v2.5.1 Bugs Thread

[Chris Foster]

Error Function #1516 occurs every increment due to ground forces.

Two formations exist as in the picture attached/below. Both were created via the organizations tab, with the 1st being created from the instant org button. Deleting the formations fixes the error. removing the MLRS companies from the formations also fixes the error. but re adding them causes it again. removing all the tank companies also fixes the error, they can be re-added but if there is 4 or more tank companies in one formation, or if there is 3 tank companies and at least one MLRS company, the error persists.

I have noticed from messing around with them that the tank company actually has 0 units of a construction/cap vehicle that i set to zero but forgot to delete, while the MLRS has 1 (intentionally). Im no programmer but i suspect some sort of float error or something with the total formation due to the existence of the 0 units in the tank company, since the error does not occur when the formation consists of only MLRS units. the error does not persist when the tank companies are under no hierarchy.

https://imgur.com/a/zoNuCKy

[Ghostly]

Conventional start, Real Stars, period separator, 60 years in.

Ordering a fleet with a tanker to "Transfer Fuel to Refueling Hub" will exceed the hub's fuel capacity and keep transferring fuel until the tanker is empty. Attached screenshot is how I found it in my game, also managed to replicate with a different tanker design and a brand new hub design (just fuel tanks and the hub module, no other modules). Something similar has been reported here https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10990.msg126741#msg126741 , though in my case one hub in the fleet is enough for the bug to manifest. This is problematic because the "Refuel Stationary Fleet" order is also unreliable as reported here https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13464.msg172115#msg172115 , I had to up my order delay for it from 10 minutes to 1 hour to make it work in increments above 8 hours.

[paolot]

TN start, Real stars, dot as decimal separator, 94 years in the game.
I have just discovered a system having the same name (Epsilon Horologii) of another one. See the attached image (I placed them side by side to do the screenshot).
The new system is the 216th that I met. These two systems are very different one another.
I wish to change the name of the most recent system. But, how can I choose a suitable name? especially a name not already present in the DB, and coherent with the real stars environment.

[Steve Zax]

If the "real Stars" database doesn't have duplicates (Sirius + Alpha Canis Majoris) which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, then you can decide that, as astronomers have in the past, that Epsilon Horologii is an optical double star (two stars in the same place in our sky, but different places in the 3-D universe, and name it Epsilon(2) Horologii.

[Louella]

I have just discovered a system having the same name (Epsilon Horologii) of another one. See the attached image (I placed them side by side to do the screenshot).

I couldn't find Epsilon Horologii in the star names in the database at all. 

Do you use a modded database ?

[Andrew]

The list of stars in that constellation is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Horologium

Of course most of these are nowhere near each other so for an Aurora star map pick any star name, or make one up and assume the one you are at was not visible from Earth because it was faint or obsucred by a nebula/dust cloud/dark matter cloud/ Giant space turtle/etc

[paolot]

...
I couldn't find Epsilon Horologii in the star names in the database at all. 
Do you use a modded database ?

No. No modded DB.
I can open the DB using the program "DB Browser (SQLite)". In the table "Dim_KnownSystems", I applied the filter to the column "ConstellationName", so the names appear. In the attached image, the filtered content.
As you see, the "KnownSystemID"s are 36 and 384, and the names in the column "Name" are different. But in the galactic map the same name appeared.

If the "real Stars" database doesn't have duplicates (Sirius + Alpha Canis Majoris) which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, then you can decide that, as astronomers have in the past, that Epsilon Horologii is an optical double star (two stars in the same place in our sky, but different places in the 3-D universe, and name it Epsilon(2) Horologii.

Yes. Thanks, Steve!
I did so: Epsilon2 Horologii.   

@Andrew.
Thank you.
In the list, the star GJ 1061 appears. It is the first Epsilon Horologii that I met.
I can't find GJ 3210. Searching online, nothing.

[shatterstar]

Error popup, often several times at once, occurs every few 5-day increments.  It was originally #2661, now #2662.

2. 5. 1 Function #2662: Could not load file or assembly 'System. Data. Entity. Design, Version=4. 0. 0. 0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' or one of its dependencies.

Started happening after, I *think*, making several ground forces with "Construct Org".

No mods, running 2. 5. 1 in aurora4x-docker.

I am having this issue as well. I do not believe that it was a ground forces issue in my case as I had not recently built any.

Additionally I encountered a problem where, after refitting a Stabilisation Ship to a Colony ship, it still had the order in its list to stabilize a jump point. I started a different game to check if this was still an issue and was able to replicate it. I also then refitted that same ship to a troop trasport and it still had the orders for both as well as the options to load and unload troops.

[Louella]

What an odd naming thing this is.

I can't find GJ 3210. Searching online, nothing.

It seems that it exists in this catalogue: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/TblView/nph-tblView?app=ExoTbls&config=gjstars Don't know how helpful that is.

[paolot]

Thank you, Louella.
The coordinates of these two stars in this catalogue confirm that both are in Horologium constellation, but rather far angularly one another. So, their designation in the DB should be different.

[Kurt]

I discovered a bit of a complex issue, not sure exactly what happened or why.

The situation:
1. Main Fleet is named the 1st Expeditionary Fleet.  This fleet contains several sub-fleets, including four assault groups and two carrier groups.  Three Assault Groups are currently detached from the main fleet
2. I detached the two carrier groups using the "Detach" button.
3. I launched fighters from the 1st carrier group using the "Launch All" button.
4. I detached the six scout fighters from the rest of the fighter group, again using the "Detach" button
5. I split the scout fighters into three two-ship groups, and sent them across the system to scout possible enemy locations. 
6. I landed the 1st carrier group's fighters on their carriers using the "Land on Assigned Carriers/mothership" command.  At this point only the scout fighters remain in space
7. The scout fighters discover enemy ships, and I detach one carrier from the 1st Carrier Group and launch its fighters using the "Launch All" button.  The fighters launch an ultimately unsuccessful attack and head back to their carrier.
8. I launch all fighters from the 2nd Carrier Group to end the problem. 
9. At this point I decide to consolidate the fleet and move to a location closer to potential targets.  I order the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Assault Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the "Join as Sub-Fleet" command.  I also order the 1st and 2nd Carrier Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the same command. 

The problem appears when I hit the five second advance.  The five groups join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet as intended, however, approximately half of the 2nd Carrier Group's detached fighter wing simply disappears, as does four of the six scout fighters from the 1st Carrier Group.  Their fleets (containers) on the Naval Organization window still exist, but they have no ships within them, or, in the case of the 2nd's fighters, just under half of what should be there.  They aren't in their correct fleets, and they aren't on their motherships.  They appear to have just disappeared.  At the time of disappearance they were approximately a billion kilometers from their carriers. 

I was a bit frustrated, as there appeared to be no easy way to fix this.  I could add in the missing fighters, but they would be at 0% training, which would be annoying given how much effort i put into getting them trained.  Fortunately I found the thread on how Aurora makes backup saves, and restored to a previous save before the incident happened. 

Still, annoying and worrying for the future.  I suspect that the problem lies within the nested relationships between the fighters and their carriers, and their carriers moving from being independent to becoming a sub-fleet. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I discovered a bit of a complex issue, not sure exactly what happened or why.

The situation:
1. Main Fleet is named the 1st Expeditionary Fleet.  This fleet contains several sub-fleets, including four assault groups and two carrier groups.  Three Assault Groups are currently detached from the main fleet
2. I detached the two carrier groups using the "Detach" button.
3. I launched fighters from the 1st carrier group using the "Launch All" button.
4. I detached the six scout fighters from the rest of the fighter group, again using the "Detach" button
5. I split the scout fighters into three two-ship groups, and sent them across the system to scout possible enemy locations. 
6. I landed the 1st carrier group's fighters on their carriers using the "Land on Assigned Carriers/mothership" command.  At this point only the scout fighters remain in space
7. The scout fighters discover enemy ships, and I detach one carrier from the 1st Carrier Group and launch its fighters using the "Launch All" button.  The fighters launch an ultimately unsuccessful attack and head back to their carrier.
8. I launch all fighters from the 2nd Carrier Group to end the problem. 
9. At this point I decide to consolidate the fleet and move to a location closer to potential targets.  I order the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Assault Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the "Join as Sub-Fleet" command.  I also order the 1st and 2nd Carrier Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the same command. 

The problem appears when I hit the five second advance.  The five groups join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet as intended, however, approximately half of the 2nd Carrier Group's detached fighter wing simply disappears, as does four of the six scout fighters from the 1st Carrier Group.  Their fleets (containers) on the Naval Organization window still exist, but they have no ships within them, or, in the case of the 2nd's fighters, just under half of what should be there.  They aren't in their correct fleets, and they aren't on their motherships.  They appear to have just disappeared.  At the time of disappearance they were approximately a billion kilometers from their carriers. 

I was a bit frustrated, as there appeared to be no easy way to fix this.  I could add in the missing fighters, but they would be at 0% training, which would be annoying given how much effort i put into getting them trained.  Fortunately I found the thread on how Aurora makes backup saves, and restored to a previous save before the incident happened. 

Still, annoying and worrying for the future.  I suspect that the problem lies within the nested relationships between the fighters and their carriers, and their carriers moving from being independent to becoming a sub-fleet.

I fixed a bug for v2.6 that involved disappearing fighters. It manifested after fighters were part of a fleet that was drag-dropped to another and then the original fleet was deleted. The fighters were duplicated rather than moved (but the originals were invisible), so when the fleet with the invisible originals was deleted, it also removed their duplicates.

Does it sound like that might have been the cause in this situation?

[Kurt]

I discovered a bit of a complex issue, not sure exactly what happened or why.

The situation:
1. Main Fleet is named the 1st Expeditionary Fleet.  This fleet contains several sub-fleets, including four assault groups and two carrier groups.  Three Assault Groups are currently detached from the main fleet
2. I detached the two carrier groups using the "Detach" button.
3. I launched fighters from the 1st carrier group using the "Launch All" button.
4. I detached the six scout fighters from the rest of the fighter group, again using the "Detach" button
5. I split the scout fighters into three two-ship groups, and sent them across the system to scout possible enemy locations. 
6. I landed the 1st carrier group's fighters on their carriers using the "Land on Assigned Carriers/mothership" command.  At this point only the scout fighters remain in space
7. The scout fighters discover enemy ships, and I detach one carrier from the 1st Carrier Group and launch its fighters using the "Launch All" button.  The fighters launch an ultimately unsuccessful attack and head back to their carrier.
8. I launch all fighters from the 2nd Carrier Group to end the problem. 
9. At this point I decide to consolidate the fleet and move to a location closer to potential targets.  I order the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Assault Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the "Join as Sub-Fleet" command.  I also order the 1st and 2nd Carrier Groups to join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet using the same command. 

The problem appears when I hit the five second advance.  The five groups join the 1st Expeditionary Fleet as intended, however, approximately half of the 2nd Carrier Group's detached fighter wing simply disappears, as does four of the six scout fighters from the 1st Carrier Group.  Their fleets (containers) on the Naval Organization window still exist, but they have no ships within them, or, in the case of the 2nd's fighters, just under half of what should be there.  They aren't in their correct fleets, and they aren't on their motherships.  They appear to have just disappeared.  At the time of disappearance they were approximately a billion kilometers from their carriers. 

I was a bit frustrated, as there appeared to be no easy way to fix this.  I could add in the missing fighters, but they would be at 0% training, which would be annoying given how much effort i put into getting them trained.  Fortunately I found the thread on how Aurora makes backup saves, and restored to a previous save before the incident happened. 

Still, annoying and worrying for the future.  I suspect that the problem lies within the nested relationships between the fighters and their carriers, and their carriers moving from being independent to becoming a sub-fleet.

I fixed a bug for v2.6 that involved disappearing fighters. It manifested after fighters were part of a fleet that was drag-dropped to another and then the original fleet was deleted. The fighters were duplicated rather than moved (but the originals were invisible), so when the fleet with the invisible originals was deleted, it also removed their duplicates.

Does it sound like that might have been the cause in this situation?

Similar.  I didn't drag/drop, but rather gave the parent fleet orders to join another fleet as a sub-fleet.  The effect sounds the same, though.  I suspected that it might be something like what you say, the fighters still being in existence but invisible.  It reminded me of something that used to happen with the SA program. 

In any case, going back to a previous save resolved the problem, and I won't do something like that again, hopefully. 

[skoormit]

Two related issues:

1) A formation template created via the "Copy + Upgrade" button will have a required rank determined by the default logic (based on formation size), rather than simply copied from the original template.
2) If the replacement template for a formation has a required rank higher than the rank of the formation's current commander, the formation will not gain replacements during the Ground Replacement Phase.

As a result, if you reduce the required rank of a template from the default, and then later use the Copy + Upgrade feature on that template (and fail to realize that the required rank of the new template is higher than your original), then your existing formations built with the original template will not gain replacements as expected.

I see issue #1 as a clear bug.
I also see issue #2 as a bug, but I could also see an argument that it is WAI.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Two related issues:

1) A formation template created via the "Copy + Upgrade" button will have a required rank determined by the default logic (based on formation size), rather than simply copied from the original template.
2) If the replacement template for a formation has a required rank higher than the rank of the formation's current commander, the formation will not gain replacements during the Ground Replacement Phase.

As a result, if you reduce the required rank of a template from the default, and then later use the Copy + Upgrade feature on that template (and fail to realize that the required rank of the new template is higher than your original), then your existing formations built with the original template will not gain replacements as expected.

I see issue #1 as a clear bug.
I also see issue #2 as a bug, but I could also see an argument that it is WAI.

I've checked and the copy+upgrade does transfer the rank correctly. It's possible I already fixed this in v2.6.