SE5 - 1.17 Patch Out

[Matryx]

Here (http://www.spaceempires5.com/files/se5patch_v117.exe) (http://www.spaceempires5.com/files/se5patch_v117.exe)
Mirrors: Here (http://www.tarnishedmind.com/se5patch_v117.exe) or Here (http://www.craftershaven.net/tmp/se5patch_v117.exe) or Here (http://rapidshare.com/files/4160961/se5patch_v117.exe.html) or Here (http://files.filefront.com/se5patch_v117exe/;6217343)
History File: http://www.spaceempires5.com/files/history117.txt

[Raapys]

Finally. Slow download as usual, unfortunately. Has to be the greatest patch, judging by the notes.

[Caduceus]

Hot dog!

EDIT: Ship capture and ground combat fixes. Great!

[President_Elect_Shang]

Crap! No fix yet for the generational components problem; guess I will have to hope its included in the next one!

[Raapys]

If anyone find download mirrors, please list them here. My 'remaining' time is just increasing *_*

[Santiago]

Impossibly slow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Kana]

Yeah they really need to consider either releasing this to other outlet mirrors, or getting a faster/fatter pipe for downloading from their site...

[Intimidator]

I reached 43% downloaded (took me almost 1 hour http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif ) after that it stopped with some stupid error http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Santiago]

Same for me

[Fyron]

You can get it via Bit Torrent from:

http://kazharii.no-ip.com:6969

Please leave the torrent running for a while to help seed to others.

[DrewBlack]

Try this

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/spaceempiresv/patch/9673.html

Drew

[Slick]

Do v1.13 savegames work under 1.17?

[Kana]

mmmm BitTorrent to the rescue...

[rdouglass]

Unless this is frowned upon (and Fyron will keep me in line), I will donate some of my bandwidth as well:

http://www.rogerdouglass.com/se5patch_v117.exe

East coast connections should be able to get at least 80K/sec from this server.

And of course, don't trust anyone. Don't click this unless you have virus protection. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

EDIT: Wow, 1K posts. Only another 96 years to catch up to Fyron... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Romulus68]

I added the patch to Filefront: http://files.filefront.com/se5patch_v117exe/;6217343

[Atrocities]

What is SFI on, dial up? Jesus the best I can get is 1.1 down. Thats dial up speeds. Oh man they really need to invest in infastructure don't they?

[Intimidator]

DrewBlack said:
Try this

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/spaceempiresv/patch/9673.html

Drew






Thanks got it !!

[Intimidator]

Romulus68 said:
I added the patch to Filefront: http://files.filefront.com/se5patch_v117exe/;6217343




Thanks for the message but already got it !!!!

[Fyron]

rdouglass said:
Unless this is frowned upon (and Fyron will keep me in line...

The only people that might frown would be suits at Strategy First, but who cares? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif If they'd just get enough bandwidth to make all this unnecessary already...

[raynor]

Download Path 1.17 from GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spaceempiresv/download_ini.html?sid=6162085&id=6162085&mode=patc hes)

[Caduceus]

Thanks Romulus.

[DeadZone]

Imperator Fyron said:
The only people that might frown would be suits at Strategy First, but who cares? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif If they'd just get enough bandwidth to make all this unnecessary already...



I doubt SFi would care
Afterall, if we are getting it hosted elsewhere as a community, it saves them bandwidth, which saves them money

Which is, of course, a big argument for them sorting out mirrors with servers like FileFront and what not

[atari_eric]

Looks like Aaron is hammering out those bugs at a good, steady pace...

[Wulf_Flieger]

Do saved games from previous patches work?

[MisterBenn]

I installed 1.17 over 1.13. I was in the middle of a Balance Mod 0.97 game at the time, and when loading up after patching, my saved games were no longer listed. Maybe they were retrievable somewhere in the game folders, but I started a new game instead.

The official patches change such fundamental game logic that it's definitely the safest option to start a new game... otherwise like I had in the past you may find that you have extra crashes or bugs like inactive AI players that wouldn't occur if you'd started a new game.

[Caduceus]

Just dump saves and start over, that's 90% of the fun anyway.

[Q]

I continued several games (standard and balance mod) without problems after the combined upgrade to 1.17 and balance mod 0.98.

[jimbob]

sorry to ask a dumb question, but have the point defence been fixed yet (you know, all the ships in the fleet would fire on the first missle in range, then all subsequent missles got through)?

I only ask because I'm almost done the PhD, and I need to buy a game soon...

['DIT] Oh, and yahoo! Boarding parties are fixed. Is SJ remaking P&N?

[Danipenn]

Thanks Rdouglass http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif i used getright to download the file and the programme found also your site http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

It took me around 5 mins to download and i was downloading from u at around 35 kb/sec. I live in Finland http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Seeya

[Fyron]

Using Getright is very rude to everyone else struggling with limited bandwidth availability... It's like installing a special pipe from the water main to your house during a huge drought.

[Ungomma]

Am I the only one who thinks that AIs started to think a lot slower with this new patch?

[Captain Kwok]

The AI slowdown is really caused by AI pathing calculations or combats - not really it's actually thinking.

[Elsemeravin]

Am I right to think that Armor ability is flawed in the sense that it is considered only when the component is actually on an Armor slot ?

I tried an Armor component on the outter slot but the damagetype does not seems to apply.
I'm seen SJ using such armors in outter slot but I don't remember him using the damagetype for it (like damage penetration 50%).

Any idea ?

[Fyron]

SJ's armor in GGMod is leaky; it is not meant to have armor ability.

[Smolf]

It's also possible to download the patch through Strategy First homepage...

Link: http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/games/SpaceEmpiresV/downloads/

There are 6 different download services, so at least one of them should work :-)

[Raapys]

AI's definitely generally slower with 1.17, even though the slowdowns are thankfully gone. AI pathing should and could probably be optimized alot, both for players and AIs.

[Suicide Junkie]

Imperator Fyron said:
SJ's armor in GGMod is leaky; it is not meant to have armor ability.

Just a technical note:
I think it may still actually have the ability, it just dosen't do anything since the components aren't armor by not being in the armor slot...

I left it there because the components are working as intended, and I got distracted.
Now, its just something to tidy up in the next revision.

The directional armor is technically internals, while the leaky shields I plan to add will be technically armor. I plan to not use the game's shield mechanics at all.

[Elsemeravin]

So do you agree that you cannot do directional leaky armor ?
(As I intended...)

[Fyron]

Depends on your definition of leaky. Traditionally, "leaky" means a component with no armor ability.

[Elsemeravin]

I would consider that "leaky" means that some part of the damage go through, some hit the armor.

For example a steel plate on the left of the ship would take damage from perforating bullet comming its way (in outter hull so directional), but would not stop it completely, and some damage would go through to internal (maybe 50%).

It would be interesting to have the damageType.txt settings to apply to "armor" composant (meaning the one with armor ability) instead of "Armor" slot only, don't you think ?

[Elsemeravin]

Suicide Junkie said:

The directional armor is technically internals, while the leaky shields I plan to add will be technically armor. I plan to not use the game's shield mechanics at all.



I agree that the actual "Armor" slot is not interesting for real armor. I plan to use it for whole ship specifics only (like radioactive treatment reducing beam damage, or rubber isolation from electric damage or the like). The same way the Inner Hull component are not logical and I plan to use them only for sizeless/structureless components such as computer programs, crew training and such, which would be destroyed once there is nothing left.

But I really consider a pitty not to be able to use the damagetype setting, which has a big potential in my opinion, for Outter Hull "Armor".

[Suicide Junkie]

Some of the damage does go through, though.

First you have to punch a hole in the armor somewhere, but once that happens, shots from that direction do leak through while other shots hit the remaining armor plate.

[Elsemeravin]

Right, but all damage type are equivalent in that sense.
There won't be one damage type making a hole while another cannot.

[StarJack]

Here we go with access violations in strategic combat again. Fix it, then break it. And yeah, and I can bring up tactical and let them fight, and they fight like crap, like imbeciles are at the helm. This is getting old.

[Danipenn]

the only thing get right does is looking where to download the file from different sources at the same time, i don't occupy extra bandwidth.

For example if there are lets say TWO sites from where the file can be downloaded and from each one of them i can download with a speed of around 4kb/sec then get right connects to both of them at the same time so that i can download at a speed of 8kb/sec...ecc.

Nobody needs to struggle.

[Suicide Junkie]

Full auto Tactical is the same as strategic if you don't touch anything.
You need to improve your strategies (Empire options screen, down at the bottom).



Be default, getright will attempt to open many download connections to the same site as well. This action is what crowds out other users and upsets everybody.

[StarJack]

SJ, How is it then in strategic combat I defeat 8 enemy ships with 4 of my own remaining, and when letting tactical run, I lose 4 and the enemy loses 5 ships (7 DD's of mine against 8 FF's of his). Stratgey is Optimum firing range, and all ships are the same. How is that the same?

[Elsemeravin]

Modify your strategy corresponding to "optimal fire range" then. You can set many parameters for strategies, so play with it and improve your fleet auto-combat efficiency.

What's is unbalance is that YOU can play the ship manually but the computer CANNOT.
You lose 4 and he lose 5 considering he has 8 at the beginning is a fare ratio (better than the 4 kill 8 one anyway).

[StarJack]

All this ignores the point Strategic combat appears to be BROKEN for me. I shouldn't have to become a "tactical" guru if I don't want to. The game is supposed to have a strategic option that lets the computer sort all that out, is it not? My strategy appears to work just fine in strategic combat results. 7 top of the line DD's should win vs 8 early model FF's, relatively speaking. But the game crashes every time I run strategic combat.

I just rehashed this same combat for the umpteenth time in tactical. This time 5 enemy FF's and 1 of my DD's survived, and I haven't changed a thing. These results aren't just inconsistent, they're absurd.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. This game would DIE without the user community on this forum that supports it.

[Fyron]

Danipenn said:
the only thing get right does is looking where to download the file from different sources at the same time, i don't occupy extra bandwidth.

If only that was all it did...

[Baal]

There was talk of point defense accuracy being different at different speeds. If that's still true it may be affecting other weapons as well. Are you running tactical and strategic both at 8x?

[Baal]

I can still order planets to move in simultaneous play.

Oops, thought this was two different threads.

[Phoenix-D]

Starjack, then your DDs aren't as advanced as you think. There IS a random element to combat- namely what weapons hit and when.

If you could post a savegame I could figure out what's going on with more detail.

[StarJack]

Phoenix-D, Here you goThanks!

[StarJack]

My biggest question though, is am I the only one that can't get Strategic combat to work or are there others? In other words, is the coding for Strategic combat going to be tweaked or am I SOL?

[Raapys]

No offense, but if you're talking about the DD-Duc 2 destroyers, then I'm afraid you've gone the wrong way when designing. Your problem is that you've filled it with guns; as it happens, armor > guns. Your FF-Escort-2 has far more armor and therefor easily wins against your 1-armor destroyers.

To see what I mean, copy your FF-Escort-2, remove one of the guns and fill in the freed tonnage with more armor. You'll see the new ship you just made beat your old frigates.

Also note that the actual size difference between the frigate and that destroyer is only 25 tonnage. I.e., tiny.

How do you manage to play with that camera angle O_O

I'd suggest you get a hold of the Balance Mod if you haven't tried it already. The number of issues it fixes is immense. It changes research slightly( fewer and more expensive tech levels instead of cheap and many tech levels ), but it is basically the same game, only better.

Not sure about the crashing problems. Think there was a few others who had it as well. Do you happen to have a dualcore CPU or some such?

[Phoenix-D]

Ok, I took a look.

FF-Escort-2 vs DD-Duc-2, those being the latest frigate and destroyer designs. The Frigate has more armor and one less gun.

In simulation, the FFs win most of the time. The DDs do occasionally get lucky; both sides miss a lot, so if the DDs get a couple of solid salvos in that can turn the side.

So yeah, the results you were getting aren't out of character at all. The ships are fairly evenly matched, with the edge going to the FFs because of the thicker armor.

[Q]

StarJack on my computer the strategic combat runs without problems.
One reason why your ships perform so badly is that they have a lot of supplies but very little ordnance. So their DUC run out of ammunition very fast.

[StarJack]

Thanks for taking a look guys! My machine is a dual core, a Sony RA840G, I've posted the specifics previously. The crashes occur with 1 or both CPU's enabled. The funny thing is that with one of the patches, I think .08, strategic started working. Now it's busted again, so I can hope it'll start working again with another patch.

I wasn't even planning for an attack I just saved off and attacked to see if it was working, I was assuming it was "still" fixed. That's what I get for assuming. The DD-DUC's were slapped together primarily as scout ships, the FF'S designed for eventual escort/picket fleet duty. I usually don't put much thought into the ships until they get to CA size.

Always worked in SEIV, (which I know this isn't) and my overall strategy will need to be revamped. Funny as it sounds, tactical ship combat was not one of the key things I was looking forward to in SEV. Better graphics, diplomacy, treaties etc. was.

I've pretty much always used strategic combat. I did well (against the AI and a couple friends) at SEIV by growing a powerful economy and using overwhelming firepower when the stuff hit the fan. This savegame is not at all indicative of how I usually play, I'm still goofing around trying to learn the interface. I usually go for missile ships early, then hump it to PPB's, etc. but due to the fleet/ordinance problems with this game I went away from that.

I'll contact tech support and send them the save game again. I had started this process initially but when one of the patches fixed the crash problem I called and told them to drop it.

Thanks again for your time and advice!

[Phoenix-D]

Correction- I was running my tests in the simulator. When I do the actual attack, the game crashes at the end of Strategic combat..

[Raapys]

That's not regular frigates the Phong fleet has, though, it's 6 crystal frigates and 2 crystal destroyers, with even better weapons than yours and crystalline armor. They got way too little armor, however, which is why your ships win most of the time.

I've to admit, though: it does look as if your ships win more easily in strategic combat than in tactical. Not sure if they do in fact work exactly the same, or if some changes has been done to strategic combat to speed it up a bit, which could possibly slightly affect the ships' performance.

*edit* Scratch that. The first few times I ran the combat barely two of your ships survived, but the last 10 times a minimum of 5 of your ships have survived. Just the wonders of computer randomization I guess.

You got dual core as well, Phoenix?

[Phoenix-D]

That I do.

[mrscrogg]

I just got my copy of SE5 today . uploaded game and upgraded DirectX - tried uploading patch got message " file corrupted optain new copy of program " deleted everything reinstalled game went to different site for patch and again got same message - tried a third time , same thing - what am I doing wrong ?

[Phoenix-D]

Did you buy a boxed copy or Steam download? Steam has its own patch that is applied automatically..

[mrscrogg]

I have boxed copy

[geoschmo]

I was having a similer problem when I patched to 1.17. The game was getting errors and wouldn't load after patching so I uninstalled and reinstalled and then was getting an error that the source was corrupted when trying to load it again fomr the CD. I ended up trying it a couple times and it finally worked when I installed and changed the directory name. I thought that was very strange since I had deleted the original directory anyway. I chalked it up to a dirty cd drive because since then it's worked fine, but it sounds similer to your problem.

[Phoenix-D]

When I had patching issues, I had to go in and delete the registry entries for the game manually..

[mrscrogg]

Finally worked ! Went to Kwok's site and downloaded from there and it took , why there and no where else , who knows ?

[Baal]

I stuck 3 WP with only Capital ship missiles and 1 WP with only PD on a planet and when the emeny attacked it all the weapons were PDs and there were no Capital ship missiles to be seen. Needless to say their fighters/seekers got owned.

I can open sector view and look at an enemy's ship design even though I have not ever seen that design in combat.

PD miss really bad at high speed (still) but not at lower speeds.

[President_Elect_Shang]

The Fire On ship and Self Destruct commands will not work on ships that have no movement points left. You can order a ship to self destruct even though it doesn’t have a component with the self destruct ability. Instead the ship will just sit idle trying to fulfill the command. You can order a ship to sentry then right click it and the option for cancel order will not be there. If a ship you own is teleported to a sector that empire has never seen before you lose sight and control of the ship. It will drop out of the loop for the next ship command and off the ship list option. However you still pay maintenance for it and at the end of the turn you receive the message that a ship has no orders.

[Baal]

When invading a planet with satellites in the cargo the satellites do not show in the ground combat and can not be destroyed however a ground combat will be initiated each turn because there are enemy forces on the ground. The satellite can however be scrapped by you when you find it.

[StarJack]

Phoenix-D said:
Correction- I was running my tests in the simulator. When I do the actual attack, the game crashes at the end of Strategic combat..



I've made some more discoveries. On my system when running in full screen mode strategic combat (SC) does not play combat sounds, and gets the Access Violation (AV) when the closing the combat window. Playing in windowed mode SC plays combat sounds, and does NOT crash when complete! I discovered this by accident as tech support e-mailed me back and suggested I update drivers for video and sound. As it turns out ATI has released new drivers/application software in November so I updated. I also found out windoze was failing to locate a new audio driver, but I was able to find a somewhat more recent driver via the internet. Alas, the new drivers had no effect on the results mentioned above.
I recently bought Flight Sim X and my poor little X300 was showing it's limited ability so I went out and sprang for a new Radeon X1600 Pro. (Long story, there're better cards but I'm going to buy a new system next fall and this was a good compromise and a large step up from the X300) Again, alas, the same results were had with SEV (Flight Sim X plays much better at a higher level of detail now though!) as posted above.
I e-mailed tech support (and copied malfador support) with the results. My thinking is that since SC had the AV in 1.0, stopped having AV's in 1.08, and now has them again in 1.17 (didn't play 1.13) it's a change (somewhere, somehow) in the game code, not an issue with my drivers (although having latest drivers is usually a good thing). I also loaded the game on my laptop (Sony VGN-A690) and got the exact same results.
At least now I have 2 work around, play windowed (nahhh) or use tactical combat and let 'em fight it out. Maybe a later version will correct this, it's happened before! I just wanted to keep the folks who have been kind enough to be helpful updated. Thanks!!!

[Baal]

On a ship full of troops I had all the cargo components destroyed yet the troops were not also destroyed for occupying those cargo components. They just sat there safe and sound while I got the cargo pods repaired.