avm2: Implement flash.geom.PerspectiveProjection #19532
Conversation
cookie-s
force-pushed
the
avm2-perspective-projection
branch
3 times, most recently
from
21ae2a2 to
de64c8d
Compare
cookie-s
force-pushed
the
avm2-perspective-projection
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e929ede to
afc763f
Compare
| // Not associated with any DO | ||
| None => 500.0, | ||
| // Stage's PerspectiveProjection | ||
| Some(dobj) if dobj.as_stage().is_some() => 500.0, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know where this value 500 comes from. It fits the output from the test in FP.
| private var displayObject: DisplayObject = null; | ||
|
|
||
| [Ruffle(NativeAccessible)] | ||
| private var fov: Number = 55.0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From TestTransform() result, fieldOfView should be saved and focalLength should be computed from it.
PP(FOV:55, FL:480.25) assignment to Sprite.transform.perspectiveProjection produces PP(FOV:55, FL:288.15) (when SWF width is 300).
cookie-s
force-pushed
the
avm2-perspective-projection
branch
from
afc763f to
2aa2853
Compare
|
this might be useful, take a look |
| stub_method("flash.geom.PerspectiveProjection", "toMatrix3D"); | ||
| return new Matrix3D(); | ||
| var fl: Number = this.focalLength; | ||
| return new Matrix3D(new <Number>[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be sure, this is a complete matrix impl? Asking due to the removed stub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I believe so. For other methods, especially setters are related to unimplemented rendering/visual, but I believe this toMatrix3D just returns the Matrix3D object.
Ah, but only if the small but not very small floating point number differences are allowed. Please see precision in TestToMatrix3D test function. There is unexplainable numerical errors which is now rounded to approximation in the test.
Except for that, I believe all features in toMatrix3D are implemented.
|
As for emergence75’s code, note that we did find issues with some of the changes there (see: #18495 (comment) and the subsequent comment). I know that since then it was replaced by a newer PR (which I’m sorry for not commenting on), but as far as I’m aware, the listed concerns about the changes still apply :( With that, I’d be careful with treating it as a source. |
kjarosh
added
A-avm2
Oh thank you. My PR might be better to implement the input validation for fieldOfView setter.
Sure thank you! |
cookie-s
force-pushed
the
avm2-perspective-projection
branch
from
2aa2853 to
3fadf21
Compare
| // Stage's PerspectiveProjection | ||
| Some(dobj) if dobj.as_stage().is_some() => 500.0, | ||
| // root's PerspectiveProjection | ||
| Some(dobj) if dobj.is_root() => activation.context.stage.stage_size().0 as f64, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this has the same logic as the one below, any reason for it to be separate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. No! Thank you, merged to the line below at f6f2aba
| import flash.geom.Matrix3D; | ||
| import flash.geom.Point; | ||
|
|
||
| public class PerspectiveProjection { | ||
| // Getters are stubbed with what seem to be Flash's default values | ||
| [Ruffle(NativeAccessible)] | ||
| private var displayObject: DisplayObject = null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this actually need the live reference to the DO? What if instead, only the width value was stored?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True, storing only width passes the current test, but another observation by for example this code:
private function TestTransformUpdate(): void {
var s: Sprite = new Sprite();
trace("// Set non-null to transform.perspectiveProjection");
s.transform.perspectiveProjection = new PerspectiveProjection();
printProps(s.transform.perspectiveProjection);
trace("// Set null to transform.perspectiveProjection");
s.transform.perspectiveProjection.fieldOfView = 100;
printProps(s.transform.perspectiveProjection);
}
shows some setter in DO.transform.perspectiveProjection : PerspectiveProjection should update the values in DO.
It's the similar behavior to transform.matrix3D rather than transform.matrix in terms of what we discussed before: #18810 (comment)
(although that setter behavior is not implemented to matrix3D and transform.perspectiveProjection setter is almost imcomplete as of now.)
Given that, we will anyway need reference to DO at some point I believe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see, yeah.
var a = dobj.transform.perspectiveProjection;
var b = dobj.transform.perspectiveProjection;
trace(a === b); // false
a.fieldOfView = 123;
trace(b.fieldOfView); // 123There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please add some TODO comments explaining the above, and maybe a known-failure test? But just a comment is enough, I think I'm gonna approve the PR in a moment.
although that setter behavior is not implemented to matrix3D and transform.perspectiveProjection setter is almost imcomplete as of now
Sure, I think this is an okay compromise.
cookie-s
force-pushed
the
avm2-perspective-projection
branch
from
3fadf21 to
f5e13c0
Compare
doc: https://docs.ruffle.rs/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/geom/PerspectiveProjection.html
This PR implements
flash.geom.PerspectiveProjectionfeatures. However, assignment toflash.display.DisplayObjectthroughtransform.perspectiveProjectionis not yet supported. No effect to visual, either.