Beta release of JointComponent

[willeastcott]

Releases the JointComponent API in beta. For anyone with physics experience, please take a look and offer your thoughts/comments.

Also added a new rope bridge engine example:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aeccddca-2350-4636-89b4-7335dd0a1f78

API reference:

I confirm I have read the contributing guidelines and signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[LeXXik]

I always welcome a constraints component, which I think was missing for a while. There are so many cases where it could be used for interactivity. However, I am not sure of the design. Not that it is wrong, but that there is no definite standard for it so far, so it is up to discussion.

For example, if the ball falling on the bridge disables an entity it touches, then I would expect the bridge would behave as if it would have been cut in the middle. However, that is not the case, since a constraint is its own entity and lives its own life. The bridge would probably fall apart with a constraint still alive that is very soft, like a chewing gum.

Also, I remember making a game for one company, where you would draw a wheel for a vehicle to traverse a terrain. Once you drew a wheel, it would replace the old one, which was connected with a hinge constraint. There was an Ammo crash, when PlayCanvas was trying to destroy a rigidbody (due to hierarchy change) before the constraint. There should be a test case to cover that at least.

[willeastcott]

@LeXXik The main things I'm still unsure of relate to the following:

1. Should I collapse the X, Y, Z number properties into Vec3 properties? e.g. angularDampingX, angularDampingY and angularDampingZ becomes angularDamping. This will collapse the API into something much simpler, of course. But I'm wondering whether this might be annoying if you only are concerned with configuring a one or maybe two axes. Maybe there'd be other down sides I'm not considering?
2. The current implementation just wraps the btGeneric6DofSpringConstraint. Ammo has specific classes for handling other joint types (like hinge, ball-socket, etc). I'm wondering if those specialized joint types are more stable than the generic 6dof joint.
3. At the moment, it is assumed the joint component's entity is neither entityA or entityB (so you have to create a separate entity for joints). But should the JointComponent be placed on entityA and entityB would be connectedEntity perhaps? I could add jointOffset too (with reference to the owner entity's transform).

[Maksims]

I think join should be created on any entity, event on third one, and by defining entityA and entityB, which can be self, would work. Otherwise it might be too constraining to the user. Also, it will make it easier to copy joints and re-use them between different rigidbodies.

[willeastcott]

After building this PR, I came to a realization. You often want to attach multiple constraints to a single rigid body. For example, imagine the joints attached to the upper torso of a rag doll: neck, left shoulder, right shoulder, mid-spine. Therefore, on reflection, I think it would be better if the JointComponent worked similarly to the SoundComponent and supported multiple joints to be defined. So I will try to devise an addJoint/removeJoint type of API. Stay tuned for a full refactor.

[LeXXik]

I will try to devise an addJoint/removeJoint type of API

Yeah, I did it in a similar fashion here: https://github.com/Gamebop/physics/blob/master/src/physics/jolt/front/constraint/component.mjs

Note - in my implementation, I do destroy a constraint connecting both bodies, when one of the bodies is destroyed. Because of that I also need to keep track of which joints connect which bodies. If one entity is connected to another, then both entities would get a constraint component. A constraint component in my case is not a joint in itself, but a host of different joints that can be added to a body.

[LeXXik]

Should I collapse the X, Y, Z number properties into Vec3 properties?

I use vectors in our implementation. I think the inspector in Editor would look cleaner as well.

The current implementation just wraps the btGeneric6DofSpringConstraint... I'm wondering if those specialized joint types are more stable than the generic 6dof joint.

Not sure. Bullet is using a base typed constraint for all its constraint types. 6dof is just one of its extended classes. I'd assume they would all work the same from stability point of view.

[Maksims]

After building this PR, I came to a realization. You often want to attach multiple constraints to a single rigid body. For example, imagine the joints attached to the upper torso of a rag doll: neck, left shoulder, right shoulder, mid-spine. Therefore, on reflection, I think it would be better if the JointComponent worked similarly to the SoundComponent and supported multiple joints to be defined. So I will try to devise an addJoint/removeJoint type of API. Stay tuned for a full refactor.

But why not use one joint per entity as I've suggested? So that you create multiple Joint entities and reference needed entityA and entityB. Won't need to do complex API & UI like Sound Component. And it reduces the amount of API needed, and depth complexity of joint component.

Removing joint - destroy/disable entity, easy. But with array-based joint component it will require to use some other type of API like: entity.joints.remove(entity.joints.get(jointId)) - this does look overly complex.

Similarly the Compound collision component, uses children, instead of doing array of collision items within collision component.