It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
C# Aurora > C# Bug Reports
How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work
Erik L:
--- Quote from: kyonkundenwa on April 23, 2020, 06:55:03 PM ---Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.
Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.
--- End quote ---
Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.
King-Salomon:
--- Quote from: Erik L on April 23, 2020, 11:28:39 PM ---Bugs should be posted in the bugs thread.
--- End quote ---
They are/were, but Steve opened this topic to explain taht it is not a bug.. but it is..
at least that's how I understand him opening this topic and linking to it in the bug thread
Jorgen_CAB:
The bug is that the game only calculate the smallest Maintenance Storage bay you put on the ship. So only one type of Storage Bay is calculated and it always seem to choose the smallest one.
If you construct a ship with maintenance bays and only use one type it works nicely but not if you match different sizes.
Steve Walmsley:
--- Quote from: kyonkundenwa on April 23, 2020, 06:55:03 PM ---Bug report. MSP storage is not totaled correctly in 1.8.0.
Start a new game. These numbers are from a TN start with no additional techs.
Click "new ship class".
Remove the Engineering Space, add 2 fighter engineering spaces instead. MSP: 23.
Add a Large Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 2013. So far so good.
Add a Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay. MSP: 53. LMSB is ignored.
--- End quote ---
Thanks. I'd read the bug reports on maintenance storage not adding the correct amount, and skimmed over the 'multiple storage type' bug without realising it was different. Fixed. now.
Energyz:
The way maintenance is handled seems to give small components a strange advantage.
Here's a random ship using 60HS engine :
Alpino class Ammunition Transport (P) 3 537 tons 70 Crew 675.7 BP TCS 71 TH 1 200 EM 0
16967 km/s Armour 1-20 Shields 0-0 HTK 12 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
Maint Life 0.23 Years MSP 119 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 523 5YR 7 845 Max Repair 600.00 MSP
Officer Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP1200.00 test (1) Power 1200.0 Fuel Use 24.49% Signature 1200.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres Range 52 billion km (35 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
And here its counterpart, using 479 0.1HS engine
Alpino - Copy class Ammunition Transport (P) 3 537 tons 489 Crew 2 591.7 BP TCS 71 TH 958 EM 0
13545 km/s Armour 1-20 Shields 0-0 HTK 496 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
Maint Life 11.63 Years MSP 458 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 6 5YR 93 Max Repair 20 MSP
Officer Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP2.00 (479) Power 958.0 Fuel Use 600.0% Signature 2.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (43 hours at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
In this case you may not want to use the ultra small engine as it needs top much crew, but the way maint life skyrockets doesn't make sense. In the game, that makes ultra large military engine barely usefull, as you'll much prefer average sized engine despite the lower fuel efficiency. Is that intended?
IRL, systems with less components are generally more reliable than the same system but with multiple small components
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version