Nobody mentioned Sanctuary, yet?

Closest we will get with a remaster I guess.

Have you tried to disable all mods? You are starting the game with ~36mods, there may be incompatibilities.

To quickly find a mod that crashes your game:
Disable only one half and check if the game still crashes.

• If it does: Further cut the mods in half and disable them again.
• When its running fine: enable half of the disabled mods.
• repeat until you found the corrupted mod.
  This is called a 'binary' search and is the quickest way to find the bug in a big bucket.

Well if I remove the effects.nx2 file and run in offline mode (so the Client does not compare checksums and redownloads the files) it's working like a charm (Haven't played a full match, but I expect graphical glitches)

So my Question is: How do I get a better error message, what exactly went wrong while loading the effects?

Heyho, I recently updated my Linux to Ubuntu 23.04 and now FAF-Client does not launch the game anymore.

Playing via Steam works fine, only when I try to host/watch/ladder a game via FAF the Game instantly crashes. Last (and I guess relevant) log:

info: Compiled shader: /effects/primbatcher.fx
warning: z:\home\%USER%\.faforever\gamedata\effects.nx2\effects\range.fx: unable to create effect: z:\home\%USER%\.faforever\gamedata\effects.nx2\effects\range.fx reason: unknown error

game_19786986.log
client.log

Any helpful suggestions how to debug/fix the problem?

I am using the setup from https://github.com/FAForever/faf-linux

What I have tried so far:

1. Reinstalled FAF and SupCom completely
2. sudo apt install git wget jq cabextract libxcomposite1:amd64 libxcomposite1:i386 libfreetype6:amd64 libfreetype6:i386 tells me everything is installed on lates version.
3. Used protonwrapper 'GE-55' and 'SteamExperimental'
4. Sometimes, it crashes at primbatcher.fx, somtimes at sky.fx but its always in proximitry to range.fx
5. Created a GithubIssue on the FAForever/faf-linux repo

Map was truly wired:
Several Mex and Hydro spot where overlapping

RepplayURL https://replay.faforever.com/19149096

@genos said in Game Crash on Toggle Engineers while they tried to sacrifice:

@Frozen_byte did it crash with an error window or stop responding?

I had T3 and T1 engis selected building a GC.
Ordered the T1 engineers to sacrifice (because enemy T4 was reaaaally close xD)
Pressed TAB to pause while engineers sacrificing into GC.
Was a direct crash to desktop. No freeze.

@genos said in Game Crash on Toggle Engineers while they tried to sacrifice:

I see lots of ui party errors

Do you think those are relevant for the crash?

Title is descriptive enough, I think.

Playing on Linux, but should not matter for this issue I hope.

ReplayID:
https://replay.faforever.com/18404522

Game Log:
game_18404522.log

Active UI mods:

submerge T2 TD and give cybrans T3 TD cloak -kappa

They are built more quickly. When I try to emergency defend something: I build T1 stuff.

In all other points I agree with you T2 > T1 but to think one step further, the HARMS (cyb-T3-troplauncher) is also superior in every way.

I do not exactly understand why this is "unbalanced" in your opinion. https://forum.faforever.com/topic/759/balance-thread-guidelines may help you to clarify this.

on 4v4, it is a common practice to share techs in order to get the "best from each cake". Indeed Cybran sucks with shielding but has various other (mostly offensive) stength.

So new meta will always be first Air now?
Still, If we modify the "risk vs value" odds it may become less frustrating because you know the enemy has committed into the bomber and invested a lot of resources that he is missing now.

I think it should be possible to have "first bomber" a valid strategy that have to be considered.

Still, I agree with Blodir playing against those are very annoying.
But as Femboy said (in a rude way): It is very possible to counter this with intel and intie quickly.

In my opinion, the bomber may need to get "less frustrating" instead of "weaker".
And to do so: Increase cost to make it a tougher risk vs value calculation for the attacker.

Still, the Laser locking on the ACU while the Transport was sucked in looked hilarious!

What I did with the GC: I right-clicked the ACU several times while it was loading.

Not sure if the transport ship was captured by the Claws, but it may seem so.
Beam kept locked on ACU, that looked very wired.

@maudlin27 good point! So the rate may scale with max shieldHPs.

Is there a formula to have an equal and fair recharge rate across factions?

I don't mind if cybran is faster recharging their shields.
UEF has a longer timeout before recharging.
Aeon has a slow recharg but nearly no timeout.
some uniqueness, or so whatever.

But there should be a common ground like "1k HP should take ~30 seconds and has a 5-second cooldown"

Yes, don't use realtive paths in the Startup commands, this got me twice, too

Maybe someone with editorial permissions adds this information to the Wiki?

• I want the Map to feel natural, yet balanced (most challenging part I guess is an asymmetrical, balanced map)
• I want to know where the starting mex belongs to.
• I want more than one bottleneck(attack vector) to fight over. Ideally, 1.5 Lanes per player (4v4 would result in 6 possible Land/Sea attack vectors)
• I want to decide what strategy I use (Rush, Tech, Adaptive, Turtle) and the map should not dictate only one possible effective strategy
• I want air battles to keep as moderate as possible. For me, there is no fun having 500ASFs attacking each other

What about the FAF command line?
Do you have any useful debug logs? May start faf-client from CMD and watch the output or use the debug-log option in settings.