# Objective
- Added a bunch of backticks to things that should have them, like equations, abstract variable names,
- Changed all small x, y, and z to capitals X, Y, Z.
This might be more annoying than helpful; Feel free to refuse this PR.
Small optimization. `.collect()` from arrays generates very nice code without reallocations: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6E6c595bq
Co-authored-by: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>
Removed `const_vec2`/`const_vec3`
and replaced with equivalent `.from_array`.
# Objective
Fixes#5112
## Solution
- `encase` needs to update to `glam` as well. See teoxoy/encase#4 on progress on that.
- `hexasphere` also needs to be updated, see OptimisticPeach/hexasphere#12.
# Objective
Fixes#5153
## Solution
Search for all enums and manually check if they have default impls that can use this new derive.
By my reckoning:
| enum | num |
|-|-|
| total | 159 |
| has default impl | 29 |
| default is unit variant | 23 |
# Objective
Bevy users often want to create circles and other simple shapes.
All the machinery is in place to accomplish this, and there are external crates that help. But when writing code for e.g. a new bevy example, it's not really possible to draw a circle without bringing in a new asset, writing a bunch of scary looking mesh code, or adding a dependency.
In particular, this PR was inspired by this interaction in another PR: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/3721#issuecomment-1016774535
## Solution
This PR adds `shape::RegularPolygon` and `shape::Circle` (which is just a `RegularPolygon` that defaults to a large number of sides)
## Discussion
There's a lot of ongoing discussion about shapes in <https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/12> and at least one other lingering shape PR (although it seems incomplete).
That RFC currently includes `RegularPolygon` and `Circle` shapes, so I don't think that having working mesh generation code in the engine for those shapes would add much burden to an author of an implementation.
But if we'd prefer not to add additional shapes until after that's sorted out, I'm happy to close this for now.
## Alternatives for users
For any users stumbling on this issue, here are some plugins that will help if you need more shapes.
https://github.com/Nilirad/bevy_prototype_lyonhttps://github.com/johanhelsing/bevy_smudhttps://github.com/Weasy666/bevy_svghttps://github.com/redpandamonium/bevy_more_shapeshttps://github.com/ForesightMiningSoftwareCorporation/bevy_polyline
# Objective
Fix wonky torus normals.
## Solution
I attempted this previously in #3549, but it looks like I botched it. It seems like I mixed up the y/z axes. Somehow, the result looked okay from that particular camera angle.
This video shows toruses generated with
- [left, orange] original torus mesh code
- [middle, pink] PR 3549
- [right, purple] This PR
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/200550/164093183-58a7647c-b436-4512-99cd-cf3b705cefb0.mov
This PR makes a number of changes to how meshes and vertex attributes are handled, which the goal of enabling easy and flexible custom vertex attributes:
* Reworks the `Mesh` type to use the newly added `VertexAttribute` internally
* `VertexAttribute` defines the name, a unique `VertexAttributeId`, and a `VertexFormat`
* `VertexAttributeId` is used to produce consistent sort orders for vertex buffer generation, replacing the more expensive and often surprising "name based sorting"
* Meshes can be used to generate a `MeshVertexBufferLayout`, which defines the layout of the gpu buffer produced by the mesh. `MeshVertexBufferLayouts` can then be used to generate actual `VertexBufferLayouts` according to the requirements of a specific pipeline. This decoupling of "mesh layout" vs "pipeline vertex buffer layout" is what enables custom attributes. We don't need to standardize _mesh layouts_ or contort meshes to meet the needs of a specific pipeline. As long as the mesh has what the pipeline needs, it will work transparently.
* Mesh-based pipelines now specialize on `&MeshVertexBufferLayout` via the new `SpecializedMeshPipeline` trait (which behaves like `SpecializedPipeline`, but adds `&MeshVertexBufferLayout`). The integrity of the pipeline cache is maintained because the `MeshVertexBufferLayout` is treated as part of the key (which is fully abstracted from implementers of the trait ... no need to add any additional info to the specialization key).
* Hashing `MeshVertexBufferLayout` is too expensive to do for every entity, every frame. To make this scalable, I added a generalized "pre-hashing" solution to `bevy_utils`: `Hashed<T>` keys and `PreHashMap<K, V>` (which uses `Hashed<T>` internally) . Why didn't I just do the quick and dirty in-place "pre-compute hash and use that u64 as a key in a hashmap" that we've done in the past? Because its wrong! Hashes by themselves aren't enough because two different values can produce the same hash. Re-hashing a hash is even worse! I decided to build a generalized solution because this pattern has come up in the past and we've chosen to do the wrong thing. Now we can do the right thing! This did unfortunately require pulling in `hashbrown` and using that in `bevy_utils`, because avoiding re-hashes requires the `raw_entry_mut` api, which isn't stabilized yet (and may never be ... `entry_ref` has favor now, but also isn't available yet). If std's HashMap ever provides the tools we need, we can move back to that. Note that adding `hashbrown` doesn't increase our dependency count because it was already in our tree. I will probably break these changes out into their own PR.
* Specializing on `MeshVertexBufferLayout` has one non-obvious behavior: it can produce identical pipelines for two different MeshVertexBufferLayouts. To optimize the number of active pipelines / reduce re-binds while drawing, I de-duplicate pipelines post-specialization using the final `VertexBufferLayout` as the key. For example, consider a pipeline that needs the layout `(position, normal)` and is specialized using two meshes: `(position, normal, uv)` and `(position, normal, other_vec2)`. If both of these meshes result in `(position, normal)` specializations, we can use the same pipeline! Now we do. Cool!
To briefly illustrate, this is what the relevant section of `MeshPipeline`'s specialization code looks like now:
```rust
impl SpecializedMeshPipeline for MeshPipeline {
type Key = MeshPipelineKey;
fn specialize(
&self,
key: Self::Key,
layout: &MeshVertexBufferLayout,
) -> RenderPipelineDescriptor {
let mut vertex_attributes = vec![
Mesh::ATTRIBUTE_POSITION.at_shader_location(0),
Mesh::ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL.at_shader_location(1),
Mesh::ATTRIBUTE_UV_0.at_shader_location(2),
];
let mut shader_defs = Vec::new();
if layout.contains(Mesh::ATTRIBUTE_TANGENT) {
shader_defs.push(String::from("VERTEX_TANGENTS"));
vertex_attributes.push(Mesh::ATTRIBUTE_TANGENT.at_shader_location(3));
}
let vertex_buffer_layout = layout
.get_layout(&vertex_attributes)
.expect("Mesh is missing a vertex attribute");
```
Notice that this is _much_ simpler than it was before. And now any mesh with any layout can be used with this pipeline, provided it has vertex postions, normals, and uvs. We even got to remove `HAS_TANGENTS` from MeshPipelineKey and `has_tangents` from `GpuMesh`, because that information is redundant with `MeshVertexBufferLayout`.
This is still a draft because I still need to:
* Add more docs
* Experiment with adding error handling to mesh pipeline specialization (which would print errors at runtime when a mesh is missing a vertex attribute required by a pipeline). If it doesn't tank perf, we'll keep it.
* Consider breaking out the PreHash / hashbrown changes into a separate PR.
* Add an example illustrating this change
* Verify that the "mesh-specialized pipeline de-duplication code" works properly
Please dont yell at me for not doing these things yet :) Just trying to get this in peoples' hands asap.
Alternative to #3120Fixes#3030
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
What is says on the tin.
This has got more to do with making `clippy` slightly more *quiet* than it does with changing anything that might greatly impact readability or performance.
that said, deriving `Default` for a couple of structs is a nice easy win
# Objective
The documentation was unclear but it seemed like it was intended to _only_ flip the texture coordinates of the quad. However, it was also swapping the vertex positions, which resulted in inverted winding order so the front became a back face, and the normal was pointing into the face instead of out of it.
## Solution
- This change makes the only difference the UVs being horizontally flipped.
This makes the [New Bevy Renderer](#2535) the default (and only) renderer. The new renderer isn't _quite_ ready for the final release yet, but I want as many people as possible to start testing it so we can identify bugs and address feedback prior to release.
The examples are all ported over and operational with a few exceptions:
* I removed a good portion of the examples in the `shader` folder. We still have some work to do in order to make these examples possible / ergonomic / worthwhile: #3120 and "high level shader material plugins" are the big ones. This is a temporary measure.
* Temporarily removed the multiple_windows example: doing this properly in the new renderer will require the upcoming "render targets" changes. Same goes for the render_to_texture example.
* Removed z_sort_debug: entity visibility sort info is no longer available in app logic. we could do this on the "render app" side, but i dont consider it a priority.
it's a followup of #1550
I think calling explicit methods/values instead of default makes the code easier to read: "what is `Quat::default()`" vs "Oh, it's `Quat::IDENTITY`"
`Transform::identity()` and `GlobalTransform::identity()` can also be consts and I replaced the calls to their `default()` impl with `identity()`
