Post by: sloanjh on November 03, 2007, 08:19:30 PM
Thanks,
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 04, 2007, 04:40:54 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Typing "0.1" and hitting enter in the Class Designer (F5) special-case range bands field results in a hang (I think this one's been around for a long time). Could you also put in a "1,000 km" button? I've got a laser with maximum range of 8,000 km and the damage on the summary screen is showing up all zeros.
Thanks,
John
It has been around for a while. Any fraction input for either the speed or the range there will cause the program to hang.
Brian
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 04, 2007, 05:21:53 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Typing "0.1" and hitting enter in the Class Designer (F5) special-case range bands field results in a hang (I think this one's been around for a long time). Could you also put in a "1,000 km" button? I've got a laser with maximum range of 8,000 km and the damage on the summary screen is showing up all zeros.
How did you create a laser with that range?
The minimum is supposed to be 10,000 km, which is range 1 as far as the program is concerned. A 10cm infrared laser has a range of 30,000 km.Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 04, 2007, 07:04:53 AM
Error in AddPop
Error 3163 was generated by DAO.field
Field is to small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add. ...
This was just after the questions of did I want to convert ordinance and fighter factories and before the question of did I want to rename the homeworld.
As far as I can tell everything worked fine afterwords. I advanced the time about two months just to check
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 04, 2007, 07:27:44 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Typing "0.1" and hitting enter in the Class Designer (F5) special-case range bands field results in a hang (I think this one's been around for a long time). Could you also put in a "1,000 km" button? I've got a laser with maximum range of 8,000 km and the damage on the summary screen is showing up all zeros.
I have fixed the hang and prevented the entry of fractions but I can't put a lower band in because minimum firing range is 10,000 km. You can physically fire at a lower range but it is always treated as if you are firing at 10,000 km because of the way the effective range is calculated.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
How did you create a laser with that range?
Steve
Fire control - I've only got 2400 km/s fire control (w 16000 km range) so I was building a 4x speed, 1/4x range fire control to put on my gunboats. This gave me the a 4K range fire control, which masked out the damage numbers on my laser with zeros since the summary screen caps the laser's range at the max fire control range. I ended up making a whole slew of bigger fire controls and temporarily putting them on the gunboat design so I could see the damage numbers all the way out and figure out where the knee was.
I think in a "best of all worlds" case, what I really would love is some combination of the following:
- 1) On the design window for lasers (and other energy weapons), the same damage vs. range table that shows on the F5 summary screen, so I can see the damage table of the laser as I'm building it.
2) On some sort of tech review screen (maybe accessed through the F5 design tab?) the same damage vs range table for all existing weapons for which it makes sense (beam?). If I had to choose, I think this one is better to have than the preceding, since it would help you choose which weapon you want in the design
3) The same sort of thing for fire control - a tech review table with hit probability related to range and speed for all fire controls (or maybe one for missile and one for beam) at a given tracking speed (which could either be a similar dialog to target speed or typed in).
4) While typing this, it just occurred to me that I also feel the same way when designing sensors - I don't have a good feel for detection ranges for a "strength 3" thermal sensor. So maybe the same sort of thing as above, except exposing detection range based on target signature
I realize this is a lot of specialized screen design, so I'm not convinced it's worth your time, however.
Thanks,
John
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The minimum is supposed to be 10,000 km, which is range 1 as far as the program is concerned.
I think you're saying that you're using fixed width range bands (at 10,000 km intervals) when calculating damage, i.e. a laser shot at 19,999 km does the same damage as one at 10,000 km. So my "4 4 2 2" laser damage line really means that it won't ever do 3 points of damage? Is this correct?
An alternative would be to calculate the damage in floating point using (target distance/laser range) as the parameter in your damage formula and then round down to the nearest integer.
Also, are you doing the same thing for the hit probability vs. range calculation? The 4K fire control I was trying was giving "0 0 0 0" as the hit probabilities. Does this mean the fire control has no chance of hitting anything, even at point blank range?
Thanks,
John
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 01:31:28 PM
Not sure if it's connected but I get an "Invalid property value" error in cboClass_Click that was generated by UpDown when I do a "copy design" on these PDC classes on the F5 window.
John
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 01:41:52 PM
John
Post by: Erik L on November 04, 2007, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
More news on the PDC weirdness - it looks like trying to move a PDC triggers a reordering in the construction queue. Try putting 2 PDCs of different classes into the queue, along with some non-PDC stuff. If you start changing priorities with the arrows you'll eventually see spontaneous reordering when you pop away (e.g. to another planet) and pop back. I had actually deleted everything except my 2 PDC build orders and adding the non-PDC stuff back in (so it would go in at the bottom). Moving non-PDC didn't seem to do much, but when I tried to change the order of the 2 PDCs they decided they wanted to be interspersed with the non-PDC orders.
John
It does this with 1 PDC also. It seems to want to keep the order it had. Only way around this I've found is pause the non-PDC orders if you REALLY want that PDC soon.
Post by: Þórgrímr on November 04, 2007, 02:59:11 PM
Also it will only allow me to assign those to the first three yards, the other two show no class type at all to assign to the yards.
Cheers,
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 03:11:32 PM
Post by: sloanjh on November 04, 2007, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
It does this with 1 PDC also. It seems to want to keep the order it had. Only way around this I've found is pause the non-PDC orders if you REALLY want that PDC soon.
That's what I was seeing. I've just been deleting out the other stuff, putting the PDCs (that I REALLY want :-) Fortunately, I have a cheap PDC that I can load up with lasers and build quickly (not sure if the lasers will even work through atmosphere, but the politicians don't care :-)
Post by: Þórgrímr on November 04, 2007, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Have you checked that the SY have enough capacity to handle your designs? I've not seen anything like this, but I have noticed that it's filtering so that only classes that can be built by that yard are presented as options for retool.
John
Thats a good possibility, let me check it out and get back.
Cheers,
Post by: Þórgrímr on November 04, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
Cheers,
Post by: Erik L on November 04, 2007, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
PS - Have you moused over the "remove PDCs" button yet?
Lol yes. And I've had to use it too.
Post by: Erik L on November 05, 2007, 02:11:54 PM
Post by: Ancient History on November 07, 2007, 02:17:01 PM
I'm not sure if this is a 2.4 bug or just something I'm doing wrong. Every game I've played has my race steadily decreasing in wealth production. For instance over a one year period I noticed my annual wealth dropping from 8071 to 738, while my population continued to increase from 1071.7 million to 1090.9 million, Income per captia dropped from 7.53 to .68 durring that time. Population income dropped from 672.3 to 61.5 with a near constant drop of 55 per turn and my expenditures dropped from 230.2 to 77.3.
So despite having an increasing population size and not building anything for over a year, my per turn income went from +442 to -16. So, is this a bug with the system or am I doing something wrong? Thanks.
Post by: Erik L on November 07, 2007, 02:54:32 PM
Quote from: "Ancient History"
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a 2.4 bug or just something I'm doing wrong. Every game I've played has my race steadily decreasing in wealth production. For instance over a one year period I noticed my annual wealth dropping from 8071 to 738, while my population continued to increase from 1071.7 million to 1090.9 million, Income per captia dropped from 7.53 to .68 durring that time. Population income dropped from 672.3 to 61.5 with a near constant drop of 55 per turn and my expenditures dropped from 230.2 to 77.3.
So despite having an increasing population size and not building anything for over a year, my per turn income went from +442 to -16. So, is this a bug with the system or am I doing something wrong? Thanks.
Research, Industrial Production, Ship construction, ordnance, fighter construction... pretty much everything, counts against income. If you look on the income tab of the economic screen, you can change it to the "last year" and see where the creds are going.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 08, 2007, 09:32:37 AM
Quote from: "Ancient History"
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a 2.4 bug or just something I'm doing wrong. Every game I've played has my race steadily decreasing in wealth production. For instance over a one year period I noticed my annual wealth dropping from 8071 to 738, while my population continued to increase from 1071.7 million to 1090.9 million, Income per captia dropped from 7.53 to .68 durring that time. Population income dropped from 672.3 to 61.5 with a near constant drop of 55 per turn and my expenditures dropped from 230.2 to 77.3.
So despite having an increasing population size and not building anything for over a year, my per turn income went from +442 to -16. So, is this a bug with the system or am I doing something wrong? Thanks.
Its not a bug I am aware of. To try and find out what is happening could you give me the following information.
On the Summary tab for your main population, what values do you have for Annual Wealth Creation (about the 5th item on the left-hand column), Requested Protection Level and Actual Protection Level (which are the bottom two items in the left-hand column) and the five bottom items on the right-hand column (Economic Production Modifier, Manufacturing Efficiency Modifier and the three Political Status Modifiers)
On the Income/Exp Data what is in the three text boxes across the top?
Also, select the Last Year option and list what you see in the two grid controls showing income and expenditure.
If I had to hazard a guess, it may be that you have a very low political stability because your population is demanding more protection than you are providing but the above information should help me figure out what it is.
Steve
Post by: Ancient History on November 08, 2007, 10:28:17 PM
Thanks for the insight. You are correct. It was my political stability. That will teach me skimp on the military. Thanks.
Post by: Father Tim on November 08, 2007, 11:27:11 PM
Post by: SteveAlt on November 09, 2007, 02:19:31 AM
Quote from: "Ancient History"
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the insight. You are correct. It was my political stability. That will teach me skimp on the military. Thanks.
BTW, the best (cheapest) way to get a high PPV on heavily populated worlds is to build PDCs. Also, the designs that makes civilians most happy are not necessarily the best designs from an military effectiveness point of view because the local politicians want to see lots of weapons and aren't bothered about details like fire control or sensors.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on November 09, 2007, 02:20:54 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
The 'Shipyards' entry on the 'SM Mods' tab of the F2 (Population & Production) window is no longer functional. It has no effect on the number of shipyards or slipways of any/each shipyard.
I had forgotten about that. I need to find some way for the SM to modify the new shipyards and slipways.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 09, 2007, 06:13:33 AM
Brian
Update. This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on November 10, 2007, 07:39:42 PM
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 11, 2007, 09:21:03 AM
I've been doing some quick and dirty games to play with beam v missile and beam v fighter/missile combat. So my problems may be of my own making.
Post by: sloanjh on November 11, 2007, 11:24:12 AM
BTW, while you're in there, could you do an alphabetized sub-sort on the results in the "commands" screen (and vacancies too)? I think that's one of the reasons I have trouble finding things on this screen.
Also, the "Rank" column should maybe sort on required rank, rather than commander rank.
Finally, staff assignments don't show up in this view.
Thanks,
John
Post by: sloanjh on November 11, 2007, 07:41:42 PM
I don't know if this has other side effects.
Note that I've been running with the "Allow Assignments to any Location" box checked.
John
Post by: Erik L on November 14, 2007, 10:22:24 AM
Post by: Erik L on November 14, 2007, 10:50:28 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 14, 2007, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
You can put a fleet with ships in the yards into fleet training mode and they gain experience.
I am not sure that this is a bad thing. There are simulators that those crew and officers could be using while their ship is in the yard. This way they get some time to train while the ship is shot up.
Brian
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 19, 2007, 02:34:13 PM
Error in MoveFleets
Error 3265 was generated by DAO.fields
Item not found in collection
3 times per time advance for each fighter group in flight.
2) Fighters will launch missiles while on board ship if ceasefire isn't initiated.
3) If I don't have sub-pulses activated, slower ships will over take faster ships even though the faster ships have been given greater standoff ranges. (ie 1800kps with min of 50 will over take a 3000kps ship with min of 1000)
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 25, 2007, 07:59:22 PM
The fighter group button in the fighter/missiles tab of the ships screen (F6) doesn't appear to function.
Post by: Kurt on November 27, 2007, 01:26:23 AM
I've noticed that on the "Technology Report" window, the following tech systems are not listed:
Thermal Sensors
Shields
Grav pulse sensors
EM detection sensors
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 05:44:23 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Clicking on a shipyard tooled for an obsolete class generates an error invalid index.
I can't recreate the error but I have noticed that you can't build a class in a shipyard if it is obsolete, even if that is the class for which the shipyard is tooled. However, I don't want to allow all obsolete classes to be built or that would make the obsolete option obsolete
Therefore, I have changed it you can always build the tooled class, even if it is obsolete, but you still can't build any other obsolete class in the same shipyard, even if it fits within the refit cost requirement. I thnk that will solve the above error for v2.5
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 06:00:52 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
More news on the PDC weirdness - it looks like trying to move a PDC triggers a reordering in the construction queue. Try putting 2 PDCs of different classes into the queue, along with some non-PDC stuff. If you start changing priorities with the arrows you'll eventually see spontaneous reordering when you pop away (e.g. to another planet) and pop back. I had actually deleted everything except my 2 PDC build orders and adding the non-PDC stuff back in (so it would go in at the bottom). Moving non-PDC didn't seem to do much, but when I tried to change the order of the 2 PDCs they decided they wanted to be interspersed with the non-PDC orders.
Thanks, this extra detail helped. It looks like the problem only occurs when there are two different type of PDC in the queue. There seems to be no problem with multiples instances of a single class of PDC - weird.
Anyway, to the problem. Aurora reorders by letting you move something and then runs through the list box and resets the order in the database to match the order in the listbox. This same piece of code is used for several different queues, such as ordnance, fighters, installations and ground units, all of which are stored in the ProductionQueue table but with different Production Types. So if you look all the entries in the table for Production Type 1 for example, you will get only the Ordnance production items. Production Type 3 is for installations. However, PDCs are listed as Production Type 5, so I can distinguish them from regular installations. This meant they were not being picked up along with the regular installation when the queue was reordered for Type 3 so they retained their original positions. I have changed the code so that Type 3 and Type 5 are sorted together, which has fixed the problem.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 06:35:24 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
No I am just saying that minimum range is 10,000 km. I do use 10,000 km range bands for ease of reference but you can fire at range 1.57 for example, just not less than 1. The weapon damage calculation is :Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"The minimum is supposed to be 10,000 km, which is range 1 as far as the program is concerned.I think you're saying that you're using fixed width range bands (at 10,000 km intervals) when calculating damage, i.e. a laser shot at 19,999 km does the same damage as one at 10,000 km. So my "4 4 2 2" laser damage line really means that it won't ever do 3 points of damage? Is this correct?
TargetX = Abs(Contact Xcor - Firing Ship Xcor)
TargetY = Abs(Contact Ycor - Firing Ship Ycor)
Contact Distance = (Sqr((TargetX ^ 2) + (TargetY ^ 2))) / 10000
Effective Range = Contact Distance / Weapon Range Modifier
If Effective Range < 1 Then Effective Range = 1
(All the above except the weapon range modifier are currency variables. Effective range is calculated to the nearest km.)
Weapon Damage = Int(Damage Output / Effective Range)
So you would see a potential 3 damage for your 4 4 2 2 weapon perhaps somewhere in the 20,000 to 25,000 range
The Weapon Range Modifier is the RM # displayed on the class summary for every weapon. For lasers for example, each higher wavelength increases it by 1. Infrared = 1, Visible light = 2, Near Ultraviolet = 3, etc.
Quote
An alternative would be to calculate the damage in floating point using (target distance/laser range) as the parameter in your damage formula and then round down to the nearest integer.That is what happens now.
Quote
Also, are you doing the same thing for the hit probability vs. range calculation? The 4K fire control I was trying was giving "0 0 0 0" as the hit probabilities. Does this mean the fire control has no chance of hitting anything, even at point blank range?
The minimum fire control range is 10,000 km, which is the range at which point blank fire takes place. A fire control with a lower range will be treated as having a 0% chance to hit.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 06:39:15 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself. It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.
Update. This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Where are you seeing the problem. The signature of the engine itself on the Engine line of the class summary or the TH value in the upper right of the class summary? Or both?
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
I just awarded my first medal. Shouldn't medals show up as a log entry in the officer's history?
Yes they should. I have added that for v2.5
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 05, 2007, 08:13:55 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Has anyone been having problems with movement orders and damage allocation after a ship is destroyed in combat?
I've been doing some quick and dirty games to play with beam v missile and beam v fighter/missile combat. So my problems may be of my own making.
What type of problems are you having?
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on December 05, 2007, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Has anyone been having problems with movement orders and damage allocation after a ship is destroyed in combat?What type of problems are you having?
I've been doing some quick and dirty games to play with beam v missile and beam v fighter/missile combat. So my problems may be of my own making.
Steve
Sorry, I should have edited the orginal post. Please reference my Nov 19 and 25 posts for details.
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 05, 2007, 01:25:02 PM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Brian"I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself. It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.Where are you seeing the problem. The signature of the engine itself on the Engine line of the class summary or the TH value in the upper right of the class summary? Or both?
Update. This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Steve
I am seeing it on the ship design screen (F5) for the thermal signature of the ship. It does not seem to be taking account of the reduction built in to the engine. It always shows the full amount. I did a test case where the base engine had a thermal signature of 100. 5 engines gave a thermal signature of 500 regardless of the level of thermal reduction that I had designed into the engines. (I used a 75%, 50%, and 25% levels)
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on December 08, 2007, 01:25:25 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"Clicking on a shipyard tooled for an obsolete class generates an error invalid index.I can't recreate the error but I have noticed that you can't build a class in a shipyard if it is obsolete, even if that is the class for which the shipyard is tooled. However, I don't want to allow all obsolete classes to be built or that would make the obsolete option obsolete
Therefore, I have changed it you can always build the tooled class, even if it is obsolete, but you still can't build any other obsolete class in the same shipyard, even if it fits within the refit cost requirement. I thnk that will solve the above error for v2.5
Steve
Don't know if this is the same one or not - I think I've been seeing an error when picking a SY while the construction activity is "refit" and the tooled class is obsolete (i.e. the list is empty). Not sure since I've been gone a week.
John
Post by: SteveAlt on December 23, 2007, 10:10:27 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
I was just playing around with the gunboats and realized that the thermal masking tech does not seem to make a difference on the thermal signature of the ship itself. It look like the masking is working on the design screen but with three different engines at different levels of masking (50%, 25%, and 16%) they all had the same thermal signature on the ship design screen.
Brian
Update. This seems to be a problem for all ships, not just gunboats.
11/8/07 6:45pm est
Brian
The thermal signature was being set correctly on the ship design summary (the TH rating in the top right) but not in the Thermal Sign textbox in the Ratings section. The correct value is being saved so this is just a display error. Fixed for v2.5
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 23, 2007, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Weirdness on the "commands" view for the officer screen (F4). If I go to "commands", then toggle off "Include Ground Units" using the check box, I have multiple entries of the same ship. It feels like there's an array that got loaded up by the DB query that isn't getting resized down when its squished by filtering out the ground unit commands. If I sort in different ways (using the radio buttons e.g. location or type) it doesn't fix the problem. Note that this is an NPR (and I've got my player race set to default), so it's also conceivable that there's a query using an incorrect race ID floating around. The workaround is to leave the view with ground units off and come back.The previous view was being overwritten, rather than removed, so you still could see last few records of the older information if the new list was shorter. Fixed for v2.5
Quote
BTW, while you're in there, could you do an alphabetized sub-sort on the results in the "commands" screen (and vacancies too)? I think that's one of the reasons I have trouble finding things on this screen.You can now also sort by Assignment Name and Required Rank. For Type, Location and Required Rank, the resulting list is also sub-sorted by assignment name.
Also, the "Rank" column should maybe sort on required rank, rather than commander rank.
Quote
Finally, staff assignments don't show up in this view.
I have added staff assignments to the view
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 23, 2007, 10:54:12 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
It looks like staff positions are stomping the PlanetaryLocationID field in the Commander database with a "0" - it looks like the commander isn't being put back on a planet when he leaves the staff. This is showing up as commanders not being available to form teams from the Personnel tab of the F2 screen - they're invisible from the point of view of the "Team Type" pull-down. The workaround is to use the F4 screen to change the commanders location to the planet on which you're trying to form the team.
Fixed for v2.5
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on December 23, 2007, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
I missed this one.
The fighter group button in the fighter/missiles tab of the ships screen (F6) doesn't appear to function.
At the moment it is set to open the Strikegroup window with the currently selected squadron in view. If you press the button without selecting a squadron, nothing will happen. I have changed it for v2.5 so that if no squadron is selected, it opens the window anyway and selects the first squadron in the list.
Steve
Post by: Charlie Beeler on December 26, 2007, 08:29:16 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"I missed this one.At the moment it is set to open the Strikegroup window with the currently selected squadron in view. If you press the button without selecting a squadron, nothing will happen. I have changed it for v2.5 so that if no squadron is selected, it opens the window anyway and selects the first squadron in the list.
The fighter group button in the fighter/missiles tab of the ships screen (F6) doesn't appear to function.
Steve
[slaps forehead] That's way too logical! (mumbles able selecting the squadron that you wish to look at.....)
Thanks for the change. Us Murphy's apprciate it.
Any idea's on the movement errors?
Charlie