Author Topic: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread  (Read 70612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1341
  • Thanked: 595 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #225 on: December 05, 2020, 01:58:18 AM »
Steve, I don't know if you will count this as a bug, but measuring distances is a little bit annoying at present. The distance is easily obscured by other information on the map, and it's often hidden by the mouse cursor as well.

Could you move the label a bit further away from the cursor, and give it a different color scheme? If it were placed north of the cursor position, then it would be unlikely to ever be hidden by it. And if it were dark text on a light background, which was drawn to the screen last, then it would never be obscured by other text.

Thanks!

On this topic I am not sure if it was a bug which was fixed, me remembering wrong or even me not remembering at all.

However, there was a way for you to leave the measurements on the map till clicking again with the mouse, I have tried everything but seems like gone as an option.

Was I dreaming?

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1341
  • Thanked: 595 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #226 on: December 07, 2020, 05:43:17 PM »
Not sure if WAI but in 1.12 shipyards are currently able to Repair ships of higher displacementent.

Refit and Scrap working as it should with only eligible classes able to be modified.

SJW: Fixed
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 09:24:27 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1341
  • Thanked: 595 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #227 on: December 07, 2020, 05:50:36 PM »
This is a rare one.

1.12
native period

When a ship (usually in auto grav or geo) needs to transit on a Jump Point and face a Transit Failure due to cooldown the Orders Not Possible for no suitable destination triggers cancelling all standing orders.

Funny fact is that you first receive the Orders Not Possible and then the Transit Failure so that's why was hard to spot.

I think there should be a mechanism where before the Order is Cancelled due to this event the ship should try another time at least the transit.

No biggie, just a bit unpleasant as it can happen often when you have multiple ships moving in and out of the same system.
 
The following users thanked this post: nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #228 on: December 07, 2020, 06:46:19 PM »
This is a rare one.

1.12
native period

When a ship (usually in auto grav or geo) needs to transit on a Jump Point and face a Transit Failure due to cooldown the Orders Not Possible for no suitable destination triggers cancelling all standing orders.

Funny fact is that you first receive the Orders Not Possible and then the Transit Failure so that's why was hard to spot.

I think there should be a mechanism where before the Order is Cancelled due to this event the ship should try another time at least the transit.

No biggie, just a bit unpleasant as it can happen often when you have multiple ships moving in and out of the same system.

Seconded. I usually see this happen when a ship jumps into a system without follow-up orders and I order it to jump back. If the jump cooldown is not finished it will have this error and forget its orders. The desired behavior would be for the ship to wait until it is able to execute the order and then try.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #229 on: December 08, 2020, 01:05:48 AM »
Actually less of a bug and more of an unexpected behavior that I strongly doubt is working as intended: After further testing, this is in fact a bug.

As part of my campaign setup I have six survey ships requiring rank 3 to command (rank 1 being the lowest). In the Commanders window, I have run an auto-assign by clicking the "Reassign Naval" button. Only four of my six survey ships receive a commander, despite the fact that my two rank-3 commanders with the highest Survey stats are not assigned to any ship at all.

I notice several things:
  • My survey ships have missile launchers attached for the purpose of dropping buoys, with MFC, magazine, and an ordnance load.
  • Each survey ship also has 2x Boat Bay for the purpose of carrying a single fighter-size survey craft.
  • The unemployed commanders in question do not have any skill in Crew Training, Reaction, Engineering, or Tactical.
  • Each commander assigned to the survey ship possesses one of these four skills. In fact, one of the commanders assigned lacks any survey skill.

Thus, my conjecture is that the auto-assign is treating my survey ships as warships due to the missile launchers (or perhaps the boat bays?). This strikes me as undesired if not unintended behavior since the auto-assign considers survey ships a higher priority, thus it makes no sense that the algorithm to determine ship type ranks weapons/PPV higher than survey sensors. Certainly, I would think a player is more likely to design a survey ship with weapons than a warship with survey sensors, and the game should account for this!

I have previously noted a similar behavior with orbital mining platforms with an included cargo bay (for a mass driver), which is treated as a freighter and assigned a Logistics commander instead of a Mining commander, even though mining ships are supposed to be a higher priority than freighters. I wonder if the algorithm which determines the ship type for officer assignment is getting its assignments backwards?

----

ADDENDUM: I did a little bit of testing. I designed and built the following ship:
Quote
Galorfing C class Deep Space Survey Ship      27,881 tons       57 Crew       503.9 BP       TCS 558    TH 400    EM 0
717 km/s      Armour 1-81       Shields 0-0       HTK 13      Sensors 0/0/1/1      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 11    AFR 6218%    IFR 86.4%    1YR 3,223    5YR 48,349    Max Repair 100.0000 MSP
Cargo 25,000    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 5   
Captain of the List    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive  EP400.00 (1)    Power 400.0    Fuel Use 2.80%    Signature 400.00    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 57.7 billion km (931 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
The auto-assignment via "Reassign Naval" button gave this ship a commander with Crew Training 50 and Reaction 20 - not a Survey specialist.

However, I built the following ship:
Quote
Galorfing C-2 class Deep Space Survey Ship      2,201 tons       42 Crew       363.1 BP       TCS 44    TH 400    EM 0
9087 km/s      Armour 1-15       Shields 0-0       HTK 11      Sensors 0/0/1/1      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.12 Years     MSP 103    AFR 39%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 31    5YR 461    Max Repair 100.0000 MSP
Captain of the List    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive  EP400.00 (1)    Power 400.0    Fuel Use 2.80%    Signature 400.00    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 731.5 billion km (931 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This ship class receives Survey-spec commanders as expected. The only difference in the designs was the cargo hold and shuttles in the former. There is no logical reason that a cargo hold would cause a survey ship to be reclassified as a warship (perhaps as a freighter though that would still be non-ideal). Thus, I now consider this a proper bug and not merely an undesired behavior.

SJW: The game assigns a main function to a ship class for auto-assignment. The code checked for weapons before checking for survey sensors. I've now changed it so a ship will be classed as a survey ship if the size of survey sensors exceeds the size of weapons. I've also added a line to the class summary so you can see the class function for assignment purposes.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 10:09:08 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: db48x

Offline chokuto

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • c
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #230 on: December 08, 2020, 04:06:47 AM »
Very minor issue that surprised me.
When loading a game with a Sol disaster (tested with cooling) the temperature of Earth is displayed without change of temperature. It fixes itself after a construction cycle.

To reproduce.
Create a new game with a Sol disaster of cooling
Process several construction cycles for the temperature of Earth to go down
Save the game and close Aurora. The temperature is correct in the database.
Open Aurora and load the game
Check the temperature of Earth and it displays the original temperature
Process a construction cycle and the temperature fixes itself
 

Offline Cosinus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #231 on: December 08, 2020, 04:32:21 PM »
I have noticed a bit of a UI bug in the "create research project" window:
To reproduce:
  • Create a new TN game, SM research basic active sensor technology, but not any jump drive technology, except Jump Point theory.
  • In the "Create research project" window, select active search sensor. The specifics are listed on the right.
  • Select Jump Drive. Notice the Dropdown menus on the left are empty, since we have not  researched Squadron Jump radius etc. But the game will not update the Name of the research project on the right side of the window. It will still say e.g. "Active Search Sensor AS20-R100". The description will say: "Cannot design component without all required technology"
  • When you click "create", the game will create a research project for the previously selected active search sensor. This is the bug
Expected behaviour: When selecting "Jump Drive" in the dropdown menu as long as not all required technologies are available, the "project name" field should be empty (or show something Jump Drive related, but not active sensors...) and the "Create" button should be greyed out.

Other Info: Version 1.12, dot separator, unmodded, no error message, etc.
 

Offline Cosinus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #232 on: December 08, 2020, 04:36:58 PM »
A small bug regarding medals:

When completing a research project, you only get awarded the "completed 1 research project" medal if it was the scientist's first research project. To reproduce this, start a new game, let a scientist research something. Then make medals for "complete 1 research project" and "complete 5 research projects". Then let the scientist complete 4 more projects. the scientist will get the "complete 5" projects medal, but not the "complete 1" medal.
Expected Behaviour: With every completed project, the game should check if the scientist is eligible for the "complete 1" or "complete 5" medal, not just after the first or fifth project. This probably also happens for other medals.

Other Info: Version 1.12, dot separator, unmodded, no error message, etc.
I initially noticed this after I imported medals from a medal collection from the forums here after the first research project was already completed.

PS: I'm sorry if these 2 bugs were reported before, but I did not read through all 16 pages in this bug thread. I've checked the resolved issues in the mechanics section though and did not find them there.
 
The following users thanked this post: db48x

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1341
  • Thanked: 595 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #233 on: December 08, 2020, 05:01:07 PM »
A small bug regarding medals:

When completing a research project, you only get awarded the "completed 1 research project" medal if it was the scientist's first research project. To reproduce this, start a new game, let a scientist research something. Then make medals for "complete 1 research project" and "complete 5 research projects". Then let the scientist complete 4 more projects. the scientist will get the "complete 5" projects medal, but not the "complete 1" medal.
Expected Behaviour: With every completed project, the game should check if the scientist is eligible for the "complete 1" or "complete 5" medal, not just after the first or fifth project. This probably also happens for other medals.

Other Info: Version 1.12, dot separator, unmodded, no error message, etc.
I initially noticed this after I imported medals from a medal collection from the forums here after the first research project was already completed.

PS: I'm sorry if these 2 bugs were reported before, but I did not read through all 16 pages in this bug thread. I've checked the resolved issues in the mechanics section though and did not find them there.

DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert and I am not a bug moderator, so please wait for an official answer from those who know better how the game is structured. My answers are based on my personal experience and a few peeks at the DB.

As you know the issue is that you create the medals afterward.

Probably the logic behind that is that when the new entry is created the game recognizes the first project when the count is at 1 (otherwise the line will simply be 0 or any other number but 1). When a new project is completed counter goes to 2 not triggering the condition set to 1. Obviously, once the count reaches 5 then it assigns the respective medal. I think if you let the scientist research 6 projects you will have the same issue with the 5 projects medal if created afterward. I am also sure your assumption is correct, this behavior is carried on all other medals.

Probably a way for you to fix this would be to allow Multiple so that the function code switches to COUNT from VALUE (not sure these are the real codes I just use excel mostly).

Also, if you do not want the medal then to be assigned all the times you can rever value back just unflagging the Multiple, or I am afraid you have to manually assign the first medal.

As much as I agree with you, I think this is more code related than an effective bug and I assume it could be quite hard to code it in a different way as the system should assign a date for medal creation and start counting values only from that point.

Probably you could make a request on the Suggestion section to change the behavior of medals conditions.

Offline Cosinus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #234 on: December 08, 2020, 05:49:50 PM »
Probably the logic behind that is that when the new entry is created the game recognizes the first project when the count is at 1 (otherwise the line will simply be 0 or any other number but 1)

[...]

I assume it could be quite hard to code it in a different way as the system should assign a date for medal creation and start counting values only from that point.

As I mentioned in the report, the fix is to change the condition to >=1 instead of ==1 on completion. There is no performance overhead and researchers should get the correct medals eventually.
What you are suggesting (separate counter after medal creation) would be a change from the current expected behaviour, that you could probably post in the suggestion forums. I am against it though. The current behaviour is fine, because I would expect a scientist who already completed 2 projects and then completes 3 more to get a medal for 5 completed projects.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #235 on: December 08, 2020, 08:40:38 PM »
Quote
- The function number
 --- N/A

 - The complete error text
 --- N/A

 - The window affected
 --- Commander Window

 - What you were doing at the time?
 --- Assigning Officers.

 - Conventional or TN start
 --- TN Start

 - Random or Real Stars
 --- Random

 - Is your decimal separator a comma?
 --- Decimal

 - Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off?
 --- Both very easy and quite simple to reproduce.

 - If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well
 --- About 5 Years, not a long campaign at all.

  -  This bug affects commander assignment, specifically with regards to Commercial Ships. More specifically so, the assignment of commanders to say, Main Engineering, on those ships. I understand that Main Engineering has no effect on such a vessel, but regardless the module can be added and yet a commander cannot be assigned to it. I was planning to train up some officers on these ships. Database Attached.

EDIT: Seems I wasn't clear enough: You cannot assign Officers to a Main Engineering if that Main Engineering is on a Commercial Ship. I don't know if other commands are affected or not. I was using the LCDR, and it worked just fine for my other ships.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 01:23:50 AM by xenoscepter »
 

Offline db48x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • d
  • Posts: 641
  • Thanked: 200 times
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #236 on: December 09, 2020, 01:13:06 AM »
  -  This bug affects commander assignment, specifically with regards to Commercial Ships. More specifically so, the assignment of commanders to say, Main Engineering, on those ships. I understand that Main Engineering has no effect on such a vessel, but regardless the module can be added and yet a commander cannot be assigned to it. I was planning to train up some officers on these ships. Database Attached.

I think you forgot to actually describe the bug.
 

Offline shock

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 20
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #237 on: December 09, 2020, 03:40:57 AM »
I seem to be generating a crazy amount of resources by building a ships with the use components option (pre-built a bunch of engines in factories).  At first i thought it was just a display bug, but i am sure i haven't mined anywhere close to 7m gallicite.

https://imgur.com/AQEHHOF

Edit/Update: After the ships where complete ~2months, it was over 9m gallicite stockpiled



Conventional or TN start: TN start
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? Adding more ships to the queue increase the negative gallicite value displayed
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well - Currently 71 years in
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 04:25:47 AM by shock »
 

Offline TheTalkingMeowth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • T
  • Posts: 494
  • Thanked: 203 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #238 on: December 09, 2020, 10:04:30 AM »
I seem to be generating a crazy amount of resources by building a ships with the use components option (pre-built a bunch of engines in factories).  At first i thought it was just a display bug, but i am sure i haven't mined anywhere close to 7m gallicite.

https://imgur.com/AQEHHOF

Edit/Update: After the ships where complete ~2months, it was over 9m gallicite stockpiled



Conventional or TN start: TN start
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? Adding more ships to the queue increase the negative gallicite value displayed
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well - Currently 71 years in
Is your decimal separator a period or a comma? I can't tell from the screenshot (guess I need glasses).
 

Offline shock

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 20
Re: v1.12.0 Bugs Thread
« Reply #239 on: December 09, 2020, 10:36:09 AM »
Period, at least i think that's what it is when the text is so small you can't really tell them apart.  The OS is set for all US settings so i would assume it should be using a period.  I half didn't understand the whole decimal thing when making the first bug report, i assume its a European formatting style?