Example webgpu_tsl_editor: Simple uv.x animation
#26368
Conversation
|
|
||
| const timer = timerLocal( .5 ); // .5 is speed | ||
| const uv0 = uv(); | ||
| const animateUv = vec2( uv0.x.add( oscSine( timer ) ), uv0.y ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way... Could we try adding support for something like vectorVariable.x.addAssign( something ), based on how we have that for VarNodes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting you think this, because I was drafting something similar but using setXYZ(), like node.setX( x ), maybe node.addX( node ) too. I think that node.x.addAssign() seems more complicated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like node.x.assign/addAssign more because it better mirrors the shader code -- i.e. var.x = something or var.x += something. It also feels more understandable for me.
(And to add all the *Assign things we should only add assign support for SplitNode -- other *Assigns will be supported automatically)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Merging now, anyway better to create a new PR for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you rather work on it, or I work on it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm... worries me a bit the users use just uv0.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) ); instead of const animateUv = uv0.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) );
const animateUv = uv0.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) );There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should just note somewhere that they should either do const animateUv = temp( uv() ); animateUv.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) ) or const uv0 = uv(); const animateUv = uv0.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) ).
Would you rather work on it, or I work on it?
I think you can implement this better than me 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
// Example 1
const animateUv = temp( uv() );
animateUv.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) );
// Example 2
const uv0 = uv();
const animateUv = uv0.x.addAssign( oscSine( timer ) );
// Example 3
const uv0 = uv();
const animateUv = uv0.addX( oscSine( timer ) );It seems that we have 3 options at now, .set*(), .add*() still seems more simple for me.
I think you can implement this better than me 👍
Thanks, but you'd do a great job all the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that we have 3 options at now, .set*(), .add*() still seems more simple for me.
I think we can try to support both first two options -- we can check in SplitNode whether the node it's acting on is VarNode, and if it is not it automatically makes it a such.
Description
Improving the example a bit.