v1.9.5 Bugs Thread

[Demakustus]

The technology line for maintenance facilities production rate has wrong names.
The basic production rate seems to be 80 MSP per facility. But the first tech says: "Maintenance Production Rate 24 MSP".
The ratios seem correct (20% increase), it's only a matter of the technology description.

[skoormit]

The technology line for maintenance facilities production rate has wrong names.
The basic production rate seems to be 80 MSP per facility. But the first tech says: "Maintenance Production Rate 24 MSP".
The ratios seem correct (20% increase), it's only a matter of the technology description.

I think the number refers to the cost per year of the MSP produced, not the number of MSP.
Each MSP costs 0.25 wealth (and mins).
So, the base rate is 20 (80 * 0.25), and the first tech is 24.

[ydirbut]

The function number: N/A
The complete error text: N/A
Game started in 1. 9. 0, but has since been updated to 1. 9. 5

The window affected: Naval Organization

What you were doing at the time:

Conventional or TN start: TN

Random or Real Stars: Real

Is your decimal separator a comma?: No

Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Easy to Reproduce

If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: ~50 Years


If you order a fleet to absorb another fleet and then move somewhere, the absorbing fleet will cancel its movement order at the end of the increment.

[ydirbut]

   
   The function number: N/A
   The complete error text: N/A
   
   The window affected: Naval Organization
   
   What you were doing at the time:
   
   Conventional or TN start: TN
   
   Random or Real Stars: Real
   
   Is your decimal separator a comma?: No
   
   Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Easy to Reproduce
   
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: ~50 Years

You can transfer more ground units than exist in formation to another (i. e.  if you have ten infantry in formation A, you can transfer 20 from to formation B, resulting in formation B having 20 infantry and Formation A having negative ten).  Screenshot attached.

[ydirbut]

   
   
   The function number: N/A
   The complete error text: N/A
   
   The window affected: Naval Organization
   
   What you were doing at the time:
   
   Conventional or TN start: TN
   
   Random or Real Stars: Real
   
   Is your decimal separator a comma?: No
   
   Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Easy to Reproduce
   
   If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: ~50 Years


FFD components don't seem to have any affect on artillery, contra what Steve said in hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=8495. msg105824#msg105824.  I am about to launch an assault on an NPR homeworld.  Each Corps has a division with FFD in it and and division without.  I ran a short experiment and setting the artillery to support one formation rather than another doesn't make a difference in how much damage they do.  (Fleet is Assault Fleet in Altair system if you want to test.  First division in each corps should be the only one with FFD)

[Kelewan]

The function number N/A
The complete error text N/A
The window affected Main Window, Singapore System
What you were doing at the time Point Defence with reduced chance-to-hit twin guas-turrets
Conventional or TN start TN
Random or Real Stars Random
Is your decimal separator a comma? dot
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? easy with the db
If this is a long campaign Year 8

There was a forum thread  suggesting that more weapons with reduced size
would be more effective as PD than fewer normal sized.
So i build a 0.6 HS (10% chance to hit)  gauss cannon and build twin turrets with an TS of 16000 km/s

My Napoleon failed to hit any of the alien missiles (35,200 km/s )

I know that the chance to hit is low, but event log indicates that it is still 1%.
As i did not safe at this point, I recreated this with SM created/moved ships.

10 ships fire each 180 shots at 7 missile salvos = 126000 shots and hit 0

- So either the chance to hit is much lower and the event log is showing the wrong number,
- there is a bug (rounding error)
- or my fleet is very very ..... very unlucky

AuroraDB-test-low-to-hit-1 .db is a few seconds before the first impact,
AuroraDB-test-low-to-hit-2 .db after 7 salvos engaged

Confirmed
 

[Kelewan]

Failed to upload 2 dbs

here is the second db

[ydirbut]

   
   
   The function number: N/A
   The complete error text: N/A
   
   The window affected: Naval Organization
   
   What you were doing at the time:
   
   Conventional or TN start: TN
   
   Random or Real Stars: Real
   
   Is your decimal separator a comma?: No
   
   Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Easy to Reproduce
   
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: ~50 Years

NPRs (and possibly you as well) will create CMCs on worlds that you already have colonies (including possibly forces on).  I've attached a DB file where this has just happened.  Notice that the CMCs will spawn with there normal garrison, allowing them to take over unprotected colonies if you are at war.

[Demakustus]

The function number - #1821
The complete error text - 1.9.5 Function #1821: Attempt to divide by zero.
The window affected - n/a
What you were doing at the time - Fighting ground combat
Conventional or TN start - Conventional
Random or Real Stars - Real Stars
Is your decimal separator a comma? - No
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - Easy
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - 17 years

A formation without any units causes a divide by zero error during ground combat. To make such an empty formation, manually move all elements to different formations.
Attached is a DB, that has this happen during the next ground combat. The image shows where the empty formation is.
Empty formations can actually be useful, you can put spare elements in them, or reorganize your forces. An option to create from scratch them would be welcome.

[Iceranger]

The function number N/A
The complete error text N/A
The window affected Main Window, Singapore System
What you were doing at the time Point Defence with reduced chance-to-hit twin guas-turrets
Conventional or TN start TN
Random or Real Stars Random
Is your decimal separator a comma? dot
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? easy with the db
If this is a long campaign Year 8

There was a forum thread  suggesting that more weapons with reduced size
would be more effective as PD than fewer normal sized.
So i build a 0.6 HS (10% chance to hit)  gauss cannon and build twin turrets with an TS of 16000 km/s

My Napoleon failed to hit any of the alien missiles (35,200 km/s )

I know that the chance to hit is low, but event log indicates that it is still 1%.
As i did not safe at this point, I recreated this with SM created/moved ships.

10 ships fire each 180 shots at 7 missile salvos = 126000 shots and hit 0

- So either the chance to hit is much lower and the event log is showing the wrong number,
- there is a bug (rounding error)
- or my fleet is very very ..... very unlucky

AuroraDB-test-low-to-hit-1 .db is a few seconds before the first impact,
AuroraDB-test-low-to-hit-2 .db after 7 salvos engaged

I setup some scenarios to replicate your bug in the bug thread, and I think I figure out what went wrong.

In short, if the final hit chance is between 0.5% and 1%, the display will round it to 1, but the actual hit chance will be rounded down to 0. If the final hit chance is slightly higher than 1%, it seem to be working as expected.

My setup: incoming missiles at 100kkm/s, turret tracking speed 40kkm/s, missiles have ECM 6, BFC has ECCM 2, BFC 10kkm accuracy 98%, 10% size gauss

Test 1: Active range against 6MSP is 14,419,238 km, the missiles can traverse this distance in less than 29 ticks, so the final tracking bonus is 28%. In this case, hit chance can be calculated as:

Code: [Select]

( (40000*1.28/100000)*0.98 - (0.6-0.2) ) * 0.1 * 100% = ( 0.50176 - 0.4 ) * 10% = 1.0176%
The displayed interception chance is 1%. The interception used 16650 shots out of 18000 available shots to intercept 180 incoming missiles, which gives an accuracy of 1.081%

Test 2: Active range against 6MSP is 13,894,726 km, the missiles will spend less than 28 ticks in this range, so the final tracking bonus is 27%. In this case, hit chance can be calculated as:

Code: [Select]

( (40000*1.27/100000)*0.98 - (0.6-0.2) ) * 0.1 * 100% = ( 0.49784 - 0.4 ) * 10% = 0.9784%
The displayed interception chance is still 1%, however the interception hits 0 out of 18000 available shots.

Attached is the DB for the above setups:
The attacking side is the Earth Federation on Earth. 10 missile destroyers have been setup in the Battle Fleet to fire 30x 6-missile salvos.
The defending side is the Martian Republic on Mars. 10 PD ships of the Gauss 10 PD class are setup for final PD with the proper PD settings. 2 long range AMM sensors are available. For test 1, nothing needs to be adjusted. For test 2, turn off the active sensor on Gauss 10 PD 001.

While I still have the setup around, I tested a bit more.

Same setup: incoming missiles at 100kkm/s, turret tracking speed 40kkm/s, missiles have ECM 6, BFC 10kkm accuracy 98%, 10% size gauss. This time BFC has ECCM3. This can be achieved with the same DB, but SM edit Gauss 10 PD class to replace its ECCM2 with ECCM3, and then use auto FC assign for all 10 ships in this class in the Battle Fleet.

With 28% tracking bonus, the hit chance is:

Code: [Select]

( (40000*1.28/100000)*0.98 - (0.6-0.3) ) * 0.1 * 100% = ( 0.50176 - 0.3 ) * 10% = 2.0176%
The interception showed 2% hit chance, 8832 shots fired destroying all 180 missiles, which gives an accuracy of 2.0380%

With 27% tracking bonus, the hit chance is

Code: [Select]

( (40000*1.27/100000)*0.98 - (0.6-0.3) ) * 0.1 * 100% = ( 0.49784 - 0.3 ) * 10% = 1.9784%
The displayed interception chance is 2%, while 18000 shots filed hitting 164 missiles, which gives an actual accuracy of 0.9111%. So the actual hit chance used in game is probably again rounded down to 1%, which is inconsistent with the displayed hit chance.

As an overall suggestion for fixing this bug, @Steve please use double for the hit percentages (and in the log), rather than int.

[rainyday]

The function number: #2092
The complete error text: "Value was either too large or too small for a Decimal"
The window affected: N/A
What you were doing at the time: 5 day increments
Conventional or TN start: Conventional
Random or Real Stars: Real Stars
Is your decimal separator a comma? No
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? Consistent
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well:  ~30 years

To Reproduce:
- Open the save "United Nations" and click "5 days" 3 times, you should get the error. It's been occurring consistently for several months and I was able to reproduce it multiple times from the save.

EDIT: It seems to be related to Venus. Clicking Venus in the Colony/Economics window causes the same error. Possibly because the civilians have reduced the Manufacturing Efficiency there to zero by trucking in a few million people to the surface.

EDIT: Yeah, it's definitely Venus. I marked it "Source of Colonists" to stop the civs and then started moving people off with my colony ships and the error went away.

[Second Foundationer]

1.9.5 conventional, real stars start going back to 1.9, campaign 44 years, no decimal comma, no mods, no db editing
Function #2115: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
What was I doing: Many things. But the explanation that seems most likely to me: Downloading tech from a salvager for a nearly-completed but temporarily inactive research project.
Same error message, but component disassembly report by Bubbaisagod in the 1.9.3. thread: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11173.msg129811#msg129811

Reproduction: not from my saves on first attempt yesterday. I'll try again later from earlier backups, and would retro-attach db in a few hours if successful.

Edit: Had to go back further than I hoped, but caught it after quite some SM-fiddling. In the attached db, Game "TwoToTango", Race "United Planets", select "SV Topaz" under "AAA Bugbusters" admin command. Deselect the "Retain Tech Data" tickbox, give order to transit into Sol, advance time.
Result: The error comes up, the log claims "Tech Downloaded", but the 3,600 tech points are apparently *not* transferred, although they should finish the project with remaining 3,242 points before and after.
(Now I only wish I had been lucky enough to find that same engine tech in the real timeline.)

[Aloriel]

Not strictly a bug, but definitely something out of balance.

v1.9.5, started in v1.9.5, TN, period separator

I have been preparing for a major invasion of an alien homeworld. I have prepared an entire division of troops to do so, and so I want to include a division HQ as well. My division HQs are set up to manage size 474,000, which is slightly larger than 4 brigades. I began construction, and it said it will take a year and a half for 636 build points. To be clear, I am not concerned about the build points of the HQ. It has support units as well, such as MPs and artillery, so it's not all HQ. Also, probably 90% of the BP cost is the HQ itself. It all makes sense so far.

About 3 months after I began that construction, I decided to make a new heavy cruiser design. This is a 32,000+ ton ship with the latest in technology. This ship is a massive 3784 BP. I immediately set a shipyard onto retooling and have now began construction of it (probably 1-2 additional months later).

Where the out of balance bit is, is the fact that my CA will finish before the Division HQ. Literally almost 6 times the build points. Easily 4 to 5 months later for a start time. It's not as if my tech is that out of balance either, where my ground forces might construct that much more slowly because of it.

TL;DR: GF construction rates are seriously low, and/or ship construction rates are seriously high.

[serger]

The function number: -
The complete error text: -
The window affected: -
What you were doing at the time: Using tug to tow another ship with intact engines
Conventional or TN start: TN
Random or Real Stars: Real
Is your decimal separator a comma?: no
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Seems to be easy to reproduce
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: 91 years from start

I have designed JP monitors (MN-1 rev.1 class) with very low fuel capacity, to tow them at their deployment points with tugs. My first tug (G 01 Atlas, G111/121 class) have done several tours of this kind without any unexpected event, but second tug (G 02 Juno, G130 class: newer engines, one large fuel tank instead of two smaller ones) seems to use fuel of towed ship, so towed monitors are reporting Low Fuel every time they are towed to their points. It seems like old bug from VB version, though I have no such event with previous tug!

Towed ship also using own engines is WAI

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

The function number: -
The complete error text: -
The window affected: -
What you were doing at the time: Using tug to tow another ship with intact engines
Conventional or TN start: TN
Random or Real Stars: Real
Is your decimal separator a comma?: no
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?: Seems to be easy to reproduce
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well: 91 years from start

I have designed JP monitors (MN-1 rev.1 class) with very low fuel capacity, to tow them at their deployment points with tugs. My first tug (G 01 Atlas, G111/121 class) have done several tours of this kind without any unexpected event, but second tug (G 02 Juno, G130 class: newer engines, one large fuel tank instead of two smaller ones) seems to use fuel of towed ship, so towed monitors are reporting Low Fuel every time they are towed to their points. It seems like old bug from VB version, though I have no such event with previous tug!

It isn't just the low fuel capacity ship affected.  I tried towing a high capacity ship and it showed fuel consumption as well.  The fleet is correctly calculating its speed using just the tug's engines, but towed ships still consume fuel.

Towed ship also using own engines is WAI