Official v5.50 Bugs Thread

[Person012345]

Ok, it had been doing it a while, but as is always the way almost immediately after I posted this it fixed itself. Does anyone know what causes it? Am I missing something?

[Erik L]

My game is refusing to run faster than in 5 or 10 second increments. I saw a similar thread at the bottom of the page, but that didn't seem helpful because I haven't met any other races.

Although I've only been clicking 1 day increments, the events log says the following:
8th May 2037 19:32:21 Last time increment 86400 seconds (1:00:00:00)
8th May 3037 19:32:31 Last time increment 10 seconds (0:00:00:10)
8th May 3037 19:32:36 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:41 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:41 Increment Placeholder
8th May 3037 19:32:46 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:51 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:56 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:61 Last time increment 5 seconds (0:00:00:05)
8th May 3037 19:32:71 Last time increment 10 seconds (0:00:00:10)

This followed a freeze which I needed to quit the game from.

The usual cause is one NPR fighting another, or Precursor/Swarm/Invader activity.

[Yonder]

The usual cause is one NPR fighting another, or Precursor/Swarm/Invader activity.

To expand on that, in combat or near combat situations the game goes down to smaller time increments regardless of your wishes, so that missile movements and interceptions, other weapon firing, etc, can happen more accurately.

Luckily battles in Aurora are generally fairly short, so this will usually only occur for 5-10 in game minutes at a time, although there are some situations where the opposing fleets are configured in such a way that entails longer battles. In those situations you can click the check box just to the upper right of all of the time increment options in the System Map window, I can't remember exactly what it says, something about auto repeat. In this mode it will continue to process steps--either your requested interval or the forced smaller interval--until an event occurs which affects your Empire.

In this mode these occurrences will still slow your game down a bit, but it will be a lot more manageable.

[Five]

i have had to quit to recent games cause of that...not the slowing down of the increments as i know they are NPR action related but becuase of the freeze that happened during them. Each time i let it run for several hours hoping it was just a long processing time to no avail. On my third game in 2 weeks and hopefully this one doesn't freeze.

-Five

[Beersatron]

i have had to quit to recent games cause of that...not the slowing down of the increments as i know they are NPR action related but becuase of the freeze that happened during them. Each time i let it run for several hours hoping it was just a long processing time to no avail. On my third game in 2 weeks and hopefully this one doesn't freeze.

-Five

That could be a yo-yo which Steve had put in catches for, but if he has expanded the NPRs/Specials in anyway some new kind of yo-yo may have crept in.

Might be worth uploaded a save and linking it here for Steve to see if he gets the time.

[Yonder]

Unfortunately I had it freeze up on me and had to kill the program. A few time steps later now and I am getting
Error in Cycle Orders
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.Field
Data type conversion error.

I seem to be getting an infinite amount of them and it's locking me out of everything.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've just got:

Error in GetSystemThemeName

Error 3075 was generated by DAO.Database
Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'Name = 'Mikhel'son' and RaceID = 1109'.

Searching for other instances of this error on the forum implies I need to get the single quote removed from the database entry.  Can anyone help, please?

The apostrophe is the problem, although I can't see that name in the list of system theme names.

Steve

[Goron]

Bug and workaround:
I construct a fighter on earth and it gets added to a newly created TG titled something like 'New Fighters'.
I continue building fighters until my construct order is complete, numbering ten fighters in the TG.
I order the TG to land and assign on a PDC with hanger space.
The game-created TG is apparently absorbed/joined into my player made 'Earth Fighter Base' TG, which contains the PCD with hanger in question.
Then, when I issue a new construction order for a new batch of fighters, as soon as one is completed I get an error that the fighter is assigned to an unknown TG and the fighter effectively vanishes, never to be seen again.
Nasty little bug, since it can cost you precious BP/time/minerals and without knowing how to fix can effectively shut down fighter production on a planet.
I came here and searched it, only to find several related threads but no actual solutions. So I found the (simple) solution myself:
In the construction screen you just need to select/assign a TG from the 'assign new fighters to TG' drop down (I don't recall the exact wording).
Figured I'd share since several people seem to have hit this bug but no solutions have been posted (that I've seen, at least).


(and to rally for the bug to be fixed in the first place)

[Charlie Beeler]

Bug and workaround:
I construct a fighter on earth and it gets added to a newly created TG titled something like 'New Fighters'.
I continue building fighters until my construct order is complete, numbering ten fighters in the TG.
I order the TG to land and assign on a PDC with hanger space.
The game-created TG is apparently absorbed/joined into my player made 'Earth Fighter Base' TG, which contains the PCD with hanger in question.
Then, when I issue a new construction order for a new batch of fighters, as soon as one is completed I get an error that the fighter is assigned to an unknown TG and the fighter effectively vanishes, never to be seen again.
Nasty little bug, since it can cost you precious BP/time/minerals and without knowing how to fix can effectively shut down fighter production on a planet.
I came here and searched it, only to find several related threads but no actual solutions. So I found the (simple) solution myself:
In the construction screen you just need to select/assign a TG from the 'assign new fighters to TG' drop down (I don't recall the exact wording).
Figured I'd share since several people seem to have hit this bug but no solutions have been posted (that I've seen, at least).


(and to rally for the bug to be fixed in the first place)

This is not a bug.  Working as expected.  The descriptive post has either been lost or goes back to the mailing list.  Basicly you need to create a dedicated TG to assign recieve ship production.  Most veteran players have seperate TG's for shipyards and fighter factories.  Use one if the many means of transfering ships while leaving the construction TG in place. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This is not a bug.  Working as expected.  The descriptive post has either been lost or goes back to the mailing list.  Basicly you need to create a dedicated TG to assign recieve ship production.  Most veteran players have seperate TG's for shipyards and fighter factories.  Use one if the many means of transfering ships while leaving the construction TG in place. 

Also, you can designate which TG should receive new fighters using the New Fighters dropdown on the Industry tab of the F2 window

Steve

[Goron]

This is not a bug.  Working as expected.  The descriptive post has either been lost or goes back to the mailing list.  Basicly you need to create a dedicated TG to assign recieve ship production.  Most veteran players have seperate TG's for shipyards and fighter factories.  Use one if the many means of transfering ships while leaving the construction TG in place.  

So, it is seriously WAD to allow the player to spend BP and minerals and time building a fighter, then have that fighter irreversibly be lost AFTER the BP, time, and minerals are expended?
Hmmm...
Why is it that the first fighter built automagically creates a new TG to house them then? That must be broken, if the design is to not put fighters into a new game-created task group.
So I should amend my bug post to say:
When you first create a fighter the game creates a new TG to house that fighter when it should actually instead just destroy the fighter since I never actually created that TG. Same goes for new warships, the 'Shipyard TG' should not be automatically created.


EDIT:
And Orbital Habitats, and PDCs too...
Actually, the OHs must seriously be bugged then too, since I have always seen the game automatically create a new OH TG when I build one and then absorb or join it into a different TG...

EDIT2: (hopes the sarcasm is apparent)

[Charlie Beeler]

So, it is seriously WAD to allow the player to spend BP and minerals and time building a fighter, then have that fighter irreversibly be lost AFTER the BP, time, and minerals are expended?
Hmmm...
Why is it that the first fighter built automagically creates a new TG to house them then? That must be broken, if the design is to not put fighters into a new game-created task group.
So I should amend my bug post to say:
When you first create a fighter the game creates a new TG to house that fighter when it should actually instead just destroy the fighter since I never actually created that TG. Same goes for new warships, the 'Shipyard TG' should not be automatically created.


EDIT:
And Orbital Habitats, and PDCs too...
Actually, the OHs must seriously be bugged then too, since I have always seen the game automatically create a new OH TG when I build one and then absorb or join it into a different TG...

EDIT2: (hopes the sarcasm is apparent)

[SARCASM]
The player should not expect to be spoon fed by the program.
[/SARCASM]

Having the program auto-create anything has been a long standing exception, not rule.  And it is definitely not Murphy proofed.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

So, it is seriously WAD to allow the player to spend BP and minerals and time building a fighter, then have that fighter irreversibly be lost AFTER the BP, time, and minerals are expended?
Hmmm...
Why is it that the first fighter built automagically creates a new TG to house them then? That must be broken, if the design is to not put fighters into a new game-created task group.
So I should amend my bug post to say:
When you first create a fighter the game creates a new TG to house that fighter when it should actually instead just destroy the fighter since I never actually created that TG. Same goes for new warships, the 'Shipyard TG' should not be automatically created.

The program will create a new task group if one has never been created. If you delete that task group and don't mention it to anyone, it will cause a problem

I really should add a check at the point when a fighter is built to make sure the destination TG that has been set for fighters still exists. In the meantime, just SM a new fighter to replace the one that vanished into the ether.

Steve

[Goron]

My point still stands. If the design is to NOT autocreate a TG when a new item is created then orbital habitats, PDCs, warships, and (first) fighters are all bugged. Because as it stands now the game does automatically create them in certain circumstances (such as first build).
If that is not the design, then the bug is reversed and follow-up fighters should be put into a new auto-made TG just like OHs are.
You cannot seriously be arguing that it is WAD to work both ways just depending on the vessel and whether it is the first or a followup build. It should be one or the other, whether holding the players hand or not.

As for auto-creating being an exception and not a rule, I am curious what version your are playing, for the life of me I cannot seem to find a single other situation like this to lend any credence to your point.


EDIT: Ah, and now I see Steve's post. Thanks for backing me up Steve, sounds like you respect logic better than Charlie Beeler

[Goron]

I can provide the exact steps to replicate my problem when I get home, Steve.
It involved making the fighter TG absorb +assign into a PDC using a contextual order, so it wasn't just deleting the TG or renaming it.