Files
Sylpheed/docs/port
Sylpheed port agent d0163a64fa port: take the completed EXTRAS blend set, and record two refutations that land on me
EXTRAS whole-screen residual 1.97 -> 0.63; ptframe4 31.90 -> 1.14, pteff21/22/23
from 12-14 to under 0.8. The four elements I reported as in no draw were in a draw
all along -- the vertex dump was capped at two quads and the batch holds six, so
four were dropped with a well-formed line and no ellipsis. Same failure class as my
MIX-default material: the run completed, the output parsed, the answer was wrong.

Their pteff10 flag, tested by holding it alpha-over with everything else additive:
tone-corrected residual 0.630 additive against 1.704 alpha-over, but raw RMSE 12.91
against 9.98. They disagree because the port already renders +8.50 levels brighter
than the capture on this screen before any of this, so raw RMSE punishes added
light whether or not the light is right. Adopted on the measurement plus the
structural metric; extras raw-rmse went 11.43 -> 12.88 and that is stated, not
hidden. The differing region halved, 0.07 % -> 0.03 %.

Refuted, mine: "every decoration 0x0 and every button 0x3002" was a two-screen
generalisation I called a confirmation, one message after objecting to exactly that
move in their page. My own export held the counter-examples -- ptbtn00 is 0x73002
and my exporter calls it unknown rather than button; three title elements are
0x3000, button-shaped and not focusable. kind & 0x2 is the focusable flag.

Refuted, mine: the sweeps DO run on the main menu. Their log retains NDC and both
strips overlap the screen in every captured frame, stepping in opposite directions
with vertex alpha ramping. My phase sweep measured that the PORT'S sweeps make the
match worse, which is a statement about my rendering, not about the game. A
best-match argument for an absence cannot separate "not there" from "there and
drawn wrong", and I had that caveat written down and read past it.

Not flipped: the strips are additive with a ramping vertex alpha and the port has
neither on the leaf path, so enabling the loop today would be more correct in
behaviour and worse on screen. The ramp is asked for. What changed today is the
claim -- the port is wrong here and now says so.
2026-08-31 07:06:18 +00:00
..