This repository has been archived on 2026-09-16. You can view files and clone it. You cannot open issues or pull requests or push a commit.
Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re/structures/arsenal-item-weapon-chain.md
Sylpheed RE agent 33671c5086 re: wep_85 is the ONLY declared-but-unshipped asset; the package gaps are unused numbers
The obvious follow-up to last commit's wep_85 finding: the weapon packages number
00 to 84 with 26 holes, so are those holes cut weapons too? Partitioning every
number 00-85 by package-present x named-anywhere-in-the-parsed-pak-data:

                     named in data   not named
   package present        59             0
   package absent          1            26

59 + 0 + 1 + 26 = 86, the numbers 00 through 85.

The 26 gaps are simply unused numbers, not unshipped weapons - nothing in the
data names them at all. The one occupied cell is the one already known: wep_85,
named 16 times, with no package. It is an isolated cut, not a pattern, which
refutes the natural expectation that finding one cut weapon means finding a
family of them.

The other zero is worth as much: 0 shipped packages are never named. Every
rou_f001_wep_NN.xpr on the disc is referenced by the data, so the package set and
the weapon vocabulary agree in both directions but for that single entry.

Running the identical test on the craft family gives a clean negative. Every
rou_f### number appearing inside an .xpr against every number named in the parsed
data: 16 in both, 0 named-but-unshipped, 0 shipped-but-unnamed. The 16 are
f001-f004, f101, f102, f104-f106, f201, f202, f301-f303, f401, f402 - the
hundreds digit groups them into five families with holes inside each (no f103, no
f203). No craft was cut.

So across both families the disc ships exactly what it declares, with the single
exception of that one weapon.

All seventeen artefacts byte-identical.
2026-08-28 10:33:41 +00:00

6.0 KiB
Raw Blame History

The 59-of-131 arsenal question — an item names a HARDPOINT, not a weapon

Open since the weapon datasheet was decoded: the Hangar's arsenal lists 59 weapons, the disc's Weapon table has 131, and the previous pass showed the two name sets overlap in 0 values. This closes it.

An Arsenal item does not reference a Weapon record. It references a Turret_NNN HARDPOINT SLOT on the player craft's own unit table, and the slot is what carries the WeaponID. Three hops:

GP_HANGAR_ARSENAL.pak      Arbalest_155KG
   .PlayerWeapon    ───▶   Turret_050            (a slot on UN_f001_TCAF_DeltaSaber_T_Player)
       .WeaponID    ───▶   Weapon_DSaber_P_wep_50_Cannon   (a Weapon record)

Artefact ../data/arsenal-chain.txt, regenerator tools/re-capture/arsenal_chain.py.

🧪 The controls

WEAPONS roster values 59
arsenal ITEM records (field set Model/Package/PlayerWeapon/Points/Power/Range/…) 59
item names that are roster values 55
roster values with no item record 4 — No_Equipment, NullWeapon_Arm1/2/3
distinct PlayerWeapon values that are a Weapon.ID 0 / 59
distinct PlayerWeapon values that are a Turret_NNN slot id 59 / 59
the full chain lands on a Weapon.ID 59 / 59

WingmanWeapon resolves identically, 59/59. The 4 roster entries with no item record are the empty-slot sentinels, so the roster is 55 real weapons + 4 nulls against 59 item records — the item table is the superset.

🔑 Wingmen fly a cheaper gun

Following the same 59 slots on different craft variants splits them cleanly:

craft variant slots distinct Weapon.ID reached
…DeltaSaber_T_Player, _W_Player, _A_Player 63 59 (Weapon_DSaber_P_wep_NN_*)
…DeltaSaber_T, _W, _T_EX5, _T_EX5_el 63 10 (Weapon_TCAF_DeltaSaber_Beam, …_Gun, …)

Same slot ids, same 59 arsenal items, but the _Player tables give each item its own weapon record while the AI tables collapse all 59 onto 10 generic behaviour classes. A wingman carrying an Arbalest_155KG does not fire the player's wep_50 ballistics.

That also explains the 131: 59 player weapons + 10 AI-Saber classes + the ship guns and ADAN weapons the turrets use.

Four of the player craft's 63 slots are referenced by no item: Turret_000 (the Weapon_NULL slot) and Turret_097 / _098 / _099.

Upgrades a 🟡 from the previous pass

unit-substructure-records read the player craft's 63 Turret_NNN records as "a hardpoint catalogue, TurretCount 4 = how many mount at once", marked 🟡 because nothing showed the selection. The arsenal table is the selection, from an independent file, 59/59. Adopted.

The item record

Model / Package            rou_f001_wep_50_hangar (+ .xpr)   the Hangar display mesh
PlayerPackage / _LOD / _Motion    rou_f001_wep_50.xpr, Equip_EnumLODSet_wep_50.tbl,
WingmanPackage / _LOD / _Motion   Equip_EnumGameModel_wep_50.tbl
SilhouetteModel            rou_f001_wep_50_NA
PlayerWeapon / WingmanWeapon      Turret_050
Points 25000   Stage 6            develop cost, and the stage that unlocks it
Power B  Range B  Size L  Speed -  Weight 1.5    the Hangar's stat bars
Type g04b                  the slot-compatibility class
Dependency  MissionObjective      (empty on this item)

Model ties an arsenal entry to the meshes the corpus already decodes; Points and Stage are the develop economy that arsenal-develop-economy recovered from the screen side.

🟡 Not settled

  • Type (g04b) is a slot-compatibility class. STANDARD_ARM1/2/3, STANDARD_NOSE, PlayerSET_*, ExSET_*, S01SET_*, S02SET_* are records whose only field is Type — the per-slot allow-lists — and the loadout records (Bird1-Sandra, Rhino1-Katana, … with Arm1/Arm2/Arm3/Nose/ UnitID) are the wingman loadouts. Named here, not opened.
  • Dependency and MissionObjective are empty on the sampled item; what fills them elsewhere is unread.
  • Which Weapon records the 26 never-on-a-turret weapons are.

wep_85 is the only declared-but-unshipped asset — the gaps are unused numbers

The previous iteration found wep_85 declared in the datasheets with no rou_f001_wep_85.xpr. The obvious next question is whether it is the tip of a family: the shipped packages number 0084 with 26 holes, so are those holes cut weapons too?

Partitioning every number 0085 by package present × named anywhere in the parsed pak data:

named in data not named
package present 59 0
package absent 1 26

59 + 0 + 1 + 26 = 86 — the numbers 00 through 85.

🔑 The 26 gaps are simply unused numbers, not unshipped weapons. Nothing in the data names them at all. And the one occupied cell is the one already known: wep_85, named 16×, with no package. It is an isolated cut, not a pattern.

⚠️ The other zero is worth as much: 0 shipped packages are never named — every rou_f001_wep_NN.xpr on the disc is referenced by the data. So the weapon package set and the weapon vocabulary agree in both directions but one entry.

Craft models: 16 of 16, both residuals empty

Running the identical test on the rou_f### craft family — every number that appears inside an .xpr against every number named in the parsed data:

  • in an .xpr and named: 16
  • named but not in any .xpr: 0
  • in an .xpr but never named: 0

The 16 are f001f004, f101, f102, f104f106, f201, f202, f301f303, f401, f402 — the hundreds digit groups them into five families, with holes inside each (no f103, no f203).

So no craft was cut, and the method that found wep_85 returns a clean negative here. Across both families the disc ships exactly what it declares, with the single exception of that one weapon.