Author Topic: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread  (Read 142516 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 12185
  • Thanked: 23754 times
  • 2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    Above & Beyond Supporter Above & Beyond Supporter :
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #165 on: June 14, 2024, 12:16:38 PM »
What is Function #2424? It occurs when attempting to SM add new commanders (or when using the SM replace all function), but only to certain player races.

Function #2424 is CreateNewCommander. What is the error text?
 

Offline lumporr

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 48 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #166 on: June 14, 2024, 12:29:38 PM »
What is Function #2424? It occurs when attempting to SM add new commanders (or when using the SM replace all function), but only to certain player races.

Function #2424 is CreateNewCommander. What is the error text?

The error text is "Object reference not set to an instance of an object."

Ah, an update: this was one of those bugs that can be fixed by simply allowing a single construction increment to pass. I guess that teaches me to try and do all of the scenario prep before the first increment.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2024, 12:40:43 PM by lumporr »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1326
  • Thanked: 211 times
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #167 on: June 22, 2024, 09:05:32 AM »
I just realized that in this post all types of mines have a mineral cost of 25% Duranium & 75% Corundium listed but ingame it seems to be 100% Corundium. Probably not a bug since the post is 5 years old but wanted to point it out just in case as I couldn't find any documented change post of the mineral costs after it ::)

https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg116382#msg116382
 

Offline skoormit

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1023
  • Thanked: 436 times
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #168 on: June 23, 2024, 01:24:01 PM »
I just realized that in this post all types of mines have a mineral cost of 25% Duranium & 75% Corundium listed but ingame it seems to be 100% Corundium. Probably not a bug since the post is 5 years old but wanted to point it out just in case as I couldn't find any documented change post of the mineral costs after it ::)

https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg116382#msg116382

Yes, that post is out of date.

The great radioactiveslushee posted an updated version recently.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #169 on: June 26, 2024, 11:38:08 PM »
I have a ship under tow that is still consuming fuel while being towed. I believe this is not WAI as I saw it in a change list, but I can't be sure as I haven't been able to find it searching the forums. The ship is definitely under tow; I checked the "Ship Design Display" and for Engines it says 0%, and when I have the tug release it, it changes back to 100%.

SJW: Fixed for v2.6
« Last Edit: June 27, 2024, 04:15:50 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2989
  • Thanked: 1229 times
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #170 on: June 29, 2024, 11:30:30 AM »
With SM mode on, clicking "No Grav Survey" in the System Generation View does not seem to do anything. Any JPs already, whether explored or unexplored, remain. If the button is meant to just re-enable all Survey Locations, then a tooltip over the button should explain this and perhaps it would be possible to make a new button to hide JP knowledge, so that when creating specific system-connections there would no longer be need to use a disposable Player Race to setup the game.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #171 on: June 29, 2024, 12:49:37 PM »
Not sure if this is a bug or a QoL suggestion, but posting here since it seems to not fit the intended pattern: When designing sensors/fire controls, the menu defaults to using 0 Electronic Hardening instead of defaulting to the maximum available level of Electronic Hardening tech, the way every other tech behaves.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #172 on: July 05, 2024, 04:51:56 PM »
I have a ship with 3069 crew that just picked up 127 survivors from a life pod, and the ship is now reporting that it has "insufficient crew accommodations for the personnel on board (including any survivors not in cryo). This will increase the rate at which times passes for deployment purposes by 1.01x), but I have 1000 cryo berths and those 127 survivors are the only thing the ship is transporting.

Even if it was ignoring the cryo berths that math doesn't work, because it would then be (3069+127)/3069=1.04%. Something funny's going on.
 

Offline kyonkundenwa

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • k
  • Posts: 57
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #173 on: July 05, 2024, 05:08:24 PM »
Not sure if this is a bug or a QoL suggestion, but posting here since it seems to not fit the intended pattern: When designing sensors/fire controls, the menu defaults to using 0 Electronic Hardening instead of defaulting to the maximum available level of Electronic Hardening tech, the way every other tech behaves.

Electronic hardening is a specialized capability that will most likely just make your equipment more expensive for no benefit in common use; there's no point in using it unless your enemy is using HPMs and you are closing to beam range. Like thermal reduction for engines or squadron size & distance for jump drives, you need to decide if the specialized capability is needed.
 

Offline Steve Zax

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 62
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #174 on: July 05, 2024, 11:08:27 PM »
I have a ship with 3069 crew that just picked up 127 survivors from a life pod, and the ship is now reporting that it has "insufficient crew accommodations for the personnel on board (including any survivors not in cryo). This will increase the rate at which times passes for deployment purposes by 1.01x), but I have 1000 cryo berths and those 127 survivors are the only thing the ship is transporting.

Even if it was ignoring the cryo berths that math doesn't work, because it would then be (3069+127)/3069=1.04%. Something funny's going on.

I don't imagine your ship has almost 100 spare berths ( which WOULD bring the overload rate to 1.01 ish ) but it might !
 It is my recollection that there has been a reported "cryo berth pick up bug", but I can't point to a bug report, nor can I point to a bug FIX report.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2024, 11:10:56 PM by Steve Zax »
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #175 on: July 07, 2024, 05:42:26 PM »
I have a shipyard that can build my Ruin-1 class dreadnought. I upgraded sensors and such and called that a Ruin-1a. I was able to refit my Ruin-1 dreadnoughts to Ruin-1a, but I cannot build new Ruin-1a battleships at that shipyard, despite the priorities/misc tab in the Class Design window showing a Yes in the SY column both for the From and the To groups. It is only 4% or 6% of original/refit costs depending on which direction you go (Ruin-1 to Ruin 1a or vice versa) so I should definitely be able to build both in the same shipyard, but it's not an option.

It is, however, an option to build a Supply Ship/Tanker design I titled Succor which is a commercial ship of very different design and proportions, so I'm pretty confident this is a bug.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3286
  • Thanked: 2644 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #176 on: July 07, 2024, 06:00:22 PM »
I have a shipyard that can build my Ruin-1 class dreadnought. I upgraded sensors and such and called that a Ruin-1a. I was able to refit my Ruin-1 dreadnoughts to Ruin-1a, but I cannot build new Ruin-1a battleships at that shipyard, despite the priorities/misc tab in the Class Design window showing a Yes in the SY column both for the From and the To groups. It is only 4% or 6% of original/refit costs depending on which direction you go (Ruin-1 to Ruin 1a or vice versa) so I should definitely be able to build both in the same shipyard, but it's not an option.

It is, however, an option to build a Supply Ship/Tanker design I titled Succor which is a commercial ship of very different design and proportions, so I'm pretty confident this is a bug.

Can you show the ship specs involved? This sounds weird, but if it's a bug it seems like something that would show up very commonly since the refit/interbuild mechanics are used very often by most players.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #177 on: July 07, 2024, 10:29:07 PM »
Responding to nuclear's request for details.

Ruin-1 class Dreadnought      79,967 tons       3,092 Crew       20,911.6 BP       TCS 1,599    TH 15,000    EM 42,660
9378 km/s      Armour 10-165       Shields 1422-632       HTK 496      Sensors 22/16/0/0      DCR 97-12      PPV 392
Maint Life 1.67 Years     MSP 15,181    AFR 1088%    IFR 15.1%    1YR 6,502    5YR 97,536    Max Repair 1,875 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Troop Capacity 1,000 tons     
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 5    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP3750.00 (4)    Power 15000    Fuel Use 246.48%    Signature 3750    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 7,000,000 Litres    Range 6.4 billion km (7 days at full power)
Theta S158 / R632 Shields (9)     Recharge Time 632 seconds (2.3 per second)

Particle Lance-12-40s (10)    Range 240,000km     TS: 9,378 km/s     Power 37-5    ROF 40       
Particle Beam-6-15s (20)    Range 240,000km     TS: 9,378 km/s     Power 15-5    ROF 15       
12cm C2 Near Ultraviolet Laser (8)    Range 120,000km     TS: 9,378 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 30,000 km    ROF 10       
10cm Railgun V20/C3 (40x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 9,378 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
BFC R256-TS8800 (2)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 8,800 km/s    ECCM-2     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
BFC R128-TS9600 (4)     Max Range: 128,000 km   TS: 9,600 km/s    ECCM-2     92 84 77 69 61 53 45 38 30 22
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R402-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 402.3    Exp 10%

MD1284k-250t (1)     GPS 80     Range 14.3m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1
EM2-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  31.6m km
TH2-22 (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  37.1m km

Electronic Warfare Jammers:   Fire Control 2    Missile 3   

Strike Group / Ground Forces
2x S-2 Vanguard Scout Fighter   Speed: 7540 km/s    Size: 1.99
4x Marine Platoon

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Warship for auto-assignment purposes




Ruin-1a class Dreadnought      79,686 tons       3,069 Crew       21,302.3 BP       TCS 1,594    TH 15,000    EM 42,660
9411 km/s      Armour 10-164       Shields 1422-632       HTK 492      Sensors 22/16/0/0      DCR 97-12      PPV 376
Maint Life 1.68 Years     MSP 15,352    AFR 1081%    IFR 15.0%    1YR 6,490    5YR 97,343    Max Repair 1,875 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Troop Capacity 1,000 tons     Boarding Capable    Cryogenic Berths 1,000   
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 5    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP3750.00 (4)    Power 15000    Fuel Use 246.48%    Signature 3750    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 7,000,000 Litres    Range 6.4 billion km (7 days at full power)
Theta S158 / R632 Shields (9)     Recharge Time 632 seconds (2.3 per second)

Particle Lance-12-40s (10)    Range 240,000km     TS: 9,411 km/s     Power 37-5    ROF 40       
Particle Beam-6-15s (20)    Range 240,000km     TS: 9,411 km/s     Power 15-5    ROF 15       
12cm C2 Near Ultraviolet Laser (4)    Range 120,000km     TS: 9,411 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 30,000 km    ROF 10       
10cm Railgun V20/C3 (40x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 9,411 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
BFC R64-TS10000 (70%) (4)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s    ECCM-2     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
BFC R320-TS9600 (2)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 9,600 km/s    ECCM-2     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
BFC R160-TS9600 (4)     Max Range: 160,000 km   TS: 9,600 km/s    ECCM-2     94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R402-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 402.3    Exp 10%

MD-1725k-250t (1)     GPS 105     Range 19.2m km    MCR 1.7m km    Resolution 1
EM2-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  31.6m km
TH2-22 (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  37.1m km

Electronic Warfare Jammers:   Fire Control 3    Missile 3   

Strike Group / Ground Forces
2x S-2 Vanguard Scout Fighter   Speed: 7540 km/s    Size: 1.99
1x Marine Boarding Platoon

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Warship for auto-assignment purposes




TK-1 Succor class Tanker      47,327 tons       284 Crew       1,314.3 BP       TCS 947    TH 3,125    EM 0
3301 km/s      Armour 2-116       Shields 0-0       HTK 72      Sensors 11/8/0/0      DCR 1-0      PPV 0
MSP 17    Max Repair 156.3 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months   

Commercial Ion Drive  EP625.00 (5)    Power 3125    Fuel Use 3.35%    Signature 625    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 20,000,000 Litres    Range 2,267.5 billion km (7950 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 100,000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 200 hours

TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a None for auto-assignment purposes







 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3286
  • Thanked: 2644 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #178 on: July 07, 2024, 10:32:15 PM »
Definitely a bug, as the tanker is half the size of the dreadnought and by rule should not be possible to refit or build in the same yard, regardless of components.

Try saving and reloading the game if you haven't already, it may be some weird indexing thing in the game state which can be cleared by restarting. If that works, post here so Steve knows it's not a DB bug, if it doesn't work (or you've already tried) then probably Steve will need the DB as this would be difficult to reproduce.
 
The following users thanked this post: nakorkren

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 346
  • Thanked: 305 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Reply #179 on: July 07, 2024, 10:43:12 PM »
Definitely a bug, as the tanker is half the size of the dreadnought and by rule should not be possible to refit or build in the same yard, regardless of components.

Try saving and reloading the game if you haven't already, it may be some weird indexing thing in the game state which can be cleared by restarting. If that works, post here so Steve knows it's not a DB bug, if it doesn't work (or you've already tried) then probably Steve will need the DB as this would be difficult to reproduce.

I just tried, and saving and reloading did not clear the issue. I've posted my DB here in case that helps.