Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Issue regarding Codex records

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by Old Duck View Post (Source)
    If you want to be really cool, Will, then someday soon you'll post a new thread in this forum called:

    Issue regarding Elephant Butt Leather

    I'm telling you, it'll make you the next Elvis Presley! Assuming the post promises to fix it, of course.
    But, Duck, the new exploration system is *perfect*. It is *never* wrong!

  2. #17
    I got bored the other day and wanted to "confirm" the "reported" entries in Codex. Flew to the reported neutron star, in codex it was not updated as "confirmed". I had it scanned several months ago, could that be the issue?

    Or, are codex records deficient totally? Should i stay away till further notice?

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Beteran View Post (Source)
    I got bored the other day and wanted to "confirm" the "reported" entries in Codex. Flew to the reported neutron star, in codex it was not updated as "confirmed". I had it scanned several months ago, could that be the issue?

    Or, are codex records deficient totally? Should i stay away till further notice?
    The issue you describe isn't a bug AFAIK. The design of the codex assumes previous discoveries have already been discovered, which makes sense. But the codex was not pre-populated with the millions of pre-3.3 discoveries, presumably due to time constraints.

    The design suggests pre-population was intended to be a feature but has not (yet) been implemented.

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by Will Flanagan View Post (Source)
    Hi Commanders,

    Currently, when scanning an astronomical body, it will provide a record in your Codex with various details, such as the hottest, coldest, largest, smallest, etc. However, we have identified an issue in the Codex, where details of discovered body types are not being replaced when discovering the same body type with a greater or lesser record (such as the smallest, or largest body).

    Our initial fix for this issue will be going live today in the 3.3.01 update, and will allow the Codex to correctly track the name of system that bodies are found in.

    We will be introducing a second fix in the future, which will display the correct value for discovered astronomical bodies in the Codex.

    We apologise for this issue and thank you for your patience!
    Will:

    May I please have all my First Discoveries?

    Mr. Brookes did this for us in 2015.

    Thank you.

  5. #20
    Elite Global Moderator Ozric's Avatar
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Beteran View Post (Source)
    I got bored the other day and wanted to "confirm" the "reported" entries in Codex. Flew to the reported neutron star, in codex it was not updated as "confirmed". I had it scanned several months ago, could that be the issue?

    Or, are codex records deficient totally? Should i stay away till further notice?
    You don't need to confirm the specific reported entry in the Codex, you just need to scan one of that type of object somewhere in the region and it will be confirmed for you. As Riverside said the Codex only shows things from 3.3 onwards.

    Originally Posted by Ralph Vargr View Post (Source)
    Will:

    May I please have all my First Discoveries?

    Mr. Brookes did this for us in 2015.

    Thank you.
    *chuckles*

    As much as I would like it too, I'm sure you remember what Mr. Brookes said when he did it too.

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by Ozric View Post (Source)
    You don't need to confirm the specific reported entry in the Codex, you just need to scan one of that type of object somewhere in the region and it will be confirmed for you. As Riverside said the Codex only shows things from 3.3 onwards.



    *chuckles*

    As much as I would like it too, I'm sure you remember what Mr. Brookes said when he did it too.
    I think he said they'd always be willing to do it, and then he not only promisedit but also guaranteed it.

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by Ralph Vargr View Post (Source)
    But, Duck, the new exploration system is *perfect*. It is *never* wrong!
    It's perfect in design, not execution (ie - bugs). Same could be said about a lot of things in this game.

  8. #23
    On the Codex - it seems the Records are records for my visits only? All planetary and stellar records seem to be based on what I've visited. Example: I ran across a system with many Helium Gas Giants. I see the system in the 'Records' section for that planet type, but I refuse to believe no one has run across a system that has helium gas giants in this sector yet. I also checked Earth-likes, and all the records are systems that I remember visiting since the update.

    TL;DR: Is the Codex intended to show records only for your discoveries?

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by ScrabbleVoice View Post (Source)
    On the Codex - it seems the Records are records for my visits only? All planetary and stellar records seem to be based on what I've visited. Example: I ran across a system with many Helium Gas Giants. I see the system in the 'Records' section for that planet type, but I refuse to believe no one has run across a system that has helium gas giants in this sector yet. I also checked Earth-likes, and all the records are systems that I remember visiting since the update.

    TL;DR: Is the Codex intended to show records only for your discoveries?
    Yes. Well, in the sense that that’s how it works, anyway.

    Whether the intent is for it to only ever include your personal records or of it’s intended to add a ‘Reported Records’ section in future is something only FD could say.

    Personally I’d like to see there be both Community and Personal records in the Codex.

Page 2 of 2 First 12