Reason is that Assimp custom material attribute names are also prefixed
with $ and other weird characters, which could lead to them appearing
before $LayerName, causing a layer to falsely appear unnamed. A space,
instead, is before all printable characters so it's guaranteed to be
always first.
Some things you just don't realize at first. Fortunately the binary
layout isn't pinned yet for the serialization format so this change is
mostly fine.
Hah, so many overloads. Not providing mutable access to keys or layer
offsets as that would break the invariant of the internal array always
being sorted.
There's actually a lot of code involved in checking if all textures use
the same transform or coordinate set, especially when considering all
fallback variants and potential future expansion with separate texture
offset/scale/rotation attributes.
A lot of the complexity was thus hidden in plugin implementations, which
were each trying to find a common value for all textures to save the
user from doing the same. All that code can now be removed and left up
to the material APIs themselves -- now it's just about checking
hasCommonTextureTransformation() and then retrieving that one common
transformation, independently on how the material actually defines it.
Turns out glTF doesn't actually put metalness into R and roughness into
G, even though the naming suggests that. This was done originally, but
then they changed that in order to be compatible with UE4 and allow for
a more efficient storage of an occlusion map.
Because this feels extremely arbitrary, the docs have added rationale
for each of the packing variants, and I'm also renaming the packed
attribute and checks to imply the red channel isn't used.
This is a bit huge because of all the new overloads that take a
MaterialLayer instead of a string, but all that is just boring
boilerplate. Additionally this:
* exposes glTF clear coat parameters (which, interestingly enough,
reuse existing attributes and don't introduce any new)
* provides a convenience wrapper in PbrClearCoatMaterialData
* and a convenience base for material layer wrappers that redirect
all APIs with implicit layer argument to desired layer instead of the
base material
Well, "basic". Practically mirrors glTF PBR materials:
- builtin metallic/roughness
- the KHR_materials_pbrSpecularGlossiness extension
- extra normal/occlusion/emission maps
- exposes the implicit metallic/roughness and specular/glossiness
packing, but also allows separate maps with arbitrary packings as
well as two-channel normal maps (instead of three-channel)
- provides convenience checks for the most common packing schemes
including MSFT_packing_normalRoughnessMetallic and the three variants
of MSFT_packing_occlusionRoughnessMetallic
- teaches PhongMaterialData to recognize packed specular/glossiness
maps as well
Next up is exposing at least one layer extension, and then I'm done
here.
Because We Can. No, actually, this will be used for upcoming material
layers, it's not a bloat. However, this means you can do things like
Trade::MaterialData weDoCssHere{{}, {
{"color", "navy"},
{"highlight", "rgba(35, 255, 78, 0.75)"},
{"dropShadow", "var(--shadow-color)"}
}};
Suited mainly for custom app-specific material properties (e.g., actual
texture pointers and handles), not really planning on using this in
Magnum itself.
AbstractMaterialData is now just a typedef to MaterialData, with all
existing public APIs moved to (and marked as deprecated, if they don't
make sense anymore). The new class doesn't have a virtual destructor as
that's not the desired use anymore -- and AbstractImporter::material()
APIs will be returning an Optional instead of a Pointer, which means any
potential subclasses will be sliced away.
PhongMaterialData is reimplemented using the new key/value store,
with no own members anymore -- thus having the same size as
MaterialData, and safe to be casted from it to access the helper APIs.
Compared to previous AbstractMaterialData, which was always just a
single type, the new data can describe several different materials at
once. This is the case for example with glTF, where a material can be
metallic/roughness but also have an alternative description using
specular/glossiness.
Currently the usage is undocumented, but when everything is in place, if
a material advertises given type, it can be then cast to one of
its convenience subclasses.
Vladimír Vondruš