Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 9     «   Prev   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #91 

No, strike that whole post.

I'm going to pare this down to an argument that the initial posts in this thread, while they could not find the bug in question, were intended to be helpful and useful to Thom. I don't care what happens to my suggestion of an edit to the vesselData file, or the discussion of the interface. It's irrelevant. But I would not characterize the posts of people who were trying to contribute as irrelevant if they posted actual bugs, and I feel those posts should remain.

Above, I meant to point out Fish Evan's post, here: http://artemis.forumchitchat.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1287627788&postcount=65

There is an error message in that post, but it's an image, so I couldn't copy and paste it. It does not appear related to shooting or destroying a monster, more the creation of one. If it's already being looked at, then there you go.

Xavier Wise

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #92 
But it is not helpful as it distracts from what Thom is looking for. Those posts that are actually trying to find and identify the specific bug are lost within other bug reports, features discussion and wish lists, as well as this arguement!

Contributions are important, bug reports are important, wish lists and request are important... they need to be in a relevant section though, as organisation of these things so Thom can sift through and find them easily is just as important. The initial post are good posts, and with good ideas. I do not dispute that they are helpful. They are just in the wrong place! They are helpful, just not to this SPECIFIC topic. This is why we need a moderator. All these posts could then simply be moved to a new topic headed 'Feedback on 2.2.0' or 'Bug Reports/Outstanding Bugs' or something like that. However, we don't have moderators, hence why I made my appeal. We need to be self moderating and critial of our own posts - what we write and WHERE we write them.

As for Fish's post, it shows the error message that appeared when we experienced the crash bug. The other posts link with that and make it clearer. Yes, the error message says about the creation of a monster. This is because when you destroy a wreck, it removes the wreck and replaces it with a monster. The game therefore, has to create the monster and place it on the map. This is why it is a creation error message. The monster isn't destroyed, the WRECK is destroyed.

Please send any more replies to my PM if you want to continue this discussion. I will not be posting on this again unless it is about the specific bug in question as I feel these posts are definatly not helpful to the thread, and that perhaps this should be something moved elsewhere. In the absence of a relevant sub-forum, my suggestion is PM.

__________________
Fleet Captain Xavier Wise - TSN Sabre
Link to TSN RP Community website
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #93 
I'm sorry, I thought that the relevant bug was caused while a ship was in combat with Piranha. I suppose that if there were multiple wrecks spawning piranha, they could have spawned a swarm while you were already engaged, or as you suggested, a careless nuke destroyed a wreck and "freed" the swarm.

It is still possible that there are multiple related bugs, one involving spawning and one related to the damaging or destruction of piranha. However, if that's the only assertion that's been seen, it does seem position related.
Morlane

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #94 
If it helps, I experienced the same bug this weekend, several times.
Solo mode game, single bridge.
Diff: 4
Scen: Siege
Terrain: Few
Lethal Terrain: Few
Friendly Ships: Some
Monsters: Few
Anomalies: Lots
Time Limit: 25 Minutes
Customized: All default except Network Update, which was set to 50ms


Killed ship (don't remember which one), destroyed wreck, spawned piranha swarm, started killing piranhas, all clients crashed.
Restarted server and clients. Repeat.
After the 3rd time in a row, we gave up and fell back to 2.1.1
Xavier Wise

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #95 
Morlane, that matches pretty much exactly our experience.
__________________
Fleet Captain Xavier Wise - TSN Sabre
Link to TSN RP Community website
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,285
Reply with quote  #96 
I have good news. Last night Thom got to see the bug!

We ran numerous games yesterday while Thom was watching. We managed to trigger the bug exactly once. It was nothing like anyone expected. While there were various monsters in the sector, at the time the bug triggered the player ship was not interacting with any of them. None of the machines actually crashed, but all of the clients lost contact with the server. The server continued to run, eventually giving the "Congratulations on installing Artemis . . ." message.

The most surprising thing: it appears the bug disabled the server's network adapter. We were able to launch more clients on the server machine and connect to the server, but the server machine itself had no access to the network. We rebooted the server machine and everyone was able to connect as normal.

Thom did observe something else that may be related. During the same mission the player ship fired upon a wreck using beam weapons. In between shots the wreck seemed to jump slightly. It should not have done that. Because the wreck is just another type of monster, Thom believes this is a symptom of a bug in the monster spawning code.

Thom is now on the case. I'll keep you posted as I hear more from him.

__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
Xavier Wise

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #97 
Mike, that is awesome news! Thanks for keeping us posted on this.
__________________
Fleet Captain Xavier Wise - TSN Sabre
Link to TSN RP Community website
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #98 
That's great! I was actually wondering if firing at the Piranha was actually a red herring, and the bug would have occurred anyway. I never could reproduce it myself, though.
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,285
Reply with quote  #99 
Thom suspects that it is not a red herring. If a player ship firing at a monster can trigger the bug, then an NPC ship could also fire at a monster and trigger the bug. At the time there were plenty of friendly and enemy ships that might have been interacting with monsters.
__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
adriantp

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #100 
Some friends and I played Artemis last night for the first time in months. All upgraded to 2.2 from 2.1.1. We experienced a glitch when nuking a swarm of bitey blue things which the science officer said were insects, but it was her very first game, so maybe they were piranhas. When they exploded, every bridge station crashed, even the one running on the same machine as the server.

http://artemis.forumchitchat.com/post/bug-report-crash-when-destroying-a-flock-of-insects-7519268?pid=1288063674
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,285
Reply with quote  #101 
Can you describe the symptoms of the crash? Did the consoles completely lock up, or did they lose communication with the server?

Did you need to restart the server machine afterwards?

__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #102 
I'd like to add that I decided to try recreating the bug that crashes Artemis when you try to create a monster in a mission. I got the exact same assertion error Fish Evans pointed out in his post, the one that says "Expression: pos.x > SPACE_SIZE_W".

I notice that this error occurs only on the clients, not on the server. I didn't check whether the server crashed, but it looked to me like it was still running.
Mike Substelny

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 2,285
Reply with quote  #103 
More good news: Thom has isolated the bug and knows how to fix it! Look for a patch in the future that will solve this problem forever!

The next release should also include some mission scripts, including the Canonical Battles from Artemis Armada. Thom is working on fixing some bugs that caused these mission scripts to malfunction in the 2.2.0.

Finally we had a good conversation about Ryeyra's suggested vesseldata.xml file. It's a good file, but in my opinion it doesn't address the core problem, which is embedded in the Artemis code. I believe that the issue is that as you increase the server's difficulty setting you also increase the power of NPC Friendly beams. At difficulty 7+ the NPC Friendlies become the terror of the galaxy! Thom is going to try some changes to reduce this effect. Our local test crew will play some games with the adjusted code and give feedback to help Thom. The idea is to weaken the NPC Friendlies while still giving the Communications Officer important work to do.

Stay tuned for more updates . . .

__________________
"The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
- Winston Churchill
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 2,915
Reply with quote  #104 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Substelny
More good news: Thom has isolated the bug and knows how to fix it! Look for a patch in the future that will solve this problem forever!


Hooray!

Quote:
Finally we had a good conversation about Ryeyra's suggested vesseldata.xml file. It's a good file, but in my opinion it doesn't address the core problem, which is embedded in the Artemis code. I believe that the issue is that as you increase the server's difficulty setting you also increase the power of NPC Friendly beams.


I'm going to take this offline, since there are some technical details I'd like to discuss, but I think this is wonderful, and I look forward to seeing what Thom comes up with.

Honestly, the issue is simply that enemy ships are defined at their minimum strength, 1 to 3 damage, while friendly and player ships were originally defined at their maximum strength, 7 and 12 damage respectively. Now for friendly ships that is minimum, so when you start multiplying that 7 damage by the difficulty level, even if the max is 5, it gets powerful pretty fast. The problem really isn't the 7+ difficulty, where there are so many enemies you need (some of) that firepower, it's from 4-7, where all that damage is overkill.

Still, it is a lot of damage. [biggrin] I'm sure there is a solution that will make everyone happy.

Arrew

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,737
Reply with quote  #105 
Can you alter the size of ships while your at it. I guess it's just an oversight but a Dreadnaught should probably be bigger than a scout.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.