Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re/ship-placement-capture-generalisation.md
Claude (auto-RE) 1d4b35df0f re: the Stage-02 capture drew no capital ship at all — invert the match, then control range
Inverting the capture↔part question (invert_capture over one container,
vcount_index over all 166) identifies every large draw in the 2026-07-31
capture: the player's own DeltaSaber (10891 verts), its weapon packs, the
backdrop and particles. Of f101/e105/e106 only 1-3 of 15-37 resources have a
drawn vcount, each a 44-225-vertex far-LOD/effect piece whose count collides
with dozens of unrelated resources.

So the zero-correlation was not an LOD-list gap, not over-strict position
validation and not a different draw path: the ships were too far away to be
drawn. approach_capture.py flies at a locked capital ship and presses F10 per
range band, stamping each capture with its distance.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-10 18:04:58 +00:00

154 lines
8.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Capital-ship placement — does the `e106` result generalise? (WIP, 2026-07-31)
**Status:** 🚧 **WIP, time-boxed session.** Two results so far: a static audit across all
22 stage containers (done, below) and a first in-mission F10 capture run in Stage 02
(done — three capture logs, but **no capital-ship part correlated**; see "Open").
Context: [`BACKLOG.md`](BACKLOG.md) — "Capital ships assemble wrong in the viewer",
reported 2026-07-30. The oracle and the correlator already exist
([`ship-placement-runtime-capture.md`](ship-placement-runtime-capture.md)); the open
question is whether the rules derived from the one validated ship (`e106`, Stage_S01)
hold for other classes.
## 1. Static audit across all stages (offline, reproducible)
```
cargo run --release --example ship_audit -- ../sylph_extract/hidden/resource3d
```
87 lines of output, of which:
- **Only two OUTLIER lines, and they are the same ship twice**:
`Stage_S03`/`Stage_S27`, `f002_bdy_05` centroid `[-1398 6251 918]`, `dist=6540`
vs a cluster spread of `1071`. Every other assembled ship in every other stage
has all parts inside its own cluster.
→ **The user-visible breakage is NOT a gross static-placement outlier for most
classes.** Whatever is wrong in the viewer is either subtler than "part flung far
away" (wrong rotation, wrong mirror, missing part) or lives in the viewer, not in
`assemble_ship`. `f002_bdy_05` is a genuine, separate, reproducible static bug.
- **MULTIKEY**: joint tracks with more than one keyframe, which `read_trs9`'s
single-key read does not model. Recurring rigs: `e_rou_f104` (3), `e_rou_f105` (2),
`e_rou_f106` (2), `e_rou_e102` (6), `e_rou_e108_Missile_open` (2), `e_rou_e501` (1),
and the `e901` boss with 215 tracks per pose. Several of these (`Missile_open`, the
`e901_attack*` poses) are obviously *animation* and harmless for a static pose; the
plain hull rigs `f104`/`f105`/`f106`/`e102` are **not** obviously animation and are
the best hypothesis for a class-specific assembly error. ❔ **HYPOTHESIS — not
verified.** `e106`, the one validated ship, has **no** multikey tracks, which is
exactly how a rule that only works for single-key rigs could have passed unnoticed.
Raw audit output is reproducible with the command above (not checked in; it is
deterministic from the disc).
## 2. First in-mission capture run (Stage 02)
New tool: [`tools/re-capture/ship_capture_session.sh`](../../tools/re-capture/ship_capture_session.sh)
— one blocking session (per the session-lifetime rule): boot → Stage 02 in flight →
N× {screenshot, F10, small yaw}. Each F10 writes its own
`xenia_ship_capture_NN.log` next to the binary.
Run 2026-07-31, 5 presses requested:
- **Boot to in-flight took 24 s** (`skip_intro.sh` skipped the movie at 1 s and 6 s,
title at 11 s, HUD shield bar at 24 s) — much faster than the ~100 s in the notes.
- **3 of 5 F10 presses produced a log** (`_01``_03`, 2964 / 3111 / 3668 draws).
Logs (810 MB each) and the screenshots are at `/sylph-home/re/shipcap/`; not
committed for size. One screenshot is checked in as
[`captures/shipcap-stage02-launch.png`](captures/shipcap-stage02-launch.png).
- The screenshot confirms the capture frames are real in-mission combat frames
(HUD live, `REMAINING OB 004`, ACROPOLIS + a Destroyer labelled on screen, a
capital-ship hull filling the bottom of the frame).
### Result: no correlation yet ❌
```
correlate_capture xenia_ship_capture_03.log Stage_S02 <id> bdy_01
```
for `f101` (ACROPOLIS), `f105`, `f106`, `e105` reports *"no draw matches any LOD
(culled/off-screen?)"* for essentially every part — only two speculative LOD tries
(`f101_bdy_03` vcount 90 `[l]`, `e105_wep_01` vcount 60 `[l]`) and **zero accepted
matches**.
That is a **negative result, and it is not yet explained**. Facts collected:
- The capture is not empty or degenerate: 3668 draws in `_03`, top shaders
`0xDA51B0745ABF85D2` (1258), `0xE0BAFB4F520FE441` (1091), `0xEEA84C59D7F95371` (770).
None is the `e106` ship-shader hash from the 2026-07-26 capture; the F10 path does
not filter by hash, so this alone is not the cause.
- Large vertex counts *are* present (3024, 2772, 1736, 1612, 1240 …), so capital-ship-
sized geometry is being drawn.
Candidate explanations, **untested**:
1. the Stage-02 capital ships on screen are drawn from LOD/damage variants
(`_d00`, `_m`, `_l`) whose vcounts the correlator's variant list does not cover;
2. the position-validation step rejects otherwise-correct vcount hits (the capture
dumps ≤64 positions — a set-membership test against the wrong variant fails);
3. the ships in view at launch are drawn by a *different* draw path than `e106` in
Stage_S01 (e.g. instanced/batched), so no single draw equals one part.
**First step next session:** take the largest few vcounts in the capture and ask which
decoded part in `Stage_S02.xpr` has that count (invert the match), instead of asking
per-part whether a draw exists. That distinguishes (1)/(2) from (3) immediately.
## 3. The inverted match — the ships were never drawn (2026-08-10) ✅ explained
The inversion was run and it settles the negative result. Two new tools:
```
cargo run --release --example invert_capture -- <capture.log> Stage_S02 [top_n] [--ship f101]
cargo run --release --example vcount_index -- ../sylph_extract/hidden/resource3d <capture.log>
```
`invert_capture` asks, of the capture's own vertex counts, which resource in one stage
container has that count; `vcount_index` asks the same across **all 166 containers**
(5480 resources), so a draw whose geometry lives in `Common.xpr`, a `rou_*` weapon pack
or a `DeltaSaber_*` player-craft pack is identified instead of coming back "unknown".
On `xenia_ship_capture_03.log` (3668 draws, Stage 02):
| capture vcount | draws | what it is |
|---|---|---|
| 10891 | 28 | **`DeltaSaber_T:f001`** — the player's own craft |
| 6000 | 14 | `Stage_S02:n006_02` — backdrop |
| 1096 / 1008 / 841 / 215 / 127 | 14112 | `rou_f001_wep_*` — the player's weapons |
| 417 / 279 / 201 / 167 | 104448 | `Base:j00*`, `ptc_pack:*` — HUD/particles |
| 8 / 4 / 3 / 1 | 317590 | particle quads |
- **Not one capital-ship hull part appears.** Per ship: `f101` **1 of 15** resources had a
drawn vcount (`f101_bdy_03_l`, 90 verts), `e105` 3 of 37, `e106` 3 of 34 — and each of
those hits is a 44225-vertex `_l`/`_b` piece whose count also collides with dozens of
unrelated resources, i.e. probably not even the ship.
- The 3668 draws span **~14 frames** per F10 press and use only **10 distinct vertex
shaders**, and the player's own craft is captured at **full detail with its `c0..c2`
WVP rows** — so the capture path itself is healthy and unfiltered.
- The screenshot ([`captures/shipcap-stage02-launch.png`](captures/shipcap-stage02-launch.png))
agrees once read carefully: the hull "filling the bottom of the frame" is the **player's
own craft** in the chase view. The nearest contact on the HUD is a wingman's engine trail.
**So hypothesis (3) is dead, and (1)/(2) never applied.** The correlator's message
"no draw matches any LOD (culled/off-screen?)" was literally true: the ships were far
enough away that the renderer drew nothing of them. `correlate` additionally cannot
anchor without the reference part, and `f101_bdy_01` was never drawn at any LOD.
**The variable that was never controlled is RANGE.** New tooling closes that gap:
[`tools/re-capture/approach_capture.py`](../../tools/re-capture/approach_capture.py)
locks onto a capital ship (definition size-radius ≥ 150 = not a fighter), flies at it
with navigator.py's drift compensation and CPA avoidance, firing disabled, and presses
F10 as each range band is crossed (8000 / 6000 / 4500 / 3000 / 2000 / 1400 / 900),
stamping every capture with its distance in `approach-bands.jsonl`. Driver:
[`ship_capture_close.sh`](../../tools/re-capture/ship_capture_close.sh). Besides giving
the correlator a full-detail frame, the stamped bands measure the game's own **LOD
ladder** per part, which the reborn renderer needs anyway.
## Honest summary
- ✅ Static assembly is **not** grossly broken across stages — 1 outlier ship
(`f002_bdy_05`), reproducible.
- 🟡 A concrete, testable hypothesis for class-specific breakage exists (multikey joint
tracks on `f104`/`f105`/`f106`/`e102`; `e106` has none).
- ❌ The runtime oracle has **not** reproduced on a second ship class yet — but the
reason is now known and is not a format or correlator bug: **the captures were taken
at ranges where no capital-ship geometry is drawn at all** (§3, verified by inverting
the match against all 5480 decoded resources). Do not assume the `e106` rules
generalise; equally, do not read the zero-match as evidence against them.
- ▶ Next: run `ship_capture_close.sh` so the capture happens with a hull actually on
screen, then re-run `correlate_capture` on the closest band.