2020-05-30 19:31:04 +00:00
|
|
|
[package]
|
|
|
|
|
name = "bevy_sprite"
|
2022-08-05 02:03:05 +00:00
|
|
|
version = "0.9.0-dev"
|
2021-10-27 00:12:14 +00:00
|
|
|
edition = "2021"
|
2020-08-10 00:24:27 +00:00
|
|
|
description = "Provides sprite functionality for Bevy Engine"
|
|
|
|
|
homepage = "https://bevyengine.org"
|
|
|
|
|
repository = "https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy"
|
2021-07-23 21:11:51 +00:00
|
|
|
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"
|
2020-08-10 00:24:27 +00:00
|
|
|
keywords = ["bevy"]
|
2020-05-30 19:31:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[dependencies]
|
2020-08-10 00:39:28 +00:00
|
|
|
# bevy
|
2022-08-05 02:03:05 +00:00
|
|
|
bevy_app = { path = "../bevy_app", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_asset = { path = "../bevy_asset", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_core_pipeline = { path = "../bevy_core_pipeline", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_ecs = { path = "../bevy_ecs", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_log = { path = "../bevy_log", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_math = { path = "../bevy_math", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_reflect = { path = "../bevy_reflect", version = "0.9.0-dev", features = [
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
"bevy",
|
|
|
|
|
] }
|
2022-08-05 02:03:05 +00:00
|
|
|
bevy_render = { path = "../bevy_render", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_transform = { path = "../bevy_transform", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
|
|
|
|
bevy_utils = { path = "../bevy_utils", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
Make `Resource` trait opt-in, requiring `#[derive(Resource)]` V2 (#5577)
*This PR description is an edited copy of #5007, written by @alice-i-cecile.*
# Objective
Follow-up to https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/2254. The `Resource` trait currently has a blanket implementation for all types that meet its bounds.
While ergonomic, this results in several drawbacks:
* it is possible to make confusing, silent mistakes such as inserting a function pointer (Foo) rather than a value (Foo::Bar) as a resource
* it is challenging to discover if a type is intended to be used as a resource
* we cannot later add customization options (see the [RFC](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/27-derive-component.md) for the equivalent choice for Component).
* dependencies can use the same Rust type as a resource in invisibly conflicting ways
* raw Rust types used as resources cannot preserve privacy appropriately, as anyone able to access that type can read and write to internal values
* we cannot capture a definitive list of possible resources to display to users in an editor
## Notes to reviewers
* Review this commit-by-commit; there's effectively no back-tracking and there's a lot of churn in some of these commits.
*ira: My commits are not as well organized :')*
* I've relaxed the bound on Local to Send + Sync + 'static: I don't think these concerns apply there, so this can keep things simple. Storing e.g. a u32 in a Local is fine, because there's a variable name attached explaining what it does.
* I think this is a bad place for the Resource trait to live, but I've left it in place to make reviewing easier. IMO that's best tackled with https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/4981.
## Changelog
`Resource` is no longer automatically implemented for all matching types. Instead, use the new `#[derive(Resource)]` macro.
## Migration Guide
Add `#[derive(Resource)]` to all types you are using as a resource.
If you are using a third party type as a resource, wrap it in a tuple struct to bypass orphan rules. Consider deriving `Deref` and `DerefMut` to improve ergonomics.
`ClearColor` no longer implements `Component`. Using `ClearColor` as a component in 0.8 did nothing.
Use the `ClearColorConfig` in the `Camera3d` and `Camera2d` components instead.
Co-authored-by: Alice <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: devil-ira <justthecooldude@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
2022-08-08 21:36:35 +00:00
|
|
|
bevy_derive = { path = "../bevy_derive", version = "0.9.0-dev" }
|
2020-06-06 07:12:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-08-10 00:39:28 +00:00
|
|
|
# other
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
bytemuck = { version = "1.5", features = ["derive"] }
|
Visibilty Inheritance, universal ComputedVisibility and RenderLayers support (#5310)
# Objective
Fixes #4907. Fixes #838. Fixes #5089.
Supersedes #5146. Supersedes #2087. Supersedes #865. Supersedes #5114
Visibility is currently entirely local. Set a parent entity to be invisible, and the children are still visible. This makes it hard for users to hide entire hierarchies of entities.
Additionally, the semantics of `Visibility` vs `ComputedVisibility` are inconsistent across entity types. 3D meshes use `ComputedVisibility` as the "definitive" visibility component, with `Visibility` being just one data source. Sprites just use `Visibility`, which means they can't feed off of `ComputedVisibility` data, such as culling information, RenderLayers, and (added in this pr) visibility inheritance information.
## Solution
Splits `ComputedVisibilty::is_visible` into `ComputedVisibilty::is_visible_in_view` and `ComputedVisibilty::is_visible_in_hierarchy`. For each visible entity, `is_visible_in_hierarchy` is computed by propagating visibility down the hierarchy. The `ComputedVisibility::is_visible()` function combines these two booleans for the canonical "is this entity visible" function.
Additionally, all entities that have `Visibility` now also have `ComputedVisibility`. Sprites, Lights, and UI entities now use `ComputedVisibility` when appropriate.
This means that in addition to visibility inheritance, everything using Visibility now also supports RenderLayers. Notably, Sprites (and other 2d objects) now support `RenderLayers` and work properly across multiple views.
Also note that this does increase the amount of work done per sprite. Bevymark with 100,000 sprites on `main` runs in `0.017612` seconds and this runs in `0.01902`. That is certainly a gap, but I believe the api consistency and extra functionality this buys us is worth it. See [this thread](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/5146#issuecomment-1182783452) for more info. Note that #5146 in combination with #5114 _are_ a viable alternative to this PR and _would_ perform better, but that comes at the cost of api inconsistencies and doing visibility calculations in the "wrong" place. The current visibility system does have potential for performance improvements. I would prefer to evolve that one system as a whole rather than doing custom hacks / different behaviors for each feature slice.
Here is a "split screen" example where the left camera uses RenderLayers to filter out the blue sprite.
Note that this builds directly on #5146 and that @james7132 deserves the credit for the baseline visibility inheritance work. This pr moves the inherited visibility field into `ComputedVisibility`, then does the additional work of porting everything to `ComputedVisibility`. See my [comments here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/5146#issuecomment-1182783452) for rationale.
## Follow up work
* Now that lights use ComputedVisibility, VisibleEntities now includes "visible lights" in the entity list. Functionally not a problem as we use queries to filter the list down in the desired context. But we should consider splitting this out into a separate`VisibleLights` collection for both clarity and performance reasons. And _maybe_ even consider scoping `VisibleEntities` down to `VisibleMeshes`?.
* Investigate alternative sprite rendering impls (in combination with visibility system tweaks) that avoid re-generating a per-view fixedbitset of visible entities every frame, then checking each ExtractedEntity. This is where most of the performance overhead lives. Ex: we could generate ExtractedEntities per-view using the VisibleEntities list, avoiding the need for the bitset.
* Should ComputedVisibility use bitflags under the hood? This would cut down on the size of the component, potentially speed up the `is_visible()` function, and allow us to cheaply expand ComputedVisibility with more data (ex: split out local visibility and parent visibility, add more culling classes, etc).
---
## Changelog
* ComputedVisibility now takes hierarchy visibility into account.
* 2D, UI and Light entities now use the ComputedVisibility component.
## Migration Guide
If you were previously reading `Visibility::is_visible` as the "actual visibility" for sprites or lights, use `ComputedVisibilty::is_visible()` instead:
```rust
// before (0.7)
fn system(query: Query<&Visibility>) {
for visibility in query.iter() {
if visibility.is_visible {
log!("found visible entity");
}
}
}
// after (0.8)
fn system(query: Query<&ComputedVisibility>) {
for visibility in query.iter() {
if visibility.is_visible() {
log!("found visible entity");
}
}
}
```
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
2022-07-15 23:24:42 +00:00
|
|
|
fixedbitset = "0.4"
|
2020-09-10 19:54:24 +00:00
|
|
|
guillotiere = "0.6.0"
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
thiserror = "1.0"
|
|
|
|
|
rectangle-pack = "0.4"
|
Add 2d meshes and materials (#3460)
# Objective
The current 2d rendering is specialized to render sprites, we need a generic way to render 2d items, using meshes and materials like we have for 3d.
## Solution
I cloned a good part of `bevy_pbr` into `bevy_sprite/src/mesh2d`, removed lighting and pbr itself, adapted it to 2d rendering, added a `ColorMaterial`, and modified the sprite rendering to break batches around 2d meshes.
~~The PR is a bit crude; I tried to change as little as I could in both the parts copied from 3d and the current sprite rendering to make reviewing easier. In the future, I expect we could make the sprite rendering a normal 2d material, cleanly integrated with the rest.~~ _edit: see <https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/3460#issuecomment-1003605194>_
## Remaining work
- ~~don't require mesh normals~~ _out of scope_
- ~~add an example~~ _done_
- support 2d meshes & materials in the UI?
- bikeshed names (I didn't think hard about naming, please check if it's fine)
## Remaining questions
- ~~should we add a depth buffer to 2d now that there are 2d meshes?~~ _let's revisit that when we have an opaque render phase_
- ~~should we add MSAA support to the sprites, or remove it from the 2d meshes?~~ _I added MSAA to sprites since it's really needed for 2d meshes_
- ~~how to customize vertex attributes?~~ _#3120_
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
2022-01-08 01:29:08 +00:00
|
|
|
bitflags = "1.2"
|
