re: verify the sweep leaves' full extent -- port's table confirmed, plus a new fact
Attempted to refute sylpheed-port's leaf table by measuring it against the disc. It SURVIVES to the digit: ptloop01 -> pteff03, cycle span 600, x track -639..1521, scale (100, 600); ptloop02 -> pteff03a, span 720, x -839..1721, scale (100, 800). The existing ptloop_leaf_sweep_at.rs samples only t=340..540 -- a window chosen to compare two competing fits -- so it could never have shown the extent. That gap is what let my "ptloop01/02 do not free-run" claim stand: measured over the parent's 200x90 pivot rect, which a leaf travelling -639..1521 is almost never inside. ptloop_leaf_extent.rs sweeps the whole cycle instead. New fact neither of us had: the leaves are IDENTICAL on entries 4, 5 AND 7 -- the title, the main menu and the JP title. Same leaf names, spans, x tracks, scales and parent rest position. So the menu declares exactly the same sweep as the title, and the still-open menu question is about the game's behaviour rather than a different declaration. The quad is 400 px wide at scale_x 100 % -- not widened -- and scale_y 600/800 % makes it 1080/1440 px tall, taller than the screen. A full-height strip crossing the frame and going off both sides, which is why a phase-to-phase diff covers the union of two positions and looks frame-wide. And my own "centre running x~921->1041" was a 30-unit window of a 600-unit cycle whose centre spans -439..1721. A sub-range is not an extent -- the same caution as a pivot not being a bounding box, one level up, and I made both errors within a day. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
@@ -154,6 +154,30 @@ parent is static while the **leaf record animates**, and the two nested records
|
||||
cycle at *different* lengths, **600 and 720**. My "single static keyframe" was a
|
||||
statement about the parent only.
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Their full table also survives an independent check against the disc**
|
||||
([`data/ptloop-leaf-extent.txt`](../data/ptloop-leaf-extent.txt)), to the digit:
|
||||
|
||||
| | `ptloop01` | `ptloop02` |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| leaf | `pteff03` | `pteff03a` |
|
||||
| cycle span | 600 | 720 |
|
||||
| x track (left edge) | **−639 … 1521** | **−839 … 1721** |
|
||||
| scale | (100 %, **600 %**) | (100 %, **800 %**) |
|
||||
|
||||
The quad is 400 px wide and **not** widened; `scale_y` makes it 1080 / 1440 px
|
||||
tall — a full-height strip taller than the screen, whose left edge travels right
|
||||
across the frame and off both sides.
|
||||
|
||||
📌 **And a fact neither of us had: these leaves are IDENTICAL on entries 4, 5 and
|
||||
7** — the title, the **main menu**, and the JP title. Same leaf names, spans, x
|
||||
tracks, scales and parent rest position. So the menu declares exactly the same
|
||||
sweep as the title; the open menu question is about the game's *behaviour*, not
|
||||
about a different declaration.
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ **My own "centre running x≈921→1041" was a 30-unit window of a 600-unit cycle**
|
||||
whose centre spans −439…1721. A sub-range is not an extent — the same caution as a
|
||||
pivot not being a bounding box, one level up, and I made both errors in one day.
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ The era adjudication is unaffected: its box is x 389..776, and the overlap with
|
||||
the sweep band (x 721..776) shows no between-session differences — the 645 in-box
|
||||
differing pixels all sit at y 99..128.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user