Files
Sylpheed/docs/re/structures
Sylpheed RE agent 44bdbad2d6 re: every bound effect vs every declared effect; a Shift-JIS dev placeholder
The Explosion substructure's field list was already in the corpus, so the open
part was whether the effect names RESOLVE. Declared x used, sweeping 34 binder
field names (*FxModel*, *EffectName, Effect_*, ShellModel, CoverModel,
SilhouetteModel) against every name declared by a LOD_Effect_<n> or
GameModel_<n> field anywhere on the disc:

                 declared   not declared
  used              172          58
  not used          318           -

490 declared, 230 used. Top binders: Effect_Paralyze 2874, ShellModel 996,
HitFxModel 738, JetFxModel_000 408, MuzzleFlashFxModel_Loop 384.

The 58-cell is almost one field. 53 of the 58 are bound by SilhouetteModel
alone and are all rou_f###_wep* names - the arsenal item silhouettes already
documented in arsenal-item-weapon-chain. They are undeclared because they are
the wrong KIND: each resolves as its own standalone package, rou_f001_wep_01.xpr
and friends, never as a LOD-table entry. Nothing is missing; the sweep was
reading an asset-file name as though it were an effect name. That leaves four
genuinely undeclared effects - eff_e0044, eff_f0002, eff_f0002_barn, eff_h308 -
none of which resolves as a record or field name either.

One "effect name" in that cell is not a name at all. Bound by Effect_Explosion
and Effect_Flare, 72 occurrences = 12 users, its bytes are 95 B6 8E 9A 97 F1 -
Shift-JIS for the word "character string". A developer's placeholder. This
exposes a reader defect worth fixing before these strings reach a port:
unitgroup.py hands the value back as Latin-1 mojibake, so an IDXD string field
can carry Shift-JIS and our decode does not know it.

Following the silhouettes into the ISO tree turned up a convention that IS real:
59 of the 166 .xpr packages end _hangar.xpr, and 59 of 59 have a bare twin of
the same stem. The direct contrast to yesterday's refutation, where _all/_child
was 1 of 166 with a single stem. Suffix conventions in this corpus are worth
testing precisely because they are not all real.

Controls reproduced from the previous iteration: eff_n0071 is declared and used
6x (= one user under the per-pak-copy rule); eff_e0033 is declared and used 0x,
sitting in the 318-cell. That cell is expected rather than alarming - the
EnumLODSet/EnumGameModel family is overwhelmingly equipment, which no unit
datasheet binds.

All fifteen artefacts byte-identical.
2026-08-28 08:05:28 +00:00
..