What can we tell you more than "this is something we intend to do"?Zireael wrote:Speaking of this long-intended feature, will it ever get done?
Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2
Moderator: Oberlus
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.
When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.
When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
- eleazar
- Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: USA — midwest
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13587
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
"Patches welcome!"eleazar wrote:What can we tell you more than "this is something we intend to do"?Zireael wrote:Speaking of this long-intended feature, will it ever get done?
- eleazar
- Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: USA — midwest
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
I suppose we should comment out the remote terraforming tech until it works again.sjolley wrote:I just loaded FreeOrion 04.1 RC2 and find a couple of items that puzzle me. I notice that you can't remote terraform (even if you have the tech) plants that should be able to be terraformed, but only have an outpost on them. You have to send a colony base/ship there first.
Orbital Habitation says: "If this planet is inhabitable, increases the population capacity to by 5."sjolley wrote:The second item is I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors? If so the descriptions on these techs should be changed.
That is exactly what it does.
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
Wait, so this only applies to colonies?eleazar wrote:Orbital Habitation says: "If this planet is inhabitable, increases the population capacity to by 5."sjolley wrote:The second item is I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors? If so the descriptions on these techs should be changed.
That is exactly what it does.
- eleazar
- Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: USA — midwest
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
It only applies to planets where you could have a colony.Saintrl wrote:Wait, so this only applies to colonies?eleazar wrote:Orbital Habitation says: "If this planet is inhabitable, increases the population capacity to by 5."sjolley wrote:The second item is I can't send a colony ship/base to a gas giant or asteroid belt even if I have learned Orbital Habitation. Are these expected behaviors? If so the descriptions on these techs should be changed.
That is exactly what it does.
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
Agh this is so confusing, the game has changed alot since the last time I played.
Is the Stargate mechanic still broken? I can't seem to get it to work along with the Planetary Starlane Drive ability.
Is the Stargate mechanic still broken? I can't seem to get it to work along with the Planetary Starlane Drive ability.
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
I want to second that.eleazar wrote:I think it is important enough to go in the menu bar at the top of the screen.Geoff the Medio wrote:They're shown in the encyclopedia entry for the player's empire. Not ideal, but there.Bigjoe5 wrote:A more pressing need is for the player to actually be able to see the value of his empire meters.
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
I wanted to test the game some more, but I am getting a "timed out while attempting to connect to server" message... Nothing changed between my last post and now...
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
You probably did that already, but just to be sure: Have you tried to restart your computer? Because my first guess would be that maybe the server process hangs and cannot be restarted.Zireael wrote:I wanted to test the game some more, but I am getting a "timed out while attempting to connect to server" message... Nothing changed between my last post and now...
Besides that, the usual request in cases like that: please post the log files (freeorion.log, freeoriond.log)...
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
When I used a shortcut from my Start menu, it ran ok. When it hanged up, it was the shortcut on the desktop (curious: is it to windowed or fullscreen?)
- eleazar
- Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: USA — midwest
Re: Issues in 0.4 RC 2
Sometimes deleting the preferences fixes that for me-- but it may be different for me, since i usually change the content between launching the application.Zireael wrote:I wanted to test the game some more, but I am getting a "timed out while attempting to connect to server" message... Nothing changed between my last post and now...
- eleazar
- Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: USA — midwest
Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2
Well, it seems clear to me that the fleet stealth toggle could be better labeled (and iconed). Changing or adding to the functionality is probably beyond the scope of 0.4.1.
What we need IMHO is to more clearly describe the current functionality.
"Aggressive"
rename "Normal" or "Standard"
Change icon to something
Tooltip: Fleet blockades enemy empires and initiates battles with any enemy targets in its system.
"Passive"
rename "Stealthy" or "Hide"
Change icon to something similar to stealth meter icon
Tooltip: Fleet will not blockade or initiate battle and will attempt to stay hidden.
Thoughts?
What we need IMHO is to more clearly describe the current functionality.
"Aggressive"
rename "Normal" or "Standard"
Change icon to something
Tooltip: Fleet blockades enemy empires and initiates battles with any enemy targets in its system.
"Passive"
rename "Stealthy" or "Hide"
Change icon to something similar to stealth meter icon
Tooltip: Fleet will not blockade or initiate battle and will attempt to stay hidden.
Thoughts?
Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2
Once again, I must complain about the display of very high-stealth systems. I found one now, and here's what I can see:
- the high cloud cover special
- large toxic
- two buildings, one of which is Basic Shipyards (I can tell by the icon) and the other is probably Orbital Drydock (a guess)
The name is hidden, and what makes matters worse, the system shows up as 'unexplored region'. Annoys the hell out of me.
- the high cloud cover special
- large toxic
- two buildings, one of which is Basic Shipyards (I can tell by the icon) and the other is probably Orbital Drydock (a guess)
The name is hidden, and what makes matters worse, the system shows up as 'unexplored region'. Annoys the hell out of me.
Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2
The text for N-Dimensional Assembly says "Unlocks Hyperspatial Dam" in the box for the science babble, above the rest of the scientific description.
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13587
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2
If you want to rename "Passive" to "Stealthy", that's fine...eleazar wrote:"Aggressive"
rename "Normal" or "Standard"
Change icon to something
Tooltip: Fleet blockades enemy empires and initiates battles with any enemy targets in its system.
"Passive"
rename "Stealthy" or "Hide"
Change icon to something similar to stealth meter icon
Tooltip: Fleet will not blockade or initiate battle and will attempt to stay hidden.
Edit: Actually, perhaps "Hide" is better, as being "Aggressive" doesn't prevent a ship from being stealthy; it just prevents it from revealing itself by attacking something in the system. I don't like how "Hide" is a command-verb, while "Aggressive" is an adjective, though... but "Hidden" is also misleading, as it is really "try to be hidden" not a guaranteed hidden status. It's not really clear whether it's best to describe what the fleet is being told to do, or what the potential consequences are of what it's being told to do. /Edit
...but I think "Aggressive" describes the first option better than the (meaningless) "Standard". Also, there's no reason to assume or imply that "Aggressive" would be the normal / most commonly used setting.
It's a known issue now, and should be resolve eventually, but the display of such systems and planets isn't going to change before v0.4.1.Zireael wrote:Once again, I must complain about the display of very high-stealth systems.