4.0b Bugs

[sloanjh]

At large population and non-zero colony cost, adding population reduces the absolute (not just percent) number of available workers.  Not sure if this is intended or not.

Here are before --> after stats for Mars (colony cost two).  Before is at the last econ update; after is now:

infrastructure: 56946 --> 56896 (LOWER)

total pop 256.33 --> 256.68 (higher)

ag+env 38.45 --> 38.50

service 182.38 --> 182.71

mfg 35.50 --> 35.47 (LOWER)

This took me from having 0.15 -->0.12 free workers.  Note that colony cost is 2.0

I suspect that what's going on is that colony cost is adding a flat percentage to the ag+env percentage (looks like it's 5%*colony_cost - I thought this was workers being assigned to infrastructure in another post).  As ag and service go up due to population, this flat (population independent) portion eats more and more of the available workers.  Finally, when the population level reaches a point where the mfg percentage on a cost==0 world would be the env percentage, the env percentage eats all the available mfg workers.  So for a colony cost 2.0 world, when the percentage of mfg workers would normally be 10%, the number of available workers is zero (because the 10% are devoted to env work).

If this is not what was intended, then a way around it would be to have the ag+env be an absolute percentage, and the service/manufacturing sectors divide up whatever remains of the pie,  In this case, a population that would have 20% ag, 60% service, and 20% manufacturing on a cost=0 world would have a 75% to 25% services to mfg mix (60% is 75% of the 80% left over after the 20% of ag are subtracted).  If it were a cost 4 world (env 20%), then the breakdown would be 40% ag, 45% service and 15% manufacturing using the new formula (45% is 75% of the 60% left over after the 40% ag+env is subtracted).  With the old formula the numbers would be 40% ag+env, 60% services, and 0% manufacture.  Note that I cooked the cost=0 numbers and chose cost=4 for the example to make the fractions work out nicely

John

[Erik L (OP)]

I've got a colony that is supposed to be mining only. However, the game keeps setting it as a destination. I keep setting it back to source. Is there a way to save that setting?

[sloanjh]

I've got a colony that is supposed to be mining only. However, the game keeps setting it as a destination. I keep setting it back to source. Is there a way to save that setting?

Not in 4.0b (I'm pretty sure) - I reported the same bug somewhere upstream a week or so back.  It looks like the flag in the database is an override - for colonies with pop>25m, it allows you to declare them as destinations, rather than sources.  For small populations, they are already destinations, so setting the flag doesn't seem to do anything.

John

[SteveAlt]

At large population and non-zero colony cost, adding population reduces the absolute (not just percent) number of available workers.  Not sure if this is intended or not.

Here are before --> after stats for Mars (colony cost two).  Before is at the last econ update; after is now:

infrastructure: 56946 --> 56896 (LOWER)

total pop 256.33 --> 256.68 (higher)

ag+env 38.45 --> 38.50

service 182.38 --> 182.71

mfg 35.50 --> 35.47 (LOWER)

This took me from having 0.15 -->0.12 free workers.  Note that colony cost is 2.0

I suspect that what's going on is that colony cost is adding a flat percentage to the ag+env percentage (looks like it's 5%*colony_cost - I thought this was workers being assigned to infrastructure in another post).  As ag and service go up due to population, this flat (population independent) portion eats more and more of the available workers.  Finally, when the population level reaches a point where the mfg percentage on a cost==0 world would be the env percentage, the env percentage eats all the available mfg workers.  So for a colony cost 2.0 world, when the percentage of mfg workers would normally be 10%, the number of available workers is zero (because the 10% are devoted to env work).

If this is not what was intended, then a way around it would be to have the ag+env be an absolute percentage, and the service/manufacturing sectors divide up whatever remains of the pie,  In this case, a population that would have 20% ag, 60% service, and 20% manufacturing on a cost=0 world would have a 75% to 25% services to mfg mix (60% is 75% of the 80% left over after the 20% of ag are subtracted).  If it were a cost 4 world (env 20%), then the breakdown would be 40% ag, 45% service and 15% manufacturing using the new formula (45% is 75% of the 60% left over after the 40% ag+env is subtracted).  With the old formula the numbers would be 40% ag+env, 60% services, and 0% manufacture.  Note that I cooked the cost=0 numbers and chose cost=4 for the example to make the fractions work out nicely

This one is a feature rather than a Bug. For worlds with higher colony costs there is a sweet spot where you get the best manpower ratio. It actually used to show the optimum population on the Economics window but for some reason that is no longer shown. This is to simulate that higher colony costs worlds would have a limit on useful population.

Steve

[James Patten]

I tried to compact the database.  I was watching the directory as I did this.  It moves stevefire.mdb to backup.mdb, but then all sorts of errors get thrown.  Finally it quit trying.  Only the backup db was there, not stevefire.  I do not have MS Access installed.

[sloanjh]

ok...that was weird.

I just had a request for the SM password pop up on a 5-second increment (right after a major update).  The weird part is, that I wasn't doing anything that required the SM password (i.e. probing an unexplored WP).  I suspect that an NPR was performing a probe, and that the program erroneously thought it needed to ask for the SM password because I wasn't running in SM mode.

John

[SteveAlt]

ok...that was weird.

I just had a request for the SM password pop up on a 5-second increment (right after a major update).  The weird part is, that I wasn't doing anything that required the SM password (i.e. probing an unexplored WP).  I suspect that an NPR was performing a probe, and that the program erroneously thought it needed to ask for the SM password because I wasn't running in SM mode.

That's exactly what will have happened. I have changed the code for v4.1 so that NPRs do not require SM Mode when entering a new system.

Steve

[alanwebber]

I'd like to add my name to the list of people who've had a game lock up during an update. It first occurred during a 5 day update (with 1 day increments). I shut down and restarted using pregressively smaller updates until it crashed each time. I am now within 5 seconds of the crash point and can go no further. It always seems to crash at the same time.

I have checked all the current orders and production completions etc but nothing appears to be responsible for the lock.

I am currently 19 years into the game.

[Paul M]

A combat transit bug.  I attempted to give a taskgroup of 4 ships all of which had jump engines at "combat transit" order.  The game complained that the number of ships was in  excess of the squadron limit, and didn't allow the transit, I know this command worked with a taskgroup of 3 of this type of ship.  I have 1st gen jump engine tech (50K, and 3 ships).  Thinking about it now it makes even less sense as 1+3 should be acceptable even with this technology?  Or does the 3 ship squadron include the jump ship?

[SteveAlt]

A combat transit bug.  I attempted to give a taskgroup of 4 ships all of which had jump engines at "combat transit" order.  The game complained that the number of ships was in  excess of the squadron limit, and didn't allow the transit, I know this command worked with a taskgroup of 3 of this type of ship.  I have 1st gen jump engine tech (50K, and 3 ships).  Thinking about it now it makes even less sense as 1+3 should be acceptable even with this technology?  Or does the 3 ship squadron include the jump ship?

The number of ships specified for a jump engine includes the jump ship

Steve

[SteveAlt]

I'd like to add my name to the list of people who've had a game lock up during an update. It first occurred during a 5 day update (with 1 day increments). I shut down and restarted using pregressively smaller updates until it crashed each time. I am now within 5 seconds of the crash point and can go no further. It always seems to crash at the same time.

I have checked all the current orders and production completions etc but nothing appears to be responsible for the lock.

I am currently 19 years into the game.

Unfortunately I am still unable to track this down and sending me databases is not really an option anymore because of the extensive changes to the underlying code in v4.1 . I think it must be an infinite loop somewhere and as it wasn't in v3.2, I am guessing it is NPR related. I'll take another look at this tonight by stepping through the code and see if I can find anything but I suspect it is probably going to have to happen in my game for me to find it.

Steve

[Hawkeye]

I'd like to add my name to the list of people who've had a game lock up during an update. It first occurred during a 5 day update (with 1 day increments). I shut down and restarted using pregressively smaller updates until it crashed each time. I am now within 5 seconds of the crash point and can go no further. It always seems to crash at the same time.

I have checked all the current orders and production completions etc but nothing appears to be responsible for the lock.

I am currently 19 years into the game.

Unfortunately I am still unable to track this down and sending me databases is not really an option anymore because of the extensive changes to the underlying code in v4.1 . I think it must be an infinite loop somewhere and as it wasn't in v3.2, I am guessing it is NPR related. I'll take another look at this tonight by stepping through the code and see if I can find anything but I suspect it is probably going to have to happen in my game for me to find it.

Steve

I´d like to ad that the lock-ups in my game has ceased after I blew away two precurser squadrons, which suggests it might indeed be a resource thing, as sloanjh suggested.

Hm, are precurser ships required to pay maintenance?
If yes, maybe this is the source of the lock-up. With precursers all over the place, many of which are locked in systems with a listening post or two at best, a serious mineral shortage might be the cause for this.

Just a guess, of course

[SteveAlt]

I´d like to ad that the lock-ups in my game has ceased after I blew away two precurser squadrons, which suggests it might indeed be a resource thing, as sloanjh suggested.

Hm, are precurser ships required to pay maintenance?
If yes, maybe this is the source of the lock-up. With precursers all over the place, many of which are locked in systems with a listening post or two at best, a serious mineral shortage might be the cause for this.

Just a guess, of course

Precursor's don't require maintenance so that won't be the problem. However the fact the problem went away when you destroyed the precursors is very useful information. Were they definitely precursors rather than NPRs and had you already destroyed any sensor outposts in that system?

Steve

[Hawkeye]

Well, I´m pretty sure, they are precursors, but can´t be 100%.
I have destroyed only a single sensor outpost in the first system I encountered them (this was about 10 years into the game and it was quite a shock to be attacked with 25cm UV-Lasers by ships mounting ECM-40 and moving at 6185km/s), and all other groups I encountered in different systems (4 so far) are of the same race, as far as the intel screen is telling me (also, all ships encountered, some 10 classes all together, move at exactely the same speed of 6185km/s and have ECM-40)
The last two encounters (those that made the lock-up go away) were in uninhibited systems, when the precursors followed my cruron through a jumppoint and ran streight into the trap I had laied there.
The "home-systems" of both groups are still held by them, as they have longranged missileships there, that would eat my ships alive, if I dared to enter.

[Paul M]

A combat transit bug.  I attempted to give a taskgroup of 4 ships all of which had jump engines at "combat transit" order.  The game complained that the number of ships was in  excess of the squadron limit, and didn't allow the transit, I know this command worked with a taskgroup of 3 of this type of ship.  I have 1st gen jump engine tech (50K, and 3 ships).  Thinking about it now it makes even less sense as 1+3 should be acceptable even with this technology?  Or does the 3 ship squadron include the jump ship?

The number of ships specified for a jump engine includes the jump ship

Steve

Ok then it still is a bug since the 4 ships each had active jump engines so the fact there was 4 of them (and 1 higher then the squadron limit) was not relevant as they each self jumped.