Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MeshInstance3D visual instance layer ignored by OmniLight3D in the Compatibility and Mobile renderers #94643

Closed
fossinating opened this issue Jul 23, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #98266

Comments

@fossinating
Copy link

Tested versions

  • Reproducible in 4.0.3, 4.1.2, and 4.2.2

System information

Godot v4.2.2.stable - Windows 10.0.22631 - GLES3 (Compatibility) - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (NVIDIA; 31.0.15.4612) - 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11700F @ 2.50GHz (16 Threads)

Issue description

When a MeshInstance3D is moved, it starts showing light from any OmniLight3D, regardless of what visual instance layer the mesh is assigned to. This has been tested to occur when the MeshInstance3D is moved in editor, changes visibility in the editor, or is moved at runtime by an AnimationPlayer or by being a child of a RigidBody3D. In the Forward+ renderer, the visual instance layer continues to be respected by the OmniLight3D

Steps to reproduce

  • Create a MeshInstance3D and OmniLight3D
  • Configure the MeshInstance3D and OmniLight3D so that the visual instance layers of the MeshInstance3D have no overlap with the cull mask or visual instance layers of the OmniLight3D
  • Move the MeshInstance3D in the editor

Minimal reproduction project (MRP)

visual_instance_omnilight_compatibility.zip

@Calinou
Copy link
Member

Calinou commented Oct 17, 2024

Thanks for the report! Consolidating in #82263.

@Calinou Calinou closed this as completed Oct 17, 2024
@AThousandShips AThousandShips removed this from the 4.x milestone Oct 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants