Official v6.10 Bugs Thread

[davidb86]

Playing Aurora 6. 1, my first extra solar colony.   As the colony population increased and civilian trade goods became available three of the trade goods(chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and spices) showed a negative value in the current import requirement field.   (the values are in parenthesis).   The trade goods in question have a positive value for the annual shortfall and when the negative value exceeds 10 they are not fulfilled by civilian ships like the other goods are.   The negative values increased for awhile.   Now they seem to be slowly coming down as the colony population approaches 25 million.   The other trade goods for this colony operate correctly, as do the trade goods for all of my solar colonies.

This is my first post, so I cannot attach an image.

[Cocyte]

Playing Aurora 6. 1, my first extra solar colony.   As the colony population increased and civilian trade goods became available three of the trade goods(chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and spices) showed a negative value in the current import requirement field.   (the values are in parenthesis).   The trade goods in question have a positive value for the annual shortfall and when the negative value exceeds 10 they are not fulfilled by civilian ships like the other goods are.   The negative values increased for awhile.   Now they seem to be slowly coming down as the colony population approaches 25 million.   The other trade goods for this colony operate correctly, as do the trade goods for all of my solar colonies.

This is my first post, so I cannot attach an image.

Seems like your civilian freighters are a bit too efficient and managed to flood the market of your little colony of those items...
The long travel distance mean that a freighter may be ordered to do a particular run even if there's already a lot of freighter doing the very same run already on the way. Things should get back to "normal" once the surplus is consumed.
I suppose those 3 trades goods are produced by your biggest solar colony? (which should be earth, but who knows what may happens in a game with several gigaton warheads casualy flying around...)

[vonduus]

Fighters in PDCs located in an inhospitable environment suffer morale penalties when their intended deployment period is exceeded. As fighters typically have very, very short deployment times, this means that ground-based fighter facilities are no longer feasible, unless within range of a populated planet.

Carriers can venture deep into empty space without its fighter pilots getting morale penalties, no matter how short their intended deployment period is. A PDC with hangar capacity should be able to keep them happy the same way, no matter where it is placed.

[Falcon]

Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
Data type conversion error.
Please report etc.

Error seems to be caused by ships with long maximum deployment times (120 months) being away from a population. Each such ship generates one of these reports every 5 days.

Ignore that, seems all new ships cause error reports every 5 days, while older ships don't - even when the two designs are identical.

[vonduus]

Error in CheckCrewMorale
Error 3421 was generated by DAO.field
Data type conversion error.
Please report etc.

Error seems to be caused by ships with long maximum deployment times (120 months) being away from a population. Each such ship generates one of these reports every 5 days.

Ignore that, seems all new ships cause error reports every 5 days, while older ships don't - even when the two designs are identical.

This sounds correct. I have 13 ships/PDSs with a deployment time of 120 months, and 12 with 60 months, 17 of those are overdue, and I get exactly 21 errors every 5 minutes. The numbers are not quite right, but that can be caused by the fact that I haul some of them out of orbit and back to earth every so often, right now two are on leave, and two others have just returned to duty. Bingo!

[Falcon]

It's not just the long deployment times, unless they trigger some other error in the database.

The game was running fine and without errors until I deployed 4 fuel harvesters with 120month deployment times and started moving them toward Uranus. That's when (4) errors appeared every 5 days. Since then I've SMed in a number of ships, and they all cause errors when they are not at an inhabited colony. Even when they are copies of older designs - G.E.C.K.s 1-40 cause no errors, the new G.E.C.K 41 causes errors.

[Cocyte]

Playing with missiles, trying to update my missile calculation sheet, I noticed some weird inconsistencies...

I tried several designs, and I obtained this :

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 10    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 2400 km/s    Engine Endurance: 9.2 hours   Range: 79.2m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.6068
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 33.6%   3k km/s 0%   5k km/s 6.7%   10k km/s 3.4%
Materials Required:    2.5x Tritanium   0.1068x Gallicite   Fuel x1116.5

Development Cost for Project: 261RP

----------------------------------------

This was with those missiles parameters and techs :
A single 0.12 EP engine (Nuclear pulse, 0.1 MSP, x3)
0.3334 warhead (30 per MSP tech... yes, I had fun with insta teching)
0.4466 fuel (0.9 fuel efficiency tech)
0.12 agility (32 agility/MSP)

And for those who didn't found the issue :
look at the chance to hit a 3k km/s target

G.E.C.K.s 1-40 cause no errors, the new G.E.C.K 41 causes errors.

Nice reference, would be better for terraformers ships however

[Falcon]

They were terraformers . I mentioned them since they were the ones that most clearly slowed that it was not a 'simple' bug. The old ships (1-40) have been around for decades without causing an error. But any new ones (even of the same class)spawn errors as soon as their timers need to be updated. The fuel harvesters were either the cause of the first victims of this bug, while any older ships were fine.

[Paul M]

I have an asteroid mining colony on 2001 KC77 in Sol.  When it launches a mass driver package the speed shows as something like 13331 km/s.  There is a CMC on a "nearby" oort cloud asteroid and I see it launching packets every 5 days with speeds of 1000 km/s and 20 or so of them just stacked up infalling towards earth.  I've no idea what is going on here.  The mass drivers on both CMCs work fine just this one is generating these high speed packets.  The distance to earth from both the CMC and 2001 KC77 are comparable so I'm not sure why this is happening.

[alex_brunius]

I have an asteroid mining colony on 2001 KC77 in Sol.  When it launches a mass driver package the speed shows as something like 13331 km/s.  There is a CMC on a "nearby" oort cloud asteroid and I see it launching packets every 5 days with speeds of 1000 km/s and 20 or so of them just stacked up infalling towards earth.  I've no idea what is going on here.  The mass drivers on both CMCs work fine just this one is generating these high speed packets.  The distance to earth from both the CMC and 2001 KC77 are comparable so I'm not sure why this is happening.

I would guess it has to do with either size of the body they are launching from (bigger gravity = slower speed), or with the size of the packages launched (bigger packages = slower speed). This is just explanations that I would find logical, no idea if this is how it actually works ingame.

[Paul M]

Alex unfortunately none of that is the case.  The two mining complexes and any other mass driver I recall using in the past launched any size packet at 1000 km/s.  These are going much faster even though they are heavier then then ones launched from the CMC on the other asteroid.  The CMC on the comet Encke which has to be the heaviest of the lots of them are also clocked at 1000 km/s.  The arrival times for the minerals from the CMC asteroid are in 70 or so days, while this one has an arrival time of 7 days (they are both 2-3 billion km out).  I first caught on to something odd when I saw this gold streak across my screen compared to the few cm long ones of the CMC origin mineral packages.  It is really odd.  When I zoom out enough I can see the packets at 5 day intervals from the CMC on the other asteroid.  They stretch from the asteroid to earth.  Same is true when I look at the ones from Encke they are again at 5 day intervals and show stacking (depending on where Encke is of course).

Encke launches 29 ton packages, the asteroid CMC is 3 ton, and 2001 KC77 is launching 5 or so tons (could be more now that more mines are present).

added in Edit:  now things are even more wacky...last time I looked the package speeds from 2001 KC77 are 8xxx km/s.  There is definitly something very strange going on.

[Sloshmonger]

There's something screwy with damage templates for Missiles and Plasma Carronades (and whatever else uses the same damage profile) for damages above 100.  In all cases, the repair cost matches the armor damage displayed on the F6 screen. I did not test to see whether the shield damage is correct.

Test setup was one ship with one launcher shooting a missile at point blank range into another ship which was just a big ball o' armor, 100 levels deep.

Examples -
For a warhead 101 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 101 damage." Actual: 100 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 106 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 106 damage." Actual: 103 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 110 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 110 damage." Actual: 109 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 115 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 115 damage." Actual: 113 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 120 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 120 damage." Actual: 120 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 135 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 135 damage." Actual: 133 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 165 missile, the announcement shows "Hits for 165 damage." Actual: 166 boxes damaged.
For a warhead 168 missile or a size 80 Plasma Carronade, the announcement shows "Hits for 168 damage." Actual: 167 boxes damaged.

As you can see, some of the damage was under, some over, a few right on target -- the 70CM Plasma Carronade is right on, but the 80CM one is off.

Whether this actually has any gameplay impact is debatable - if you're lobbing 100 damage missiles, you're already using overkill doing it right.

[draanyk]

In my current game, I have the "Jump gates on all jump points" option turned on. Sol has jump points to Nagoya and Yokohama, and I've fully surveyed both Nagoya and Yokohama. Upon following an unexplored jump point in Nagoya, I found that it connected to one in Yokohama. Unfortunately, this seems to have deleted the jump gate in Yokohama connecting to Nagoya, so without jump drives, I can travel directly from Nagoya to Yokohama, or from Yokohama through Sol to Nagoya. This is the first system I've found in this game with a connection to an already-explored system.

[wilddog5]

draanyk i think that you poened a closed jump poing as these are not created when the system is but after a ship passes through the other side it normaly does not have a gate this is one of the few times you need a gateship with that setting

[draanyk]

Ah, I hadn't realized such were possible. Thought my JP survey would have picked everything up. But that's good if it's not a bug; I'd rather it just be me learning something new.