36 AM
I think Aurora likes windows 7 as much as a triffid likes fire cause i remember it being at least passibly stable on windows xp.
Post by: Caesar on September 18, 2010, 05:40:18 AM
For some reason the game also displays minerals, weight and everything else as 1 instead of 1000, 2 instead of 2000, etc..
This is confusing, because on some screens it might show for example 100 tons, but might also mean 100,000 tons.
Post by: Father Tim on September 18, 2010, 10:11:54 AM
The class summary display goes blank whenever the weight exceeds or is equal to 1000 tons.
For some reason the game also displays minerals, weight and everything else as 1 instead of 1000, 2 instead of 2000, etc..
This is confusing, because on some screens it might show for example 100 tons, but might also mean 100,000 tons.
Your thousands separator is set to '.' instead of ','
Post by: Vanigo on September 18, 2010, 01:21:04 PM
Post by: Caesar on September 18, 2010, 03:35:48 PM
Your thousands separator is set to '.' instead of ','
I feel stupid.
Post by: browncoat on September 22, 2010, 08:40:57 AM
In this time I think I may have found at least one little glitch; and while I don't know if you are already aware of it or not, reporting it won't hurt at all.
The glitch goes like this: on ships with the hyper drive ON, when the sub-pulse is set to 6 hours or 1 day on all increments of 8 hours or more and when the sub-pulse is set to automatic on increments of 5 and 30 days, the game throws a bunch of error 6 overflows proportional to the length of the increment and the ship doesn't move one bit. Sub-pulses of 2 hours or less don't cause the problem at all and the ship goes its merry way across the universe happily hypering.
It's a little annoying but in no way game breaking (one can always run 30days increments on 2 hours sub-pulses when using hyperdrives), still thought you should know if you didn't already.
Keep up the good work on the game.
Post by: Vanigo on September 23, 2010, 05:12:42 PM
Post by: Mini on September 25, 2010, 03:17:28 AM
Post by: Vanigo on September 25, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 26, 2010, 12:17:21 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 26, 2010, 04:32:43 AM
It looks like the estimated active sensor ranges given on the system map haven't been adjusted for the new range formula yet.You are correct. That is in part as Steve didn't want anybody to tell if they are automatically being detected. It would be nice however if the player could put in a number for the estimated sensativity of the sensor so we could use it to have a better idea if we are being detected.
Brian
Post by: ExChairman on September 26, 2010, 05:08:53 AM
Post by: Vanigo on September 26, 2010, 01:46:03 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 26, 2010, 01:50:21 PM
You are correct. That is in part as Steve didn't want anybody to tell if they are automatically being detected. It would be nice however if the player could put in a number for the estimated sensativity of the sensor so we could use it to have a better idea if we are being detected.That's not what I meant, although it is also true, and a drop-down box for assumed EM sensor sensitivity would be very nice. I'm talking about the new-this-version equation where low-resolution sensors have a higher range than before and sensors with resolution over 100 have lower ranges.
Brian
Post by: Vynadan on September 26, 2010, 03:11:29 PM
I have 2,295,093,420 litres of fuel stored on the planet (yes, it's been a long and fun game =) ) which makes me assume there's too much fuel and that produces the error. However, it still displays correctly within the summary tab and with real numbers the amount shouldn't cause any problems yet ... ? Only the longint with a max of 2^31 limits at 2,147m?
Manualy transfering fuel to each ship through its miscallenous tab works and refules them, yet proofs very teadious.
Post by: Beersatron on September 26, 2010, 03:30:33 PM
As a shipyard completed a new batch of ships I got an "Error in Production | Error 6 was generated by Aurora | Overflow" and I realised all ships were built without fuel stored. Now each ship I build on this planet does the same and any ship I order to refuel at the colony refuses to do so, just orbiting the planet.
I have 2,295,093,420 litres of fuel stored on the planet (yes, it's been a long and fun game =) ) which makes me assume there's too much fuel and that produces the error. However, it still displays correctly within the summary tab and with real numbers the amount shouldn't cause any problems yet ... ? Only the longint with a max of 2^31 limits at 2,147m?
Manualy transfering fuel to each ship through its miscallenous tab works and refules them, yet proofs very teadious.
You should be able to change the total amount of fuel on the planet by using SM mode, just get rid of half your fuel so you wont then need to worry about the error messages nor manually transferring?
Post by: Hawkeye on September 26, 2010, 03:41:42 PM
I woke up some of them (estimated combat strength about 45) and had enough combat strength on planet to hold them, but couldn´t defeat them (only engineers and garrison troops). So I scrambled a battlegroup from sol. When it got there, the beam cruisers opened fire on the ground troops.
While the turn (5 sec) run, Aurora started to throw the following errors at me:
Error in TransferPopulation
Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable of With block variable not set
This error would show 3 times, followed by a single
Error in TransferPopulation
Error 3167 was generated by DAO.Field
Datensatz ist geloescht (Basicly: Set of data is deleted)
As I couldn´t get out of the error-loop, I CTRL-Alt-Del´ed out and restarted Aurora.
According to the log, my fleet had blasted all robots to smitherine (and destroying every last building I had allready recovered).
Well, fortunately, there were some reports of stange things happening with regard to ruin-robots, so I had made a backup just before opening fire.
After some playing around, a picture seems to form.
Variant 1:
If I blow up every last building, Aurora will throw the above errors at me, the colony will vanish (including my ground forces), but my fleet remains untouched
Variant 2:
If I only blow up some of the buildings with at least one remaining, the alien popultation will surrender and I keep the colony. But for some reason, my fleet in orbit as well as my ground troops are considered to belong to this alien population the fleet will surrender to me and my ground forces simply vanish.
Note: Variant 2 happens, even if no enemy ground unit is destroyed. Destroying any building seems to be sufficient.
Post by: Vynadan on September 26, 2010, 03:56:34 PM
You should be able to change the total amount of fuel on the planet by using SM mode, just get rid of half your fuel so you wont then need to worry about the error messages nor manually transferring?
That makes me lose my hard earned fuel though =C
SMing it below 2,147m ceased the errors though, so I guess this isn't really a bug but just a longint which limit I trespassed.
Damn my mercantilsm hoarding everything on earth XD
Post by: Vanigo on September 26, 2010, 04:53:20 PM
Post by: Hawkeye on September 27, 2010, 01:00:49 PM
Ok, there is definitely something off with battling robot guardians released from ruins.
I woke up some of them (estimated combat strength about 45) and had enough combat strength on planet to hold them, but couldn´t defeat them (only engineers and garrison troops). So I scrambled a battlegroup from sol. When it got there, the beam cruisers opened fire on the ground troops.
While the turn (5 sec) run, Aurora started to throw the following errors at me:
Error in TransferPopulation
Error 91 was generated by Aurora
Object variable of With block variable not set
This error would show 3 times, followed by a single
Error in TransferPopulation
Error 3167 was generated by DAO.Field
Datensatz ist geloescht (Basicly: Set of data is deleted)
As I couldn´t get out of the error-loop, I CTRL-Alt-Del´ed out and restarted Aurora.
According to the log, my fleet had blasted all robots to smitherine (and destroying every last building I had allready recovered).
Well, fortunately, there were some reports of stange things happening with regard to ruin-robots, so I had made a backup just before opening fire.
After some playing around, a picture seems to form.
Variant 1:
If I blow up every last building, Aurora will throw the above errors at me, the colony will vanish (including my ground forces), but my fleet remains untouched
Variant 2:
If I only blow up some of the buildings with at least one remaining, the alien popultation will surrender and I keep the colony. But for some reason, my fleet in orbit as well as my ground troops are considered to belong to this alien population the fleet will surrender to me and my ground forces simply vanish.
Note: Variant 2 happens, even if no enemy ground unit is destroyed. Destroying any building seems to be sufficient.
I played around with the situation a lot more, and there doesn´t seem to be a way to avoid loosing your ground troops.
1. By pulling all ships out of orbit, you can keep them from surrendering
2. Your ground troops will vanish, no matter what, whenever the robot guardians surrender
3. I have a workaround, even if it is a bit complicated
Pull the ground troops off the planet. If you have no troop transport handy, fast OOB some
SM in a ground force training facility and SM in the troops you have just pulled off the planet
Assign the officers from the troops you just pulld off to the newle created units (don´t worry, you´ll keep them)
After the enemy has surrendered, the SMed troops will have vanished, but their officers will still be on your rooster
Put your troops in the troop transports back on the planet and assign the officers to them.
Delete the troop transports.
Yes, it´s a hassle, but at least you can continue.
Post by: Vanigo on September 28, 2010, 08:03:49 PM
Post by: Nibelung44 on October 03, 2010, 02:00:31 PM
Is it a known bug? Don't unload stuff to civilian colonies?
Post by: Vanigo on October 03, 2010, 04:20:53 PM
Post by: Nibelung44 on October 04, 2010, 12:44:47 AM
Post by: Vanigo on October 04, 2010, 11:03:06 PM
Edit: This seems like it probably has something to do with the fact that I didn't get a wormhole moving event.
Post by: Nibelung44 on October 06, 2010, 12:53:52 AM
I get a crash when I do a right click on a new colony with 0 pop, accessing it with the Populations sub menu (related to shipyard and schedule)
I get a crash when entering manually a value above 50 in the total sensor size of a newly designed sensor. I understand it is not supposed to be above 50, but as the drop down box is not locked, we can type any value in the end and there is no range checking it seems.
Post by: Vanigo on October 06, 2010, 07:58:30 PM
Post by: Nibelung44 on October 07, 2010, 12:28:43 AM
Post by: James Patten on October 08, 2010, 06:24:04 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on October 08, 2010, 09:23:03 AM
I believe I've found that the Available Colony Sites window has some sort of bug. Whenever I get ready to colonize a planet, I change the name (so if the name of the star is "New York", the planet I want to colonize is "New York-IV") to the name of the star ("New York-IV' to "New York") or remove the number and add a designation like Prime ("New York-IV" to "New York Prime"). Now it appears that when I do that, if there's another planet in the system that is also colony cost 5 or less that one of these planets isn't reported. I have a planet that I'm colonizing, which is 1.9 cost, which is not listed on the window.If your colony does not have any minerals check to make sure you didn't have the display set to ignore them because of this. Normally it would only work if the colony was an asteroid, but there may be a bug that is causing it to ignore any place without minerals. Other than that I think you found a bug.
Brian
Post by: James Patten on October 08, 2010, 06:30:08 PM
Post by: chuckles73 on October 10, 2010, 07:34:37 PM
Code: [Select]
Error 3201 was generated by DAO.Recordset
You cannot add or change a record because a related record is required in table 'Fleet'. and the fighters don't appear.
I'm assuming the db was left in a messed up state, I believe my app may have crashed right after I deleted that empty task group.
Post by: IanD on October 11, 2010, 10:39:41 AM
in v5.20 Atmoshpere of Venus is given as 35% CO2, 65% N2, 100 atmosphers pressure.
Both appear incorrect.
my brief look in Wiki gave the following:96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, 0.015% sulphur dioxide, 0.01% water vapour and 0.007% argon. Pressure of 92 Atmospheres. I guess anything after the SO2 could be safely ignored.
Regards
Post by: Brian Neumann on October 11, 2010, 07:41:07 PM
Brian
Post by: Vanigo on October 11, 2010, 09:20:48 PM
Post by: sloanjh on October 14, 2010, 09:57:59 PM
John
Post by: UncleBob on October 21, 2010, 01:50:40 AM
Post by: voknaar on October 30, 2010, 03:12:13 AM
Exact txt of the error:
Error in GetSystemThemeName
Error 3075 was generated by DAO. Database
Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'Name= 'Nikol'Skij' and RaceID = 1057'.
Please report to hxxp: aurora. pentarch. org/viewforum. php?f=11
Which by the way the above site is no longer directing users to this forum, but its still easy enough to locate. Anyway i'll go back to lurking and stick to the Academy :)
Edit- also getting -
Error 3420 was generated by DAO. Recordset
Object invalid or no longer set.
got both after ending a 30 day turn.
Post by: Beersatron on October 30, 2010, 03:47:28 PM
I've seen this bug be reported before, but was mentioned in a earlier version thread of it being identified/fixed.
Exact txt of the error:
Error in GetSystemThemeName
Error 3075 was generated by DAO. Database
Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'Name= 'Nikol'Skij' and RaceID = 1057'.
Please report to hxxp: aurora. pentarch. org/viewforum. php?f=11
Which by the way the above site is no longer directing users to this forum, but its still easy enough to locate. Anyway i'll go back to lurking and stick to the Academy :)
Edit- also getting -
Error 3420 was generated by DAO. Recordset
Object invalid or no longer set.
got both after ending a 30 day turn.
The single quote in Nikol'Skij is the problem, if you can access the DB then find that record and remove the quote.
Note sure on the second problem.
Post by: voknaar on October 31, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
Post by: eberzon on November 06, 2010, 10:16:45 PM
GetCommanderName
Error 94
Invalid use of Null
Post by: voknaar on November 07, 2010, 12:46:20 AM
Post by: Hawkeye on November 08, 2010, 12:00:00 PM
Aurora went to 15 sec increments for some time.
I took a look in designer mode and found two NPRs fighting.
The Isfahan Oligarchy, a very low tech race (nucleare thermal engines) was fighting a Soure Republic (much higher tech) jumpgate construction ship.
Alkmaar class Heavy Cruiser 12100 tons 1450 Crew 866.5 BP TCS 242 TH 350 EM 0
1446 km/s Armour 3-46 Shields 0-0 Sensors 10/5/0/0 Damage Control 8 PPV 78
Annual Failure Rate: 539% IFR: 7.5% Maintenance Capacity 358 MSP
Nuclear Thermal Engine E10 (14) Power 25 Fuel Use 100% Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 37.2 billion km (297 days at full power)
CIWS-50 (1x2) Range 1000 km TS: 5000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
R1.5/C1 Meson Cannon (26) Range 15,000km TS: 1446 km/s Power 3-1 RM 1.5 ROF 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 40-1250 (2) Max Range: 80,000 km TS: 1250 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Pressurised Water Reactor PB-1 AR-0 (13) Total Power Output 26 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Thermal Sensor TH2-10 (1) Sensitivity 10 Detect Signature 1000: 10m km
Active Search Sensor MR13-R20 (1) GPS 1200 Range 13.4m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR24-R69 (1) GPS 4140 Range 24.9m km Resolution 69
EM Detection Sensor EM1-5 (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Strength 1000: 5m km
Above is the Oligarchy ship shooting at the JCS.
Problem is, according to the event-log, that cruiser is shooting at a range of 20.000km.
As you can see, the meson cannons only have a range of 15.000km.
Due to the longer range of the beam firecon, this results in a lot of hits, that do 0 damage, so the fight goes on and on and on.
I ordered the Oligarchy squadron to close with the JCS and they proptly blew it away.
Post by: darkevilme on November 09, 2010, 04:53:03 PM
error 94 was generated by Aurora.
Invalid use of null.
And this happens really really unpleasantly frequently.
Post by: solops on November 11, 2010, 07:58:56 AM
Error in FireAllWeapons
Error 94 was generated by Aurora
Invalid use of null
This has basically shut down the game for me. I have tried re-setting all of the ships firing orders, including setting autofire to off, back to on and back to off. Nothing helps. My ships all had active search and firecontrol radars.
Post by: ZimRathbone on November 17, 2010, 05:58:00 AM
Got something of a loop here.
Aurora went to 15 sec increments for some time.
I took a look in designer mode and found two NPRs fighting.
The Isfahan Oligarchy, a very low tech race (nucleare thermal engines) was fighting a Soure Republic (much higher tech) jumpgate construction ship.
Above is the Oligarchy ship shooting at the JCS.
Problem is, according to the event-log, that cruiser is shooting at a range of 20.000km.
As you can see, the meson cannons only have a range of 15.000km.
Due to the longer range of the beam firecon, this results in a lot of hits, that do 0 damage, so the fight goes on and on and on.
I ordered the Oligarchy squadron to close with the JCS and they proptly blew it away.
I have seen a similar problem with short range Meson armed gunboats chasing a resonably fast alien, what was happening was that the gunboat (moving first) would close to 0km range and then the alien would move to 20kkm so by the time firing occured, the alien was outside the max range of the Meson. Solution for me was to get the gunboats to go to a WP a little beyond the target, which they promptly turned into swiss cheese when it moved within 15kkm, but I can see this causing a yo-yo if the participants are NPRs
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:19:18 AM
In 5.2 the specify minerals button (F9 screen) is not working properly. When I click on it the display is empty even if there are minerals on the planet. I verified this a couple of times. If you make any manual changes using this it does work, but it totaly ignores whatever is there to start with.Unclick the Disable Show Minerals menu item on the Game Parameters menu. Can't remember why I added this option in the first place :)
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:21:24 AM
In the leaders screen, when promoting a colonel to a brigadier (Groundforce commanders, British, no realistic promotions), an error message pops up:
"Error in cmdPromote_Click
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.Fields
Cannot find the element in this collection. (Translated from Dutch)
Please report to viewforum.php?f=11 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewforum.php?f=11)"
This is reproducable (it happens all the time)
However, it seems to have no other effect, as the officer in question does get promoted to the brigadier position
I haven't managed to reproduce this one yet. Is anyone else having a similar problem?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:24:13 AM
I clicked the 'calculate loadout' button under the calculations dropdown menu, to try out what that did.
It spams me now with the following error:
error 3201 was generated by DAO.Field
no present record (translated from Dutch)
please report to.....
I'll try clicking the message away a few more times, to see if it stops spammingme eventually. If not, I guess I need to use my taskmanager to shut down Aurora
I'd left some test code under that menu item and then forgot to remove it :(
Fixed for v5.30
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 18, 2010, 05:28:39 AM
Unclick the Disable Show Minerals menu item on the Game Parameters menu. Can't remember why I added this option in the first place :)Thanks, that did the trick.
Steve
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:33:15 AM
Minor typo in the ship design window.
Thermal sensors are described as "sensor sterngth 10."
Whereabouts on the ship design window is the typo?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:35:12 AM
System Map. Solar system is gone, when I try to zoom or unzoom I get error 6, if I try to move around I get error 6 and after 3 or 4 trys I get runtime error and the game crashes....
My second system is working alright...
Try clicking the Min Zoom button on the System Map
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:37:52 AM
Please please please make "missile lost contact; using onboard sensors" a non-interrupting event. Watching a missile salvo fly for ten minutes in 5-second increments is super-boring. You can't even use automated turns; you just have to sit there clicking.
Done for v5.30
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:40:41 AM
Also on startup screen:
When playing conventional start, the number of starting shipyards does not set the number of starting shipyards.
Instead, it seems to set the number of ground unit training facilities.
Don't know if it does that with TN start as well, I've never played a TN start.
The number of shipyards for a conventional start is always 1. However, the number of ground unit training facilities is based on the number of shipyards and they aren't restricted for a conventional start so this is working as intended, even though it seems weird.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:42:19 AM
On a System Map windows by clicking System View button. Aurora 5.20, Windows7 on VirtualBox virtual machine. Screenshoot:
You have a missing DLL on your system that is required by the program. This is a common problem so if you check the FAQ or do a search on the forum you should find several threads about this issue.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:44:32 AM
The system map button on the galactic map screen just plain doesn't work.
It is working fine for me at the moment. Could someone else check this on their version to see if this is a common problem?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 18, 2010, 05:46:41 AM
And.. Yet another bug:
orbital bases (ships without engine) do age on their mainenance clock, and suffer mainenance failures.
However, they cannot be overhauled at maintenance facilities of the planets they are orbiting.
They *do* get the 'overhaul' status in their TG window, but instead of going back, the mainenance clock keeps ticking.
Unlimited replied to my original post, telling me that orbital bases should not require maintenance at all.
More info in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2878&p=28214#p28214 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2878&p=28214#p28214)
Excuse me for posting a lot of bugs in the Acadamy first, but when I'm not sure if something is a bug, I have to ask there first.
Unfortunately the link is no longer working, presumably because of the forum move. Did the design of the orbital base include any military systems?
Steve
Post by: oleg on November 18, 2010, 11:59:07 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=2826. msg29976#msg29976 date=1290080672
It is working fine for me at the moment. Could someone else check this on their version to see if this is a common problem?It's working as it's supposed to be. You hit it and you get the system map!
Steve
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on November 18, 2010, 01:00:15 PM
First, the maintenance clock continues to tick on your ships. In fact, maintenance facilities won't even prevent it.
Second, the actual bug: ships never come out of overhaul because the maintenance clock continues to grow rather than shrink.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on November 19, 2010, 02:39:57 AM
1. In the Technology Report window, the following component types are not displayed: Cloaking Device, Plasma Torpedo, Absorption Shield. The list doesn't update when you select them.
2. Automatic Fire doesn't seem to like plasma torpedoes. It never assigns them to a fire control, and unassigns them if you try to do it manually.
Post by: Father Tim on November 21, 2010, 07:18:38 AM
Unclick the Disable Show Minerals menu item on the Game Parameters menu. Can't remember why I added this option in the first place :)
Steve
I suspect it was part of your efforts to track down the bug with 'Show Minerals' that occurs when trying to run Aurora on Linux through WinE.
#:-]
Post by: mfaggi on November 30, 2010, 08:02:44 AM
While in v5. 10 the speed was much too high, now the values in the missiles tab for:
Endurance
TotalFlighTime
are both set to 0, resutling in them launching but not doing anything/running out after 5 seconds.
I was able to change those values guessing rough numbers by comparing them to the Invader-Torpedo values, and managed to get them to work.
Unfortunately i do not have the precise values, since all Invader torpedoes have the same speed- and integrity-ratings, while mine differ.
Regards,
mfaggi
Post by: ardem on December 03, 2010, 09:50:37 PM
Post by: DatAlien on December 05, 2010, 07:08:29 PM
After discovering a new system the ships-in-task-group table has shown the entry fire delay and opening of this task group resultet in an error
Post by: DatAlien on December 07, 2010, 11:12:51 AM
Post by: James Patten on December 08, 2010, 07:34:31 PM
I have carriers (with lots of armor) and fighters (with very little armor). In a nebula, the program is limiting the speed based on the fighter's armor, not the carriers (the fighters are of course docked in the carrier).
Post by: Edward Hamilton on December 09, 2010, 09:37:46 AM
1. When I use the "join" command to add asteroid miners to an existing group of asteroid miners, the total number of mining modules (and associated mineral production rates) is not updated. To correct this, I move the entire TG off the asteroid and then back onto it, and then the values are correct.
2. When I use the "land on mothership" command for a TG with both fighters assigned to that mothership and other non-fighters, the non-fighters are deleted. (Preferred behavior: Either an error/warning message, or have them join the mothership's TG. )
3. When I relieve a commander from an assignment and don't give a new one, that commander will sometimes be released within the next few months. Suspect this is because the "time since last assignment" used for releases is based on the date when the previous assignment began, rather than ended. (Preferred behavior: Either calculate based on the end date of assignment, or else make release of extra officers under player control with a toggle. )
4. I've noticed that TGs that are assigned to "repeat" a set of orders that involve jumping through a Langrange point will only correctly execute the jump on the first cycle. After that, they ignore the Lagrange point and just fly directly to their target.
Post by: jseah on December 10, 2010, 07:38:44 AM
I copied the database, used task manager to kill Aurora, replace the database to try again. It went through the day perfectly.
An alert popped up that a scout frigate didn't have anything else to survey so I tried to order to squadron transit to a new system.
Got this:
Quote from: Error in cmdAdd
Error 3022 was generated by DAO. Recordset
The changes you requested to the table were not successful because they would create duplicate values in the index, primary key or relationship. Change the data in the field or fields that contain duplicate data, remove the index, or redefine the index to permit duplicate entries and try again.
Please report to hxxp: aurora. pentarch. org/viewforum. php?f=11
Post by: jseah on December 10, 2010, 07:42:13 AM
Post by: randal7 on December 13, 2010, 06:59:37 PM
Edit: The planet has no mineral stockpile, and I got no tech, no survey results, and no star maps from the conquest.
Post by: Beersatron on December 13, 2010, 09:20:12 PM
I discovered an NPC planet with thermal 9179 (roughly double my 90mil pop colony) and 91613 EM (roughly 1.3x Earth at almost 1billion). Out of curiosity I SM-ed an invasion force and conquered the planet. The aliens were oddly passive, not turning hostile when my fleet orbited the planet, or even when I dropped 45 ground units on their planet. They gave me 600k+ war reparations. The planet had 1.8billion pop and no facilities of any sort. It appears to be a homeworld, as it falls precisely in the center of their environmental range. The year is 2061 and I have had no slowdowns for NPC combat, but I doubt it is the original NPC as the system number is 46 (out of 300, IIRC). I have a save from after the conquest if needed.
Edit: The planet has no mineral stockpile, and I got no tech, no survey results, and no star maps from the conquest.
That is a Pre-Industrial NPC, it is there for you to practice planetary invasions on :)
I presume that you had to initiate combat in order to take over their planet? They should be listed as 'subjugated' or some such in the colony screen to signify that they don't like you very much.
Post by: randal7 on December 14, 2010, 06:51:53 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 17, 2010, 07:58:42 PM
Brian
Post by: schroeam on December 17, 2010, 08:02:13 PM
I have noticed a problem with the expand civilian economy reasearch tech. It does not seem to reset between games and currently after starting 5 different games the default cost is 320000 rp. I do not however get the benifit of having reasearched it at all. This makes a new game very difficult as the cost to increase the civilian economy to pay for things is prohibitivly expensive.Brian,
Brian
Try deleting the old games from the database.
Adam.
Post by: laz on December 26, 2010, 03:06:57 PM
Gliese 505
One must be in a mirror universe or something ;D
Post by: Beersatron on December 26, 2010, 03:59:34 PM
I've two star systems with the same name
Gliese 505
One must be in a mirror universe or something ;D
Is one inhabited by a race with Goatees? ;D
Post by: Erik L on December 27, 2010, 03:07:34 PM
Post by: welchbloke on December 27, 2010, 03:50:07 PM
The box showing starting RP has disappeared. I started a game without the game allocating RP and the box was not there. I checked in SM mode and non-SM mode.It was definately there on my game when I started without allocating RP. Research Tab below available scientist to the right of the compare button.
Post by: Erik L on December 27, 2010, 11:55:52 PM
It was definately there on my game when I started without allocating RP. Research Tab below available scientist to the right of the compare button.
So it is. I was looking in the old spot.
Post by: ardem on December 30, 2010, 09:19:24 PM
you cannot add or change a record because a related record is required in the table
'SystemBody'
this pops up twice very turn.
I have changed a couple planet names but that is about it.
I did a custom start so there was some deletion of systems first up, but none after i got the right planetry requirements.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 04, 2011, 07:39:36 AM
Scenario: Anti-ship salvo is within range to intecept assign target during next movement. Counter-missiles targeted on anti-ship salvo and launched previous movement pulse and should intercept during same pulse that targeted salvo intercepts it's target.
Problem: Counter missiles do appear to be in the final resolution loop for the anti-ship salvo. Anti-ship salvo target resolved (with appropriate beam point defense resolved) and then the counter-missile salvos generate messages that they have no target and self destruct.
Granted the self destruct is do to no onboard sensors, but they should have resolved as intercepting their target salvos prior to those salvos intercepting thier targets. I know that there is a potential for a very nasty set of nested loops in missile intercept.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 04, 2011, 09:30:42 AM
Steve this is a big one. There appears to be an issue with missiles interecpting missiles.Part of this is the relative initiatives that the missiles are going on. They use the initiative of the launching ship/formation. If the anti-ship missiles are higher initiative then they will go first, followed by the anti-missiles. This does keep the possibility of nested loops down as there is a built in order to resolving the indifidual missiles movements.
Scenario: Anti-ship salvo is within range to intecept assign target during next movement. Counter-missiles targeted on anti-ship salvo and launched previous movement pulse and should intercept during same pulse that targeted salvo intercepts it's target.
Problem: Counter missiles do appear to be in the final resolution loop for the anti-ship salvo. Anti-ship salvo target resolved (with appropriate beam point defense resolved) and then the counter-missile salvos generate messages that they have no target and self destruct.
Granted the self destruct is do to no onboard sensors, but they should have resolved as intercepting their target salvos prior to those salvos intercepting thier targets. I know that there is a potential for a very nasty set of nested loops in missile intercept.
Brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 04, 2011, 10:42:28 AM
Part of this is the relative initiatives that the missiles are going on. They use the initiative of the launching ship/formation. If the anti-ship missiles are higher initiative then they will go first, followed by the anti-missiles. This does keep the possibility of nested loops down as there is a built in order to resolving the indifidual missiles movements.
Brian
^$#@^@#$#@$ I forgot about that.... and I'm fighting a Precursor which means that their initiative is 250. The fleet getting hammered has a max of 155. About every 5th salvo is hitting the sweet spot and not being intercepted.
Without this hole the fleet defenses would have the missile dual at a draw. With the hole I'm lossing the fleet.
That's what I get for not making sure the senior commander has a good initiative. It doesn't help that I deployed very short range (200k/km) counter missiles. (fuel at .001 to allow higher mass for engine and agility)
I still consider this as a bug. Initiative should not superceed an otherwise valid intercept. But Steve has to be willing to make the change.
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 04, 2011, 01:01:49 PM
Try changing the fuel to .002 or .003, it might be possible to do without really changing the agility at all. In which case you would have 2-3 times as much fuel.
That's what I get for not making sure the senior commander has a good initiative. It doesn't help that I deployed very short range (200k/km) counter missiles. (fuel at .001 to allow higher mass for engine and agility)
Brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 04, 2011, 01:22:46 PM
Try changing the fuel to .002 or .003, it might be possible to do without really changing the agility at all. In which case you would have 2-3 times as much fuel.
Brian
Normally I use .01 for ranges in the area 2m km. This was partly an experiment and the short range isn't really the issue. The next generation is back to .01 with the mass shifted to the engines for about a 10% tohit vs 10k/kps targets and a range of 2.8m km's. It's actually a better choice since the launchers are 10sec recycle.
Post by: ExChairman on January 05, 2011, 02:05:55 AM
The carrier were sent out to a group of freighters that had run out of fuel, they were ordered to Join the Cargo Group and Absorb it... Got an error saying that the fleet dont excist...
Anyone know if the still excist in limbo?
Post by: DatAlien on January 11, 2011, 05:21:35 AM
Post by: welchbloke on January 11, 2011, 06:58:07 AM
Some Task Groups shows Fire Delay and Sensor Delay instad of Maintaince Clock and Maint. Supplysthis is working as intended. These fields appear after a task group has transitted a jump point.
Post by: DatAlien on January 11, 2011, 09:15:21 AM
Post by: Thorgarth on January 13, 2011, 06:06:21 PM
Error 76 was generated by Aurora
Path not found: 'Planetjpeg\ha3.jpg'
When I try to access F9.
Any clues (hoping it's my operator headspace error).
Post by: DatAlien on January 13, 2011, 10:31:18 PM
Post by: Beersatron on January 13, 2011, 11:36:10 PM
Receiving the Error in cboControlRace
Error 76 was generated by Aurora
Path not found: 'Planetjpeg\ha3.jpg'
When I try to access F9.
Any clues (hoping it's my operator headspace error).
Checked your install folder for a folder called 'planetjpeg'?
Post by: Xeno The Morph on January 14, 2011, 01:30:34 PM
If you clear a civilian ships orders and their new route takes them through a JG they will fail the transit. . . and keep doing so every few hours :'(
Message: 'xxx cannot carry out its squadron transit order as at least one ship is larger than the ship with the highest jump rating. '
It is extremely annoying as there is no way around it and it has effectively stopped my 25ish year campaign and there is no way to counter it, without DB access or destroying the civilian ships with my own attack ships (and my ships are not nearby. . . well to some of the differently located & affected ships at least. . . hello insanely excessive turn clicking ;) )
Edit: hmm, the link is mangled even if I use the hyperlink tags. . . sorry it looks like you will need to unmangle it ;)
Post by: welchbloke on January 14, 2011, 05:57:29 PM
I just thought I would add the civilian ship 'using incorrect Jump order' bug (noted in hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php/topic,2953. 0. html) here on the bug thread, as no search has found it in the thread.
If you clear a civilian ships orders and their new route takes them through a JG they will fail the transit. . . and keep doing so every few hours :'(
Message: 'xxx cannot carry out its squadron transit order as at least one ship is larger than the ship with the highest jump rating. '
It is extremely annoying as there is no way around it and it has effectively stopped my 25ish year campaign and there is no way to counter it, without DB access or destroying the civilian ships with my own attack ships (and my ships are not nearby. . . well to some of the differently located & affected ships at least. . . hello insanely excessive turn clicking ;) )
Edit: hmm, the link is mangled even if I use the hyperlink tags. . . sorry it looks like you will need to unmangle it ;)
There is a third way - but you need the designer mode password. If you e-mail Steve and ask him, assuming he's agreeable you can use designer mode access to delete the ships or give them new orders.
Post by: DatAlien on January 17, 2011, 05:38:15 AM
(Error in GetCommanderName and Error in GetCommanderFullName)
Post by: WHCnelson on January 20, 2011, 07:03:07 PM
I am getting a Error message when I bring up the Systems Map for a single system; Mainly my Home system.
This has occurred numerous times. When it usually happens I go back to a previous save and then I am good for
a bit and then it occurs again. I can not post the screen print; So here is what it says.
ERROR IN DISPLAYSYSTEMBODIES
Error 6 was generated by Aurora Overflow
Please report to http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewforum.php?f=11
When I click on OK it the displays the system. Does anyone have an Idea what maybe wrong?
Post by: Starkiller on January 20, 2011, 08:53:05 PM
a turn is running. I click 'ok' and everything is fine. I don't know what generates
the error, but it seems to have no other effect on the gameplay.
Eric
Post by: Libelnon on January 21, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
Post by: Xeno The Morph on February 22, 2011, 04:19:41 PM
I can only give 2 contrasting examples due to my limited experience with them though ;)
Correct action:
Using turreted Gauss cannons in 'final defence' PD mode (& CIWS) - as these only do 1 damage and the torpedoes are generally still at size 4 to 5 the majority of hits fail to detonate their warheads
Buggy action:
Using the same turreted Gauss cannons but manually targeting the incoming salvoes (as due to happen-stance the last stop for the torpedoes before hitting is ~20k, doesn't seem to work for Area defence though. . . they never try to fire unless at least one FC on the PD ship is manually targeted. . . ) - even though these only do 1 damage every successful hit detonates the targeted torpedo!
EDIT: OK I got the Area defence to work (must have been doing something wrong) and it seems to correctly act like the final defence PD i. e. with failed detonations
Post by: Aldaris on March 05, 2011, 10:28:13 AM
Recently, I switched to 64b W7, and after some tinkering got Aurora to work again.
Except for the F9 screen. When I try to open that, it tells me I need MSSTDFMT.DLL, which I then downloaded, unpacked, and moved into system, then into system32 and the Aurora directory. I even changed the name so it's allcaps just case that made a difference. I still cannot open the F9 screen.
Halp.
Post by: Erik L on March 05, 2011, 11:02:30 AM
I have bit of a problem.
Recently, I switched to 64b W7, and after some tinkering got Aurora to work again.
Except for the F9 screen. When I try to open that, it tells me I need MSSTDFMT.DLL, which I then downloaded, unpacked, and moved into system, then into system32 and the Aurora directory. I even changed the name so it's allcaps just case that made a difference. I still cannot open the F9 screen.
Halp.
Did you register the DLL? You'll need to run the command "regsvr32 msstdfmt.dll"
Post by: Hawkeye on March 06, 2011, 11:48:30 AM
When you scrap one of your own ships, its captain is still listed as being assigned to the now nonexisting ship.
I scraped all ships of two classes, so I could look through all of my officers (which was a bit of a hassle) and manually unasign them. Now that I know about this, I can unasign them before scraping, still, it would be nice if the officers would return to the pool automaticaly.
Post by: welchbloke on March 06, 2011, 12:08:12 PM
This might have been reported earlier.
When you scrap one of your own ships, its captain is still listed as being assigned to the now nonexisting ship.
I scraped all ships of two classes, so I could look through all of my officers (which was a bit of a hassle) and manually unasign them. Now that I know about this, I can unasign them before scraping, still, it would be nice if the officers would return to the pool automaticaly.
I was about to post the same bug. Also, whilst a ship is being scrapped it is still a valid command assignment; so you end up unassinging and then after the next 5 days increment, an officer is assigned to the ship if it is still being scrapped :( It is somewhat annoying.
Edit to add:
This also happens when a Replacement btn is used up; I've just found a GF commander with the same bug.
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 12:32:44 PM
I was about to post the same bug. Also, whilst a ship is being scrapped it is still a valid command assignment; so you end up unassinging and then after the next 5 days increment, an officer is assigned to the ship if it is still being scrapped :( It is somewhat annoying.
Edit to add:
This also happens when a Replacement btn is used up; I've just found a GF commander with the same bug.
And there's still something funky going on with auto-assign. I've repeatedly had the case where an officer thinks he's assigned to a ship, but the ship doesn't know he's assigned (and I'm pretty sure that he's not a passenger - he doesn't show up as "unassigned" in the skills filter unless I explicitly unassign him).
John
Post by: welchbloke on March 06, 2011, 01:21:22 PM
And there's still something funky going on with auto-assign. I've repeatedly had the case where an officer thinks he's assigned to a ship, but the ship doesn't know he's assigned (and I'm pretty sure that he's not a passenger - he doesn't show up as "unassigned" in the skills filter unless I explicitly unassign him).That reminds me I've found ships with 2 commanders assigned recently. Unassign one and there is another assigned as well. I discovered this when manually destroying fighters so that I could replace them with newer versions.
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 07:48:52 PM
That reminds me I've found ships with 2 commanders assigned recently. Unassign one and there is another assigned as well. I discovered this when manually destroying fighters so that I could replace them with newer versions.Yep - I think this is the same bug.
I think there's something going on in the auto-assign logic that isn't telling the 1st commander that he's been relieved, so he thinks he's still in command. Whatever this bug is, I've been seeing it for years (IRL) so I suspect that we're doing something different from Steve (otherwise he'd have noticed it too and tracked it down). I know that I go through and do a lot of manual re-assignment after the auto-assign pass, since I don't like a lot of the choices the computer makes.
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2011, 08:24:31 PM
This might have been reported earlier.
When you scrap one of your own ships, its captain is still listed as being assigned to the now nonexisting ship.
I scraped all ships of two classes, so I could look through all of my officers (which was a bit of a hassle) and manually unasign them. Now that I know about this, I can unasign them before scraping, still, it would be nice if the officers would return to the pool automaticaly.
Fixed for v5.40. Ship and fighter commanders are unassigned when their ship/fighter is scrapped or deleted. If the ship is in orbit of a population, they are placed at that population.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2011, 08:33:53 PM
This also happens when a Replacement btn is used up; I've just found a GF commander with the same bug.
Fixed for v5.40. Commanders of expended replacement battalions are now unassigned.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2011, 08:36:27 PM
And there's still something funky going on with auto-assign. I've repeatedly had the case where an officer thinks he's assigned to a ship, but the ship doesn't know he's assigned (and I'm pretty sure that he's not a passenger - he doesn't show up as "unassigned" in the skills filter unless I explicitly unassign him).
John
Have you noticed any pattern to this bug or does it seem to be random ships that are affected?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2011, 08:39:36 PM
I was about to post the same bug. Also, whilst a ship is being scrapped it is still a valid command assignment; so you end up unassinging and then after the next 5 days increment, an officer is assigned to the ship if it is still being scrapped :( It is somewhat annoying.
This should correct itself now. If a ship is scrapped or deleted in v5.40, its commander will be unassigned at that point and will be auto-assigned during the next 5-day increment.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 09:34:23 PM
And there's still something funky going on with auto-assign. I've repeatedly had the case where an officer thinks he's assigned to a ship, but the ship doesn't know he's assigned (and I'm pretty sure that he's not a passenger - he doesn't show up as "unassigned" in the skills filter unless I explicitly unassign him).Have you noticed any pattern to this bug or does it seem to be random ships that are affected?
No. It seems to be sporadic. Like I said above, I tend to do a lot of manual rearranging after auto-assign, so that might be putting things in a weird state. The only other thing I've been able to think of is maybe there's a (leftover) filter that prevents a captain from being relieved if he's in orbit of a body (I don't have any observations to back this up, though), i.e. the auto-assign tells the ship he's gone but then aborts in the middle of telling him. On the other hand, I think I remember it happening to PDC commanders (I could be wrong about this, though). How's that for minimal hard data? :)
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
Code: [Select]
Telegraph class Sensor Outpost 700 tons 26 Crew 44 BP TCS 14 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s JR 1-25(C) Armour 1-7 Shields 0-0 Sensors 11/11/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Maint Capacity 39 MSP Max Repair 11 MSP
JC2K Commercial Jump Drive Max Ship Size 2000 tons Distance 25k km Squadron Size 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 06, 2011, 10:26:16 PM
I'm playing around this game with small commercial bases (no engines) for picketing and communication through WP. The following ship (which is intended to sit on the far side of a WP from the homeworld and act as a communications relay for pickets in the system) got a "Telegraph 002 cannot carry out its standard transit order as at least one ship is larger than the ship with the highest jump rating" error when I tried to have it do a standard transit after being dropped off at a WP. I suspect that it's because of a bad interaction between the commercial drive and the lack of engines - I suspect the WP transit code thinks the design is military because it doesn't see commercial engines.Code: [Select]Telegraph class Sensor Outpost 700 tons 26 Crew 44 BP TCS 14 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s JR 1-25(C) Armour 1-7 Shields 0-0 Sensors 11/11/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Maint Capacity 39 MSP Max Repair 11 MSP
JC2K Commercial Jump Drive Max Ship Size 2000 tons Distance 25k km Squadron Size 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-11 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11m km
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
John
Your guess is correct. I checked the ship design code and there is a flag in the ShipClass table for ships with at least one commercial engine. I could easily change this so that ships with no engines are set as commercial engined rather than military engined. I am just not sure if I should :). I'll give it some thought.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 10:39:53 PM
Your guess is correct. I checked the ship design code and there is a flag in the ShipClass table for ships with at least one commercial engine. I could easily change this so that ships with no engines are set as commercial engined rather than military engined. I am just not sure if I should :). I'll give it some thought.
Steve
I thought you might think that :)
EDIT: I'm a bit skeptical myself about parking "commercial" observation platforms at WP and leaving them there forever. OTOH, my usual technique is to use OPs with single (military) engines, and that takes a LOT of micromanagement in terms of rotating them back home for refits. On the whole, I think I prefer the game simplicity aspect over the "you're leaving us here for HOW long?" aspect.
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on March 07, 2011, 02:03:03 AM
I thought you might think that :)You could also cover this with saying that the crew get rotated by the same mechanism that officers get to their commands without shipping them hither and yon. It would make sense that there is a large pool of personell that are being moved around on a regular basis using civilian shipping as they change duty stations.
EDIT: I'm a bit skeptical myself about parking "commercial" observation platforms at WP and leaving them there forever. OTOH, my usual technique is to use OPs with single (military) engines, and that takes a LOT of micromanagement in terms of rotating them back home for refits. On the whole, I think I prefer the game simplicity aspect over the "you're leaving us here for HOW long?" aspect.
John
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on March 07, 2011, 08:28:56 AM
You could also cover this with saying that the crew get rotated by the same mechanism that officers get to their commands without shipping them hither and yon. It would make sense that there is a large pool of personell that are being moved around on a regular basis using civilian shipping as they change duty stations.
Brian
Yep - that's the hand-waving I had in the back of my head. That's the main reason I want to consider the Telegraph class to be capable of jump itself (rather than just opening a wormhole for communications purposes) - this class will sometimes be deployed just over the empire's border (on the other side of a border WP), so it should be able to transit back to the near side to meet up with such commercial shipping.
No matter what Steve decides to code up, I'll probably end up with a house rule that allows ships such as a Telegraph to jump themselves (for the reason above).
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 11, 2011, 10:03:15 PM
And there's still something funky going on with auto-assign. I've repeatedly had the case where an officer thinks he's assigned to a ship, but the ship doesn't know he's assigned (and I'm pretty sure that he's not a passenger - he doesn't show up as "unassigned" in the skills filter unless I explicitly unassign him).
John
Have you noticed any pattern to this bug or does it seem to be random ships that are affected?
Steve
I found a pattern (in 5.4) - it looks like officers who are being transferred from staff to ship are the ones having a problem. The ship doesn't know that the officer has been assigned command. More details in the 5.4 thread.
John
Post by: James Patten on March 22, 2011, 07:23:01 PM
The reason I think so is that I have a system with a level 26 nebula. I sent my FAC survey ship off at a slow rate, but figured I'd get there eventually. In the month or so it took to move the ship the ship was running out of fuel. The time frame was normal for my survey ships in clear space, but I figured I would be able to survey for the year or so it would take without too much problem.
Post by: sloanjh on March 22, 2011, 11:22:30 PM
I suspect (but have not attempted to prove by calculating) that fuel usage in nebulas is unaffected by your actual forced speed. In other words, I think that fuel consumption acts as though you're moving at (for example) 2000 kms instead of the imposed nebula speed 800 kms.
The reason I think so is that I have a system with a level 26 nebula. I sent my FAC survey ship off at a slow rate, but figured I'd get there eventually. In the month or so it took to move the ship the ship was running out of fuel. The time frame was normal for my survey ships in clear space, but I figured I would be able to survey for the year or so it would take without too much problem.
I think I remember someone else mentioning the same effect a year or two ago (Kurt maybe?). Also, this reminds me of something I've been wondering about the last couple of days, but haven't done an experiment to check: does a ship moving at 1/2 speed consume fuel at 1/2 rate? I'm sure this is the design intent, but it would be an easy thing to overlook both in the code and in games....
John
Post by: ZimRathbone on March 23, 2011, 08:20:09 AM
I suspect (but have not attempted to prove by calculating) that fuel usage in nebulas is unaffected by your actual forced speed. In other words, I think that fuel consumption acts as though you're moving at (for example) 2000 kms instead of the imposed nebula speed 800 kms.
The reason I think so is that I have a system with a level 26 nebula. I sent my FAC survey ship off at a slow rate, but figured I'd get there eventually. In the month or so it took to move the ship the ship was running out of fuel. The time frame was normal for my survey ships in clear space, but I figured I would be able to survey for the year or so it would take without too much problem.
I think that is actually correct - when in a nebula you will still be expending the same amount of energy, and driving your engines at full pelt - you're just getting less distance for it due to friction/whatever the technobable reason. I have seen the same thing, which is why I frequently send along a couple of fuel harvesters to a nearby GG when surveying Nebulas
Post by: Narmio on March 23, 2011, 07:55:12 PM
Post by: Father Tim on March 25, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
Post by: James Patten on March 25, 2011, 09:15:08 AM
Post by: welchbloke on April 15, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
Recently, if I select Military Ships and Fighters on the Commanders (F4) screen I get Error in grdCommanders_SelChange Error 9 Subscript out of range.
Any ideas what's casuing this and any siggestions on how to fix it?
The bug means that I can't manually assign commanders to my recon fighters, every other drop down is just fine. If I can't fix it then I'm may lose interest and start a new 5.42 campaign. It would be a real shame as I'm enjoying my current game but I can't stand not being able to do everything properly (Obsessive Compulsive I know).
Any help/advice would really be appreciated.
Post by: welchbloke on April 18, 2011, 05:03:20 AM
I'm running 5.20 still and I'm getting a bug which I'm not sure is version related or not.I guess no one has any suggestions then?
Recently, if I select Military Ships and Fighters on the Commanders (F4) screen I get Error in grdCommanders_SelChange Error 9 Subscript out of range.
Any ideas what's casuing this and any siggestions on how to fix it?
The bug means that I can't manually assign commanders to my recon fighters, every other drop down is just fine. If I can't fix it then I'm may lose interest and start a new 5.42 campaign. It would be a real shame as I'm enjoying my current game but I can't stand not being able to do everything properly (Obsessive Compulsive I know).
Any help/advice would really be appreciated.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 18, 2011, 05:15:09 AM
I'm running 5.20 still and I'm getting a bug which I'm not sure is version related or not.
Recently, if I select Military Ships and Fighters on the Commanders (F4) screen I get Error in grdCommanders_SelChange Error 9 Subscript out of range.
Any ideas what's casuing this and any siggestions on how to fix it?
The bug means that I can't manually assign commanders to my recon fighters, every other drop down is just fine. If I can't fix it then I'm may lose interest and start a new 5.42 campaign. It would be a real shame as I'm enjoying my current game but I can't stand not being able to do everything properly (Obsessive Compulsive I know).
Any help/advice would really be appreciated.
I haven't encountered this problem before and I can't see anything obvious, although I am looking at v5.50 code. Usually this error means the bounds of an array have been exceeded. However, I can't see an array in that section of code. How many fighters do you have? BTW I am just about to leave for the Isle of Man so I won't be online again for a day or two.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on April 18, 2011, 11:37:39 AM
I haven't encountered this problem before and I can't see anything obvious, although I am looking at v5.50 code. Usually this error means the bounds of an array have been exceeded. However, I can't see an array in that section of code. How many fighters do you have? BTW I am just about to leave for the Isle of Man so I won't be online again for a day or two.At last count I have 861 fighters. To clarify I only get the error when I use the military ships and fighters drop down not the warships and fighters. the difference is 82 fighters between the two options.
Steve
Post by: James Patten on April 21, 2011, 04:50:22 PM
The robots destroyed my troops, but my troops must have simultaneously destroyed the robots. I got a message that my colony had surrendered, along with the ships in orbit. Yet the colony was still there, I still had my ships, but my troops were gone, and I don't see any enemy. I did not get a message about the enemy units destroyed (that I recall).
I think it's a bug, but maybe its not.
Post by: ZimRathbone on April 21, 2011, 11:36:50 PM
Post by: James Patten on April 22, 2011, 05:48:53 AM
Post by: ZimRathbone on April 22, 2011, 07:00:06 AM
You wont be able to duplicate any training/experience that the originals may have had.
On the other hand you could just assume that the battle was properly Celtic & the last combatants killed each other simultaneously!
Post by: welchbloke on April 28, 2011, 03:16:34 AM
At last count I have 861 fighters. To clarify I only get the error when I use the military ships and fighters drop down not the warships and fighters. the difference is 82 fighters between the two options.Update, now that I have 932 fighters (including scout fighters that are considered military rather than warships) I get the same error with the warships and fighters dropdown selection. It looks like there is a parameter somewhere that I'm exceeding by trying to show all of the fighters at once.
I've done a quick check and the warships and fighters dropdown would have a total of 921 options. Looks like something is limiting me to around 900 options in the list. Is there a VB6 or Access limit at work here?
Edit to add:
I can work around this by setting the minimum rank for all of my other ships to R2 and selecting 'Eligible Commands only'. This provides enough headroom to assign commanders to the fighters. I then have to go back and change the minimum rank to R1 for some of my ship classes.
Post by: welchbloke on May 01, 2011, 09:52:41 AM
Update, now that I have 932 fighters (including scout fighters that are considered military rather than warships) I get the same error with the warships and fighters dropdown selection. It looks like there is a parameter somewhere that I'm exceeding by trying to show all of the fighters at once.Anyone have any ideas about what's causing this?
I've done a quick check and the warships and fighters dropdown would have a total of 921 options. Looks like something is limiting me to around 900 options in the list. Is there a VB6 or Access limit at work here?
Edit to add:
I can work around this by setting the minimum rank for all of my other ships to R2 and selecting 'Eligible Commands only'. This provides enough headroom to assign commanders to the fighters. I then have to go back and change the minimum rank to R1 for some of my ship classes.
Post by: Hawkeye on May 07, 2011, 05:05:44 AM
Anyone have any ideas about what's causing this?
I can confirm this bug, as I encouter it too.
With 982 fighters and Ships/PDC (required rank R1, show eligible only) in the "Warships and fighter" list, everything is ok
Changing to rank R2 gives me another 119 ships, giving me the "Error 9, Subscript out or range"
It sure looks like aurora doesn´t like the list getting too large
Playing around a bit, I changed a cruiser from R2 to R1, making it 1004 ships/fighters at R1, and this also gives the error. The magic number seems to be around 1000.