# Objective
- make lights usable without bevy_render
## Solution
- make a new crate for lights to live in
## Testing
- 3d_scene, lighting, volumetric_fog, ssr, transmission, pcss,
light_textures
Note: no breaking changes because of re-exports, except for light
textures, which were introduced this cycle so it doesn't matter anyways
# Objective
- Make bevy_light possible by making it possible to split out
clusterable into bevy_camera
## Solution
- move ClusteredDecal to cluster module
- Depends on #19957 (because of the imports shuffling around) (draft
until thats merged)
## Testing
- 3d_scene runs
Note: no breaking changes thanks to re-exports
# Objective
- Make bevy_light possible by making it possible to split out
clusterable into bevy_camera
## Solution
- Move cubemap stuff next to cubemap stuff.
## Testing
- 3d_scene runs
Note: no breaking changes thanks to re-exports
# Objective
add support for light textures (also known as light cookies, light
functions, and light projectors)
## Solution
- add components:
```rs
/// Add to a [`PointLight`] to add a light texture effect.
/// A texture mask is applied to the light source to modulate its intensity,
/// simulating patterns like window shadows, gobo/cookie effects, or soft falloffs.
pub struct PointLightTexture {
/// The texture image. Only the R channel is read.
pub image: Handle<Image>,
/// The cubemap layout. The image should be a packed cubemap in one of the formats described by the [`CubemapLayout`] enum.
pub cubemap_layout: CubemapLayout,
}
/// Add to a [`SpotLight`] to add a light texture effect.
/// A texture mask is applied to the light source to modulate its intensity,
/// simulating patterns like window shadows, gobo/cookie effects, or soft falloffs.
pub struct SpotLightTexture {
/// The texture image. Only the R channel is read.
/// Note the border of the image should be entirely black to avoid leaking light.
pub image: Handle<Image>,
}
/// Add to a [`DirectionalLight`] to add a light texture effect.
/// A texture mask is applied to the light source to modulate its intensity,
/// simulating patterns like window shadows, gobo/cookie effects, or soft falloffs.
pub struct DirectionalLightTexture {
/// The texture image. Only the R channel is read.
pub image: Handle<Image>,
/// Whether to tile the image infinitely, or use only a single tile centered at the light's translation
pub tiled: bool,
}
```
- store images to the `RenderClusteredDecals` buffer
- read the image and modulate the lights
- add `light_textures` example to showcase the new features
## Testing
see light_textures example
The documentation states that ClusteredDecal projects in the +Z
direction, but in practice, it projects in the -Z direction, which can
be confusing.
# Objective
Fixes#19612
# Objective
- Related to #19024
## Solution
- Use the new `load_shader_library` macro for the shader libraries and
`embedded_asset`/`load_embedded_asset` for the "shader binaries" in
`bevy_pbr` (excluding meshlets).
## Testing
- `atmosphere` example still works
- `fog` example still works
- `decal` example still works
P.S. I don't think this needs a migration guide. Technically users could
be using the `pub` weak handles, but there's no actual good use for
them, so omitting it seems fine. Alternatively, we could mix this in
with the migration guide notes for #19137.
# Objective
Fixes a part of #14274.
Bevy has an incredibly inconsistent naming convention for its system
sets, both internally and across the ecosystem.
<img alt="System sets in Bevy"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d16e2027-793f-4ba4-9cc9-e780b14a5a1b"
width="450" />
*Names of public system set types in Bevy*
Most Bevy types use a naming of `FooSystem` or just `Foo`, but there are
also a few `FooSystems` and `FooSet` types. In ecosystem crates on the
other hand, `FooSet` is perhaps the most commonly used name in general.
Conventions being so wildly inconsistent can make it harder for users to
pick names for their own types, to search for system sets on docs.rs, or
to even discern which types *are* system sets.
To reign in the inconsistency a bit and help unify the ecosystem, it
would be good to establish a common recommended naming convention for
system sets in Bevy itself, similar to how plugins are commonly suffixed
with `Plugin` (ex: `TimePlugin`). By adopting a consistent naming
convention in first-party Bevy, we can softly nudge ecosystem crates to
follow suit (for types where it makes sense to do so).
Choosing a naming convention is also relevant now, as the [`bevy_cli`
recently adopted
lints](https://github.com/TheBevyFlock/bevy_cli/pull/345) to enforce
naming for plugins and system sets, and the recommended naming used for
system sets is still a bit open.
## Which Name To Use?
Now the contentious part: what naming convention should we actually
adopt?
This was discussed on the Bevy Discord at the end of last year, starting
[here](<https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1310659954683936789>).
`FooSet` and `FooSystems` were the clear favorites, with `FooSet` very
narrowly winning an unofficial poll. However, it seems to me like the
consensus was broadly moving towards `FooSystems` at the end and after
the poll, with Cart
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311140204974706708))
and later Alice
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311092530732859533))
and also me being in favor of it.
Let's do a quick pros and cons list! Of course these are just what I
thought of, so take it with a grain of salt.
`FooSet`:
- Pro: Nice and short!
- Pro: Used by many ecosystem crates.
- Pro: The `Set` suffix comes directly from the trait name `SystemSet`.
- Pro: Pairs nicely with existing APIs like `in_set` and
`configure_sets`.
- Con: `Set` by itself doesn't actually indicate that it's related to
systems *at all*, apart from the implemented trait. A set of what?
- Con: Is `FooSet` a set of `Foo`s or a system set related to `Foo`? Ex:
`ContactSet`, `MeshSet`, `EnemySet`...
`FooSystems`:
- Pro: Very clearly indicates that the type represents a collection of
systems. The actual core concept, system(s), is in the name.
- Pro: Parallels nicely with `FooPlugins` for plugin groups.
- Pro: Low risk of conflicts with other names or misunderstandings about
what the type is.
- Pro: In most cases, reads *very* nicely and clearly. Ex:
`PhysicsSystems` and `AnimationSystems` as opposed to `PhysicsSet` and
`AnimationSet`.
- Pro: Easy to search for on docs.rs.
- Con: Usually results in longer names.
- Con: Not yet as widely used.
Really the big problem with `FooSet` is that it doesn't actually
describe what it is. It describes what *kind of thing* it is (a set of
something), but not *what it is a set of*, unless you know the type or
check its docs or implemented traits. `FooSystems` on the other hand is
much more self-descriptive in this regard, at the cost of being a bit
longer to type.
Ultimately, in some ways it comes down to preference and how you think
of system sets. Personally, I was originally in favor of `FooSet`, but
have been increasingly on the side of `FooSystems`, especially after
seeing what the new names would actually look like in Avian and now
Bevy. I prefer it because it usually reads better, is much more clearly
related to groups of systems than `FooSet`, and overall *feels* more
correct and natural to me in the long term.
For these reasons, and because Alice and Cart also seemed to share a
preference for it when it was previously being discussed, I propose that
we adopt a `FooSystems` naming convention where applicable.
## Solution
Rename Bevy's system set types to use a consistent `FooSet` naming where
applicable.
- `AccessibilitySystem` → `AccessibilitySystems`
- `GizmoRenderSystem` → `GizmoRenderSystems`
- `PickSet` → `PickingSystems`
- `RunFixedMainLoopSystem` → `RunFixedMainLoopSystems`
- `TransformSystem` → `TransformSystems`
- `RemoteSet` → `RemoteSystems`
- `RenderSet` → `RenderSystems`
- `SpriteSystem` → `SpriteSystems`
- `StateTransitionSteps` → `StateTransitionSystems`
- `RenderUiSystem` → `RenderUiSystems`
- `UiSystem` → `UiSystems`
- `Animation` → `AnimationSystems`
- `AssetEvents` → `AssetEventSystems`
- `TrackAssets` → `AssetTrackingSystems`
- `UpdateGizmoMeshes` → `GizmoMeshSystems`
- `InputSystem` → `InputSystems`
- `InputFocusSet` → `InputFocusSystems`
- `ExtractMaterialsSet` → `MaterialExtractionSystems`
- `ExtractMeshesSet` → `MeshExtractionSystems`
- `RumbleSystem` → `RumbleSystems`
- `CameraUpdateSystem` → `CameraUpdateSystems`
- `ExtractAssetsSet` → `AssetExtractionSystems`
- `Update2dText` → `Text2dUpdateSystems`
- `TimeSystem` → `TimeSystems`
- `AudioPlaySet` → `AudioPlaybackSystems`
- `SendEvents` → `EventSenderSystems`
- `EventUpdates` → `EventUpdateSystems`
A lot of the names got slightly longer, but they are also a lot more
consistent, and in my opinion the majority of them read much better. For
a few of the names I took the liberty of rewording things a bit;
definitely open to any further naming improvements.
There are still also cases where the `FooSystems` naming doesn't really
make sense, and those I left alone. This primarily includes system sets
like `Interned<dyn SystemSet>`, `EnterSchedules<S>`, `ExitSchedules<S>`,
or `TransitionSchedules<S>`, where the type has some special purpose and
semantics.
## Todo
- [x] Should I keep all the old names as deprecated type aliases? I can
do this, but to avoid wasting work I'd prefer to first reach consensus
on whether these renames are even desired.
- [x] Migration guide
- [x] Release notes
# Objective
The goal of `bevy_platform_support` is to provide a set of platform
agnostic APIs, alongside platform-specific functionality. This is a high
traffic crate (providing things like HashMap and Instant). Especially in
light of https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/18799, it
deserves a friendlier / shorter name.
Given that it hasn't had a full release yet, getting this change in
before Bevy 0.16 makes sense.
## Solution
- Rename `bevy_platform_support` to `bevy_platform`.
# Objective
Unlike for their helper typers, the import paths for
`unique_array::UniqueEntityArray`, `unique_slice::UniqueEntitySlice`,
`unique_vec::UniqueEntityVec`, `hash_set::EntityHashSet`,
`hash_map::EntityHashMap`, `index_set::EntityIndexSet`,
`index_map::EntityIndexMap` are quite redundant.
When looking at the structure of `hashbrown`, we can also see that while
both `HashSet` and `HashMap` have their own modules, the main types
themselves are re-exported to the crate level.
## Solution
Re-export the types in their shared `entity` parent module, and simplify
the imports where they're used.
# Objective
Now that #13432 has been merged, it's important we update our reflected
types to properly opt into this feature. If we do not, then this could
cause issues for users downstream who want to make use of
reflection-based cloning.
## Solution
This PR is broken into 4 commits:
1. Add `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types marked `#[reflect(opaque)]` that
are also `Clone`. This is mandatory as these types would otherwise cause
the cloning operation to fail for any type that contains it at any
depth.
2. Update the reflection example to suggest adding `#[reflect(Clone)]`
on opaque types.
3. Add `#[reflect(clone)]` attributes on all fields marked
`#[reflect(ignore)]` that are also `Clone`. This prevents the ignored
field from causing the cloning operation to fail.
Note that some of the types that contain these fields are also `Clone`,
and thus can be marked `#[reflect(Clone)]`. This makes the
`#[reflect(clone)]` attribute redundant. However, I think it's safer to
keep it marked in the case that the `Clone` impl/derive is ever removed.
I'm open to removing them, though, if people disagree.
4. Finally, I added `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types that are also
`Clone`. While not strictly necessary, it enables us to reduce the
generated output since we can just call `Clone::clone` directly instead
of calling `PartialReflect::reflect_clone` on each variant/field. It
also means we benefit from any optimizations or customizations made in
the `Clone` impl, including directly dereferencing `Copy` values and
increasing reference counters.
Along with that change I also took the liberty of adding any missing
registrations that I saw could be applied to the type as well, such as
`Default`, `PartialEq`, and `Hash`. There were hundreds of these to
edit, though, so it's possible I missed quite a few.
That last commit is **_massive_**. There were nearly 700 types to
update. So it's recommended to review the first three before moving onto
that last one.
Additionally, I can break the last commit off into its own PR or into
smaller PRs, but I figured this would be the easiest way of doing it
(and in a timely manner since I unfortunately don't have as much time as
I used to for code contributions).
## Testing
You can test locally with a `cargo check`:
```
cargo check --workspace --all-features
```
# Objective
Prevents duplicate implementation between IntoSystemConfigs and
IntoSystemSetConfigs using a generic, adds a NodeType trait for more
config flexibility (opening the door to implement
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14195?).
## Solution
Followed writeup by @ItsDoot:
https://hackmd.io/@doot/rJeefFHc1x
Removes IntoSystemConfigs and IntoSystemSetConfigs, instead using
IntoNodeConfigs with generics.
## Testing
Pending
---
## Showcase
N/A
## Migration Guide
SystemSetConfigs -> NodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet>
SystemConfigs -> NodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem>
IntoSystemSetConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet, M>
IntoSystemConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem, M>
---------
Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Component `require()` IDE integration is fully broken, as of #16575.
## Solution
This reverts us back to the previous "put the docs on Component trait"
impl. This _does_ reduce the accessibility of the required components in
rust docs, but the complete erasure of "required component IDE
experience" is not worth the price of slightly increased prominence of
requires in docs.
Additionally, Rust Analyzer has recently started including derive
attributes in suggestions, so we aren't losing that benefit of the
proc_macro attribute impl.
# Objective
- Make use of the new `weak_handle!` macro added in
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17384
## Solution
- Migrate bevy from `Handle::weak_from_u128` to the new `weak_handle!`
macro that takes a random UUID
- Deprecate `Handle::weak_from_u128`, since there are no remaining use
cases that can't also be addressed by constructing the type manually
## Testing
- `cargo run -p ci -- test`
---
## Migration Guide
Replace `Handle::weak_from_u128` with `weak_handle!` and a random UUID.
Unfortunately, Apple platforms don't have enough texture bindings to
properly support clustered decals. This should be fixed once `wgpu` has
first-class bindless texture support. In the meantime, we disable them.
Closes#17553.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
This commit adds support for *decal projectors* to Bevy, allowing for
textures to be projected on top of geometry. Decal projectors are
clusterable objects, just as punctual lights and light probes are. This
means that decals are only evaluated for objects within the conservative
bounds of the projector, and they don't require a second pass.
These clustered decals require support for bindless textures and as such
currently don't work on WebGL 2, WebGPU, macOS, or iOS. For an
alternative that doesn't require bindless, see PR #16600. I believe that
both contact projective decals in #16600 and clustered decals are
desirable to have in Bevy. Contact projective decals offer broader
hardware and driver support, while clustered decals don't require the
creation of bounding geometry.
A new example, `decal_projectors`, has been added, which demonstrates
multiple decals on a rotating object. The decal projectors can be scaled
and rotated with the mouse.
There are several limitations of this initial patch that can be
addressed in follow-ups:
1. There's no way to specify the Z-index of decals. That is, the order
in which multiple decals are blended on top of one another is arbitrary.
A follow-up could introduce some sort of Z-index field so that artists
can specify that some decals should be blended on top of others.
2. Decals don't take the normal of the surface they're projected onto
into account. Most decal implementations in other engines have a feature
whereby the angle between the decal projector and the normal of the
surface must be within some threshold for the decal to appear. Often,
artists can specify a fade-off range for a smooth transition between
oblique surfaces and aligned surfaces.
3. There's no distance-based fadeoff toward the end of the projector
range. Many decal implementations have this.
This addresses #2401.
## Showcase
