Gateway bugs: Upgrades, STL travel, Traffic

Feedback
1

There are a couple bugs with gateway upgrades, gateway travel, and the gateway traffic numbers.
They have been mentioned on several different discords so I am summarizing them all here.

When upgrading the Montem and Circe Gateways, Volume and Distance were each upgraded once, but in seperate simultaneous motions. Distance was completed first for both (and a 14.99Pc link formed between the 2 gates), but when the volume upgrades were completed, both Gateways downgraded the distance back to 0.

The link remains active and ships under 3,000m^3 are able to fly through it, with the exception of any STL-only ships which show the error ‘FTL reactor required’ - likely unrelated to the upgrade bug but still an issue.

Thanks to BlueOrange figuring out the Gateway upgrade bug, if our assumptions are correct, this has the possibility of enabling Gateways to use up to 8 upgrades, by upgrading distance and volume to 3 simultaneously, completing distance first and creating a link, then finishing the 3 volume upgrades and finally adding 2 capacity upgrades. The link should remain stable as long as it is not removed.

Finally, the 24h limit for the Gateway traffic seems to have an error, where it keeps accumulating.
The Link was formed 3d 2h ago as of this post, and 45 ships have been sent through since that time, (confirmed with VF usage) yet the traffic numbers show 45 ships in the last 24h despite many of those being before the latest 24h period (I personally sent a ship through the minute it was built).

EDIT:
Additionally, the gov finances don’t reflect the number of jumps shown in the gateway.
As of writing this, there are 105 jumps from Montem, gov shows fees for 87, and there are 98 jumps from Circe, gov shows fees for 82.
Could just be delays in it showing up, but worth mentioning in case it’s related to the other bugs around traffic numbers.

3 Likes
2

I’ll tack on the other bugs I’ve found.

  • The gateway from YI-265 to Gasworld has not been renamed correctly, despite the motion going through days ago
  • I reported it elsewhere on the forums, but the GTWT command is broken when not provided an ID. I’m not sure what it should be displaying if not given an ID.

I’ll also reiterate that the current validation for gateway names seems weird. At the very least numbers and “-“ should be allowed.

1 Like
3

The gateway naming limitations have been discussed with Molp. The name we tried using didn’t meet the requirements. The governor will set a suitable name when he gets back into things after the new year.

That being said, it is good to reiterate the issue which makes gateway naming quite challenging - particuarly for unnamed planets. “Montem To Circe” makes it pretty clear what the endpoints are. “Twosixfive To Gasworld” not so much.

1 Like