Author Topic: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread  (Read 50727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread
« Reply #285 on: April 18, 2016, 10:17:30 AM »
I had my suspicion that it was due to not being in the same system as their HQ.  Now I have to decide how long I allow this to go on, as these are big (for the NCN) ships with high fuel use normally, off the top of my head the 8th must have close to 8 million litres of fuel in their tanks.  I figure I'll cheat for about another month until I have to send them back home to refit.  In fairness then I'll have to do the rest of their training in Sol.  This out of Sol training will have to wait it seems as the CA is the first ship that will have a flag bridge and that is held up due to the jump engine.

Thanks for clearing that up Byron.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread
« Reply #286 on: June 03, 2016, 01:56:48 AM »
Just getting to Jabberwocky and something odd happened.  I had a Gargolye class frigate undergoing refit in the 8th Sqn SG and since I needed to move things around I moved the ship to my training/shakedown group.  It was part way through its refit.

I then gave orders for the 7th and 8th Sqn to start moving to the jump point.  I noticed that the 8th Sqn SG stayed put.  I could not SM them to the JP but SMed them to Forge.  They then stayed put there.  So I created a new TG and moved the ships to it.  Then I tried to delete the old one after the new one actually followed orders.  It said "not allowed as ship are associated with shipyard tasks"...the TG at this time is empty.   I look in the shipyard and find out that the Gargolye class frigate now in the 9th Sqn is still showing that it is part of the 8th.  The fact that it was moved after the start of the refit did not get updated.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread
« Reply #287 on: August 28, 2018, 04:44:32 AM »
Just noticed an issue in an old game I've resurrected. Where swarm queens deploy their FACs it looks like they don't remember to recall them before trying to jump through a warp point. As a result they are constantly trying to do a squadron drop where they don't have the ability to do so and are stuck on the jump point constantly retrying to jump. Obviously they need to order a recovery before jumping or use a standard transit to be able to keep going.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread
« Reply #288 on: September 22, 2019, 03:05:17 AM »
I ran into a bug caused by using an "'" in a squadron name.  In this case the name was "Pwn'd" and it caused the following non-(outside of the use of the task manager)-recoverable error sequence:

Error in Check Fleet Name
Error 91
Object variable or with Block variable not set

This was followed by:
Error 3075 was generated by DAO.Database
Syntax error (missing operator) in querry expression 'Race ID = 164 and Fleet Name 'Paunee Early Warning Pinnace-Pwn'd#27"

These two were in a never ending loop.  After changing "Pwn'd" to "Pwnd" the problem went away.  A warning to avoid "'" in squadron short names is perhaps a good idea.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Re: Official v6.10 Bugs Thread
« Reply #289 on: March 01, 2020, 04:31:24 AM »
I have run into a bug with distance calculations during point defence fire.  It was occurring during point blank point defence mode shots.

I had CLE(1) stationed 10k km at offset -5° from a CL.   I then had CLE(2) stationed at 10k km offset -10° from that same CL.  I had CLE(3) stationed at 10k km offset +5° from the same CL.

When I zoomed in I could see that both CLE(2) and CLE(3) were within 10k km of CLE(1).  CLE(1) was being subjected to a magic missile bombardment.  When I looked into the logs CLE(2) firing in defence of CLE(1) was getting a range of 10.7k km.   The CL that it was using as its reference point was also not firing at 10k km but a greater distance as well.  When I looked there seemed to be issues all over the place with the ranges given for the final fire in PBDM.   But in the case of the 3 CLEs they were referenced against the same ship so they had to be inside of 10k km from each other.

I suspect this may be a rounding error issue, but that is only a guess.