4.26 Bugs

[Brian Neumann]

But do you lose a more valuable ship to precursors? The first I usually know about Precursors is that a search sensor has been detected, followed by an strength 12 thermal source followed by boom! . If you have your grav-survey vessels separate from your geo-survey ships you only lose half the capability. Since I have found the Precursors don't seem to mind me carrying out a warp point survey, but as soon as I go near the planets.........I have now lost four geo-survey ships to precursors, but no grav-survey ships in exploring the first eight systems.

Regards

There is also another reason now to have seperate ship types.  A geo survey ship can be a commercial ship with no maintenance.  I usually find about 100hs is a good size with a good turn of speed, and because they are commercial engines they are very fuel efficient as well.  The grav survey sensors are military, so any ship with it is automatically a military type.  This means that there will be maintenance to deal with.

Brian

[Andrew]

Normally I use seperate Grav and Geo survey ships as well as a seperate Jump ship for each survey fleet. This game the survey ships have Both sensors Jump engines and also some EM and thermal sensors it means I can keep only 1 shipyard devoted to producing survey vessels allowing me to devote all my other yards to warships and it fits the race philosophy , usually before those ships enter the system I have a fast scout with very good passive sensors do a sweep of the system and if it locates ships I can call up a battle fleet

[Steve Walmsley]

I am starting to think that my game has become corrupted or something, which would be a right pain in the bum because this has been my favorite by far.

Error in ShowFleetList
Error 35602 was generated by Nodes
Key is not unique in collection

Pretty sure this is what is causing it:

One of my ships, Danube, got hit by missiles and took engine damage so was automatically ejected into it's own fleet (can we have an option to stop this? i'd rather my whole fleet slowed to keep protecting it). I moved it back into the battle fleet and forgot to delete the now empty TG.

Next round of missiles came in and Danube was hit again, automatically ejected into it's own fleet which will have the same name as before - but it hasn't been deleted so is no longer unique. (are you using a string as a unique identifier?)

The treeview control in VB6 requires a string as a unique identifier for each item so duplicate names will throw the error above. Although annoying It is a display problem only and you can prevent it by renaming the fleet.

Steve

[Paul M]

I've lost them to the precursers yes, but only because for role playing purposes I didn't have them do an immediate withdrawl.  I equip them with a very good EM passive sensor (4 HS worth) and can generally pick up the active sensors the precursers use well outside where they can detect me.  As for the rest of it, micromanagement becomes too much of a pain.  I prefer one design that can do everything even if not so well as three designs (grav, geo, and jump tender).  It is not the min-max solution I know but frankly there are other considerations.  I've had those ships on suvey for up to 5 years with only occasional rendevous with tankers so I'm not overly worried about maintenance cycles.  I have tried the multi-ship approach and it didn't tickle my fancy.  My point is not that you should do this, it is just that it isn't a bad decision any more than the use of multiple types is a bad decision.  Both make sense but do so for different reasons.

[welchbloke]

I've lost them to the precursers yes, but only because for role playing purposes I didn't have them do an immediate withdrawl.  I equip them with a very good EM passive sensor (4 HS worth) and can generally pick up the active sensors the precursers use well outside where they can detect me.  As for the rest of it, micromanagement becomes too much of a pain.  I prefer one design that can do everything even if not so well as three designs (grav, geo, and jump tender).  It is not the min-max solution I know but frankly there are other considerations.  I've had those ships on suvey for up to 5 years with only occasional rendevous with tankers so I'm not overly worried about maintenance cycles.  I have tried the multi-ship approach and it didn't tickle my fancy.  My point is not that you should do this, it is just that it isn't a bad decision any more than the use of multiple types is a bad decision.  Both make sense but do so for different reasons.

Paul, I agree, one of the strengths of Aurora is that you have multiple approaches to every problem.  I'm definately prefer 3 specialised design at the moment, but who knows next week I might encounter a scenario that makes me change my mind     I asked the question originally, because there hadn't been much mention of 'jack-of-all trades' designs reently, most of the recent posts revolved around specialised designs.

[IanD]

Just over ten years into a TN start game I appear to have a fatal Error
The message is:

Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Fields
Data type conversion error

Anyone seen this before?

Regards

[IanD]

Just over ten years into a TN start game I appear to have a fatal Error
The message is:

Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Fields
Data type conversion error

The above error message was eventually supplanted on restarting when I stepped through the F2, F3, F12 screens with the following error message.

Error in property moves
Error 381 was generated by Aurora
Invalid property array

One of my cargo task groups has generated a series of orders based on move to Earth, Refuel from colony. unfortunately there were very many of them in a random sequence. I got rid of it by transfering the cargo task group ships to another task group and deleting the cargo task group.


Regards

[welchbloke]

I operate my survey fleets with one jump tender and a fast scout that detach prior to the survey starting.  I use the default order 'survey next 3 survey locations'.  If I order the fleet to go to a system, then detach non-survey ships and then divide into single ships the non-susrvey ships pick up the default order.  As a result the non-survey group sits there with 3 valid survey locations in its orders until I remember to delete them.  I'm pretty sure this didn't happen before and the non-survey group would happily ignore the default orders and  would not tie up 3 locations in its orders.

[IanD]

In my current v4.26 game I got fed up with losing missiles when the launching ship is destroyed and decided to try and give the missiles an onboard guidance capability. So I added a thermal sensor to the missile on its next upgrade. So far so good, in the next engagement some of the launching ships were destroyed and the missiles continued on. The only problem was when they reached the target and I got the following error message:

Error in check for missile targets
Error 422 was generated by Aurora
object required

It did this for each missile and I had 720+ missiles in flight of which about 200+ had lost their guidance. It took over 200 mouse clicks to clear the error message when it was ok again until more missiles closed on target when the exercise was repeated . However, to add insult to injury I have only breached the armour on one enemy ship so far, the engagement continues after my fingers recover .

Regards

[IanD]

Having said that I did see missiles turn round and pursue the targets  .

Some odd behaviour. When using 5 sec increments 20 salvos of missiles under thermal guidance followed the hostiles without appearing to close them, even though they had a velocity advantage (9100 k/s compared to 5102 k/s). When I changed to a 30 sec increment all salvos found the target that increment .

Regards

[sloanjh]

Having said that I did see missiles turn round and pursue the targets  .

Some odd behaviour. When using 5 sec increments 20 salvos of missiles under thermal guidance followed the hostiles without appearing to close them, even though they had a velocity advantage (9100 k/s compared to 5102 k/s). When I changed to a 30 sec increment all salvos found the target that increment .

Regards

I think there's something a little buggy with the initiative settings for missiles.  I've seen anti-missiles "overshoot" their targets, and then pick them up on the next iteration.  At the time, I figured that the (faster) anti-missiles were moving first, then the targets were moving.  Not sure if it's relevant to what you're seeing....

John

[Steve Walmsley]

In my current v4.26 game I got fed up with losing missiles when the launching ship is destroyed and decided to try and give the missiles an onboard guidance capability. So I added a thermal sensor to the missile on its next upgrade. So far so good, in the next engagement some of the launching ships were destroyed and the missiles continued on. The only problem was when they reached the target and I got the following error message:

Error in check for missile targets
Error 422 was generated by Aurora
object required

It did this for each missile and I had 720+ missiles in flight of which about 200+ had lost their guidance. It took over 200 mouse clicks to clear the error message when it was ok again until more missiles closed on target when the exercise was repeated . However, to add insult to injury I have only breached the armour on one enemy ship so far, the engagement continues after my fingers recover

Steve

[backstab]

Anyone know how to fix this error ??

[attachment=0:11pjcb4a]error.PNG[/attachment:11pjcb4a]

[Steve Walmsley]

Anyone know how to fix this error ??

It looks like the mineral packet contains no minerals, which is what is causing the null error. If there is no mineral production at the pop that is source of the packets, turn off the mass driver.

Steve

[IanD]

Steve Wrote
Thorgarth wrote:
Receiving an "Error in CheckForMaintenanceFacilities" Error 91 was generated by Aurora, Object variable or With block variable not set.

Message continues to repeat until I kill the program.
I have maintenance turned off for this galaxy.
Update: First receive this error message:

Error 3075 was generated by DAO.Datebase
Syntax error (missing operator) in query express 'f.RaceID = 827 and f.SystemID = f.Xcor = -76964650 and f.Ycor = -128283291 and s.FleetID = f.FleetID and s.CurrentMaint > 0'.
Thanks for the update. The error 91 will occur when trying access a database record that doesn't exist, which is explained by the error above as it would stop the database record being retrieved. What is puzzling me though is trying to recreate it. It's a fairly common function call and a short function. I have identified the piece of code that almost matches the above but the above is missing a small section between 'SystemID =' and 'f.Xcor' which does exist in the code. Somehow the string variable that holds the SQL seems to have lost a section from the middle of the text. I have added a breakpoint to the function so I will keep tracking it and try to recreate the problem.

Steve

I have just had the same series of errors with a variation in the f.RaceID=800 and f.systemID=and f.Xcor=-54975801 and f.Ycor=139132388, everything else is identical. Get this series of errors every time I try and advance time.

if I try to advance time in SM mode the event log gets the following message:

SM only   Event type message continued   System N/A  Event pentarch.org/viewforum.php?f=11

I can only assume Aurora is telling me to look at the Aurora website? :cry: .

Regards