The item that has been open through this whole run is answered: the paint order is the screen object's reordered child array at +0x30, not any table in the file. BACKLOG and INDEX now lead with that, and the investigation behind it is kept in full underneath — most of it refutations, which is what made the answer findable. What is left is stated in the same breath, because it is what the port needs: deriving that order from the bundle without running the game. Until then the viewer paints in declaration order and the title screen composites wrongly, which is now a documented defect rather than a mystery.
582 lines
32 KiB
Markdown
582 lines
32 KiB
Markdown
# RE backlog
|
||
|
||
Open items that are *not* being worked right now. Each entry says what is wrong or
|
||
unknown, what evidence exists, and what the first step would be. Move an item into
|
||
`INDEX.md` (with a `structures/…md` or a parser + test) once it is actually settled.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## ✅ SOLVED (2026-08-19) — the paint order is a runtime child list, not a table in the file
|
||
|
||
The screen object the game builds at load time holds **two** lists of its
|
||
elements: the declaration-ordered array at `+0x08`, and a **reordered child array
|
||
at `+0x30`** — and the second is the paint order. Read live off the title screen
|
||
and checked against the draw capture: the seven nameable elements sit at child
|
||
slots 0, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 22, strictly ascending, in exactly the captured order.
|
||
See [`structures/ui-screen-runtime.md`](structures/ui-screen-runtime.md).
|
||
|
||
**Still open, and it is what the port actually needs:** deriving that order from
|
||
the bundle without running the game. The order is structured (elements sharing a
|
||
sprite are adjacent; full-screen effects lead), so it looks derivable, but no
|
||
rule has been found. Until then the viewer paints in declaration order and the
|
||
title screen composites wrongly — a known, documented defect rather than a
|
||
mystery.
|
||
|
||
The investigation that got here follows, kept in full because most of it is
|
||
refutations that were worth the cost.
|
||
|
||
## The declaration table is not a paint order on every screen
|
||
|
||
**Found 2026-08-17**, building the Explorer's UI Screens browser on
|
||
[`ui_layout`](structures/ui-rat-layout.md). **Status: 🔎 open — the pause menu is
|
||
right, the title screen is not.**
|
||
|
||
`ui-rat-layout.md` says the bundle's element declaration table lists elements
|
||
"in back-to-front order", verified 11/11 on the tutorial pause bundle. That
|
||
holds — the tutorial and in-mission PAUSE builds both composite correctly, and
|
||
`pgpeff02a` → parent 3 / `pgp_ttrl_btn10` at (546,288) / the 70 px button pitch
|
||
all reproduce exactly.
|
||
|
||
**`GP_TITLE.pak` build 7 does not.** Painting in declaration order puts
|
||
`ptbase2.t32` (the full-screen background art, element **13**) *on top of* the
|
||
`ptlogo1`/`ptlogo2` wordmarks (elements **0–5**), which the real title screen
|
||
obviously does not do. The pause bundles never caught this because their
|
||
elements barely overlap.
|
||
|
||
**What has been ruled out:** there is no depth/layer key in the 60-byte
|
||
declaration entry. Dumping every word across the title build's 30 entries, the
|
||
unknown fields are constant — `+28` is 0 everywhere, `+44` is `0xffffffff`
|
||
everywhere, `+56` is 0 everywhere — and `+36`, which the doc lists as
|
||
`0xffffffff`, is not a depth either: it is `0`/`1` **only** on the `kind = 0x4`
|
||
repeated-instance entries (`ptlogo1`/`ptlogo2` copies), i.e. an instance index.
|
||
So the order is not recoverable by sorting the table on any field it carries.
|
||
|
||
**What that leaves.** The background group is contiguous — elements 12, 13, 14
|
||
are `pteff00.prm`, `ptbase2.t32`, `pteff04.t32`, and 12 carries `kind = 0x10`,
|
||
a flag no pause element has (theirs are `0x0` / `0x1` / `0x3002`). `pteff02.prm`
|
||
at 17 has it too. So `0x10` marking a `PRMD` primitive, and primitives opening a
|
||
layer that draws beneath what precedes them, is the cheapest hypothesis — but it
|
||
is a **hypothesis**, and "draw the `.prm` group first" would fit this one screen
|
||
without being evidence of anything.
|
||
|
||
**First step:** composite `GP_MISSION_SELECT` / `GP_READY_ROOM` / `GP_OPTIONS`,
|
||
which have both a background and overlapping foreground elements, and see
|
||
whether their background sits at a `0x10`-adjacent index too. Two more screens
|
||
agreeing turns the hypothesis into a rule; one disagreeing kills it. The
|
||
Explorer's `screen render`/`screen info` commands make that a minute's work per
|
||
screen, and the per-element visibility toggles isolate a suspect element.
|
||
|
||
**Meanwhile** the viewer paints in declaration order and does not pretend
|
||
otherwise — a screen whose background lands on top is showing you this bug, not
|
||
a decode failure.
|
||
|
||
### 2026-08-18 — measured against the running game; three orderings refuted, and half the symptom was a different bug
|
||
|
||
**The premise is confirmed by the oracle**, which this entry had not had: a
|
||
framebuffer capture of Canary on the title screen
|
||
([`captures/title-screen-oracle.png`](captures/title-screen-oracle.png)) shows
|
||
the `PROJECT SYLPHEED` wordmarks (elements 0–5) drawn **over** `ptbase2.t32`
|
||
(element 13), which is a full-screen background. Declaration order is therefore
|
||
not the paint order on this screen, and no reading of the element table changes
|
||
that.
|
||
|
||
**But part of what the render showed was not the paint order at all.** In the
|
||
capture `ptbase2` covers the whole screen; the compositor drew it as a
|
||
960×540-visible slab starting at (320,180), because a keyframe's `scale` was
|
||
being grown from the keyframe's corner instead of about the declared **pivot**.
|
||
Fixed, and pinned against the capture by cross-correlation (peak at (0,0)) — see
|
||
[`structures/ui-rat-layout.md`](structures/ui-rat-layout.md). That was a real
|
||
defect worth separating out: it moves **865** of the disc's 5 130 resting
|
||
placements, on every screen, independently of any ordering question.
|
||
|
||
**Three candidate orderings are now dead**, all cheaply:
|
||
|
||
- **The placement region is not a second ordering.** Its keyframe groups carry an
|
||
explicit element index, so they *could* be stored in a different order — they
|
||
are not, on **every** build on the disc (`placement_region_order_is_never_a_second_ordering`,
|
||
>500 builds, identity every time).
|
||
- **The RATC child order is not it either.** For the title build it is the
|
||
declaration order with the `.prm` elements absent — strictly less information,
|
||
and it has no place to put `ptbase2` other than where the table already puts it.
|
||
- **Reverse declaration order is refuted by the same capture**: it would draw
|
||
`ptbase2` (13) over `ptcopyright` (28), and the copyright line is visible.
|
||
|
||
**The `0x10`-adjacency first step was run, and it does not survive.** The
|
||
background *is* adjacent to a `kind = 0x10` `.prm` element on both screens that
|
||
have one — but on **opposite sides**. `GP_TITLE` build 7 is
|
||
`12 pteff00.prm (0x10)`, `13 ptbase2.t32`, `14 pteff04.t32`;
|
||
`GP_MISSION_SELECT` build 0 is `0 px_mission_base.tbm`, `1 px_mission_eff00.prm
|
||
(0x10)`. So "the `.prm` opens a layer that draws beneath what precedes it" cannot
|
||
place both, and no rule keyed on the `.prm`'s position orders the background.
|
||
`GP_READY_ROOM` and `GP_OPTIONS` turned out not to be the third and fourth
|
||
witnesses this entry hoped for: neither of their largest builds carries a `.prm`
|
||
or a full-screen background at all, so they cannot discriminate.
|
||
|
||
**What is still open, stated plainly:** nothing in the bundle has been found that
|
||
orders element 13 behind elements 0–5. Every ordering the file itself carries is
|
||
now either identical to the declaration table or refuted by the capture. The next
|
||
step is no longer static — it is either the guest code that walks this table, or a
|
||
per-draw capture of the title screen showing the order the game submits.
|
||
|
||
**Blocker, checked rather than assumed.** The obvious move is to reuse Canary's
|
||
existing RE instrumentation, which is already in the built binary on
|
||
`sylpheed-re`. Neither hook can answer this:
|
||
|
||
- **`--log_draws`** (`command_processor.cc`) de-dups by a *vertex-declaration
|
||
fingerprint* — shader hash + primitive type + per-stream element
|
||
formats/offsets + index-buffer guest base — and writes each distinct one once.
|
||
A screen's sprites share a declaration, so they collapse; and the record
|
||
carries no texture identity and no per-frame submission order, only first-seen
|
||
order. It is a mesh-format log, not a draw-order log.
|
||
- **The F10 ship capture** does preserve per-draw order within a frame and
|
||
de-dups on `(vertex base, WVP transform, index range)`, which would separate
|
||
the elements — but it **explicitly drops UI draws**:
|
||
`if (pos_off_bytes < 0 …) return; // no float-position stream (UI/effects) —
|
||
skip`. It requires an `f32x3` position attribute, which a 2D quad stream does
|
||
not have.
|
||
|
||
So this needs a **new hook in Canary** — log each draw in submission order with
|
||
its bound texture fetch (or its screen-space quad), gated behind a cvar the way
|
||
the other two are — and therefore a `build-canary` run. That is the cost to
|
||
state up front rather than discover halfway in; it is not a container
|
||
limitation, just a long build plus a title-screen run.
|
||
|
||
### 2026-08-18 (later) — the hook was built and run; the order is now measured
|
||
|
||
`log_ui_draws` exists (Canary branch `auto/re-ui-draw-order`), and the title
|
||
screen's paint order is **ground truth** rather than a candidate:
|
||
[`ui-title-paint-order-capture.md`](ui-title-paint-order-capture.md).
|
||
|
||
Background first, then the `back2` glow pair, then `ptlogo1` + `ptlogo_tm`, then
|
||
`ptlogo2`, then `ptcopyright`, then the `PRESS Ⓐ BUTTON` plate — i.e.
|
||
declaration indices `13, 22|24, 23, 0, 11, 1, 28` and then two elements that are
|
||
**not in build 7 at all**. Two more orderings die on that evidence (keyframe
|
||
start time, resting-keyframe time), and one structural fact reframes the whole
|
||
item: the screen composites **two bundles** (build 7 plus the one-element build
|
||
2 that is the button), so no single build's element table can be the paint order
|
||
whatever its order.
|
||
|
||
**Still open, and now sharper:** the rule. The bundle's 60-byte declaration entry
|
||
carries no depth field (dumped, above); the per-element `.rat` record has not
|
||
been checked for one against this ground truth, and nothing yet explains how the
|
||
two bundles are sequenced. Both are static questions again — the oracle side is
|
||
answered.
|
||
|
||
### 2026-08-18 (third pass) — the bundle does not carry the order at all
|
||
|
||
Three more places checked, all empty, so the static avenue for this item is
|
||
**exhausted** (detail and evidence in
|
||
[`ui-title-paint-order-capture.md`](ui-title-paint-order-capture.md)):
|
||
|
||
- **the geometry has no depth.** A UI quad's attribute 0 is `k_32_32_32_FLOAT`,
|
||
so it carries a Z — and every Z in the capture is 0.00000. Submission order is
|
||
the entire ordering.
|
||
- **the declaration table has no key.** Every word of every entry dumped for the
|
||
build the game actually runs: `+28` 0, `+32` `0xffffffff`, `+36` `0xffffffff`
|
||
(except an instance index on `kind = 0x4`), `+44` `0xffffffff`, `+56` 0.
|
||
- **the placement region has none either**, including its per-group lead word,
|
||
which is 0 for all 24 groups; and the region is followed straight by the RATC
|
||
child stream, so there is no table hiding behind it.
|
||
|
||
Also corrected: the running screen is **build 4**, not the largest build 7 that
|
||
`screen info` defaults to — the two disagree on sprite sizes and the capture
|
||
matches build 4. The conclusions are unchanged, the indices are not.
|
||
|
||
**So the next step is the guest code**, not the file: the splash draw path from
|
||
the emulator-era work (`sub_821CC7A0`, item vtable `0x820b30b4`) submits with
|
||
exactly the PS hash `E59B2B3D` this capture sees, and `xenia-rs/sylpheed.db` is
|
||
available in the container.
|
||
|
||
**And a second screen is NO LONGER BLOCKED, but it is not routine either.** The
|
||
main menu has been reached (screenshot in
|
||
[`canary-scripted-input-traps.md`](canary-scripted-input-traps.md)), so the
|
||
"Ⓐ is dead" reading is withdrawn. **Not routine after all** — see the 2026-08-19 tables in
|
||
[`canary-scripted-input-traps.md`](canary-scripted-input-traps.md): 4 of 5
|
||
successes without `--log_ui_draws`, 0 of 7 with it. An interleaved series
|
||
**refuted the boot-time confound** (the latest title of all, 268 s, accepted Ⓐ;
|
||
a 232 s title refused), and no mechanism exists for the flag — it is read only
|
||
when F10 arms a capture, and F10 was never pressed. The variable was removed rather than
|
||
believed — F10 now arms the capture unconditionally — and with it gone a fresh
|
||
run **still** failed, so the flag is not the cause either. Net: Ⓐ succeeds about
|
||
half the time and nothing measurable predicts which; five explanations are
|
||
eliminated. The input path is now mapped statically (`entry_point` →
|
||
`sub_8216EA68` main loop → `sub_822F1AA8` per-frame input → `sub_82457038` pad
|
||
poll → `XamInputGetKeystrokeEx`), and the poll itself is not state-gated, so the
|
||
gate is in a consumer further up. Until that
|
||
is separated, capturing a screen *and* navigating to it in the same run is not
|
||
dependable. The earlier claim, kept: the title that ends the boot sequence
|
||
accepts a single Ⓐ (2 of 2 at the time); the title the attract loop returns to
|
||
accepts nothing (Ⓐ, START, B,
|
||
BACK, X, Y — dozens of delivered presses). The proposed tell was refuted on the
|
||
way: the two states draw **13 identical quads**, `ptbtn00` included, so they
|
||
differ only to the guest. Recipe: first title after boot, one tap, and never tap
|
||
during the boot (88 presses over the intro ends on a permanent black screen).
|
||
|
||
**The second screen is captured** — the main menu, `GP_TITLE` build 5 — and it
|
||
does not discriminate: its background sits at declaration indices 1–2, so
|
||
"declaration order" and "background first" predict the same sequence. Same
|
||
failure mode as `GP_READY_ROOM`/`GP_OPTIONS`. The next screen worth capturing is
|
||
one whose background sits **late** in its table, as the title's does.
|
||
|
||
The earlier reading, kept because it is what the evidence looked like: the
|
||
title's Ⓐ leads into a content/save path that crashes the guest with
|
||
`--mem_watch=true` and stalls it with `--mem_watch=false`. Three separate traps
|
||
had to be cleared to establish that much — see
|
||
[`canary-scripted-input-traps.md`](canary-scripted-input-traps.md), which also
|
||
carries the reproduction and the fix for two of them.
|
||
|
||
### 2026-08-18 (fourth pass) — the crash is named, and the code avenue is scoped
|
||
|
||
The crash PC resolves to an MSVC `std::map`/`set` erase that throws
|
||
`std::out_of_range` from the game's cache-manager flush, and the trigger is now
|
||
controlled: an **incomplete on-disc cache** throws ~100 s into a boot, a complete
|
||
one never does. The access violation people have been chasing is only that throw
|
||
*returning*, because this build does not unwind guest EH. And the handoff's
|
||
suspect #1 is **eliminated** — cold cache with `--mem_watch=false` throws just
|
||
the same, which withdraws a claim made here yesterday. See
|
||
[`title-crash-stl-tree.md`](title-crash-stl-tree.md). That is a by-product of
|
||
this item and belongs to whoever picks up the crash bisection.
|
||
|
||
For the ordering itself, three more negatives, all recorded in
|
||
[`ui-title-paint-order-capture.md`](ui-title-paint-order-capture.md): the two
|
||
time-based orderings were re-checked against **build 4** (the previous pass used
|
||
build 7's numbers, and build 7 is not what runs) and both still fail on the same
|
||
element; and a fresh candidate — painter's order by resting **Y** — reproduces
|
||
the capture to within a single transposition but is refuted by `ptlogo_tm` and by
|
||
the background, so it is not the rule either.
|
||
|
||
The code avenue is scoped rather than walked: the splash item vtable
|
||
`0x820b30b4` is real (25 slots, three construction sites), RTTI carries **no**
|
||
class names disc-wide, and the format tags are fourcc immediates behind a virtual
|
||
call rather than strings — so this needs a deliberate read of the UI engine, not
|
||
a keyword search.
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Capital ships assemble wrong in the viewer
|
||
|
||
**Reported:** 2026-07-30, by the user. **Status:** ✅ **format-side cause found and
|
||
fixed 2026-08-12** — see below for the 2026-08-10 diagnosis this supersedes.
|
||
|
||
The remaining format-side defect this entry pointed at (a shared turret decoding
|
||
~100× too large in some containers) was real and is gone. `e303_wep_01` decoded
|
||
as a 1600×2100×4800 block in `Stage_S02`, swallowing the `e106` hull; requiring an
|
||
index buffer to cover its vertex pool **exactly** moved it to the block every
|
||
other container agrees on, and it now decodes 49×23×42 everywhere and places at
|
||
±179 on the hull. The same fix repaired `e106_bdy_03` (a 600×1600×998 slab) and
|
||
moved 29 anchors disc-wide, 22 of which had been carrying **another resource's
|
||
geometry under their own name**. See
|
||
[`structures/xbg7-mesh.md`](structures/xbg7-mesh.md).
|
||
|
||
Two things are worth carrying forward rather than closing:
|
||
- the assembler was **audited and exonerated** — every composite node carries
|
||
scale 1.0 and an orthonormal matrix, so nothing on that side inflates a part;
|
||
- **no metric caught this.** Coverage, cross-container consistency, the capture
|
||
oracle and the twin invariant were all green while a 1 600-unit slab sat through
|
||
the ship. It was found by *rendering the ship and looking at it*, and the
|
||
numeric screens written afterwards to automate that check both failed.
|
||
|
||
The 2026-08-10 diagnosis follows, and its viewer-side pointers still stand.
|
||
|
||
**Status (2026-08-10):** 🔎 **the format layer is exonerated.** Runtime captures of three classes (`f105`, `e105`,
|
||
`e106`) at controlled range reproduce `assemble_ship` to ≤0.43 units in translation
|
||
and to 0.000 in rotation for every part that does not move; see
|
||
[`ship-placement-capture-generalisation.md`](ship-placement-capture-generalisation.md)
|
||
§4. So look at **the viewer**: first that it passes `include_external = true`
|
||
(`iso_loader.rs:4012` — with `false` an e106 loses its bridge and both nacelles,
|
||
5 parts instead of 11), then its own transform stack.
|
||
|
||
One real format-side bug was found on the way and is **fixed**: index-less parts
|
||
(`e105_brg`) never matched their `GN_Bridge_01` hardpoint, so 34 (stage, ship) entries
|
||
— `e102`, `e104`, `e105` across Stages 02–29 — assembled without a bridge. The other
|
||
apparent exception (`e105_eng_01` rotation) was an aggregation artefact and is 0.000.
|
||
|
||
The original report and its reasoning follow.
|
||
|
||
The reborn viewer builds capital ships from the split XBG7 parts via
|
||
`sylpheed-formats::ship::assemble_ship`, and they come out **wrong** — parts in the
|
||
wrong place / wrong orientation.
|
||
|
||
**Why this is a real finding and not a known limitation:** the RE write-up
|
||
[`ship-placement-runtime-capture.md`](ship-placement-runtime-capture.md) declares
|
||
static assembly ✅ **exact** as of 2026-07-26 — 9-channel joint tables
|
||
`[TX TY TZ RY RX RZ SX SY SZ]`, Euler `Ry·Rx·Rz`, with
|
||
`ship::tests::static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` asserting static == runtime
|
||
capture (T < 1.0, R < 0.02). So either the viewer is not using that path, or the
|
||
claim generalises worse than the test suggests.
|
||
|
||
**The likely gap:** that test is **one ship** — the `e106` destroyer, 8 parts plus
|
||
two nacelles, two turrets and the hull mirror. Nothing pins the other classes.
|
||
Rules that were derived from `e106` and could easily be `e106`-specific:
|
||
|
||
- the engine cluster rig mounted at `GN_Engine_01` (two mirrored nacelles + centre);
|
||
- "X-reflect the shared-geometry twin whose lateral offset opposes the geometry's
|
||
dominant side" — a heuristic, not a decoded flag;
|
||
- cross-id turret instancing (×2).
|
||
|
||
**First step (the oracle already exists):** re-run the runtime capture on a *different*
|
||
capital ship and diff static vs captured, exactly as `e106` was done — F10 in the
|
||
`capture-ship-placement` build of `xenia-canary-native` dumps the ship shader's
|
||
`c0..c2` WorldViewProjection rows per part; `WV_ref⁻¹ · WV_p` is the ship-space rigid
|
||
transform, which is ground truth. Pick a class whose rig differs from `e106`
|
||
(different engine count, a ship with no `sld`, a carrier). Then extend
|
||
`static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` into a per-ship table so a regression in one
|
||
class cannot hide behind `e106` passing.
|
||
|
||
**Also worth ruling out first, cheaply:** that the viewer's own transform stack (scale,
|
||
handedness, node-instance recursion) is not re-breaking a correct assembly — compare
|
||
the viewer's placement against `assemble_ship`'s output directly before blaming the
|
||
format layer.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Viewer: `include_external` is already on — that hypothesis is dead
|
||
|
||
**Checked 2026-08-11.** The item above names "first that it passes
|
||
`include_external = true` (`iso_loader.rs:4012`)" as the cheap first step. It
|
||
does: `ShipBrowser::show_external` defaults to `true`
|
||
(`iso_loader.rs:643`), the checkbox reads it (`ui.rs:1593`) and it is threaded
|
||
through `RequestShipRender` → `build_ship_model` → `assemble_ship` unchanged
|
||
(`ui.rs:1689`, `iso_loader.rs:4012`). So a ship rendered by the viewer is the
|
||
full external assembly, not the bare hull.
|
||
|
||
The viewer also does not have a transform stack of its own to blame: it bakes
|
||
`ScenePart::apply` straight into the vertices and rotates normals by the same
|
||
`p.m` (`iso_loader.rs:4030-4062`), so its placement is `assemble_ship`'s output
|
||
by construction. What remains unexcluded, in order of cheapness: the mirror
|
||
handling (`det < 0` reverses triangle winding only — a reflected part keeps its
|
||
reflected geometry), `Xbg7Model::models_named` resolving the wrong sub-model when
|
||
a resource name repeats, and the exhaust cones. **Next step is a visual**: the
|
||
diagnosis has run out of things it can settle by reading, so the viewer needs to
|
||
be run against a known-good class (`e106`) and its render compared with
|
||
`ship_render`'s.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Viewer: the duplicate-resource-name hypothesis is dead too
|
||
|
||
**Checked 2026-08-11.** The diagnosis above left three candidates for why capital
|
||
ships assemble wrong in the viewer: mirror handling, `Xbg7Model::models_named`
|
||
resolving the wrong sub-model when a resource name repeats, and the exhaust
|
||
cones. The second is now **refuted**, and comprehensively.
|
||
|
||
`build_ship_model` resolves each placement with
|
||
`base.iter().find(|m| m.name == p.resource)` (`iso_loader.rs:4041`) — first match
|
||
wins — so a repeated resource name inside a container would silently draw the
|
||
wrong geometry. It cannot happen: decoding **every** XBG7 resource in **all 22
|
||
stage containers** gives **4 603 resources and zero repeated names**.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Stage_S01 62/62 Stage_S07 323/323 Stage_S13 290/290 Stage_S25 351/351
|
||
Stage_S02 304/304 Stage_S08 388/388 Stage_S14 22/22 Stage_S26 318/318
|
||
Stage_S03 214/214 Stage_S09 316/316 Stage_S15 386/386 Stage_S27 321/321
|
||
Stage_S04 179/179 Stage_S10 7/7 Stage_S16 65/65 Stage_S28 118/118
|
||
Stage_S05 92/92 Stage_S11 157/157 Stage_S24 162/162 Stage_S29 386/386
|
||
Stage_S06 266/266 Stage_S12 376/376
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Per-ship it is tighter still: `e106` wants 9 distinct names and decodes exactly
|
||
9 models for 11 placements; `e105` 9 for 9; `f105` 5 for 6. Every placement
|
||
resolves to the one model it names.
|
||
|
||
**So two of the three candidates are gone** (this one and `include_external`),
|
||
leaving **mirror handling** and **the exhaust cones** — and the still-untried
|
||
visual comparison, which remains the right next step.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Viewer: mirror handling and the exhaust cones are cleared too — the static avenue is exhausted
|
||
|
||
**Checked 2026-08-11.** Both remaining candidates were tested across every ship
|
||
on the disc, and neither shows the reported signature.
|
||
|
||
**Mirror handling.** The concern was that `ScenePart::apply` bakes `R·(S·v)+T`
|
||
while the viewer takes its winding-flip decision from `det(m)` alone and rotates
|
||
normals by `m` alone — both ignoring `s`. A mirror encoded as a *negative scale*
|
||
would then reflect geometry without flipping winding, drawing the part
|
||
inside-out. It never happens: across **1 485 assembled parts** in all 22
|
||
containers there are **22 mirrored parts, every one with `det(m) < 0`**, and
|
||
**zero** parts with a negative scale or a non-uniform one. `apply_twin_mirrors`
|
||
writes the reflection into `m` (negating its X column), so the viewer's flip
|
||
always fires, and ignoring `s` for normals is harmless because `s` is always
|
||
uniform.
|
||
|
||
**Exhaust cones.** These are the one piece of geometry the viewer *invents* — a
|
||
cone at each `GN_Jet`/`GN_SJet` frame, because the real engine geometry is
|
||
recessed and the game draws FX there instead. If they landed wrongly they would
|
||
read exactly as "a part in the wrong place". Across **335 assembled ships, 192 of
|
||
which have exhaust frames, not one cone sits outside its hull's bounding box**
|
||
(tolerance 10 % of the axis span).
|
||
|
||
**Caveat, stated rather than glossed:** "inside the hull box" does not prove a
|
||
cone is *right* — orientation and size are untested, and a cone could be wrong
|
||
while still inside. What it does rule out is the reported symptom for that part.
|
||
|
||
So every mechanism this diagnosis proposed is now eliminated: `include_external`,
|
||
duplicate resource names, mirror handling, and cones-in-the-wrong-place. The
|
||
format and assembly layers pass every static test available, and **the visual
|
||
comparison is no longer merely the next step — it is the only remaining one.**
|
||
Render `e106` in the viewer beside `ship_render`'s output of the same
|
||
`assemble_ship` result; if they agree, the bug is in neither and the original
|
||
report needs re-grounding against a specific ship and a specific expectation.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## ⚠️ DIAGNOSED 2026-08-12 — a mis-decode; the locality fix was written, then withdrawn
|
||
|
||
> Resolution at the end of this entry. Kept in full because the two wrong turns
|
||
> along the way (a "stray volume", then "monotonic anchoring") are the useful part.
|
||
|
||
## ⚠️ The format layer is NOT exonerated — but the cause is a MIS-DECODE, not a stray volume
|
||
|
||
**Found 2026-08-11 by finally doing the visual**, which the notes above kept
|
||
naming as the next step. It overturns their conclusion.
|
||
|
||
Render `e106` from the static assembly and from the baked runtime capture and
|
||
compare — `ship_render` does both:
|
||
|
||
| | placements | parts |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| runtime capture (ground truth) | **8** | `bdy_01…04`, `brg_01`, `eng_01`, `eng_02`, `wep_02_01` |
|
||
| `assemble_ship(--static)` | **11** | the same 8, **plus `e303_wep_01` ×2** and a second `e106_eng_01` |
|
||
|
||
The render makes it obvious: the destroyer sits inside a white slab that dwarfs
|
||
it ([capture](captures/e106-static-assembly-volume-bug.png)). That slab is
|
||
`e303_wep_01`, and its own geometry is:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
e303_wep_01 172 verts, 110 tris bounds X[-1000, 600] Y[-1050, 1050] Z[-2400, 2400] 1600 x 2100 x 4800
|
||
e106_wep_02_01 1002 verts, 772 tris 269 x 179 x 417 ← what a real e106 turret looks like
|
||
e106_brg_01 202 verts, 202 tris 105 x 76 x 305
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**110 triangles, perfectly round axis-aligned bounds, and bigger than the ship it
|
||
is mounted on.**
|
||
|
||
### CORRECTION (same day, one iteration later): it is not a volume — it is a bad decode
|
||
|
||
The first reading of this was that `e303_wep_01` is a collision/trigger volume
|
||
the assembler wrongly draws. **That is wrong, and the evidence that settles it is
|
||
decoding the same resource from every container that holds it:**
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Stage_S01 172 verts 110 tris X[-24.5, 24.5] Y[0.0, 23.4] Z[-20.8, 20.8] ← 49 × 23 × 42, a turret
|
||
Stage_S02 172 verts 110 tris X[-1000, 600] Y[±1050] Z[±2400] ← 1600 × 2100 × 4800
|
||
Stage_S03… 172 verts 110 tris 49 × 23 × 42 (correct)
|
||
Stage_S08 … 1600 × 2100 × 4800
|
||
Stage_S26 … 1600 × 2100 × 4800
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Same resource, same vertex and triangle count, **decoding correctly in eleven
|
||
containers and wrongly in exactly three** (`Stage_S02`, `S08`, `S26`). So:
|
||
|
||
- the **placement is legitimate** — `e303_wep_01` is a small shared turret,
|
||
cross-mounted on `e101` and `e106`, and at its true size it is unremarkable;
|
||
- the original author's explanation of the capture's silence (**vbase dedup**)
|
||
stands, and my "dedup would show one, not zero" objection does not survive:
|
||
with the correct decode the turret is small, ordinary geometry;
|
||
- **the defect is in the mesh decoder**, which resolved this resource's vertex
|
||
data differently in three containers.
|
||
|
||
The render and the symptom are real; the cause named in the first version of this
|
||
entry was not.
|
||
|
||
### The part that matters more than this one resource
|
||
|
||
**The decoder can produce wrong geometry without declining.** The
|
||
[XBG7 audit](structures/xbg7-mesh.md) counted 814 resources it *refuses* — a
|
||
visible, honest failure. This is the other kind: `e303_wep_01` decodes "fine" in
|
||
`Stage_S02` and is silently 100× too large. Screening for the signature (bounds
|
||
that are exact multiples of 50 with a span over 1000) flags 22–32 models in each
|
||
of `S02`, `S03`, `S08`, `S26`, `S27` — **but that screen also catches legitimate
|
||
`e_rou_*` composite proxies**, so it is a candidate list, not a count of bugs.
|
||
|
||
**Next:** diff the anchor scan's chosen `vb0` for `e303_wep_01` between
|
||
`Stage_S01` (correct) and `Stage_S02` (wrong) — same resource, two outcomes, so
|
||
the divergence is directly observable — then use whatever distinguishes them to
|
||
add a post-decode sanity check, so a silent 100× mis-decode becomes a decline.
|
||
|
||
### Why this was missed
|
||
|
||
`assemble_ship` treats **every** `rou_*` node in the composite as a drawable
|
||
part, and the doc comment states the cross-id mount as intended behaviour —
|
||
`"INCLUDING repeated instances and cross-id turret mounts (rou_e303_wep_01_root
|
||
×2 on the e106 hull)"` — with
|
||
`ship::tests::static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` asserting
|
||
`count("e303_wep_01") == 2`. The absence from the capture was explained away as
|
||
vbase dedup, but **dedup would show one instance, not zero**.
|
||
|
||
The test cannot catch it either: it walks the capture's parts and looks each up
|
||
in the static output, so **extra** static placements are invisible to it. That is
|
||
the same shape of gap as the earlier `include_external` hypothesis — a test that
|
||
can only fail one way.
|
||
|
||
### Scope, stated carefully
|
||
|
||
Sweeping all 335 assembled ships for the signature *ship-scale span with under
|
||
400 triangles* flags **20 ships and 58 placements** over 28 distinct resources
|
||
(`e005_ant_*`, `f001_ant_*`, `f002_bdy_*`, `f301_barrel`, `f303_body`,
|
||
`e303_wep_01`, …). **Only the `e106`/`e303_wep_01` case is proven** — by render,
|
||
by capture absence, and by geometry. Some of the others may be legitimately large
|
||
low-poly parts, and each needs the same three checks before being called a bug.
|
||
|
||
**Still true, and independent of the correction above:**
|
||
`static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` walks the capture's parts and looks each
|
||
up in the static output, so **extra static placements can never fail it**. That is
|
||
worth fixing regardless — it is the same one-way-test shape as the earlier
|
||
`include_external` hypothesis.
|
||
|
||
Also unchanged: only **two** cross-id placements exist fleet-wide (`e303_wep_01`
|
||
on `e101` ×24 and `e106` ×36, across 335 assembled ships), so cross-id mounting is
|
||
a narrow, real feature rather than a systemic guess.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Resolution (2026-08-12)
|
||
|
||
`anchor_pool_mesh` took the **first** candidate in file order from a
|
||
container-global scan, so a resource could be handed another resource's block
|
||
whenever both shared `(stride, vertex count, index count)`. Fixed by anchoring
|
||
each resource near its **descriptor neighbours** (two-pass: learn, then re-anchor).
|
||
|
||
- it took inconsistency **125 → 51** with coverage unchanged, and made `e106`
|
||
render correctly ([after](captures/e106-static-assembly-fixed.png))
|
||
- **but it flipped the `e106` twin-mirror decision**, which
|
||
`static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` (ISO-gated, so it skips in a plain
|
||
`cargo test`) catches against the runtime capture — so it was **reverted**
|
||
- the user-reported "capital ships assemble wrong" is therefore **diagnosed, not
|
||
yet fixed**; see [xbg7](structures/xbg7-mesh.md) for what the real fix needs
|
||
|
||
Still open from this entry: `static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` walks only
|
||
the capture's parts, so **extra** static placements still cannot fail it.
|
||
|
||
### 2026-08-18 — that last line was stale, and the residual gap is now closed too
|
||
|
||
**The one-way-test complaint had already been fixed** when this entry was
|
||
written down: `64d372c` (the revert commit itself) added an extras check, so
|
||
"extra static placements cannot fail it" has not been true since. Checked rather
|
||
than assumed — perturbing the expectation makes the test fail with the real disc
|
||
behind it, so it runs and is live, not a `SYLPHEED_ISO`-less skip.
|
||
|
||
**But it compared a set of resource *names*, which leaves one direction open**: a
|
||
resource placed *twice* when the capture lists it once changes no set. That is
|
||
not hypothetical — a duplicated instance is exactly what a bad node walk emits,
|
||
and the two legitimate duplicates here (`e106_eng_01`, `e303_wep_01`) are the
|
||
reason the test had to special-case counts at all. Replaced with the full
|
||
**multiset**, pinned to the e106 ground truth:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
e106_bdy_01 1 e106_bdy_02 1 e106_bdy_03 1 e106_bdy_04 1 e106_brg_01 1
|
||
e106_eng_01 2 e106_eng_02 1 e106_wep_02_01 1 e303_wep_01 2
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
— 9 resources, 11 placements, against the capture's 8 dedup'd parts. That
|
||
subsumes the two hand-written count assertions, and it now fails on an extra
|
||
resource, a missing one, **and** a duplicated one. Refuted before believing:
|
||
declaring `e106_bdy_01` twice makes it fail, with the real multiset on the left.
|
||
|
||
**Not closed by this**, and worth keeping separate: the multiset is `e106`'s
|
||
alone. The generalisation this entry originally asked for — a per-ship table so
|
||
a regression in one class cannot hide behind `e106` passing — still needs a
|
||
runtime capture of a *second* capital ship, which needs the
|
||
`capture-ship-placement` build of Canary.
|