Author Topic: Bugs report  (Read 4856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #120 on: March 21, 2020, 10:17:58 AM »
I think Steve explained that this is indeed not a bug but how its suppose to work. If you have a tanker on 20% and another at say 50% and try to load the 50% from the 20% it will only take the 20% down to 10%, if you issue that same order again it will take it down to 1%. That is at least how i understood Steve's explanation, and that would also explain why your test with two at 10% would end up with 1% and 19%.


Are you saying that a tanker that is 20% full, when given the order "Unload 90% fuel," is stopping at 10% full (and therefore only unloading 50% fuel) instead of stopping at 2% full (which would be the 90% fuel ordered)?

Unload 90% should unload 90% of remaining fuel. So if you start at 100% and issue the order twice, you will have 1% left.

Maybe i'm explaining myself pretty poorly here. I'm not a all talking about the command "Unload 90% fuel". I'm talking about the "Refuel from target fleet" Command.

If used between two tankers, that command does not take all the fuel from the tanker that is giving away the fuel.

So Tanker A has 30% fuel
Tanker B has 50% fuel
they both have a capacity of 10.000.000

Tanker B is given order to Refuel from target fleet (tanker A)
This will not take Tanker B to 80% And leave tanker A with 0 Fuel.

It will leave Tanker A with 3% = 300.000
And Tanker B with 77% = 7.700.000

I think this is because it will leave 10% of the original fuel in tanker A in this case 10% of 3.000.000 = 300.000

This may or may not be intentional.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Thanked: 108 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #121 on: March 21, 2020, 11:24:13 AM »
I think Steve explained that this is indeed not a bug but how its suppose to work. If you have a tanker on 20% and another at say 50% and try to load the 50% from the 20% it will only take the 20% down to 10%, if you issue that same order again it will take it down to 1%. That is at least how i understood Steve's explanation, and that would also explain why your test with two at 10% would end up with 1% and 19%.

I think this is the statement you made that is confusing everybody else, and I think you misspoke.  10% of 20% is 2% (as you just said in your most recent post).  In the post quoted above, you said "it will only take the 20% down to 10%".  I think you meant to say "it will only take the 20% down to 10% of 20% which is 2%" or, more succinctly, "it will only take the 20% down to 2%".  Is that correct, or did you really mean to say 10%?  If you did, then I think it would help to explain why you think it would be 10% rather than 2%.

As far as I can tell from the thread, both Kyle (in Quasar) and Steve (in Aurora) have said that that (2%) is the way it is working now, so everything is WAI.

John
« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 11:28:01 AM by sloanjh »
 
The following users thanked this post: Gram123

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #122 on: March 21, 2020, 11:24:39 AM »
https://imgur.com/a/L3BaJIn

It seems there is still something wrong with the reserve function in the "mining & maintenance" window. In the screenshot above the reserve level for duranium is set to 25000 and stockpile is 29982. It should be sending off Duranium with the mass driver, but it doesn't. Unless it started counting in the "projected usage", i'm pretty sure Aurora don't but i think that would be an improvement.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kyle

Offline Kyle

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 479 times
  • Quasar4x dev
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #123 on: March 21, 2020, 04:07:55 PM »
https://imgur.com/a/drp6SsX

Hmm here is a case. I Accidentally absorbent my Earth Shipyard taskgroup into another task group, which in it self is a little annoying as all my shipyards loses their default taskgroup. Additional there is a bug that shipyards that are currently building to the taskgroup that does not exist anymore and at the same time are adding a slipway doesn't recognize that the task group they are trying to build into does not exist. The Shipyard task doesn't exist anymore but the slipways are still in use.

Fixed: Shipbuilding Tasks weren't showing in the UI if their fleet didn't exist
Fixed: Shipbuilding Tasks weren't completing if their fleet didn't exist
When a Shipbuilding Task completes it will now check to make sure the fleet is still in the same location as the Shipyard and belongs to the same race.  If not, a new Shipyard TG will be created and all tasks and shipyards pointing to the problematic fleet will be re-pointed to the new TG.  If a "Shipyard TG" fleet is found at the shipyard's location, that will be used instead of creating a new one.


Additional the "delete Shipyard" Bottom in the Modify SY (spacemaster only) on the Manage shipyard screen doesn't do anything.

Fixed


https://imgur.com/a/L3BaJIn

It seems there is still something wrong with the reserve function in the "mining & maintenance" window. In the screenshot above the reserve level for duranium is set to 25000 and stockpile is 29982. It should be sending off Duranium with the mass driver, but it doesn't. Unless it started counting in the "projected usage", i'm pretty sure Aurora don't but i think that would be an improvement.

This issue might be fixed now.  Meaning, I saw *a* problem and fixed it, but did not have time to test beyond making sure it doesn't crash.


These fixes will appear in Version 101, which I am pushing along with a new Progress Update momentarily.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue, Gram123

Offline kyonkundenwa

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • k
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #124 on: March 21, 2020, 11:05:53 PM »
These are for v100.

The Jump Gate Construction default order doesn't check for other gate constructors, leading to multiple vessels potentially getting assigned to build the same gate. The ideal behavior would be to mimic the survey order such that gate constructors don't get assigned to construct a gate if another vessel is assigned (even if it hasn't started construction yet).

This is a repeat of a previous report, which I can reliably reproduce. The Jump Gate Construction default order behaves oddly when queuing out-of-system jobs. When a constructor (without a jump drive, haven't tested if this matters or not) in system A has no in-system jobs left, if it has good 2-way gate connections to system B (which still has some un-built gates) it will queue up a gate in B, interrupt and report that the job is out of the system and that all orders were rescinded, but not rescind the move orders nor the default order. I don't remember how this worked in Aurora.
I think the ideal behavior to maximize the utility of the default order would be as it is, but with the message changed to a simple report that it's going out-of-system. However, I can see the argument for the current report and rescinding the orders+deleting the default order as the current message implies should happen.

This is more of a feature request, but if you learn a tech from an archaeology site and it's currently being researched or in the queue it would be really nice if those would get cancelled instead of letting me waste RP on them if I miss the report in the event log.

While the game lets you recover (via archaeology) non-racial ship components (like Advanced Cargo Handling System) above your tech level, you can't use them until you research the associated technology (or if you can, I can't figure out how). High-tech racial components like jump drives and engines work fine (by deselecting "own tech only" as expected).

I just recovered a stack of "command modules" via archaeology, I don't think these exist in Aurora 7.1 and I can't use them in the class design. I want to say these were a fighter or FAC "bridge" from a really old version (2010 timeframe).

Archaeology sites can create ship components that shouldn't exist, presumably because the tech level is too low. JC0K jump drives (0 tons allowed), Null PB-1 reactors (0 power), 0 EP Null engines, etc. I've seen it on TL0 and TL1 archaeology sites thus far.

It's nice to see some asteroids again. However, I just generated a system which has a belt of huge asteroids, many 8-9000 diameter, which gives a lot of them enough gravity to be colonized with regular infrastructure or terraformed. Is the generation of planet-sized "asteroids" intentional?

Lagrange Points often get generated in nonsensical places. As an example, this secondary star has two super-jovians which I assume are the reason for these two LPs, but they're not on the super-jovian orbits as they should be. https://i.imgur.com/b93xDy9.png
As a logical feature extension but a deviation from Aurora, you might consider applying LP-generation rules to secondary/etc stars in addition to just super-jovians; there are a couple scenarios involving ultra-distant secondaries/etc where having LPs on the orbiting stars would be welcome.

Assigning a leader to "unassigned" resets your search parameters, which can be annoying if you're micromanaging commanders.

Planetary hydrosphere status doesn't update with temperature, nor is there the associated albedo change. It's possible that this just isn't implemented yet but I'm "reporting" it because the (non-spacemaster) system view window otherwise seems pretty complete.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 09:29:56 AM by kyonkundenwa »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kyle, Gram123

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #125 on: March 22, 2020, 09:49:54 AM »
The disband team in Teams & Academy screen doesn't seems to do anything. Edit: This seems to only be a problem if you have two teams in the same location

There are no notification when transferring into a unexplored jump point and it leads to an already know system.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 02:33:37 PM by Gram123 »
 

Offline Kyle

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 479 times
  • Quasar4x dev
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #126 on: March 22, 2020, 04:24:55 PM »
The Jump Gate Construction default order doesn't check for other gate constructors, leading to multiple vessels potentially getting assigned to build the same gate. The ideal behavior would be to mimic the survey order such that gate constructors don't get assigned to construct a gate if another vessel is assigned (even if it hasn't started construction yet).

Fixed


This is a repeat of a previous report, which I can reliably reproduce. The Jump Gate Construction default order behaves oddly when queuing out-of-system jobs. When a constructor (without a jump drive, haven't tested if this matters or not) in system A has no in-system jobs left, if it has good 2-way gate connections to system B (which still has some un-built gates) it will queue up a gate in B, interrupt and report that the job is out of the system and that all orders were rescinded, but not rescind the move orders nor the default order. I don't remember how this worked in Aurora.
I think the ideal behavior to maximize the utility of the default order would be as it is, but with the message changed to a simple report that it's going out-of-system. However, I can see the argument for the current report and rescinding the orders+deleting the default order as the current message implies should happen.

I'll have to make a note of this and check how this works in Aurora later, unless someone can save me some time and send me an Aurora save with the testing scenario already prepared.


This is more of a feature request, but if you learn a tech from an archaeology site and it's currently being researched or in the queue it would be really nice if those would get cancelled instead of letting me waste RP on them if I miss the report in the event log.

Agreed, but saving this until later because testing this isn't trivial, and I'd kind of like to know precisely what Aurora does in this situation.


While the game lets you recover (via archaeology) non-racial ship components (like Advanced Cargo Handling System) above your tech level, you can't use them until you research the associated technology (or if you can, I can't figure out how). High-tech racial components like jump drives and engines work fine (by deselecting "own tech only" as expected).

Added to my list for after AI things.  For now I guess consider this incomplete.


I just recovered a stack of "command modules" via archaeology, I don't think these exist in Aurora 7.1 and I can't use them in the class design. I want to say these were a fighter or FAC "bridge" from a really old version (2010 timeframe).

Removed from possible outcomes.


Archaeology sites can create ship components that shouldn't exist, presumably because the tech level is too low. JC0K jump drives (0 tons allowed), Null PB-1 reactors (0 power), 0 EP Null engines, etc. I've seen it on TL0 and TL1 archaeology sites thus far.

Fixed.  Tech Level was sometimes being incorrectly generated as 0 or even negative numbers, it's not supposed to go below 1.  This is going to mess up your game a bit, because existing ruin races in your game have bad tech levels, and nearby ruins tend to have the same race.  Let me know if it's important to get your save fixed.  Or you can just RP that the components are useless as the race never made it past steam tech :)


It's nice to see some asteroids again. However, I just generated a system which has a belt of huge asteroids, many 8-9000 diameter, which gives a lot of them enough gravity to be colonized with regular infrastructure or terraformed. Is the generation of planet-sized "asteroids" intentional?

Yikes, not at all.  This is fixed.  Also improved the display of very small mass numbers.


Lagrange Points often get generated in nonsensical places. As an example, this secondary star has two super-jovians which I assume are the reason for these two LPs, but they're not on the super-jovian orbits as they should be. https://i.imgur.com/b93xDy9.png
As a logical feature extension but a deviation from Aurora, you might consider applying LP-generation rules to secondary/etc stars in addition to just super-jovians; there are a couple scenarios involving ultra-distant secondaries/etc where having LPs on the orbiting stars would be welcome.

I'm unable to reproduce this.  Even with giants orbiting secondary or tertiary stars, LPs appear in appropriate spots.  If you want to send me a save file I may be able to deduce what criteria caused this to happen.


Assigning a leader to "unassigned" resets your search parameters, which can be annoying if you're micromanaging commanders.

Fixed.


Planetary hydrosphere status doesn't update with temperature, nor is there the associated albedo change. It's possible that this just isn't implemented yet but I'm "reporting" it because the (non-spacemaster) system view window otherwise seems pretty complete.

Yep, post-generation changes in system body characteristics beyond basic greenhouse effects is actually next on my list.


The disband team in Teams & Academy screen doesn't seems to do anything. Edit: This seems to only be a problem if you have two teams in the same location

Can't reproduce, even with multiple teams at a colony.  It's possible you didn't have a team selected.  Should be an easy fix if I can take a look at the file where this is happening.


There are no notification when transferring into a unexplored jump point and it leads to an already know system.

Need an example of what Aurora says when this happens


I've pushed Version 102 so I can get the fixes to race tech level and asteroid sizes out asap.
 

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #127 on: March 23, 2020, 06:28:54 AM »


The disband team in Teams & Academy screen doesn't seems to do anything. Edit: This seems to only be a problem if you have two teams in the same location

Can't reproduce, even with multiple teams at a colony.  It's possible you didn't have a team selected.  Should be an easy fix if I can take a look at the file where this is happening.


Hmm I can reproduce. I reproduced in this save on Kristina-A-II. I have two team, cant disband James Roberts team. I noticed that it doesn't hold any members, maybe it releases the teammembers but don't remove the team? It seems it autosolve when one of the team completes the Planetary survey.


There are no notification when transferring into a unexplored jump point and it leads to an already know system.

Need an example of what Aurora says when this happens


Can't remember the exact thing Aurora say. Something like "Navigating the jump point leads to the excisting system of X."
 

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #128 on: March 23, 2020, 10:09:32 AM »
You sure about the mineral generation on asteroids? I think there is unusual few minerals on the asteroids I find outside the Sol-system. I think they should have more frequent but less minerals than created for planets
 

Offline Kyle

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 479 times
  • Quasar4x dev
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #129 on: March 23, 2020, 01:39:48 PM »
You sure about the mineral generation on asteroids? I think there is unusual few minerals on the asteroids I find outside the Sol-system. I think they should have more frequent but less minerals than created for planets

Relatively sure.  Steve was kind enough to give me very detailed information on mineral generation awhile ago.  Density has the biggest impact on chance of finding minerals.  0.7 density is Mars density, getting much below that is going to be pretty sparse.  I generated 4 systems and got 124 asteroids at 1.3 density each, 22 of which had minerals, which sounds about right iirc.  Low diameter and low system abundance modifier (can only see this in database) can also reduce chance of minerals found to a lesser extent.  Planets, especially those in the livable zone, will tend to have a higher chance of minerals than asteroids of the same density in the same system.  If you've only seen a couple new systems since version 102, keep looking.  Or try generating a dozen or so systems on a throwaway game to see if you find better results.  I'm always open to reviewing detailed analyses comparing to Aurora 7 as well.
 
The following users thanked this post: Gram123

Offline Kyle

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 479 times
  • Quasar4x dev
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #130 on: March 23, 2020, 04:23:30 PM »
Version 104 is up with some improvements and fixes primarily related to unresearched ruin components.

This is more of a feature request, but if you learn a tech from an archaeology site and it's currently being researched or in the queue it would be really nice if those would get cancelled instead of letting me waste RP on them if I miss the report in the event log.
Agreed, but saving this until later because testing this isn't trivial, and I'd kind of like to know precisely what Aurora does in this situation.

I've reworked all research to route through a single function which, among the usual things, will clear out partially researched tech, currently researching tech, and queued research, across all pops, any time a new tech is learned via archaeology, normal research, SM, and so on.  When currently researching tech is cleared, the scientist will of course start on the next project in their queue or you'll start getting inactive lab alerts.  This takes care of housework an AI would otherwise have to do anyway.  And it needed to be done for scrapping ships for tech and gaining tech from wrecks, which I plan to do in the next update or so.


While the game lets you recover (via archaeology) non-racial ship components (like Advanced Cargo Handling System) above your tech level, you can't use them until you research the associated technology (or if you can, I can't figure out how). High-tech racial components like jump drives and engines work fine (by deselecting "own tech only" as expected).

Fixed


The disband team in Teams & Academy screen doesn't seems to do anything. Edit: This seems to only be a problem if you have two teams in the same location
Can't reproduce, even with multiple teams at a colony.  It's possible you didn't have a team selected.  Should be an easy fix if I can take a look at the file where this is happening.
Hmm I can reproduce. I reproduced in this save on Kristina-A-II. I have two team, cant disband James Roberts team. I noticed that it doesn't hold any members, maybe it releases the teammembers but don't remove the team? It seems it autosolve when one of the team completes the Planetary survey.

Fixed


Also added:
- F2 > Disassemble Component
- prevent construction of and refit to ships with unresearched tech if you dont have enough components
« Last Edit: March 23, 2020, 04:27:59 PM by Kyle »
 
The following users thanked this post: Gram123

Offline Gram123

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #131 on: March 24, 2020, 07:37:24 AM »
There is something with naming of asteroids.

Here is a screenshot of two asteroids in a system renamed from Manchester to Strib, long time ago. Anyplace in the game the renaming has taken place, but in the orderscreen they still have their old name..

https://imgur.com/a/RqLEVRz
 
The following users thanked this post: Kyle

Offline Kyle

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 479 times
  • Quasar4x dev
Re: Bugs report
« Reply #132 on: March 24, 2020, 11:07:04 AM »
There is something with naming of asteroids.

Here is a screenshot of two asteroids in a system renamed from Manchester to Strib, long time ago. Anyplace in the game the renaming has taken place, but in the orderscreen they still have their old name..

https://imgur.com/a/RqLEVRz

Fixed for version 105+
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55