Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re/BACKLOG.md
Claude (auto-RE) a7905d0f6b re: kill the duplicate-resource-name hypothesis for the viewer bug, and reconcile 22 vs 16 stages
build_ship_model resolves each placement with find(|m| m.name == p.resource) --
first match wins -- so a repeated resource name inside a container would draw
the wrong geometry. It cannot happen: decoding every XBG7 resource in all 22
stage containers gives 4603 resources and ZERO repeated names. 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.

Two of the three remaining candidates for the user-reported viewer bug are now
gone (this and include_external), leaving mirror handling and the exhaust cones,
plus the untried visual comparison.

The container sweep also reconciles a number I flagged earlier: the disc has 22
stage CONTAINERS -- Stage_S01..S16 plus Stage_S24..S29 -- i.e. 16 story stages
plus 6 extra. The save screen's 16 STAGE sprites and the notes' "22 stages" are
both right and count different things; neither gets edited to match the other.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-11 21:31:18 +00:00

116 lines
6.2 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.
# 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.
---
## Capital ships assemble wrong in the viewer
**Reported:** 2026-07-30, by the user. **Status:** 🔎 **diagnosed 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 0229 — 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.