fabi/Syplheed-Reborn
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: the unit family is the only schema on the disc; an .xpr search cannot prove absence

Browse Source 
Two exhaustive probes agree on the same 15 records. The six Shift-JIS type words
occur in the six GP_MAIN_GAME_* paks and nowhere else, and a disc-wide sweep of
every parsed record name for a wildcard shape (???, *, ###, NNN, <...>) returns
7 distinct names - exactly the seven already in the schema: Turret_???,
Hatch_???, Bridge_???, Thruster_???, ShieldGenerator_???, Versatile_???, NS_*,
each x6. So the weapon datasheet, the arsenal item and StageResource ship NO
schema; the unit datasheet is the only structure the disc describes to itself.
Wildcard field names are confined to the schema records too - NozzleSpec_???,
NozzleFrame_???, CannonFrame_???, MuzzleFrame_???.

No untyped gaps either. The full residual is 30 slots and every one holds a
sample value rather than a missing type: 28 booleans spelled Yes, plus
Generic.ID = Ship_ and Generic.Type = Vessel. The booleans follow one pattern -
the six destructible part types each carry the same four-boolean core
(IsDestructible, IsInvolved, IsRadarVisible, IsShielded), Turret_??? adds IsAuto,
Generic carries only IsDestructible, and NS_* has its own pair AttenuationAlpha /
AttenuationVolume. 28 + 2 = 30; 7 fully-typed records + 8 with examples = 15.

The third result is a refutation of my own instrument. Testing the four
genuinely-undeclared effects against the 166 .xpr packages put eff_f0002 and
eff_f0002_barn in Base.xpr and found nothing for eff_e0044 or eff_h308 - but the
control kills the negative: eff_n0071, which we measured LIVE as an Explosion
record's ExplosionFxModel, also returns nothing from the same search. A
known-live name the test cannot find means the test has no power here. Only the
positive half counts: eff_f0002/_barn do ship. Nothing follows about eff_e0044
or eff_h308, and the earlier "no mesh" remarks about eff_e0058/_e0059/_e0060 are
weaker than written - absent from a byte search over .xpr is not absent from the
disc. How an effect mesh is actually reached is now the open question, since
eff_n0071 is not a plain name string in any of the 166 packages.

All sixteen artefacts byte-identical.
This commit is contained in:
Sylpheed RE agent
2026-08-28 08:38:26 +00:00
parent fa8a538c33
commit dd542c23a4
3 changed files with 84 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
docs/re/structures/unit-substructure-records.md
View File

@@ -251,3 +251,23 @@ This is the direct contrast to the previous iteration's refutation — `_all` /
`_child` was **1** of 166 with one stem and is not a convention; `_hangar` is
**59** of 166 with zero partials and is. Suffix conventions in this corpus are
worth testing precisely because they are not all real.
### ❌ An `.xpr` byte search cannot answer "does this effect ship"
Testing the four genuinely-undeclared effects against the 166 `.xpr` packages
gave `eff_f0002` and `eff_f0002_barn` in `Base.xpr`, and nothing for `eff_e0044`
or `eff_h308`. **But the control refutes the instrument, not the effects:**
`eff_n0071` — measured *live*, bound by an `Explosion` record's
`ExplosionFxModel` — **also returns nothing** from the same search.
A known-live name the test cannot find means the test has no power here. So:
* `eff_f0002` / `eff_f0002_barn` **do** have a mesh in `Base.xpr` (presence is
still evidence when it is positive);
* nothing follows about `eff_e0044` or `eff_h308`, and the earlier remark that
`eff_e0058`, `eff_e0059` and `eff_e0060` "have no mesh" should be read the same
way — **absent from a byte search over `.xpr` is not absent from the disc**.
Whatever ships `eff_n0071` is not a plain name string inside those 166 files,
so effect meshes must be reached some other way. Finding that route is the open
question; until then, only the positive half of this test counts.