Author Topic: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread  (Read 25085 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #315 on: February 02, 2010, 04:13:22 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Do they have the same star type for the primary?

No, one has a single M1-V, the other is a double star system, a K2-V and a M1-V


Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
are the system ID numbers the same?

No, the first is ID245, the second system the ID 81

I also got the following error messages about this time, but looks like some race didn't get created?

[attachment=0:1kh79n20]Error 3075.jpg[/attachment:1kh79n20]

Regards
IanD
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #316 on: February 04, 2010, 12:44:05 PM »
Quote from: "IanD"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Do they have the same star type for the primary?

No, one has a single M1-V, the other is a double star system, a K2-V and a M1-V


Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
are the system ID numbers the same?

No, the first is ID245, the second system the ID 81

I also got the following error messages about this time, but looks like some race didn't get created?

[attachment=0:zyx6pn4e]Error 3075.jpg[/attachment:zyx6pn4e]

Regards
The second set of errors is probably caused by the apostophe in the system name. Try renaming it

Steve
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #317 on: February 10, 2010, 03:31:40 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The second set of errors is probably caused by the apostophe in the system name. Try renaming it

Steve
I can not rename it it appears to be an NPR race name and not a system name, just seen the same error in 4.91
Regards
IanD
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #318 on: February 10, 2010, 08:02:52 PM »
Quote from: "IanD"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The second set of errors is probably caused by the apostophe in the system name. Try renaming it

Steve
I can not rename it it appears to be an NPR race name and not a system name, just seen the same error in 4.91
Regards
If you can open up the database, all the current system names are held in the RaceSysSurvey table. You could check for a blank one or one with an apostrophe and correct it. Or if this was a one-off problem, you could probably ignore it. I'll go through the DB again and check for apostrophes. I could swear I had killed them all off :)

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #319 on: April 04, 2010, 08:21:05 AM »
Steve -

This is a minor but annoying 4.77 bug, but I think it is probebly still a problem in more recent versions.  I'm building fighters on Mars, for the newly created 2nd Carrier Strike Group.  I created a holding group for the new fighters, "New Fighters, Mars", and on the economic screen, Industry tab, I assigned the newly built fighters to the holding fleet.  No problems so far.  

The problem started when I began creating fighter squadrons on the Fighter Squadron screen.  I created two new fighter squadrons and assigned the fighters in the holding group to the squadrons, then assigned the squadrons to a carrier and hit the "recover" button to land the fighters on their new carrier.  So far so good.  

That was when I discovered the problem.  One of the commands in the chain above deleted the holding fleet when the last fighter was transferred out.  The problem was that there were more fighters being built on Mars that were supposed to be assigned to that holding group.  I created a new holding group with the same name, butAurora doesn't think it is the same group.  Now the newly constructed fighters had no where to go, and disappeared into limbo when the next economic turn was processed.  

This could be resolved by changing things so that the holding group wasn't automatically deleted when the last fighter was transferred out.  

Kurt
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #320 on: April 04, 2010, 10:02:44 AM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -

This is a minor but annoying 4.77 bug, but I think it is probebly still a problem in more recent versions.  I'm building fighters on Mars, for the newly created 2nd Carrier Strike Group.  I created a holding group for the new fighters, "New Fighters, Mars", and on the economic screen, Industry tab, I assigned the newly built fighters to the holding fleet.  No problems so far.  

The problem started when I began creating fighter squadrons on the Fighter Squadron screen.  I created two new fighter squadrons and assigned the fighters in the holding group to the squadrons, then assigned the squadrons to a carrier and hit the "recover" button to land the fighters on their new carrier.  So far so good.  

That was when I discovered the problem.  One of the commands in the chain above deleted the holding fleet when the last fighter was transferred out.  The problem was that there were more fighters being built on Mars that were supposed to be assigned to that holding group.  I created a new holding group with the same name, butAurora doesn't think it is the same group.  Now the newly constructed fighters had no where to go, and disappeared into limbo when the next economic turn was processed.  

This could be resolved by changing things so that the holding group wasn't automatically deleted when the last fighter was transferred out.  
I have added a check for fighter destination fleets to the Empty Fleet deletion code. In the meantime, you can get around the problem by reassigning the fighter destination fleet on the Industry tab of the F2 window. The missing fighters will still exist but will be assigned to a non-existent fleet. You can get them back by going into the Ship table in the DB and changing their FleetID.

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #321 on: November 28, 2010, 11:18:02 AM »
I'm having a problem in version 4.77.  This may be an actual bug, or it may simply be something I'm missing.  The situation is as follows:

Fleet "A" consists of fifteen cruiser sized missile ships and thirty two missile defense escorts.  The commander of fleet A had reason to believe that his fleet would soon come under sustained missile attack, and also suspected that the attack would be heavy to overwhelming.  Therefore the commander divided up his fleet as follows:

Central Group: This is the main group, with fifteen cruiser and three escorts.  This group has orders to maintain the range to the enemy fleet, which has a speed advantage of approximately 600 kps;
Anti-Missile Group #1: Eighteen escorts.  This group is stationed in direct line to the enemy fleet, two mkm's astern of the central group;
AM Group #2: Eleven escorts.  This group is stationed four mkm's astern of the main fleet;

The escorts are equipped with three twin 12cm laser turrets with a ROF of five seconds and a range of 240,000 kilometers, and ten AM launchers with a cycle time of 10 seconds and a maximum range of 2.5 mkm's.  The cruisers have three triple 35cm laser turrets with a ROF of 35 seconds and a range of 320,000 kilometers, and ten AM launchers with a cycle time of 10 seconds and a max range of 1.1 mkm's. 

Under this deployment scheme the incoming missile salvoes could be engaged beginning at 6 mkm's, all the way to impact on the main group.  The fleet commander also waited to detach his escorts until he was fairly sure that the enemy had already launched, to avoid having the enemy target the detached escorts rather than the cruisers. 

This deployment scheme worked well, but wasn't all I had hoped it would be. I had set the two detached escort group's AM firecon's to 1v1 targeting, in the hopes that they would thin out the incoming missile salvoes, which would be thinned out even more by the escort's lasers before being eliminated by the central group’s AM defenses.  Unfortunately, I realized that my concept wouldn’t work as given the way Aurora works the outermost escort group would keep launching against the incoming missile salvoes until they were destroyed, and would eventually run out of missiles, even on 1v1 targeting. 

What I wanted was for the outermost group to launch against an incoming salvo once, then engage the survivors with lasers, leaving the remainder for the next group of escorts.  That was unworkable under the current targeting orders, after dealing with the first two missile salvoes I decided to change things up.  I cancelled the outermost group’s AM targeting, leaving their laser targeting orders intact.  The inner group of escorts retained its AM targeting orders.  With these changes I hoped to have the outermost group engage and thin the incoming missile salvoes with its lasers, after which the inner group would finish off the incoming missiles with their anti-missile missiles. 

Here is where the problem arose.  After removing the 1v1 AMM targeting orders for the outermost group all firing ceased.  The next wave of missiles sailed right by the outmost group without being engaged by its lasers, and is now within the missile engagement range of the inner group, which has not launched against them.  I have triple checked the firing orders of all three groups and the two outer groups should be engaging the missiles that are within range. 

I don’t know if I have revealed a bug, or if I’m missing something easy.  There are two groups of incoming missiles within range of the inner escort group’s AMM’s, and one within range of the outer group’s lasers, and none are being engaged.  I suspect there is something within the point defense targeting orders that became “broken” when I cancelled the outer group’s 1v1 AMM engagement orders. 

Help!
 

Offline ZimRathbone

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 408
  • Thanked: 30 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #322 on: November 29, 2010, 03:48:18 AM »
I don't think you're missing something - IIRC I had  a number of similar problems in a pre 5.02 game (may have been 4.77, may have been earlier).  Basically I think there was an error in the way that the defensive fire was allocated if you changed settings mid combat.  There was also a few problems with autofire conflicting and making defensive weapons act like offensive weapons and vice versa - I eventually abandoned automatic fire entirely as a result, but still occasionally (at 5.20) have unexpected results using escort groups - like you I'm not yet entirely sure that its a bug and not a case of PEBKAC but I'm edging towards the arachnid side. ;)
Slàinte,

Mike
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #323 on: November 29, 2010, 11:53:46 AM »
I'm having a problem in version 4.77.  This may be an actual bug, or it may simply be something I'm missing.  The situation is as follows:

Fleet "A" consists of fifteen cruiser sized missile ships and thirty two missile defense escorts.  The commander of fleet A had reason to believe that his fleet would soon come under sustained missile attack, and also suspected that the attack would be heavy to overwhelming.  Therefore the commander divided up his fleet as follows:

Central Group: This is the main group, with fifteen cruiser and three escorts.  This group has orders to maintain the range to the enemy fleet, which has a speed advantage of approximately 600 kps;
Anti-Missile Group #1: Eighteen escorts.  This group is stationed in direct line to the enemy fleet, two mkm's astern of the central group;
AM Group #2: Eleven escorts.  This group is stationed four mkm's astern of the main fleet;

The escorts are equipped with three twin 12cm laser turrets with a ROF of five seconds and a range of 240,000 kilometers, and ten AM launchers with a cycle time of 10 seconds and a maximum range of 2.5 mkm's.  The cruisers have three triple 35cm laser turrets with a ROF of 35 seconds and a range of 320,000 kilometers, and ten AM launchers with a cycle time of 10 seconds and a max range of 1.1 mkm's. 

Under this deployment scheme the incoming missile salvoes could be engaged beginning at 6 mkm's, all the way to impact on the main group.  The fleet commander also waited to detach his escorts until he was fairly sure that the enemy had already launched, to avoid having the enemy target the detached escorts rather than the cruisers. 

This deployment scheme worked well, but wasn't all I had hoped it would be. I had set the two detached escort group's AM firecon's to 1v1 targeting, in the hopes that they would thin out the incoming missile salvoes, which would be thinned out even more by the escort's lasers before being eliminated by the central group’s AM defenses.  Unfortunately, I realized that my concept wouldn’t work as given the way Aurora works the outermost escort group would keep launching against the incoming missile salvoes until they were destroyed, and would eventually run out of missiles, even on 1v1 targeting. 

What I wanted was for the outermost group to launch against an incoming salvo once, then engage the survivors with lasers, leaving the remainder for the next group of escorts.  That was unworkable under the current targeting orders, after dealing with the first two missile salvoes I decided to change things up.  I cancelled the outermost group’s AM targeting, leaving their laser targeting orders intact.  The inner group of escorts retained its AM targeting orders.  With these changes I hoped to have the outermost group engage and thin the incoming missile salvoes with its lasers, after which the inner group would finish off the incoming missiles with their anti-missile missiles. 

Here is where the problem arose.  After removing the 1v1 AMM targeting orders for the outermost group all firing ceased.  The next wave of missiles sailed right by the outmost group without being engaged by its lasers, and is now within the missile engagement range of the inner group, which has not launched against them.  I have triple checked the firing orders of all three groups and the two outer groups should be engaging the missiles that are within range. 

I don’t know if I have revealed a bug, or if I’m missing something easy.  There are two groups of incoming missiles within range of the inner escort group’s AMM’s, and one within range of the outer group’s lasers, and none are being engaged.  I suspect there is something within the point defense targeting orders that became “broken” when I cancelled the outer group’s 1v1 AMM engagement orders. 

Help!
I am not sure what is happening here. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the v4.77 code so I can't look it up. My immediate reaction would be to cancel all orders and start again. Or if you have a DB backup, load from that point. Were the lasers (in area mode I assume) engaging correctly until you cancelled the AM Orders or had the lasers never fired?

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Official v4.7 Bugs Thread
« Reply #324 on: November 29, 2010, 10:43:42 PM »
I am not sure what is happening here. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the v4.77 code so I can't look it up. My immediate reaction would be to cancel all orders and start again. Or if you have a DB backup, load from that point. Were the lasers (in area mode I assume) engaging correctly until you cancelled the AM Orders or had the lasers never fired?

Steve

Okay, I tried cancelling all firing orders and targeting assignments, advanced the time five seconds, then re-established all firing orders.  The ships in the outermost escort group began launching missiles as they had before, because I had mistakenly re-established their original orders, not the altered orders, but none of the other ships have engaged. 

And no, the lasers from the outermost group hadn't engaged, which is strange, because I have had situations where leakers got past the AMM's and were stopped by the lasers.  I wonder if it is something specific to these designs?  I'll check them out. 

Kurt