2022-05-16 13:53:20 +00:00
|
|
|
//! This example illustrates how to create a button that changes color and text based on its
|
|
|
|
//! interaction state.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-03-09 21:59:57 +00:00
|
|
|
use bevy::{prelude::*, winit::WinitSettings};
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
2021-07-27 20:21:06 +00:00
|
|
|
App::new()
|
2020-11-03 03:01:17 +00:00
|
|
|
.add_plugins(DefaultPlugins)
|
2022-03-09 21:59:57 +00:00
|
|
|
// Only run the app when there is user input. This will significantly reduce CPU/GPU use.
|
|
|
|
.insert_resource(WinitSettings::desktop_app())
|
2021-07-27 23:42:36 +00:00
|
|
|
.add_startup_system(setup)
|
|
|
|
.add_system(button_system)
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
.run();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
const NORMAL_BUTTON: Color = Color::rgb(0.15, 0.15, 0.15);
|
|
|
|
const HOVERED_BUTTON: Color = Color::rgb(0.25, 0.25, 0.25);
|
|
|
|
const PRESSED_BUTTON: Color = Color::rgb(0.35, 0.75, 0.35);
|
2020-07-18 21:36:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
fn button_system(
|
2020-11-11 04:48:34 +00:00
|
|
|
mut interaction_query: Query<
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
(&Interaction, &mut UiColor, &Children),
|
Reliable change detection (#1471)
# Problem Definition
The current change tracking (via flags for both components and resources) fails to detect changes made by systems that are scheduled to run earlier in the frame than they are.
This issue is discussed at length in [#68](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/68) and [#54](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/54).
This is very much a draft PR, and contributions are welcome and needed.
# Criteria
1. Each change is detected at least once, no matter the ordering.
2. Each change is detected at most once, no matter the ordering.
3. Changes should be detected the same frame that they are made.
4. Competitive ergonomics. Ideally does not require opting-in.
5. Low CPU overhead of computation.
6. Memory efficient. This must not increase over time, except where the number of entities / resources does.
7. Changes should not be lost for systems that don't run.
8. A frame needs to act as a pure function. Given the same set of entities / components it needs to produce the same end state without side-effects.
**Exact** change-tracking proposals satisfy criteria 1 and 2.
**Conservative** change-tracking proposals satisfy criteria 1 but not 2.
**Flaky** change tracking proposals satisfy criteria 2 but not 1.
# Code Base Navigation
There are three types of flags:
- `Added`: A piece of data was added to an entity / `Resources`.
- `Mutated`: A piece of data was able to be modified, because its `DerefMut` was accessed
- `Changed`: The bitwise OR of `Added` and `Changed`
The special behavior of `ChangedRes`, with respect to the scheduler is being removed in [#1313](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/1313) and does not need to be reproduced.
`ChangedRes` and friends can be found in "bevy_ecs/core/resources/resource_query.rs".
The `Flags` trait for Components can be found in "bevy_ecs/core/query.rs".
`ComponentFlags` are stored in "bevy_ecs/core/archetypes.rs", defined on line 446.
# Proposals
**Proposal 5 was selected for implementation.**
## Proposal 0: No Change Detection
The baseline, where computations are performed on everything regardless of whether it changed.
**Type:** Conservative
**Pros:**
- already implemented
- will never miss events
- no overhead
**Cons:**
- tons of repeated work
- doesn't allow users to avoid repeating work (or monitoring for other changes)
## Proposal 1: Earlier-This-Tick Change Detection
The current approach as of Bevy 0.4. Flags are set, and then flushed at the end of each frame.
**Type:** Flaky
**Pros:**
- already implemented
- simple to understand
- low memory overhead (2 bits per component)
- low time overhead (clear every flag once per frame)
**Cons:**
- misses systems based on ordering
- systems that don't run every frame miss changes
- duplicates detection when looping
- can lead to unresolvable circular dependencies
## Proposal 2: Two-Tick Change Detection
Flags persist for two frames, using a double-buffer system identical to that used in events.
A change is observed if it is found in either the current frame's list of changes or the previous frame's.
**Type:** Conservative
**Pros:**
- easy to understand
- easy to implement
- low memory overhead (4 bits per component)
- low time overhead (bit mask and shift every flag once per frame)
**Cons:**
- can result in a great deal of duplicated work
- systems that don't run every frame miss changes
- duplicates detection when looping
## Proposal 3: Last-Tick Change Detection
Flags persist for two frames, using a double-buffer system identical to that used in events.
A change is observed if it is found in the previous frame's list of changes.
**Type:** Exact
**Pros:**
- exact
- easy to understand
- easy to implement
- low memory overhead (4 bits per component)
- low time overhead (bit mask and shift every flag once per frame)
**Cons:**
- change detection is always delayed, possibly causing painful chained delays
- systems that don't run every frame miss changes
- duplicates detection when looping
## Proposal 4: Flag-Doubling Change Detection
Combine Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. Differentiate between `JustChanged` (current behavior) and `Changed` (Proposal 3).
Pack this data into the flags according to [this implementation proposal](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/68#issuecomment-769174804).
**Type:** Flaky + Exact
**Pros:**
- allows users to acc
- easy to implement
- low memory overhead (4 bits per component)
- low time overhead (bit mask and shift every flag once per frame)
**Cons:**
- users must specify the type of change detection required
- still quite fragile to system ordering effects when using the flaky `JustChanged` form
- cannot get immediate + exact results
- systems that don't run every frame miss changes
- duplicates detection when looping
## [SELECTED] Proposal 5: Generation-Counter Change Detection
A global counter is increased after each system is run. Each component saves the time of last mutation, and each system saves the time of last execution. Mutation is detected when the component's counter is greater than the system's counter. Discussed [here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/68#issuecomment-769174804). How to handle addition detection is unsolved; the current proposal is to use the highest bit of the counter as in proposal 1.
**Type:** Exact (for mutations), flaky (for additions)
**Pros:**
- low time overhead (set component counter on access, set system counter after execution)
- robust to systems that don't run every frame
- robust to systems that loop
**Cons:**
- moderately complex implementation
- must be modified as systems are inserted dynamically
- medium memory overhead (4 bytes per component + system)
- unsolved addition detection
## Proposal 6: System-Data Change Detection
For each system, track which system's changes it has seen. This approach is only worth fully designing and implementing if Proposal 5 fails in some way.
**Type:** Exact
**Pros:**
- exact
- conceptually simple
**Cons:**
- requires storing data on each system
- implementation is complex
- must be modified as systems are inserted dynamically
## Proposal 7: Total-Order Change Detection
Discussed [here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/68#issuecomment-754326523). This proposal is somewhat complicated by the new scheduler, but I believe it should still be conceptually feasible. This approach is only worth fully designing and implementing if Proposal 5 fails in some way.
**Type:** Exact
**Pros:**
- exact
- efficient data storage relative to other exact proposals
**Cons:**
- requires access to the scheduler
- complex implementation and difficulty grokking
- must be modified as systems are inserted dynamically
# Tests
- We will need to verify properties 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Priority: 1 > 2 = 3 > 8 > 7
- Ideally we can use identical user-facing syntax for all proposals, allowing us to re-use the same syntax for each.
- When writing tests, we need to carefully specify order using explicit dependencies.
- These tests will need to be duplicated for both components and resources.
- We need to be sure to handle cases where ambiguous system orders exist.
`changing_system` is always the system that makes the changes, and `detecting_system` always detects the changes.
The component / resource changed will be simple boolean wrapper structs.
## Basic Added / Mutated / Changed
2 x 3 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs before `detecting_system`
- verify at the end of tick 2
## At Least Once
2 x 3 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs after `detecting_system`
- verify at the end of tick 2
## At Most Once
2 x 3 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs once before `detecting_system`
- increment a counter based on the number of changes detected
- verify at the end of tick 2
## Fast Detection
2 x 3 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs before `detecting_system`
- verify at the end of tick 1
## Ambiguous System Ordering Robustness
2 x 3 x 2 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs [before/after] `detecting_system` in tick 1
- `changing_system` runs [after/before] `detecting_system` in tick 2
## System Pausing
2 x 3 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- Added vs. Changed vs. Mutated
- `changing_system` runs in tick 1, then is disabled by run criteria
- `detecting_system` is disabled by run criteria until it is run once during tick 3
- verify at the end of tick 3
## Addition Causes Mutation
2 design:
- Resources vs. Components
- `adding_system_1` adds a component / resource
- `adding system_2` adds the same component / resource
- verify the `Mutated` flag at the end of the tick
- verify the `Added` flag at the end of the tick
First check tests for: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/333
Second check tests for: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/1443
## Changes Made By Commands
- `adding_system` runs in Update in tick 1, and sends a command to add a component
- `detecting_system` runs in Update in tick 1 and 2, after `adding_system`
- We can't detect the changes in tick 1, since they haven't been processed yet
- If we were to track these changes as being emitted by `adding_system`, we can't detect the changes in tick 2 either, since `detecting_system` has already run once after `adding_system` :(
# Benchmarks
See: [general advice](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/master/docs/profiling.md), [Criterion crate](https://github.com/bheisler/criterion.rs)
There are several critical parameters to vary:
1. entity count (1 to 10^9)
2. fraction of entities that are changed (0% to 100%)
3. cost to perform work on changed entities, i.e. workload (1 ns to 1s)
1 and 2 should be varied between benchmark runs. 3 can be added on computationally.
We want to measure:
- memory cost
- run time
We should collect these measurements across several frames (100?) to reduce bootup effects and accurately measure the mean, variance and drift.
Entity-component change detection is much more important to benchmark than resource change detection, due to the orders of magnitude higher number of pieces of data.
No change detection at all should be included in benchmarks as a second control for cases where missing changes is unacceptable.
## Graphs
1. y: performance, x: log_10(entity count), color: proposal, facet: performance metric. Set cost to perform work to 0.
2. y: run time, x: cost to perform work, color: proposal, facet: fraction changed. Set number of entities to 10^6
3. y: memory, x: frames, color: proposal
# Conclusions
1. Is the theoretical categorization of the proposals correct according to our tests?
2. How does the performance of the proposals compare without any load?
3. How does the performance of the proposals compare with realistic loads?
4. At what workload does more exact change tracking become worth the (presumably) higher overhead?
5. When does adding change-detection to save on work become worthwhile?
6. Is there enough divergence in performance between the best solutions in each class to ship more than one change-tracking solution?
# Implementation Plan
1. Write a test suite.
2. Verify that tests fail for existing approach.
3. Write a benchmark suite.
4. Get performance numbers for existing approach.
5. Implement, test and benchmark various solutions using a Git branch per proposal.
6. Create a draft PR with all solutions and present results to team.
7. Select a solution and replace existing change detection.
Co-authored-by: Brice DAVIER <bricedavier@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
2021-03-19 17:53:26 +00:00
|
|
|
(Changed<Interaction>, With<Button>),
|
2020-11-11 04:48:34 +00:00
|
|
|
>,
|
2020-10-30 06:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
mut text_query: Query<&mut Text>,
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
) {
|
2022-07-11 15:28:50 +00:00
|
|
|
for (interaction, mut color, children) in &mut interaction_query {
|
2020-10-31 01:04:33 +00:00
|
|
|
let mut text = text_query.get_mut(children[0]).unwrap();
|
2020-07-28 08:20:19 +00:00
|
|
|
match *interaction {
|
|
|
|
Interaction::Clicked => {
|
2021-01-25 01:07:43 +00:00
|
|
|
text.sections[0].value = "Press".to_string();
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = PRESSED_BUTTON.into();
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2020-07-28 08:20:19 +00:00
|
|
|
Interaction::Hovered => {
|
2021-01-25 01:07:43 +00:00
|
|
|
text.sections[0].value = "Hover".to_string();
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = HOVERED_BUTTON.into();
|
2020-07-28 08:20:19 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Interaction::None => {
|
2021-01-25 01:07:43 +00:00
|
|
|
text.sections[0].value = "Button".to_string();
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = NORMAL_BUTTON.into();
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
fn setup(mut commands: Commands, asset_server: Res<AssetServer>) {
|
2021-03-23 00:23:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// ui camera
|
Camera Driven Rendering (#4745)
This adds "high level camera driven rendering" to Bevy. The goal is to give users more control over what gets rendered (and where) without needing to deal with render logic. This will make scenarios like "render to texture", "multiple windows", "split screen", "2d on 3d", "3d on 2d", "pass layering", and more significantly easier.
Here is an [example of a 2d render sandwiched between two 3d renders (each from a different perspective)](https://gist.github.com/cart/4fe56874b2e53bc5594a182fc76f4915):
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2694663/168411086-af13dec8-0093-4a84-bdd4-d4362d850ffa.png)
Users can now spawn a camera, point it at a RenderTarget (a texture or a window), and it will "just work".
Rendering to a second window is as simple as spawning a second camera and assigning it to a specific window id:
```rust
// main camera (main window)
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle::default());
// second camera (other window)
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle {
camera: Camera {
target: RenderTarget::Window(window_id),
..default()
},
..default()
});
```
Rendering to a texture is as simple as pointing the camera at a texture:
```rust
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle {
camera: Camera {
target: RenderTarget::Texture(image_handle),
..default()
},
..default()
});
```
Cameras now have a "render priority", which controls the order they are drawn in. If you want to use a camera's output texture as a texture in the main pass, just set the priority to a number lower than the main pass camera (which defaults to `0`).
```rust
// main pass camera with a default priority of 0
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle::default());
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle {
camera: Camera {
target: RenderTarget::Texture(image_handle.clone()),
priority: -1,
..default()
},
..default()
});
commands.spawn_bundle(SpriteBundle {
texture: image_handle,
..default()
})
```
Priority can also be used to layer to cameras on top of each other for the same RenderTarget. This is what "2d on top of 3d" looks like in the new system:
```rust
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle::default());
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle {
camera: Camera {
// this will render 2d entities "on top" of the default 3d camera's render
priority: 1,
..default()
},
..default()
});
```
There is no longer the concept of a global "active camera". Resources like `ActiveCamera<Camera2d>` and `ActiveCamera<Camera3d>` have been replaced with the camera-specific `Camera::is_active` field. This does put the onus on users to manage which cameras should be active.
Cameras are now assigned a single render graph as an "entry point", which is configured on each camera entity using the new `CameraRenderGraph` component. The old `PerspectiveCameraBundle` and `OrthographicCameraBundle` (generic on camera marker components like Camera2d and Camera3d) have been replaced by `Camera3dBundle` and `Camera2dBundle`, which set 3d and 2d default values for the `CameraRenderGraph` and projections.
```rust
// old 3d perspective camera
commands.spawn_bundle(PerspectiveCameraBundle::default())
// new 3d perspective camera
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle::default())
```
```rust
// old 2d orthographic camera
commands.spawn_bundle(OrthographicCameraBundle::new_2d())
// new 2d orthographic camera
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle::default())
```
```rust
// old 3d orthographic camera
commands.spawn_bundle(OrthographicCameraBundle::new_3d())
// new 3d orthographic camera
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle {
projection: OrthographicProjection {
scale: 3.0,
scaling_mode: ScalingMode::FixedVertical,
..default()
}.into(),
..default()
})
```
Note that `Camera3dBundle` now uses a new `Projection` enum instead of hard coding the projection into the type. There are a number of motivators for this change: the render graph is now a part of the bundle, the way "generic bundles" work in the rust type system prevents nice `..default()` syntax, and changing projections at runtime is much easier with an enum (ex for editor scenarios). I'm open to discussing this choice, but I'm relatively certain we will all come to the same conclusion here. Camera2dBundle and Camera3dBundle are much clearer than being generic on marker components / using non-default constructors.
If you want to run a custom render graph on a camera, just set the `CameraRenderGraph` component:
```rust
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle {
camera_render_graph: CameraRenderGraph::new(some_render_graph_name),
..default()
})
```
Just note that if the graph requires data from specific components to work (such as `Camera3d` config, which is provided in the `Camera3dBundle`), make sure the relevant components have been added.
Speaking of using components to configure graphs / passes, there are a number of new configuration options:
```rust
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle {
camera_3d: Camera3d {
// overrides the default global clear color
clear_color: ClearColorConfig::Custom(Color::RED),
..default()
},
..default()
})
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle {
camera_3d: Camera3d {
// disables clearing
clear_color: ClearColorConfig::None,
..default()
},
..default()
})
```
Expect to see more of the "graph configuration Components on Cameras" pattern in the future.
By popular demand, UI no longer requires a dedicated camera. `UiCameraBundle` has been removed. `Camera2dBundle` and `Camera3dBundle` now both default to rendering UI as part of their own render graphs. To disable UI rendering for a camera, disable it using the CameraUi component:
```rust
commands
.spawn_bundle(Camera3dBundle::default())
.insert(CameraUi {
is_enabled: false,
..default()
})
```
## Other Changes
* The separate clear pass has been removed. We should revisit this for things like sky rendering, but I think this PR should "keep it simple" until we're ready to properly support that (for code complexity and performance reasons). We can come up with the right design for a modular clear pass in a followup pr.
* I reorganized bevy_core_pipeline into Core2dPlugin and Core3dPlugin (and core_2d / core_3d modules). Everything is pretty much the same as before, just logically separate. I've moved relevant types (like Camera2d, Camera3d, Camera3dBundle, Camera2dBundle) into their relevant modules, which is what motivated this reorganization.
* I adapted the `scene_viewer` example (which relied on the ActiveCameras behavior) to the new system. I also refactored bits and pieces to be a bit simpler.
* All of the examples have been ported to the new camera approach. `render_to_texture` and `multiple_windows` are now _much_ simpler. I removed `two_passes` because it is less relevant with the new approach. If someone wants to add a new "layered custom pass with CameraRenderGraph" example, that might fill a similar niche. But I don't feel much pressure to add that in this pr.
* Cameras now have `target_logical_size` and `target_physical_size` fields, which makes finding the size of a camera's render target _much_ simpler. As a result, the `Assets<Image>` and `Windows` parameters were removed from `Camera::world_to_screen`, making that operation much more ergonomic.
* Render order ambiguities between cameras with the same target and the same priority now produce a warning. This accomplishes two goals:
1. Now that there is no "global" active camera, by default spawning two cameras will result in two renders (one covering the other). This would be a silent performance killer that would be hard to detect after the fact. By detecting ambiguities, we can provide a helpful warning when this occurs.
2. Render order ambiguities could result in unexpected / unpredictable render results. Resolving them makes sense.
## Follow Up Work
* Per-Camera viewports, which will make it possible to render to a smaller area inside of a RenderTarget (great for something like splitscreen)
* Camera-specific MSAA config (should use the same "overriding" pattern used for ClearColor)
* Graph Based Camera Ordering: priorities are simple, but they make complicated ordering constraints harder to express. We should consider adopting a "graph based" camera ordering model with "before" and "after" relationships to other cameras (or build it "on top" of the priority system).
* Consider allowing graphs to run subgraphs from any nest level (aka a global namespace for graphs). Right now the 2d and 3d graphs each need their own UI subgraph, which feels "fine" in the short term. But being able to share subgraphs between other subgraphs seems valuable.
* Consider splitting `bevy_core_pipeline` into `bevy_core_2d` and `bevy_core_3d` packages. Theres a shared "clear color" dependency here, which would need a new home.
2022-06-02 00:12:17 +00:00
|
|
|
commands.spawn_bundle(Camera2dBundle::default());
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
commands
|
2021-03-23 00:23:40 +00:00
|
|
|
.spawn_bundle(ButtonBundle {
|
2020-07-26 19:27:09 +00:00
|
|
|
style: Style {
|
2020-07-28 04:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
size: Size::new(Val::Px(150.0), Val::Px(65.0)),
|
|
|
|
// center button
|
2022-04-25 19:20:38 +00:00
|
|
|
margin: UiRect::all(Val::Auto),
|
2020-07-28 04:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
// horizontally center child text
|
|
|
|
justify_content: JustifyContent::Center,
|
|
|
|
// vertically center child text
|
|
|
|
align_items: AlignItems::Center,
|
2022-03-01 20:52:09 +00:00
|
|
|
..default()
|
2020-07-25 06:04:45 +00:00
|
|
|
},
|
2021-12-14 03:58:23 +00:00
|
|
|
color: NORMAL_BUTTON.into(),
|
2022-03-01 20:52:09 +00:00
|
|
|
..default()
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.with_children(|parent| {
|
2022-07-20 14:14:29 +00:00
|
|
|
parent.spawn_bundle(TextBundle::from_section(
|
|
|
|
"Button",
|
|
|
|
TextStyle {
|
|
|
|
font: asset_server.load("fonts/FiraSans-Bold.ttf"),
|
|
|
|
font_size: 40.0,
|
|
|
|
color: Color::rgb(0.9, 0.9, 0.9),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
));
|
2020-07-18 21:08:46 +00:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|