# Objective
- Create a new 2D primitive, Rhombus, also knows as "Diamond Shape"
- Simplify the creation and handling of isometric projections
- Extend Bevy's arsenal of 2D primitives
## Testing
- New unit tests created in bevy_math/ primitives and bev_math/ bounding
- Tested translations, rotations, wireframe, bounding sphere, aabb and
creation parameters
---------
Co-authored-by: Luís Figueiredo <luispcfigueiredo@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
# Objective
Adopted #11748
## Solution
I've rebased on main to fix the merge conflicts. ~~Not quite ready to
merge yet~~
* Clippy is happy and the tests are passing, but...
* ~~The new shapes in `examples/2d/2d_shapes.rs` don't look right at
all~~ Never mind, looks like radians and degrees just got mixed up at
some point?
* I have updated one doc comment based on a review in the original PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alexis "spectria" Horizon <spectria.limina@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alexis "spectria" Horizon <118812919+spectria-limina@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Joona Aalto <jondolf.dev@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ben Harper <ben@tukom.org>
# Objective
Rotating vectors is a very common task. It is required for a variety of
things both within Bevy itself and in many third party plugins, for
example all over physics and collision detection, and for things like
Bevy's bounding volumes and several gizmo implementations.
For 3D, we can do this using a `Quat`, but for 2D, we do not have a
clear and efficient option. `Mat2` can be used for rotating vectors if
created using `Mat2::from_angle`, but this is not obvious to many users,
it doesn't have many rotation helpers, and the type does not give any
guarantees that it represents a valid rotation.
We should have a proper type for 2D rotations. In addition to allowing
for potential optimization, it would allow us to have a consistent and
explicitly documented representation used throughout the engine, i.e.
counterclockwise and in radians.
## Representation
The mathematical formula for rotating a 2D vector is the following:
```
new_x = x * cos - y * sin
new_y = x * sin + y * cos
```
Here, `sin` and `cos` are the sine and cosine of the rotation angle.
Computing these every time when a vector needs to be rotated can be
expensive, so the rotation shouldn't be just an `f32` angle. Instead, it
is often more efficient to represent the rotation using the sine and
cosine of the angle instead of storing the angle itself. This can be
freely passed around and reused without unnecessary computations.
The two options are either a 2x2 rotation matrix or a unit complex
number where the cosine is the real part and the sine is the imaginary
part. These are equivalent for the most part, but the unit complex
representation is a bit more memory efficient (two `f32`s instead of
four), so I chose that. This is like Nalgebra's
[`UnitComplex`](https://docs.rs/nalgebra/latest/nalgebra/geometry/type.UnitComplex.html)
type, which can be used for the
[`Rotation2`](https://docs.rs/nalgebra/latest/nalgebra/geometry/type.Rotation2.html)
type.
## Implementation
Add a `Rotation2d` type represented as a unit complex number:
```rust
/// A counterclockwise 2D rotation in radians.
///
/// The rotation angle is wrapped to be within the `]-pi, pi]` range.
pub struct Rotation2d {
/// The cosine of the rotation angle in radians.
///
/// This is the real part of the unit complex number representing the rotation.
pub cos: f32,
/// The sine of the rotation angle in radians.
///
/// This is the imaginary part of the unit complex number representing the rotation.
pub sin: f32,
}
```
Using it is similar to using `Quat`, but in 2D:
```rust
let rotation = Rotation2d::radians(PI / 2.0);
// Rotate vector (also works on Direction2d!)
assert_eq!(rotation * Vec2::X, Vec2::Y);
// Get angle as degrees
assert_eq!(rotation.as_degrees(), 90.0);
// Getting sin and cos is free
let (sin, cos) = rotation.sin_cos();
// "Subtract" rotations
let rotation2 = Rotation2d::FRAC_PI_4; // there are constants!
let diff = rotation * rotation2.inverse();
assert_eq!(diff.as_radians(), PI / 4.0);
// This is equivalent to the above
assert_eq!(rotation2.angle_between(rotation), PI / 4.0);
// Lerp
let rotation1 = Rotation2d::IDENTITY;
let rotation2 = Rotation2d::FRAC_PI_2;
let result = rotation1.lerp(rotation2, 0.5);
assert_eq!(result.as_radians(), std::f32::consts::FRAC_PI_4);
// Slerp
let rotation1 = Rotation2d::FRAC_PI_4);
let rotation2 = Rotation2d::degrees(-180.0); // we can use degrees too!
let result = rotation1.slerp(rotation2, 1.0 / 3.0);
assert_eq!(result.as_radians(), std::f32::consts::FRAC_PI_2);
```
There's also a `From<f32>` implementation for `Rotation2d`, which means
that methods can still accept radians as floats if the argument uses
`impl Into<Rotation2d>`. This means that adding `Rotation2d` shouldn't
even be a breaking change.
---
## Changelog
- Added `Rotation2d`
- Bounding volume methods now take an `impl Into<Rotation2d>`
- Gizmo methods with rotation now take an `impl Into<Rotation2d>`
## Future use cases
- Collision detection (a type like this is quite essential considering
how common vector rotations are)
- `Transform` helpers (e.g. return a 2D rotation about the Z axis from a
`Transform`)
- The rotation used for `Transform2d` (#8268)
- More gizmos, maybe meshes... everything in 2D that uses rotation
---------
Co-authored-by: Tristan Guichaoua <33934311+tguichaoua@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Robert Walter <robwalter96@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: IQuick 143 <IQuick143cz@gmail.com>
# Objective
Split up from #12017, rename Bevy's direction types.
Currently, Bevy has the `Direction2d`, `Direction3d`, and `Direction3dA`
types, which provide a type-level guarantee that their contained vectors
remain normalized. They can be very useful for a lot of APIs for safety,
explicitness, and in some cases performance, as they can sometimes avoid
unnecessary normalizations.
However, many consider them to be inconvenient to use, and opt for
standard vector types like `Vec3` because of this. One reason is that
the direction type names are a bit long and can be annoying to write (of
course you can use autocomplete, but just typing `Vec3` is still nicer),
and in some intances, the extra characters can make formatting worse.
The naming is also inconsistent with Glam's shorter type names, and
results in names like `Direction3dA`, which (in my opinion) are
difficult to read and even a bit ugly.
This PR proposes renaming the types to `Dir2`, `Dir3`, and `Dir3A`.
These names are nice and easy to write, consistent with Glam, and work
well for variants like the SIMD aligned `Dir3A`. As a bonus, it can also
result in nicer formatting in a lot of cases, which can be seen from the
diff of this PR.
Some examples of what it looks like: (copied from #12017)
```rust
// Before
let ray_cast = RayCast2d::new(Vec2::ZERO, Direction2d::X, 5.0);
// After
let ray_cast = RayCast2d::new(Vec2::ZERO, Dir2::X, 5.0);
```
```rust
// Before (an example using Bevy XPBD)
let hit = spatial_query.cast_ray(
Vec3::ZERO,
Direction3d::X,
f32::MAX,
true,
SpatialQueryFilter::default(),
);
// After
let hit = spatial_query.cast_ray(
Vec3::ZERO,
Dir3::X,
f32::MAX,
true,
SpatialQueryFilter::default(),
);
```
```rust
// Before
self.circle(
Vec3::new(0.0, -2.0, 0.0),
Direction3d::Y,
5.0,
Color::TURQUOISE,
);
// After (formatting is collapsed in this case)
self.circle(Vec3::new(0.0, -2.0, 0.0), Dir3::Y, 5.0, Color::TURQUOISE);
```
## Solution
Rename `Direction2d`, `Direction3d`, and `Direction3dA` to `Dir2`,
`Dir3`, and `Dir3A`.
---
## Migration Guide
The `Direction2d` and `Direction3d` types have been renamed to `Dir2`
and `Dir3`.
## Additional Context
This has been brought up on the Discord a few times, and we had a small
[poll](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1203087353850364004/1212465038711984158)
on this. `Dir2`/`Dir3`/`Dir3A` was quite unanimously chosen as the best
option, but of course it was a very small poll and inconclusive, so
other opinions are certainly welcome too.
---------
Co-authored-by: IceSentry <c.giguere42@gmail.com>
# Objective
Split up from #12017, add an aligned version of `Direction3d` for SIMD,
and move direction types out of `primitives`.
## Solution
Add `Direction3dA` and move direction types into a new `direction`
module.
---
## Migration Guide
The `Direction2d`, `Direction3d`, and `InvalidDirectionError` types have
been moved out of `bevy::math::primitives`.
Before:
```rust
use bevy::math::primitives::Direction3d;
```
After:
```rust
use bevy::math::Direction3d;
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Currently, the `Capsule` primitive is technically dimension-agnostic in
that it implements both `Primitive2d` and `Primitive3d`. This seems good
on paper, but it can often be useful to have separate 2D and 3D versions
of primitives.
For example, one might want a two-dimensional capsule mesh. We can't
really implement both 2D and 3D meshing for the same type using the
upcoming `Meshable` trait (see #11431). We also currently don't
implement `Bounded2d` for `Capsule`, see
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/11336#issuecomment-1890797788.
Having 2D and 3D separate at a type level is more explicit, and also
more consistent with the existing primitives, as there are no other
types that implement both `Primitive2d` and `Primitive3d` at the same
time.
## Solution
Rename `Capsule` to `Capsule3d` and add `Capsule2d`. `Capsule2d`
implements `Bounded2d`.
For now, I went for `Capsule2d` for the sake of consistency and clarity.
Mathematically the more accurate term would be `Stadium` or `Pill` (see
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_(geometry))), but
those might be less obvious to game devs. For reference, Godot has
[`CapsuleShape2D`](https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/classes/class_capsuleshape2d.html).
I can rename it if others think the geometrically correct name is better
though.
---
## Changelog
- Renamed `Capsule` to `Capsule3d`
- Added `Capsule2d` with `Bounded2d` implemented
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Currently, the only way to create an AABB is to specify its `min` and
`max` coordinates. However, it's often more useful to use the center and
half-size instead.
## Solution
Add `new` constructors for `Aabb2d` and `Aabb3d`.
This:
```rust
let aabb = Aabb3d {
min: center - half_size,
max: center + half_size,
}
```
becomes this:
```rust
let aabb = Aabb3d::new(center, half_size);
```
I also made the usage of "half-extents" vs. "half-size" a bit more
consistent.
# Objective
Currently, the `Ellipse` primitive is represented by a `half_width` and
`half_height`. To improve consistency (similarly to #11434), it might
make more sense to use a `Vec2` `half_size` instead.
Alternatively, to make the elliptical nature clearer, the properties
could also be called `radius_x` and `radius_y`.
Secondly, `Ellipse::new` currently takes a *full* width and height
instead of two radii. I would expect it to take the half-width and
half-height because ellipses and circles are almost always defined using
radii. I wouldn't expect `Circle::new` to take a diameter (if we had
that method).
## Solution
Change `Ellipse` to store a `half_size` and `new` to take the half-width
and half-height.
I also added a `from_size` method similar to `Rectangle::from_size`, and
added the `semi_minor` and `semi_major` helpers to get the
semi-minor/major radius.
# Objective
The `Rectangle` and `Cuboid` primitives currently use different
representations:
```rust
pub struct Rectangle {
/// The half width of the rectangle
pub half_width: f32,
/// The half height of the rectangle
pub half_height: f32,
}
pub struct Cuboid {
/// Half of the width, height and depth of the cuboid
pub half_extents: Vec3,
}
```
The property names and helpers are also inconsistent. `Cuboid` has
`half_extents`, but it also has a method called `from_size`. Most
existing code also uses "size" instead of "extents".
## Solution
Represent both `Rectangle` and `Cuboid` with `half_size` properties.
# Objective
Closes#10570.
#10946 added bounding volume types and traits, but didn't use them for
anything yet. This PR implements `Bounded2d` and `Bounded3d` for Bevy's
primitive shapes.
## Solution
Implement `Bounded2d` and `Bounded3d` for primitive shapes. This allows
computing AABBs and bounding circles/spheres for them.
For most shapes, there are several ways of implementing bounding
volumes. I took inspiration from [Parry's bounding
volumes](https://github.com/dimforge/parry/tree/master/src/bounding_volume),
[Inigo Quilez](http://iquilezles.org/articles/diskbbox/), and figured
out the rest myself using geometry. I tried to comment all slightly
non-trivial or unclear math to make it understandable.
Parry uses support mapping (finding the farthest point in some direction
for convex shapes) for some AABBs like cones, cylinders, and line
segments. This involves several quat operations and normalizations, so I
opted for the simpler and more efficient geometric approaches shown in
[Quilez's article](http://iquilezles.org/articles/diskbbox/).
Below you can see some of the bounding volumes working in 2D and 3D.
Note that I can't conveniently add these examples yet because they use
primitive shape meshing, which is still WIP.
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/57632562/4465cbc6-285b-4c71-b62d-a2b3ee16f8b4https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/57632562/94b4ac84-a092-46d7-b438-ce2e971496a4
---
## Changelog
- Implemented `Bounded2d`/`Bounded3d` for primitive shapes
- Added `from_point_cloud` method for bounding volumes (used by many
bounding implementations)
- Added `point_cloud_2d/3d_center` and `rotate_vec2` utility functions
- Added `RegularPolygon::vertices` method (used in regular polygon AABB
construction)
- Added `Triangle::circumcenter` method (used in triangle bounding
circle construction)
- Added bounding circle/sphere creation from AABBs and vice versa
## Extra
Do we want to implement `Bounded2d` for some "3D-ish" shapes too? For
example, capsules are sort of dimension-agnostic and useful for 2D, so I
think that would be good to implement. But a cylinder in 2D is just a
rectangle, and a cone is a triangle, so they wouldn't make as much sense
to me. A conical frustum would be an isosceles trapezoid, which could be
useful, but I'm not sure if computing the 2D AABB of a 3D frustum makes
semantic sense.
