Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re
MechaCat02 a68405216f re: runtime-capture pipeline for exact capital-ship part placement
Static external-part placement (ship::assemble_ship) is only approximate — a GN_*
frame is the mount pivot, and the real offset lives in a runtime detail rig. So
capture ground truth from Canary instead.

Finding: the guest vertex buffer holds LOCAL coords (byte-identical to the .xpr),
so capital-ship parts are placed entirely in the vertex shader. The per-part
transform is in the VS float constants — c0..c2 are the WorldViewProjection rows;
normalising each by its norm (= projection x/y/z scales, sy/sx = 16:9) yields the
rigid WorldView (rows orthonormal, det +1). Expressing every part relative to a
reference part cancels the camera: rel_p = WV_ref⁻¹·WV_p, a pure ship-space rigid
transform.

- examples/correlate_capture.rs: parse xenia_ship_capture.log, decode the ship's
  parts, match by vertex count, recover each part's ship-relative placement.
- docs/re/ship-placement-runtime-capture.md: full method + the capture protocol
  (Canary branch capture-ship-placement, F10 hotkey) + validated e106 result.

Validated on e106 (ADAN Destroyer, Stage_S01): all 7 drawn parts matched by
vertex count; bdy_01/bdy_02 recovered as a PORT/STARBOARD pair (X = ∓264) that
static had overlapping; engines correctly aft; extent 872×670×2181. Only brg_01
(bridge) missing — culled at that camera angle, needs a bridge-facing capture.

HANDOFF: next = re-capture bridge, bake a per-ship placement table the viewer
prefers over assemble_ship, then capture the cruiser / ACROPOLIS / TCAF ships.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-24 10:50:26 +02:00
..

Reverse-engineering knowledge base

This directory is the spec-side of the clean-room: it records what the original Project Sylpheed binary does (behaviour) and how its data is laid out, so that the Rust port can be implemented from these specs without re-deriving anything and without ever copying original code.

It exists to answer one question fast: "do we already know how X works, and how sure are we?"


The one rule that matters

Never document a claim more confidently than the evidence supports, and never paste original code here.

A wrong-but-confident note is worse than no note: someone builds on it and the bug hides for weeks. Every entry therefore carries an explicit confidence and its evidence. This mirrors the project method — measure the oracle, never infer; refute before believing.

Clean-room firewall

  • Allowed: behaviour descriptions, field offsets/types, formulas, state machines, observed input→output pairs, and references to the original by address (sub_821B68C0) or to xenia-rs/sylpheed.db.
  • Forbidden here and in crates/: pasted decompiled C/C++ or verbatim disassembled function bodies presented as the thing to reimplement. Cite the address; describe the behaviour in your own words. Disassembly is a tool for understanding, not a source to copy.

Confidence levels

Level Meaning Bar to reach it
CONFIRMED Behaviour verified against ground truth. ≥2 independent observations or one observation cross-checked against an oracle (canary framebuffer, a known-correct value, a second code path).
PROBABLE Strong single-source inference. One clean observation, or an unambiguous static read of the disassembly.
HYPOTHESIS Educated guess, not yet tested. Anything else. Must say what would confirm/refute it.

Promotion requires new evidence, not re-reading the old evidence. A HYPOTHESIS that "looks right again" is still a HYPOTHESIS. Only an independent check promotes it. If evidence later contradicts an entry, demote it and record the contradiction — do not silently edit the conclusion.


When to document

  • Right after a function/structure crosses from HYPOTHESIS to at least PROBABLE — before moving to the next code path, so the knowledge isn't lost or re-derived.
  • Whenever confidence changes (up or down) — append to the Evidence log, don't overwrite.
  • Not while it's still a pure guess with no evidence — a one-liner in the relevant backlog/plan is enough until there's something to stand on.

What to document

  • Functions/code pathsdocs/re/functions/<name>.md (one file per function or tight cluster).
  • Data structures / formatsdocs/re/structures/<name>.md.
  • Keep the index in INDEX.md (one line each: name · confidence · one-line summary).

Use the templates: _TEMPLATE.function.md, _TEMPLATE.structure.md.


How we find and confirm code paths (the toolchain)

Everything joins on the guest virtual address (PC) — code addresses are fixed by the XEX load, identical across our emulator and canary.

  • Static (cheap, try first): xenia-rs/sylpheed.db (DuckDB: 25 481 functions, xrefs, strings, vtables, imports). Query with xenia-rs/zq.pyzq.py grep <str>, zq.py xref <addr>, zq.py dis <lo> <hi>, zq.py fn <pc>. Entry points are usually a string (zq.py grep MSG_DEMO) or an import (movie/XMA API) xref'd back to the loader.
  • Dynamic (when static is ambiguous): run xenia-rs with its probe suite — --pc-probe / --audit-pc-probe-hex (fires at block entry), --mem-watch (mid-block reads/writes of a VA), --lr-trace (call/return chains), --trace-instructions, --dump-addr (read guest memory). These already exist; prefer them over hacking canary.
  • Oracle (correctness ground truth): canary — the Wine cross-build xenia-canary/build-cross/bin/Windows/Debug/xenia_canary.exe (the native Linux ELF crashes / does not run — do not use it). This is the only emulator that reaches the in-game menu; our xenia-rs never got past the intro video. Use canary to observe output (capture its framebuffer for texture colours), not usually to instrument code — though its build-cross toolchain does compile, so small C++ probes + rebuild are possible when needed. Run muted, one emulator process at a time, point it at the real ISO (not the symlink).

⚠️ VA-equality caveat: join code by PC (fixed), but never assume a data VA holds the same bytes across emulators — allocators differ. Compare data by content/layout.