bjg wrote:In this case it's neither of what you've said. There is one available ship with two available cargo slots, but the game says 6, which is the total number of cargo slots on the available ship. Seems like a (minor) algorithm error, affecting only multiple cargo ships.
Not a very big deal, but I relay on that number to see how many more brigades do I need to build.

Ah, yes, I see. The displayed tooltip values at Dubhe are wrong. That *is* a bug. Should be fixed as of r15191.

sven wrote:Maybe in contexts where we really are talking about population transport capacity, rather than population transport ships, we should change the icon slightly -- say, a little colored spaceship with a small up arrow next to it?

Your current glyph is one background circle away from the Planet Express Which would be a nice in-joke for cargo ships =)
You could use the "parcel" glyph to represent cargo capacity.

Sorry, I have been away for a long time. Started up SiS and saw the updates going through. Had a bit of graphical issues with Stars.

http://i.imgur.com/uV0wjsI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EMZKmyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Z6G9yMC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/730lzWV.jpg

Im going to see if upgrading the driver will help.
My video card is a 2012 GIGABYTE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition DirectX 11 GV-R787OC-2GD 2GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0

Good to see new faces as well.

Captainspire wrote:Sorry, I have been away for a long time. Started up SiS and saw the updates going through. Had a bit of graphical issues with Stars.

http://i.imgur.com/uV0wjsI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EMZKmyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Z6G9yMC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/730lzWV.jpg

Im going to see if upgrading the driver will help.
My video card is a 2012 GIGABYTE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition DirectX 11 GV-R787OC-2GD 2GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0

Good to see new faces as well.

Let me know if you have any luck with the driver. My Radeon HD 7000 series is rendering the suns correctly, as of catalyst version 15.7.1. But if the bug is persistent, I've got a drawer full of other test cards I can start swapping in, and with any luck at least one will replicate this.

sven wrote:

Captainspire wrote:Sorry, I have been away for a long time. Started up SiS and saw the updates going through. Had a bit of graphical issues with Stars.

http://i.imgur.com/uV0wjsI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EMZKmyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Z6G9yMC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/730lzWV.jpg

Im going to see if upgrading the driver will help.
My video card is a 2012 GIGABYTE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition DirectX 11 GV-R787OC-2GD 2GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0

Good to see new faces as well.

Let me know if you have any luck with the driver. My Radeon HD 7000 series is rendering the suns correctly, as of catalyst version 15.7.1. But if the bug is persistent, I've got a drawer full of other test cards I can start swapping in, and with any luck at least one will replicate this.

The new driver update fixed it alright. Everything's fine now. Thank you!

I'm stuck unable to continue the game. Uploaded errors game_992 - game_994 (I think).
Seems like something is wrong with the bombard/invade stage. Brigades on the first position?

bjg wrote:I'm stuck unable to continue the game. Uploaded errors game_992 - game_994 (I think).
Seems like something is wrong with the bombard/invade stage. Brigades on the first position?

Ah, interesting. You captured a fleet carrier loaded with bombers, and bombers have planetary bombardment power that's determined by your empire's missile tech. But, you don't have any missile tech. Thus: bug. Should have a fix up just as soon as I can decide on a sensible rule for handling this case. Maybe captured bombers should be be given nuclear missiles, in the case that their new empire doesn't have any missile tech?

More generally, this save game is a good example of why the current "prize taking" rules need to change. In a case like this, where you've taken an enemy ship that requires munitions which you're unable to produce yourself, you should really, at the very least, need to refit it with weapons you're capable of servicing before you can take it back into battle. Mostly likely, you'd need to choose between scrapping it for raw materials, or using it as a research project.

Actually, this (damaged) ship does not have bombers, because they've been destroyed during the battle. If talking about changing the rules - damaged ships should be able to bomb only with what they have left.

bjg wrote:Actually, this (damaged) ship does not have bombers, because they've been destroyed during the battle. If talking about changing the rules - damaged ships should be able to bomb only with what they have left.

You're right: I should update the bombing rules to reduce the bombardment power of damaged ships.
edited by sven: As of r15241, the bombing power formula has changed, and battle damage should now be taken into account.

Though, technically, all systems on a captured ship are treated as "destroyed" for the duration of the battle, even if they weren't actually blown apart in the fighting. In the case of your captured fleet carrier, the bombers were only "damaged", so some of them would, hypothetically, have survived the battle. And thus your engineers might have had some very interesting captured hardware to work with.

But in any case, you're going to need to go back to a game state before your attack on Akham III to get this game back into a playable state. I've posted a patch that should prevent the worst bugs of this sort from recurring on 'dev' (r15239), but even in the patched build, if you capture that fleet carrier again, it could cause issues. Specifically, if you had been playing as Teros, rather than Orthin, and captured a Haduir carrier before researching any bomber techs, you might run into bugs if/when you tried to refit it.

game_996 - Gemma III overpopulation warning did not disappear after I've sent a transport away (fixing the situation).

Version 15373 'dev'

'Outposts and space stations are now treated as different customizations of the same base hull.'

Space stations and outposts have the same description at the bottom of the screen:



Also, shouldn't stations, unlike outposts, have at least some weapons? Seems to me that all the configuration for space stations got written over by data for outposts?

Awaras wrote:Space stations and outposts have the same description at the bottom of the screen:

Opps. That I should fix. Thanks for the report.

Awaras wrote:Also, shouldn't stations, unlike outposts, have at least some weapons? Seems to me that all the configuration for space stations got written over by data for outposts?

Well, the original space station never included any weapon space -- the hardpoint spec (though not the graphic) is the same as it always has been.

As of the latest dev build, it is now possible to create stations armed with fighters by putting a fighter squad in the station mount -- though that's not necessarily a great plan, as you'll then lose the main value of building a station in the first place (namely, the construction module).

The basic space station is meant to be a minimal civilian installation. The armed battle station is appropriately larger and more expensive.

We could add a smaller dedicated space combat platform (such as a Defense Satellite) as a stopgap, but right now I think the ground base fills that role adequately.

Tech 'Carriers' needs tech 'Fleet Logistics' as prerequisite (from description), but I can begin to learn 'Carriers' even without 'Fleet Logistics'.

game_1011

Zaskow wrote:Tech 'Carriers' needs tech 'Fleet Logistics' as prerequisite (from description), but I can begin to learn 'Carriers' even without 'Fleet Logistics'.

I believe this is working as intended. Carriers requires either "Fleet Logistics" or "Shipyards". I.e., to build them, you need at least one of the two "big station" techs. You already have Shipyards researched in this game, so, you should be able to research carriers.

The tech screens could probably make this mechanic clearer, but, if you look at the fine print, you should see that the list of prereqs in the Carriers info pane includes an "or".