custom
17 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Carter Anderson
|
1553ee98ff |
Switch ChildOf back to tuple struct (#18672)
# Objective In #17905 we swapped to a named field on `ChildOf` to help resolve variable naming ambiguity of child vs parent (ex: `child_of.parent` clearly reads as "I am accessing the parent of the child_of relationship", whereas `child_of.0` is less clear). Unfortunately this has the side effect of making initialization less ideal. `ChildOf { parent }` reads just as well as `ChildOf(parent)`, but `ChildOf { parent: root }` doesn't read nearly as well as `ChildOf(root)`. ## Solution Move back to `ChildOf(pub Entity)` but add a `child_of.parent()` function and use it for all accesses. The downside here is that users are no longer "forced" to access the parent field with `parent` nomenclature, but I think this strikes the right balance. Take a look at the diff. I think the results provide strong evidence for this change. Initialization has the benefit of reading much better _and_ of taking up significantly less space, as many lines go from 3 to 1, and we're cutting out a bunch of syntax in some cases. Sadly I do think this should land in 0.16 as the cost of doing this _after_ the relationships migration is high. |
||
|
Tim Overbeek
|
ccb7069e7f
|
Change ChildOf to Childof { parent: Entity} and support deriving Relationship and RelationshipTarget with named structs (#17905)
# Objective fixes #17896 ## Solution Change ChildOf ( Entity ) to ChildOf { parent: Entity } by doing this we also allow users to use named structs for relationship derives, When you have more than 1 field in a struct with named fields the macro will look for a field with the attribute #[relationship] and all of the other fields should implement the Default trait. Unnamed fields are still supported. When u have a unnamed struct with more than one field the macro will fail. Do we want to support something like this ? ```rust #[derive(Component)] #[relationship_target(relationship = ChildOf)] pub struct Children (#[relationship] Entity, u8); ``` I could add this, it but doesn't seem nice. ## Testing crates/bevy_ecs - cargo test ## Showcase ```rust use bevy_ecs::component::Component; use bevy_ecs::entity::Entity; #[derive(Component)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Children)] pub struct ChildOf { #[relationship] pub parent: Entity, internal: u8, }; #[derive(Component)] #[relationship_target(relationship = ChildOf)] pub struct Children { children: Vec<Entity> }; ``` --------- Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@Tims-MacBook-Pro.local> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-042.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-059.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-054.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-027.client.nl.eduvpn.org> |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
ba5e71f53d
|
Parent -> ChildOf (#17427)
Fixes #17412 ## Objective `Parent` uses the "has a X" naming convention. There is increasing sentiment that we should use the "is a X" naming convention for relationships (following #17398). This leaves `Children` as-is because there is prevailing sentiment that `Children` is clearer than `ParentOf` in many cases (especially when treating it like a collection). This renames `Parent` to `ChildOf`. This is just the implementation PR. To discuss the path forward, do so in #17412. ## Migration Guide - The `Parent` component has been renamed to `ChildOf`. |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
21f1e3045c
|
Relationships (non-fragmenting, one-to-many) (#17398)
This adds support for one-to-many non-fragmenting relationships (with planned paths for fragmenting and non-fragmenting many-to-many relationships). "Non-fragmenting" means that entities with the same relationship type, but different relationship targets, are not forced into separate tables (which would cause "table fragmentation"). Functionally, this fills a similar niche as the current Parent/Children system. The biggest differences are: 1. Relationships have simpler internals and significantly improved performance and UX. Commands and specialized APIs are no longer necessary to keep everything in sync. Just spawn entities with the relationship components you want and everything "just works". 2. Relationships are generalized. Bevy can provide additional built in relationships, and users can define their own. **REQUEST TO REVIEWERS**: _please don't leave top level comments and instead comment on specific lines of code. That way we can take advantage of threaded discussions. Also dont leave comments simply pointing out CI failures as I can read those just fine._ ## Built on top of what we have Relationships are implemented on top of the Bevy ECS features we already have: components, immutability, and hooks. This makes them immediately compatible with all of our existing (and future) APIs for querying, spawning, removing, scenes, reflection, etc. The fewer specialized APIs we need to build, maintain, and teach, the better. ## Why focus on one-to-many non-fragmenting first? 1. This allows us to improve Parent/Children relationships immediately, in a way that is reasonably uncontroversial. Switching our hierarchy to fragmenting relationships would have significant performance implications. ~~Flecs is heavily considering a switch to non-fragmenting relations after careful considerations of the performance tradeoffs.~~ _(Correction from @SanderMertens: Flecs is implementing non-fragmenting storage specialized for asset hierarchies, where asset hierarchies are many instances of small trees that have a well defined structure)_ 2. Adding generalized one-to-many relationships is currently a priority for the [Next Generation Scene / UI effort](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437). Specifically, we're interested in building reactions and observers on top. ## The changes This PR does the following: 1. Adds a generic one-to-many Relationship system 3. Ports the existing Parent/Children system to Relationships, which now lives in `bevy_ecs::hierarchy`. The old `bevy_hierarchy` crate has been removed. 4. Adds on_despawn component hooks 5. Relationships can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, meaning that the entire relationship hierarchy is despawned when `entity.despawn()` is called. The built in Parent/Children hierarchies enable this behavior, and `entity.despawn_recursive()` has been removed. 6. `world.spawn` now applies commands after spawning. This ensures that relationship bookkeeping happens immediately and removes the need to manually flush. This is in line with the equivalent behaviors recently added to the other APIs (ex: insert). 7. Removes the ValidParentCheckPlugin (system-driven / poll based) in favor of a `validate_parent_has_component` hook. ## Using Relationships The `Relationship` trait looks like this: ```rust pub trait Relationship: Component + Sized { type RelationshipSources: RelationshipSources<Relationship = Self>; fn get(&self) -> Entity; fn from(entity: Entity) -> Self; } ``` A relationship is a component that: 1. Is a simple wrapper over a "target" Entity. 2. Has a corresponding `RelationshipSources` component, which is a simple wrapper over a collection of entities. Every "target entity" targeted by a "source entity" with a `Relationship` has a `RelationshipSources` component, which contains every "source entity" that targets it. For example, the `Parent` component (as it currently exists in Bevy) is the `Relationship` component and the entity containing the Parent is the "source entity". The entity _inside_ the `Parent(Entity)` component is the "target entity". And that target entity has a `Children` component (which implements `RelationshipSources`). In practice, the Parent/Children relationship looks like this: ```rust #[derive(Relationship)] #[relationship(relationship_sources = Children)] pub struct Parent(pub Entity); #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` The Relationship and RelationshipSources derives automatically implement Component with the relevant configuration (namely, the hooks necessary to keep everything in sync). The most direct way to add relationships is to spawn entities with relationship components: ```rust let a = world.spawn_empty().id(); let b = world.spawn(Parent(a)).id(); assert_eq!(world.entity(a).get::<Children>().unwrap(), &[b]); ``` There are also convenience APIs for spawning more than one entity with the same relationship: ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_related::<Children>(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` The existing `with_children` API is now a simpler wrapper over `with_related`. This makes this change largely non-breaking for existing spawn patterns. ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_children(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` There are also other relationship APIs, such as `add_related` and `despawn_related`. ## Automatic recursive despawn via the new on_despawn hook `RelationshipSources` can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, which will despawn all related entities in the relationship hierarchy: ```rust #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent, despawn_descendants)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` This means that `entity.despawn_recursive()` is no longer required. Instead, just use `entity.despawn()` and the relevant related entities will also be despawned. To despawn an entity _without_ despawning its parent/child descendants, you should remove the `Children` component first, which will also remove the related `Parent` components: ```rust entity .remove::<Children>() .despawn() ``` This builds on the on_despawn hook introduced in this PR, which is fired when an entity is despawned (before other hooks). ## Relationships are the source of truth `Relationship` is the _single_ source of truth component. `RelationshipSources` is merely a reflection of what all the `Relationship` components say. By embracing this, we are able to significantly improve the performance of the system as a whole. We can rely on component lifecycles to protect us against duplicates, rather than needing to scan at runtime to ensure entities don't already exist (which results in quadratic runtime). A single source of truth gives us constant-time inserts. This does mean that we cannot directly spawn populated `Children` components (or directly add or remove entities from those components). I personally think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, both because it makes the performance much better _and_ because it means theres exactly one way to do things (which is a philosophy we try to employ for Bevy APIs). As an aside: treating both sides of the relationship as "equivalent source of truth relations" does enable building simple and flexible many-to-many relationships. But this introduces an _inherent_ need to scan (or hash) to protect against duplicates. [`evergreen_relations`](https://github.com/EvergreenNest/evergreen_relations) has a very nice implementation of the "symmetrical many-to-many" approach. Unfortunately I think the performance issues inherent to that approach make it a poor choice for Bevy's default relationship system. ## Followup Work * Discuss renaming `Parent` to `ChildOf`. I refrained from doing that in this PR to keep the diff reasonable, but I'm personally biased toward this change (and using that naming pattern generally for relationships). * [Improved spawning ergonomics](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/16920) * Consider adding relationship observers/triggers for "relationship targets" whenever a source is added or removed. This would replace the current "hierarchy events" system, which is unused upstream but may have existing users downstream. I think triggers are the better fit for this than a buffered event queue, and would prefer not to add that back. * Fragmenting relations: My current idea hinges on the introduction of "value components" (aka: components whose type _and_ value determines their ComponentId, via something like Hashing / PartialEq). By labeling a Relationship component such as `ChildOf(Entity)` as a "value component", `ChildOf(e1)` and `ChildOf(e2)` would be considered "different components". This makes the transition between fragmenting and non-fragmenting a single flag, and everything else continues to work as expected. * Many-to-many support * Non-fragmenting: We can expand Relationship to be a list of entities instead of a single entity. I have largely already written the code for this. * Fragmenting: With the "value component" impl mentioned above, we get many-to-many support "for free", as it would allow inserting multiple copies of a Relationship component with different target entities. Fixes #3742 (If this PR is merged, I think we should open more targeted followup issues for the work above, with a fresh tracking issue free of the large amount of less-directed historical context) Fixes #17301 Fixes #12235 Fixes #15299 Fixes #15308 ## Migration Guide * Replace `ChildBuilder` with `ChildSpawnerCommands`. * Replace calls to `.set_parent(parent_id)` with `.insert(Parent(parent_id))`. * Replace calls to `.replace_children()` with `.remove::<Children>()` followed by `.add_children()`. Note that you'll need to manually despawn any children that are not carried over. * Replace calls to `.despawn_recursive()` with `.despawn()`. * Replace calls to `.despawn_descendants()` with `.despawn_related::<Children>()`. * If you have any calls to `.despawn()` which depend on the children being preserved, you'll need to remove the `Children` component first. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
56c70f8463
|
Make visibility range (HLOD) dithering work when prepasses are enabled. (#16286)
Currently, the prepass has no support for visibility ranges, so artifacts appear when using dithering visibility ranges in conjunction with a prepass. This patch fixes that problem. Note that this patch changes the prepass to use sparse bind group indices instead of sequential ones. I figured this is cleaner, because it allows for greater sharing of WGSL code between the forward pipeline and the prepass pipeline. The `visibility_range` example has been updated to allow the prepass to be toggled on and off. |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
d80b809ea1
|
Only use the AABB center for mesh visibility range testing if specified. (#16468)
PR #15164 made Bevy consider the center of the mesh to be the center of the axis-aligned bounding box (AABB). Unfortunately, this breaks crossfading in many cases. LODs may have different AABBs and so the center of the AABB may differ for different LODs of the same mesh. The crossfading, however, relies on all LODs having *precisely* the same position. To address this problem, this PR adds a new field, `use_aabb`, to `VisibilityRange`, which makes the AABB center point behavior opt-in. @BenjaminBrienen first noticed this issue when reviewing PR #16286. That PR contains a video showing the effects of this regression on the `visibility_range` example. This commit fixes that example. ## Migration Guide * The `VisibilityRange` component now has an extra field, `use_aabb`. Generally, you can safely set it to false. |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
015f2c69ca
|
Merge Style properties into Node. Use ComputedNode for computed properties. (#15975)
# Objective Continue improving the user experience of our UI Node API in the direction specified by [Bevy's Next Generation Scene / UI System](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437) ## Solution As specified in the document above, merge `Style` fields into `Node`, and move "computed Node fields" into `ComputedNode` (I chose this name over something like `ComputedNodeLayout` because it currently contains more than just layout info. If we want to break this up / rename these concepts, lets do that in a separate PR). `Style` has been removed. This accomplishes a number of goals: ## Ergonomics wins Specifying both `Node` and `Style` is now no longer required for non-default styles Before: ```rust commands.spawn(( Node::default(), Style { width: Val::Px(100.), ..default() }, )); ``` After: ```rust commands.spawn(Node { width: Val::Px(100.), ..default() }); ``` ## Conceptual clarity `Style` was never a comprehensive "style sheet". It only defined "core" style properties that all `Nodes` shared. Any "styled property" that couldn't fit that mold had to be in a separate component. A "real" style system would style properties _across_ components (`Node`, `Button`, etc). We have plans to build a true style system (see the doc linked above). By moving the `Style` fields to `Node`, we fully embrace `Node` as the driving concept and remove the "style system" confusion. ## Next Steps * Consider identifying and splitting out "style properties that aren't core to Node". This should not happen for Bevy 0.15. --- ## Migration Guide Move any fields set on `Style` into `Node` and replace all `Style` component usage with `Node`. Before: ```rust commands.spawn(( Node::default(), Style { width: Val::Px(100.), ..default() }, )); ``` After: ```rust commands.spawn(Node { width: Val::Px(100.), ..default() }); ``` For any usage of the "computed node properties" that used to live on `Node`, use `ComputedNode` instead: Before: ```rust fn system(nodes: Query<&Node>) { for node in &nodes { let computed_size = node.size(); } } ``` After: ```rust fn system(computed_nodes: Query<&ComputedNode>) { for computed_node in &computed_nodes { let computed_size = computed_node.size(); } } ``` |
||
|
UkoeHB
|
c2c19e5ae4
|
Text rework (#15591)
**Ready for review. Examples migration progress: 100%.** # Objective - Implement https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/15014 ## Solution This implements [cart's proposal](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/15014#discussioncomment-10574459) faithfully except for one change. I separated `TextSpan` from `TextSpan2d` because `TextSpan` needs to require the `GhostNode` component, which is a `bevy_ui` component only usable by UI. Extra changes: - Added `EntityCommands::commands_mut` that returns a mutable reference. This is a blocker for extension methods that return something other than `self`. Note that `sickle_ui`'s `UiBuilder::commands` returns a mutable reference for this reason. ## Testing - [x] Text examples all work. --- ## Showcase TODO: showcase-worthy ## Migration Guide TODO: very breaking ### Accessing text spans by index Text sections are now text sections on different entities in a hierarchy, Use the new `TextReader` and `TextWriter` system parameters to access spans by index. Before: ```rust fn refresh_text(mut query: Query<&mut Text, With<TimeText>>, time: Res<Time>) { let text = query.single_mut(); text.sections[1].value = format_time(time.elapsed()); } ``` After: ```rust fn refresh_text( query: Query<Entity, With<TimeText>>, mut writer: UiTextWriter, time: Res<Time> ) { let entity = query.single(); *writer.text(entity, 1) = format_time(time.elapsed()); } ``` ### Iterating text spans Text spans are now entities in a hierarchy, so the new `UiTextReader` and `UiTextWriter` system parameters provide ways to iterate that hierarchy. The `UiTextReader::iter` method will give you a normal iterator over spans, and `UiTextWriter::for_each` lets you visit each of the spans. --------- Co-authored-by: ickshonpe <david.curthoys@googlemail.com> Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com> |
||
|
Joona Aalto
|
25bfa80e60
|
Migrate cameras to required components (#15641)
# Objective Yet another PR for migrating stuff to required components. This time, cameras! ## Solution As per the [selected proposal](https://hackmd.io/tsYID4CGRiWxzsgawzxG_g#Combined-Proposal-1-Selected), deprecate `Camera2dBundle` and `Camera3dBundle` in favor of `Camera2d` and `Camera3d`. Adding a `Camera` without `Camera2d` or `Camera3d` now logs a warning, as suggested by Cart [on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1264881140007702558/1291506402832945273). I would personally like cameras to work a bit differently and be split into a few more components, to avoid some footguns and confusing semantics, but that is more controversial, and shouldn't block this core migration. ## Testing I ran a few 2D and 3D examples, and tried cameras with and without render graphs. --- ## Migration Guide `Camera2dBundle` and `Camera3dBundle` have been deprecated in favor of `Camera2d` and `Camera3d`. Inserting them will now also insert the other components required by them automatically. |
||
|
Tim
|
eb51b4c28e
|
Migrate scenes to required components (#15579)
# Objective A step in the migration to required components: scenes! ## Solution As per the [selected proposal](https://hackmd.io/@bevy/required_components/%2FPJtNGVMMQhyM0zIvCJSkbA): - Deprecate `SceneBundle` and `DynamicSceneBundle`. - Add `SceneRoot` and `DynamicSceneRoot` components, which wrap a `Handle<Scene>` and `Handle<DynamicScene>` respectively. ## Migration Guide Asset handles for scenes and dynamic scenes must now be wrapped in the `SceneRoot` and `DynamicSceneRoot` components. Raw handles as components no longer spawn scenes. Additionally, `SceneBundle` and `DynamicSceneBundle` have been deprecated. Instead, use the scene components directly. Previously: ```rust let model_scene = asset_server.load(GltfAssetLabel::Scene(0).from_asset("model.gltf")); commands.spawn(SceneBundle { scene: model_scene, transform: Transform::from_xyz(-4.0, 0.0, -3.0), ..default() }); ``` Now: ```rust let model_scene = asset_server.load(GltfAssetLabel::Scene(0).from_asset("model.gltf")); commands.spawn(( SceneRoot(model_scene), Transform::from_xyz(-4.0, 0.0, -3.0), )); ``` |
||
|
Joona Aalto
|
54006b107b
|
Migrate meshes and materials to required components (#15524)
# Objective A big step in the migration to required components: meshes and materials! ## Solution As per the [selected proposal](https://hackmd.io/@bevy/required_components/%2Fj9-PnF-2QKK0on1KQ29UWQ): - Deprecate `MaterialMesh2dBundle`, `MaterialMeshBundle`, and `PbrBundle`. - Add `Mesh2d` and `Mesh3d` components, which wrap a `Handle<Mesh>`. - Add `MeshMaterial2d<M: Material2d>` and `MeshMaterial3d<M: Material>`, which wrap a `Handle<M>`. - Meshes *without* a mesh material should be rendered with a default material. The existence of a material is determined by `HasMaterial2d`/`HasMaterial3d`, which is required by `MeshMaterial2d`/`MeshMaterial3d`. This gets around problems with the generics. Previously: ```rust commands.spawn(MaterialMesh2dBundle { mesh: meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0)).into(), material: materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5)), transform: Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)), ..default() }); ``` Now: ```rust commands.spawn(( Mesh2d(meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0))), MeshMaterial2d(materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5))), Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)), )); ``` If the mesh material is missing, previously nothing was rendered. Now, it renders a white default `ColorMaterial` in 2D and a `StandardMaterial` in 3D (this can be overridden). Below, only every other entity has a material:   Why white? This is still open for discussion, but I think white makes sense for a *default* material, while *invalid* asset handles pointing to nothing should have something like a pink material to indicate that something is broken (I don't handle that in this PR yet). This is kind of a mix of Godot and Unity: Godot just renders a white material for non-existent materials, while Unity renders nothing when no materials exist, but renders pink for invalid materials. I can also change the default material to pink if that is preferable though. ## Testing I ran some 2D and 3D examples to test if anything changed visually. I have not tested all examples or features yet however. If anyone wants to test more extensively, it would be appreciated! ## Implementation Notes - The relationship between `bevy_render` and `bevy_pbr` is weird here. `bevy_render` needs `Mesh3d` for its own systems, but `bevy_pbr` has all of the material logic, and `bevy_render` doesn't depend on it. I feel like the two crates should be refactored in some way, but I think that's out of scope for this PR. - I didn't migrate meshlets to required components yet. That can probably be done in a follow-up, as this is already a huge PR. - It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we really, *really* want to disallow raw asset handles as components. They caused me a *ton* of headache here already, and it took me a long time to find every place that queried for them or inserted them directly on entities, since there were no compiler errors for it. If we don't remove the `Component` derive, I expect raw asset handles to be a *huge* footgun for users as we transition to wrapper components, especially as handles as components have been the norm so far. I personally consider this to be a blocker for 0.15: we need to migrate to wrapper components for asset handles everywhere, and remove the `Component` derive. Also see https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14124. --- ## Migration Guide Asset handles for meshes and mesh materials must now be wrapped in the `Mesh2d` and `MeshMaterial2d` or `Mesh3d` and `MeshMaterial3d` components for 2D and 3D respectively. Raw handles as components no longer render meshes. Additionally, `MaterialMesh2dBundle`, `MaterialMeshBundle`, and `PbrBundle` have been deprecated. Instead, use the mesh and material components directly. Previously: ```rust commands.spawn(MaterialMesh2dBundle { mesh: meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0)).into(), material: materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5)), transform: Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)), ..default() }); ``` Now: ```rust commands.spawn(( Mesh2d(meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0))), MeshMaterial2d(materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5))), Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)), )); ``` If the mesh material is missing, a white default material is now used. Previously, nothing was rendered if the material was missing. The `WithMesh2d` and `WithMesh3d` query filter type aliases have also been removed. Simply use `With<Mesh2d>` or `With<Mesh3d>`. --------- Co-authored-by: Tim Blackbird <justthecooldude@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com> |
||
|
Joona Aalto
|
de888a373d
|
Migrate lights to required components (#15554)
# Objective Another step in the migration to required components: lights! Note that this does not include `EnvironmentMapLight` or reflection probes yet, because their API hasn't been fully chosen yet. ## Solution As per the [selected proposals](https://hackmd.io/@bevy/required_components/%2FLLnzwz9XTxiD7i2jiUXkJg): - Deprecate `PointLightBundle` in favor of the `PointLight` component - Deprecate `SpotLightBundle` in favor of the `PointLight` component - Deprecate `DirectionalLightBundle` in favor of the `DirectionalLight` component ## Testing I ran some examples with lights. --- ## Migration Guide `PointLightBundle`, `SpotLightBundle`, and `DirectionalLightBundle` have been deprecated. Use the `PointLight`, `SpotLight`, and `DirectionalLight` components instead. Adding them will now insert the other components required by them automatically. |
||
|
Sou1gh0st
|
9da18cce2a
|
Add support for environment map transformation (#14290)
# Objective - Fixes: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14036 ## Solution - Add a world space transformation for the environment sample direction. ## Testing - I have tested the newly added `transform` field using the newly added `rotate_environment_map` example. https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2de77c65-14bc-48ee-b76a-fb4e9782dbdb ## Migration Guide - Since we have added a new filed to the `EnvironmentMapLight` struct, users will need to include `..default()` or some rotation value in their initialization code. |
||
|
François Mockers
|
5559632977
|
glTF labels: add enum to avoid misspelling and keep up-to-date list documented (#13586)
# Objective - Followup to #13548 - It added a list of all possible labels to documentation. This seems hard to keep up and doesn't stop people from making spelling mistake ## Solution - Add an enum that can create all the labels possible, and encourage its use rather than manually typed labels --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Rob Parrett <robparrett@gmail.com> |
||
|
Martín Maita
|
f237cf2441
|
Updates default Text font size to 24px (#13603)
# Objective - The default font size is too small to be useful in examples or for debug text. - Fixes #13587 ## Solution - Updated the default font size value in `TextStyle` from 12px to 24px. - Resorted to Text defaults in examples to use the default font size in most of them. ## Testing - WIP --- ## Migration Guide - The default font size has been increased to 24px from 12px. Make sure you set the font to the appropriate values in places you were using `Default` text style. |
||
|
Rob Parrett
|
06f733b16f
|
Use standard instruction text / position in various examples (#13583)
## Objective Use the "standard" text size / placement for the new text in these examples. Continuation of an effort started here: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8478 This is definitely not comprehensive. I did the ones that were easy to find and relatively straightforward updates. I meant to just do `3d_shapes` and `2d_shapes`, but one thing lead to another. ## Solution Use `font_size: 20.0`, the default (built-in) font, `Color::WHITE` (default), and `Val::Px(12.)` from the edges of the screen. There are a few little drive-by cleanups of defaults not being used, etc. ## Testing Ran the changed examples, verified that they still look reasonable. |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
31835ff76d
|
Implement visibility ranges, also known as hierarchical levels of detail (HLODs). (#12916)
Implement visibility ranges, also known as hierarchical levels of detail (HLODs). This commit introduces a new component, `VisibilityRange`, which allows developers to specify camera distances in which meshes are to be shown and hidden. Hiding meshes happens early in the rendering pipeline, so this feature can be used for level of detail optimization. Additionally, this feature is properly evaluated per-view, so different views can show different levels of detail. This feature differs from proper mesh LODs, which can be implemented later. Engines generally implement true mesh LODs later in the pipeline; they're typically more efficient than HLODs with GPU-driven rendering. However, mesh LODs are more limited than HLODs, because they require the lower levels of detail to be meshes with the same vertex layout and shader (and perhaps the same material) as the original mesh. Games often want to use objects other than meshes to replace distant models, such as *octahedral imposters* or *billboard imposters*. The reason why the feature is called *hierarchical level of detail* is that HLODs can replace multiple meshes with a single mesh when the camera is far away. This can be useful for reducing drawcall count. Note that `VisibilityRange` doesn't automatically propagate down to children; it must be placed on every mesh. Crossfading between different levels of detail is supported, using the standard 4x4 ordered dithering pattern from [1]. The shader code to compute the dithering patterns should be well-optimized. The dithering code is only active when visibility ranges are in use for the mesh in question, so that we don't lose early Z. Cascaded shadow maps show the HLOD level of the view they're associated with. Point light and spot light shadow maps, which have no CSMs, display all HLOD levels that are visible in any view. To support this efficiently and avoid doing visibility checks multiple times, we precalculate all visible HLOD levels for each entity with a `VisibilityRange` during the `check_visibility_range` system. A new example, `visibility_range`, has been added to the tree, as well as a new low-poly version of the flight helmet model to go with it. It demonstrates use of the visibility range feature to provide levels of detail. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_dithering#Threshold_map [^1]: Unreal doesn't have a feature that exactly corresponds to visibility ranges, but Unreal's HLOD system serves roughly the same purpose. ## Changelog ### Added * A new `VisibilityRange` component is available to conditionally enable entity visibility at camera distances, with optional crossfade support. This can be used to implement different levels of detail (LODs). ## Screenshots High-poly model:  Low-poly model up close:  Crossfading between the two:  --------- Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com> |