4fca331bb6
9 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
François Mockers
|
54701a844e
|
Revert "Replace Ambient Lights with Environment Map Lights (#17482)" (#18167)
This reverts commit
|
||
|
Shaye Garg
|
0b5302d96a
|
Replace Ambient Lights with Environment Map Lights (#17482)
# Objective Transparently uses simple `EnvironmentMapLight`s to mimic `AmbientLight`s. Implements the first part of #17468, but I can implement hemispherical lights in this PR too if needed. ## Solution - A function `EnvironmentMapLight::solid_color(&mut Assets<Image>, Color)` is provided to make an environment light with a solid color. - A new system is added to `SimulationLightSystems` that maps `AmbientLight`s on views or the world to a corresponding `EnvironmentMapLight`. I have never worked with (or on) Bevy before, so nitpicky comments on how I did things are appreciated :). ## Testing Testing was done on a modified version of the `3d/lighting` example, where I removed all lights except the ambient light. I have not included the example, but can if required. ## Migration `bevy_pbr::AmbientLight` has been deprecated, so all usages of it should be replaced by a `bevy_pbr::EnvironmentMapLight` created with `EnvironmentMapLight::solid_color` placed on the camera. There is no alternative to ambient lights as resources. |
||
|
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> |
||
|
AlephCubed
|
5f86668bbb
|
Renamed EventWriter::send methods to write. (#17977)
Fixes #17856. ## Migration Guide - `EventWriter::send` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write`. - `EventWriter::send_batch` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write_batch`. - `EventWriter::send_default` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write_default`. --------- Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
JMS55
|
bb0a82b9a7
|
Higher quality bicubic lightmap sampling (#16740)
# Objective - Closes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14322. ## Solution - Implement fast 4-sample bicubic filtering based on this shader toy https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4df3Dn, with a small speedup from a ghost of tushima presentation. ## Testing - Did you test these changes? If so, how? - Ran on lightmapped example. Practically no difference in that scene. - Are there any parts that need more testing? - Lightmapping a better scene. ## Changelog - Lightmaps now have a higher quality bicubic sampling method (off by default). --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick Walton <pcwalton@mimiga.net> |
||
|
Antony
|
02bb151889
|
Rename PickingBehavior to Pickable (#17266)
# Objective PR #17225 allowed for sprite picking to be opt-in. After some discussion, it was agreed that `PickingBehavior` should be used to opt-in to sprite picking behavior for entities. This leads to `PickingBehavior` having two purposes: mark an entity for use in a backend, and describe how it should be picked. Discussion led to the name `Pickable`making more sense (also: this is what the component was named before upstreaming). A follow-up pass will be made after this PR to unify backends. ## Solution Replace all instances of `PickingBehavior` and `picking_behavior` with `Pickable` and `pickable`, respectively. ## Testing CI ## Migration Guide Change all instances of `PickingBehavior` to `Pickable`. |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
bf3692a011
|
Introduce support for mixed lighting by allowing lights to opt out of contributing diffuse light to lightmapped objects. (#16761)
This PR adds support for *mixed lighting* to Bevy, whereby some parts of the scene are lightmapped, while others take part in real-time lighting. (Here *real-time lighting* means lighting at runtime via the PBR shader, as opposed to precomputed light using lightmaps.) It does so by adding a new field, `affects_lightmapped_meshes` to `IrradianceVolume` and `AmbientLight`, and a corresponding field `affects_lightmapped_mesh_diffuse` to `DirectionalLight`, `PointLight`, `SpotLight`, and `EnvironmentMapLight`. By default, this value is set to true; when set to false, the light contributes nothing to the diffuse irradiance component to meshes with lightmaps. Note that specular light is unaffected. This is because the correct way to bake specular lighting is *directional lightmaps*, which we have no support for yet. There are two general ways I expect this field to be used: 1. When diffuse indirect light is baked into lightmaps, irradiance volumes and reflection probes shouldn't contribute any diffuse light to the static geometry that has a lightmap. That's because the baking tool should have already accounted for it, and in a higher-quality fashion, as lightmaps typically offer a higher effective texture resolution than the light probe does. 2. When direct diffuse light is baked into a lightmap, punctual lights shouldn't contribute any diffuse light to static geometry with a lightmap, to avoid double-counting. It may seem odd to bake *direct* light into a lightmap, as opposed to indirect light. But there is a use case: in a scene with many lights, avoiding light leaks requires shadow mapping, which quickly becomes prohibitive when many lights are involved. Baking lightmaps allows light leaks to be eliminated on static geometry. A new example, `mixed_lighting`, has been added. It demonstrates a sofa (model from the [glTF Sample Assets]) that has been lightmapped offline using [Bakery]. It has four modes: 1. In *baked* mode, all objects are locked in place, and all the diffuse direct and indirect light has been calculated ahead of time. Note that the bottom of the sphere has a red tint from the sofa, illustrating that the baking tool captured indirect light for it. 2. In *mixed direct* mode, lightmaps capturing diffuse direct and indirect light have been pre-calculated for the static objects, but the dynamic sphere has real-time lighting. Note that, because the diffuse lighting has been entirely pre-calculated for the scenery, the dynamic sphere casts no shadow. In a real app, you would typically use real-time lighting for the most important light so that dynamic objects can shadow the scenery and relegate baked lighting to the less important lights for which shadows aren't as important. Also note that there is no red tint on the sphere, because there is no global illumination applied to it. In an actual game, you could fix this problem by supplementing the lightmapped objects with an irradiance volume. 3. In *mixed indirect* mode, all direct light is calculated in real-time, and the static objects have pre-calculated indirect lighting. This corresponds to the mode that most applications are expected to use. Because direct light on the scenery is computed dynamically, shadows are fully supported. As in mixed direct mode, there is no global illumination on the sphere; in a real application, irradiance volumes could be used to supplement the lightmaps. 4. In *real-time* mode, no lightmaps are used at all, and all punctual lights are rendered in real-time. No global illumination exists. In the example, you can click around to move the sphere, unless you're in baked mode, in which case the sphere must be locked in place to be lit correctly. ## Showcase Baked mode:  Mixed direct mode:  Mixed indirect mode (default):  Real-time mode:  ## Migration guide * The `AmbientLight` resource, the `IrradianceVolume` component, and the `EnvironmentMapLight` component now have `affects_lightmapped_meshes` fields. If you don't need to use that field (for example, if you aren't using lightmaps), you can safely set the field to true. * `DirectionalLight`, `PointLight`, and `SpotLight` now have `affects_lightmapped_mesh_diffuse` fields. If you don't need to use that field (for example, if you aren't using lightmaps), you can safely set the field to true. [glTF Sample Assets]: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Sample-Assets/tree/main [Bakery]: https://geom.io/bakery/wiki/index.php?title=Bakery_-_GPU_Lightmapper |