asgardius/virtualx-engine
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases 1 Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge pull request #45507 from lawnjelly/bvh_fix_pairing_stale

Browse source 
BVH fix stale changed items, causing dangling pairs
This commit is contained in:
Rémi Verschelde 2021-01-27 18:37:02 +01:00 committed by GitHub
commit 27b22fdb6c
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 20 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

21
core/math/bvh.h
View file

@ -90,6 +90,12 @@ public:
BVHHandle create(T *p_userdata, const AABB &p_aabb = AABB(), int p_subindex = 0, bool p_pairable = false, uint32_t p_pairable_type = 0, uint32_t p_pairable_mask = 1) {
// not completely sure why, but the order of the pairing callbacks seems to be causing problems in
// the render tree unless these are flushed before creating a new object
if (USE_PAIRS) {
_check_for_collisions();
}
#ifdef TOOLS_ENABLED
if (!USE_PAIRS) {
if (p_pairable) {
@ -185,6 +191,13 @@ public:
tree.item_set_pairable(p_handle, p_pairable, p_pairable_type, p_pairable_mask);
if (USE_PAIRS) {
// not completely sure why, but the order of the pairing callbacks seems to be causing problems in
// the render tree unless these are flushed before creating a new object.. we will do this for set_pairable
// to just in case. This may not be required, and may slow things down slightly when there are a lot
// of visibility changes in a frame
_check_for_collisions();
// when the pairable state changes, we need to force a collision check because newly pairable
// items may be in collision, and unpairable items might move out of collision.
// We cannot depend on waiting for the next update, because that may come much later.
@ -536,9 +549,15 @@ private:
_remove_pairs_containing(p_handle);
// remove from changed items (not very efficient yet)
for (unsigned int n = 0; n < changed_items.size(); n++) {
for (int n = 0; n < (int)changed_items.size(); n++) {
if (changed_items[n] == p_handle) {
changed_items.remove_unordered(n);
// because we are using an unordered remove,
// the last changed item will now be at spot 'n',
// and we need to redo it, so we prevent moving on to
// the next n at the next for iteration.
n--;
}
}