As implementation-specific index types cause the index buffer to be
strided. which is not allowed by default, these work only if
InterleaveFlag::PreserveStridedIndices is set. Originally I thought
about straight-out disallowing implementation-specific types here,
unfortunately that broke some valid use cases so I backtracked on that
decision.
In the future I might change the default to preserve
implementation-specific indices with sane strides (i.e., positive powers
of 2), but that will only be done once similar treatment is finished for
attributes (currently zero and negative strides are just disallowed
completely).
Otherwise it makes a tightly-packed copy. This also means that arbitrary
padding before/after the index buffer is preserved only in case it would
mean the data can be transferred without a copy -- otherwise it's faster
to just drop the padding and copy only the used part.
The reference() and mutableReference() utils preserve that implicitly as
MeshData::indices() now returns a strided array view containing all
needed information.
I tried, I really did, but the downsides eventually just outweighed the
potential of this feature and I gave up. May try to tackle this again in
the future, but not now.
Leads to an assertion inside StridedArrayView constructor, because I
just pass through the original attribute offsets/strides even though
interleavedMutableData() gives me a much smaller stride.
Moreover, because I just perform the deduplication on the original
vertex data *including* all random padding, the duplicate removal won't
always be able to find all duplicates. So test that case here as well --
turns out we just have to repack the data completely, after all.
This took me quite a while to realize -- not always it's desirable to
have the original layout unconditionally preserved, especially if for
example filtering a MeshData to just a subset of attributes.
It was already done in removeDuplicatesFuzzy(), so just make it
consistent with the rest (shorter message, listing also the offending
attribute index).
Haha, I even had a TODO here. An exception in this case is when the mesh
is already interleaved -- then the layout is kept intact and thus it's
not needed to know what vertex format sizes to repack.
And doing all the automagic of unpacking packed types, converting
positions *and* normals/tangents/bitangents, and also an overload for
transforming texture coordinates.
Such a simple thing and yet so complex and nasty to test.
Heh, I forgot to run the full test suite after the changes in
1eb1eec271 and then the CI accidentally
had all rendering tests skipped due to missing plugins (which got fixed
in the previous commit, d1ee0b7f7e), so
that didn't catch it either. Sigh.
This is a -- long overdue -- breaking change to the rendering output of
this shader, finally adding support for lights that get darker over
distance. The attenuation equation is basically what's documented in
LightData, and the distinction between directional and point lights is
made using a newly added the fourth component of position (which means
the old three-component setters are all deprecated). This allows the
shader code to be practically branchless, which I find to be nice.
This breaks basically all rendering output so all existing Phong and
MeshTools::compile() test outputs had to be regenerated.
This is a breaking change that changes the signature, sorry -- if you
were using concatenate() for mesh concatenation before, enjoy the new
less strange signature, if you were using it for making the mesh owned
before (which was a strange and not very well thought out use case),
please use the recently added owned() instead. I thought about adding an
overload for backwards compatibility, but it would need to allocate to
work. This way with the breakage it's ensured you actually change to the
right API.
This also cleans up a lot of ugly code in the internals and resolves one
XFAIL in removeDuplicates().
The array size is always last, defaulting to 0. This makes it consistent
with the offset-only constructor and removes two unnecessary overloads.
It's a breaking change, but I don't think array attributes have many
users yet -- and better to do this now than later. In any case, sorry
about breaking your code.
Vladimír Vondruš