Author Topic: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread  (Read 37193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Beersatron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 997
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #165 on: December 26, 2010, 03:59:34 PM »
I've two star systems with the same name

Gliese 505

One must be in a mirror universe or something  ;D

Is one inhabited by a race with Goatees?  ;D
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5687
  • Thanked: 414 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #166 on: December 27, 2010, 03:07:34 PM »
The box showing starting RP has disappeared. I started a game without the game allocating RP and the box was not there. I checked in SM mode and non-SM mode.
 

Offline welchbloke

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1058
  • Thanked: 10 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #167 on: December 27, 2010, 03:50:07 PM »
The box showing starting RP has disappeared. I started a game without the game allocating RP and the box was not there. I checked in SM mode and non-SM mode.
It was definately there on my game when I started without allocating RP.  Research Tab below available scientist to the right of the compare button.
Welchbloke
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5687
  • Thanked: 414 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #168 on: December 27, 2010, 11:55:52 PM »
It was definately there on my game when I started without allocating RP.  Research Tab below available scientist to the right of the compare button.

So it is. I was looking in the old spot.
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #169 on: December 30, 2010, 09:19:24 PM »
Error 3201 was generated by DAO.Recordset
you cannot add or change a record because a related record is required in the table
'SystemBody'

this pops up twice very turn.

I have changed a couple planet names but that is about it.

I did a custom start so there was some deletion of systems first up, but none after i got the right planetry requirements.

 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Segnificant issue with missile v missile intercept
« Reply #170 on: January 04, 2011, 07:39:36 AM »
Steve this is a big one.  There appears to be an issue with missiles interecpting missiles.

Scenario:  Anti-ship salvo is within range to intecept assign target during next movement.  Counter-missiles targeted on anti-ship salvo and launched previous movement pulse and should intercept during same pulse that targeted salvo intercepts it's target. 

Problem:  Counter missiles do appear to be in the final resolution loop for the anti-ship salvo.  Anti-ship salvo target resolved (with appropriate beam point defense resolved) and then the counter-missile salvos generate messages that they have no target and self destruct. 

Granted the self destruct is do to no onboard sensors, but they should have resolved as intercepting their target salvos prior to those salvos intercepting thier targets.  I know that there is a potential for a very nasty set of nested loops in missile intercept.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Segnificant issue with missile v missile intercept
« Reply #171 on: January 04, 2011, 09:30:42 AM »
Steve this is a big one.  There appears to be an issue with missiles interecpting missiles.

Scenario:  Anti-ship salvo is within range to intecept assign target during next movement.  Counter-missiles targeted on anti-ship salvo and launched previous movement pulse and should intercept during same pulse that targeted salvo intercepts it's target. 

Problem:  Counter missiles do appear to be in the final resolution loop for the anti-ship salvo.  Anti-ship salvo target resolved (with appropriate beam point defense resolved) and then the counter-missile salvos generate messages that they have no target and self destruct. 

Granted the self destruct is do to no onboard sensors, but they should have resolved as intercepting their target salvos prior to those salvos intercepting thier targets.  I know that there is a potential for a very nasty set of nested loops in missile intercept.
Part of this is the relative initiatives that the missiles are going on.  They use the initiative of the launching ship/formation.  If the anti-ship missiles are higher initiative then they will go first, followed by the anti-missiles.  This does keep the possibility of nested loops down as there is a built in order to resolving the indifidual missiles movements. 

Brian
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Segnificant issue with missile v missile intercept
« Reply #172 on: January 04, 2011, 10:42:28 AM »
Part of this is the relative initiatives that the missiles are going on.  They use the initiative of the launching ship/formation.  If the anti-ship missiles are higher initiative then they will go first, followed by the anti-missiles.  This does keep the possibility of nested loops down as there is a built in order to resolving the indifidual missiles movements. 

Brian


^$#@^@#$#@$  I forgot about that....  and I'm fighting a Precursor which means that their initiative is 250.  The fleet getting hammered has a max of 155.  About every 5th salvo is hitting the sweet spot and not being intercepted.

Without this hole the fleet defenses would have the missile dual at a draw.  With the hole I'm lossing the fleet. 

That's what I get for not making sure the senior commander has a good initiative.  It doesn't help that I deployed very short range (200k/km) counter missiles.  (fuel at .001 to allow higher mass for engine and agility)

I still consider this as a bug.  Initiative should not superceed an otherwise valid intercept.  But Steve has to be willing to make the change. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Segnificant issue with missile v missile intercept
« Reply #173 on: January 04, 2011, 01:01:49 PM »

That's what I get for not making sure the senior commander has a good initiative.  It doesn't help that I deployed very short range (200k/km) counter missiles.  (fuel at .001 to allow higher mass for engine and agility)
Try changing the fuel to .002 or .003, it might be possible to do without really changing the agility at all.  In which case you would have 2-3 times as much fuel.

Brian
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Segnificant issue with missile v missile intercept
« Reply #174 on: January 04, 2011, 01:22:46 PM »
Try changing the fuel to .002 or .003, it might be possible to do without really changing the agility at all.  In which case you would have 2-3 times as much fuel.

Brian

Normally I use .01 for ranges in the area 2m km.  This was partly an experiment and the short range isn't really the issue.  The next generation is back to .01 with the mass shifted to the engines for about a 10% tohit vs 10k/kps targets and a range of 2.8m km's.  It's actually a better choice since the launchers are 10sec recycle. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline ExChairman

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Commodore
  • *****
  • E
  • Posts: 615
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #175 on: January 05, 2011, 02:05:55 AM »
Hmmm, I lost a Carrier with 122 fighters and 8 300000 tons freighters.
The carrier were sent out to a group of freighters that had run out of fuel, they were ordered to Join the Cargo Group and Absorb it... Got an error saying that the fleet dont excist...
Anyone know if the still excist in limbo?
Veni, Vedi, Volvo
"Granström"

Wargame player and Roleplayer for 33 years...
 

Offline DatAlien

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 71
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #176 on: January 11, 2011, 05:21:35 AM »
Some Task Groups shows Fire Delay and Sensor Delay instad of Maintaince Clock and Maint. Supplys
Per se ad astra
 

Offline welchbloke

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1058
  • Thanked: 10 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #177 on: January 11, 2011, 06:58:07 AM »
Some Task Groups shows Fire Delay and Sensor Delay instad of Maintaince Clock and Maint. Supplys
this is working as intended. These fields appear after a task group has transitted a jump point.
Welchbloke
 

Offline DatAlien

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 71
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #178 on: January 11, 2011, 09:15:21 AM »
Mineral packets dont move while the max subpulse is on 5 / 30 sec. (dont tested with other subpulse times)
Per se ad astra
 

Offline Thorgarth

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 45
Re: Official v5.20 Bugs Thread
« Reply #179 on: January 13, 2011, 06:06:21 PM »
Receiving the Error in cboControlRace
                  Error 76 was generated by Aurora
                  Path not found: 'Planetjpeg\ha3.jpg'
                 
When I try to access F9.

Any clues (hoping it's my operator headspace error).