Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Aptly Simple Hullmods 2.1.2c

« on: April 26, 2025, 06:31:13 AM »

Supply Recycler

I've seen it happen in heavily modded playthroughs, I should be able to fix it by turning the stat changes from hullmod to a hidden skill but haven't gone around in doing it yet.

If you have an unexpected boost of Ss mod programming motivation that would be the one to use it on . Because I found that every time the supply number jumps (about every two seconds) I also have a small lag spike making the game choppy. Removing all Supply Recyclers from the fleet also removed the lag. I don't know how you implemented the "supply saving" and I am quite sure that it isn't your mod alone, but rather an interactions with other mods which react to ship stat changes. But getting rid of that would be nice.

[disable certain hullmods?]

Should be possible to add but not sure when will I add them been busy playing other games right now most my mods are in maintenance mode meaning I'll fix bugs etc but will not add new features for the time being. Unless I gain sudden boost of motivation to just do it, until then glad you like the mod.

Understandable. If it works by editing hull_mods.csv as Stukov81 wrote, I'm fine. Sure it would be nice to have a lunalib option for it (mainly because it would make the changes mod-update-safe), but editing a file once isn't something to complain about. Assuming I have none of these hull mods installed, removing them from the CSV will mostly likely still break my savegame though, right?

Graviton Attunement Drive

This is def one of the mods I really like having, you can modify the stats of the hullmod if you feel like its too strong. If you have lunalib you'll find in the lunalib setting, in the logistics tab iirc. You can lower the burn level increase per ship size and even modify the supplies use and sensor profile debuffs.

About editing costs in hull_mod.csv: is there a value I can enter for cost_frigate so that the game will tell me "can't be installed on a frigate"?


Sorry, if what I said sounded too critical. It's complaining on a high level . I'm glad there are people like you donating their time to make a game more (re)playable.

2

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Carter's Junk Hull Mods - V 1.0.1 - 04/12/25

« on: April 25, 2025, 12:52:01 PM »

I think Exploration Refit also removing the effects of civilian grade hull (-50% sensor strength, +100% senso profile) makes the hullmod way too powerful. You'd normally need to install "Militarized Subsystems" to get that, which is a hullmod with higher OP cost. I like the idea of modifying freigthers for exploration, but the way it is now you can stick the "Exploration Refit" on an Atlas freighter and it becomes your best sensor ship. The "running costs" (supplies/fuel) are also reduced by 25%, while the cargo space is only reduced by 15%. This gives the freighter essentially a better cargo space per supply ratio. That shouldn't be possible (at least without installing "Militarized Subsystems" at the same time). The only downside, the CR nerf, doesn't really matter for an Atlas (if it gets caught in a fight it's almost certainly cooked anyway).

I'd also say that Cargo Carver, Internal Tanks, Auxiliary Cargo and Auxiliary Tanks have a similar issue. They shouldn't be applicable to a civilian grade hull ship. If you can carve another 20% of space out of a freigther the designers of the freighter did something wrong .

3

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Aptly Simple Hullmods 2.1.2c

« on: April 25, 2025, 12:09:45 PM »

I really like these hullmods. They fit quite well so that I sometimes forget that they are not vanilla. But there are a few small issues that you might could look into.

Supply Recycler: Its effect doesn't show in a the ships' info tab, or at least I don't see any change there when I add the recycler to a ship in the fleet. Another thing is that it makes the supplies per day number (of the fleet stats) jump between values. This also has the effect that a mod like Logistics Notfications (shows you the days of supplies remaining) shows a changing value all the time.

Graviton Attunement Drive: I think this is way too overpowered. IMHO you shouldn't be able to install it on a frigate or destroyer at all and it should add at most 1 burn level. The way it is now it makes all other hullmods and skills that increase the burn level in any way pretty much pointless.

And a more general question: would it be possible to add an option to disable certain hullmods? E. g. I use the "Forge Production" mod to make metal, supplies and fuel (I like the way that mod handles it as an active ability in addition to the other options it has). So I would like to remove the Mineral Refinery, Industrial Machine Forge and Fuel Ramscoop. I know I can just not use them. But with multiple mods the list of available hullmods gets longer and longer and removing those that I won't use in a playthrough would help.

4

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Second-in-Command | A full-scale skill system rework

« on: April 23, 2025, 01:41:28 PM »

I could probably improve performance here and there, but the mod taking up a certain amount of performance is to be expected, as with it NPC fleets also get skills and those have to be kept up to date, like burn speeds, sensor profiles, etc. Its going to scale together with the more fleets there are in your sector.

I hope you can do something there! I'd really like to try the different skill system, but I can't use the mod, if 20% of the game's processor time is spent there.

5

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Roider Union 2.2.1

« on: April 23, 2025, 01:35:18 PM »

I really love this mod! It is the only faction I add on purpose every time (some mods add a faction as a side effect, not counting those). It fits the theme so well that I think it should be in the base game, while other faction mods often feel more like a reskin.
I also just saw that the first post is from almost ten years ago! And there's still active development, which is rare. Thank you for that.

So enough with the praise. Here comes a problem (I think it is this mod's fault). The Phasenet Tow Pattern of the Wrecker is causing a huge performace hit in a game I'm just playing. Quite likely exacerbated by other mods that react on ship stat changes. I found that after I refit a few Atlasses (added Militarized Subsystems) at a market and did nothing else the game came to a crawl. My hardware is borderline, but playable (it runs 60fps 10% idle with speedup at the start of a game only, I'm lucky if I can keep above 60fps without speed up later in a game). On the refit screen it's 60fps/50% idle, but with the Wrecker in the fleet that dropped to below 40fps/0% idle. Just putting the Wrecker in storage makes it jump up again.

The issue seems to be that the Phasenet Tow Pattern burn level bonus is constantly switching ships. When I hover over the question mark on the refit screen for an Atlas it sometimes shows "7 (+1)" (the plus one is from the Navigation skill) and sometimes "8 (+2)". Not need to leave the screen, just move the mouse off and onto the question mark repeatedly and the values will switch randomly. If I move the Wrecker into storage this does not happen, it stays at "7 (+1)" all the time. The lag is also gone immediately.

I don't know how you would fix this, if the phasenet should only apply to one ship when there are multiple "slowest" ships and the "slowest" ship status changes due to phasenet itself. Maybe make it more static, like adding a hull mod like a "Phasenet Hitch" and only the first ship in fleet order equipped with it gets the bonus? Although that's micro managing I'd like to avoid.

Unfortunately the Wrecker has to stay in storage for the forseeable future now. And I have to hope it doesn't spawn on an NPC fleet where it causes the same issue, where I can't do anything. Could you please look into that?

6

Mods / Re: [0.98a] Second-in-Command | A full-scale skill system rework

« on: April 21, 2025, 10:38:39 AM »

Could it be that this mod has a really bad performance impact? I've recently started a 0.98 game including this mod (admittedly I don't even have a vanilla baseline, because I never play vanilla). Since I got FPS problem way before any colonization or even just invasions started (so maybe 2 hours of playing time), which I never had with 0.96, I got VisualVM profiler. I found that second_in_command functions are way up there in CPU time usage.

Here are some example (the percentages are percent of total CPU time without sub-calls)

Code

second_in_command.specs.SCOfficer.getSkillSpecs ()					12 192 ms (4,7 %)
second_in_command.specs.SCBaseAptitudePlugin.getOriginSkillSpec ()			7 786 ms (3 %)
second_in_command.SCUtils.getFleetData ()						6 500 ms (2,5 %)
second_in_command.SCData.getAllActiveSkillsPlugins ()					4 904 ms (1,9 %)
second_in_command.hullmods.SCControllerHullmod.applyEffectsBeforeShipCreation ()	3 902 ms (1,5 %)
second_in_command.specs.SCOfficer.getActiveSkillPlugins ()				2 400 ms (0,9 %)

There are also functions that don't use the CPU much on their own, but constantly call something that takes a lot of time (times/percentages are including the time of sub-calls):

Code

second_in_command.specs.SCAptitudeSpec.getPlugin ()	5 697 ms (1,5 %)
	java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass ()            	4 100 ms (1,1 %)
	java.lang.Class.newInstance ()                	1 597 ms (0,4 %)
	Self time					0,0 ms (0 %)

And these are not all of them. That's easily 20% and more in CPU time for a mod that shouldn't need to do any calculations unless you change skills or maybe the environment changes.

In the hopes that I'm using VisualVM correctly, could you please look into that? Maybe do some caching in the right places?

7

Bug Reports & Support (modded) / [0.98a-RC7] How can I find out what is limiting my game performance?

« on: April 21, 2025, 07:56:15 AM »

(btw. just bought the game after being a freeloader for some time; came up with a payment error, but then jumped to order being processed; if I'm not billed/don't get a key I'll try again)

The last time I played was with version 0.96. There I could play many hours to the point where I had a dozen colonies of my own at which point the game got slow (i. e. low FPS). That was a heavily modified game (but only Roider Union as extra faction, no other ship packs). I have an i7-3770, a GTX 680 2GB and 16GB system RAM. Not new, but enough in previous versions and according to system requirements.

But with version 0.98 it got way worse. After about 2 hours (maybe one cycle of game time) the game starts to slow down more and more where I can't even get 60 FPS (time speedup key does almost nothing anymore). At that point invasions haven't even started yet, let alone colonizations. I've increased the memory limit and VRAM usage is at 80% (so no low VRAM messages). Restarting the game and loading the save doesn't fix it.
This is still a modded game. But considering it takes a few hours  to get to that point I'm reluctant to try with fewer mods or vanilla, where it might still happen, just a bit later. That's too much time not really playing, but rather waiting for a problem.

So my question is: is there a way to find out where the game is spending its CPU cycles? In other games that can be heavily modded, like Factorio or Rimworld for example, there's the possibility to profile the game (often through mods themselves) while running to see which functions are using how much processor time. Maybe it's just one option of one mod? Maybe it's something in vanilla?

8

Mods / Re: [0.96a] LOST_SECTOR - Exploration and quest content

« on: August 22, 2023, 12:53:51 PM »

I really like this mod bur unfortunately it crashes my game quite often (not every time) when I join an ongoing battle with an enigma fleet. I don't get any error log outputs either, just a game "stopped responding". The crash happens at the point right before you'd select your own ships to participate (in game I guess that's the switch from campaign to battle view). I don't think the crashes ever happened when battling an enigma fleet alone, and they definitely never happened when joining a battle against any other faction. I am using the newest 0.5.1a version of the mod.

Seems like a hardware issue instead of a software issue, since I can't seem to reproduce this and haven't seen any other reports. Make sure your game has enough of RAM and VRAM both. And if it doesn't your gonna have to cut down your mod-list.

Not sure about that, because it only happens with enigma fleets. Also sometimes there's another weird behaviour (also only ever seen with enigma fleets): enigma seem to be stuck outside the tactical map. Look at the screenshot. The allied ships (and my own) bunch up at the upper edge of the map and scoot around as if there's something to attack farther up and the battle doesn't end unless I order a full retreat. After the battle there's the information that another enigma ship was deployed but apparently never fought.

Could it be that there is some issue with the placement of enigma ships, that could sometimes lead to crashes, sometimes to stuck ships? Maybe in combination with a changed battle size?

[attachment deleted by admin]

9

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.4.5)

« on: August 22, 2023, 12:38:26 PM »

I definitely don't want to hide projects that aren't possible on a given planet - the player should be able to view those projects and the requirements, and why they can't be done. Similarly, hiding planets where no projects can be started would prevent the player from viewing the possible projects and their requirements. I know most players won't read a lengthy forum post explaining the terraforming system, so I think showing players the projects and their requirements (even those that can't be done) in-game is the best way to teach them how the system works.

Sure, people have to get from somewhere, how the mod works. But in my opinion always showing all options does the opposite, because it is distracting or confusing.

Of course there is a difference between things that can't ever be done and those which can't be done because of missing prerequisites. The former should just not be shown, because that is how the game does it everywhere else (if you can't trade with a market because you're hostile, the entry isn't there; if there aren't any messages for certain intel tabs, those tabs aren't shown; aso.). E. g. if a climate is already "mild" there is no point in still showing the entry. If a planet isn't irradiated, toxic, without right density, with extreme weather there's no point in showing the respective entries. If all atmospheric conditions are optimal, hide the "atmospheric conditions improvement options" menu entry (or show it greyed, with a tooltip of paraphrasing "all done"). The same for resource improvement. If a resource is already maxed, no point in showing the option. If all resources are maxed, hide the "resource improvement options" (or again show it greyed out). The same with planet type change options. You can't change a hot planet into a frozen world.

This could also be a kind of way to find "done" planets. If a planet is habitable and there aren't any atmospheric conditions and resources to improve, only show it in the "all planet" list.

Regarding changing the color of the entries, it might be confusing to players why an entry is a certain color until they've used the menu a lot and learned the meaning of the colors, but by that point they'll already know the requirements for the different projects.

That's for the actions that can't be done because of missing prerequisites. It doesn't necessarily have to be red, green, yellow aso. But Colorcoding is also done in the game in a lot of places. If you don't have enough story points or credits or resources to perform an action the entry/button is there, but greyed out. That's also a form of color coding and pretty universal. Usually when you try to select/activate such an entry anyway, that's when you get that "not possible sound", a message or tooltip why it can't be done.

I'm not sure printing which buildings are missing before the player enters into a menu is a good idea. It will clutter up the text panel and might be confusing if there are projects with different building requirements.

That was an alternative to color coding.

My point is usability. Currently there is A LOT of clicking and going through menus only to find out that most of the actions CAN'T be performed. This becomes especially tedious if you have 10 or more colonies, where remembering what you already did on what planet or want to do is pretty much impossible (unless you're some kind of genius in memorizing stuff). If I come back to a game after a few days, it becomes a game of trial and error going through almost every menu for almost every planet to "learn" where I was when I left off.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing the functions of the mod. In my opinion Startsector doesn't feel complete without it and I'll use it in any case!

10

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Automated Commands

« on: August 21, 2023, 07:37:35 AM »

i'd like a way to either mass add retreat orders to my fleet, or to set default behaviors with the mod, so that my preferred retreat at blank was automatically issued to ship. thank you in advance, and thank you for writing the mod

I was thinking the same. Especially when you have the "fleetsize by DP" mod and therefore a lot more ships, I'd really like to have a default behaviour. Didn't happen just once that my ships blew up, because I forgot to add the retreat orders (most often because they were removed by autofit)  .

It could either be an implicit default (there are no orders added to ship loadout), which is preferable because there is less clutter, or an explicit default (the orders get added when using autofit like "reinforced bulkheads" can be).

Of course for both you would need to be able set the defaults somewhere. But for starters I wouldn't even mind if it's in the mod's "settings.json". As another alternative it would also help a lot if the orders just weren't removed by the game's "strip" command (the manual one and the one done by autofit). I usually do not forget to add the orders the very first time I load out a ship.

11

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.4.5)

« on: August 19, 2023, 09:26:25 AM »

Thank you for this mod! It makes the game a lot more fun to play!
I don't know, when you switched from accessing terraforming from a planet's menu to its own menu, but it is a real step up in useability. But there's a thing that would make the menu even more useful. Would it be possible to only list planets where you can actually start a terraforming project? That's because all the planets that have been fully "optimized" start to clutter the menu of "planets without ongoing projects". I'm aware that it's not that straightforward, because you can always change between planet types (even though you wouldn't). Maybe give an option to mark planets as "finished" so they won't be listed?
What would also be nice is to list the missing building(s) that prevent you from terraforming further right in the menu. Currently you only see what's missing when you actually select "change into terran" for example.

You could make use of colors for the menu entries: orange = needs a building to do something, yellow = can do something, green = can do something, but it is currently already optimal (so mostly for the planet type change option). If something can't be done at all (like improving farmland on a barren planet, resources already improved to the max, weather already mild) don't show the option at all.

In short: currently there's a lot of going through the menus only to find out that you can't do anything.

12

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Industrial.Evolution 3.3.a - Campaign content expansion

« on: August 15, 2023, 08:41:24 AM »

The vanishing industries is a cross mod bug with grand colonies, I'm working on it.

Is it "safe" (non-gamebreaking) to keep using the specializations (they give the desired output, even though invisible, after all) until it is resolved in an update? (when they will magically appear again  )

I can say right now - that's never, ever going to happen. I provide a massive amount of setting letting you customize the mod almost how you please, enabling and disabling features, and add more settings even for older stuff each update. There is no reason for me to split it, it would just confuse others ("I thought X was in module Y!") and increase upkeep workload on me.

Understandable, but I wish that pets would be their own mod. They feel like a "bolt on".

13

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Grand.Colonies 2.0.c - More Building Slots - Scrollbar Edition

« on: August 15, 2023, 08:15:05 AM »

Industrial Evolution and this mod are essential for every playthrough! Thank you!

Would it be possible to base the "cramped infrastructure" modifier on planet size? And by that I mean the size of the planet on the map, not the colony size. The "Terraforming and Station Construction" mod (also a must), does something like that with not allowing stations to be built around small planets, so a planet size seems to be at least somewhere in the game (I don't know why it isn't used anywhere in the base game).

Of course colony size itself could also influence the cramped infrastructure limit. Like going from 5 to 8 to 11 to 14 to 17 to 20 "slots" (on respective colony sizes 3 to before the cramped infrastructure kicks in.

Combine the two:
Every planet has a base of 5 at colony size 3 and depending on planet size "slots" are added every time the colony grows.
A small planet adds one per colony size (5 base + 1 x 3 = 8 slots a colony size 6)
A medium planet adds two per colony size (5 base + 2 x 3 = 11 @ 6)
A large planet adds three per colony size (5 base + 3 x 3 = 14 @ 6)

Not only would that give planet size some use, but it would also make cryosleepers (together with the "Ashes of the Domain" mod) more valuable, as on a large planet grown to colony size 8 "cramped infrastructure" would only kick in after 20 buildings.

The numbers can of course be tweaked. And I don't know how planet sizes are represented in the game (e.g. if there are fixed sizes or they are continous), so maybe we can even have some in-betweens (like 2.5 slots per colony size, but rounded down).

I hope you consider the idea!

14

Mods / Re: [0.96a] LOST_SECTOR - Exploration and quest content

« on: August 10, 2023, 12:49:04 PM »

I really like this mod bur unfortunately it crashes my game quite often (not every time) when I join an ongoing battle with an enigma fleet. I don't get any error log outputs either, just a game "stopped responding". The crash happens at the point right before you'd select your own ships to participate (in game I guess that's the switch from campaign to battle view). I don't think the crashes ever happened when battling an enigma fleet alone, and they definitely never happened when joining a battle against any other faction. I am using the newest 0.5.1a version of the mod.

15

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Fleet Action History v1.0.10 - battle logs, ship kill counts and more

« on: August 06, 2023, 04:41:46 AM »

I love statistics so I love this mod! It makes it a lot easier to know which of my ship loadouts are crap  .

A suggestion that would make it even easier:
on the table that shows the total stats for my fleet's ships, it would be nice to have another column that shows average destroyed/assisted fleet points per battle per deployment point of the respective ship. As ships that have a lot of combats will almost always have a lot more "fleet points" than one that you just recently added to the fleet it's hard to tell if a new design is working. Also large ships will almost always have more destroyed fleet points than small ships. But considering the DP of the large ship maybe it would be better to deploy 10 frigates instead of a capital ship?