Coded using:
Using ThreeJS v0.130.1
Framework: Angular 12, but that's not relevant to the issue.
Testing on Chrome browser.
I am building an application that gets more than 100K points. I use these points to render a THREE.Points object on the screen.
I found that default THREE.PointsMaterial does not support lighting (the points are visible with or without adding lights to the scene).
So I tried to implement a custom ShaderMaterial. But I could not find a way to add lighting to the rendered object.
Here is a sample of what my code is doing:
Sample App on StackBlitz showing my current attempt
In this code, I am using sample values for point cloud data, normals and color but everything else is similar to my actual application. I can see the 3D object, but need more proper lighting using normals.
I need help or guidance to implement the following:
Add lighting to custom shader material. I have Googled and tried many things, no success so far.
Using normals, show the effects of lighting (In this sample code, the normals are fixed to Y-axis direction, but I am calculating them based on some vector logic in actual application). So calculating normals is already done, but I want to use them to show light shine/shading effect in the custom shader material.
And in this sample, color attribute is set to fixed red color, but in actual application I am able to apply colors using UV range from a texture to color attribute.
Please advise how/if I can get lighting based on normals for Point Cloud. Thanks.
Note: I looked at this Stackoveflow question but it only deals with changing the alpha/transparency of points and not lighting.
Adding lighting to a custom material is a very complex process. Especially since you could use Phong, Lambert, or Physical lighting methods, and there's a lot of calculations that need to pass from the vertex to the fragment shader. For instance, this segment of shader code is just a small part of what you'd need.
Instead of trying to re-create lighting from scratch, I recommend you create a PlaneGeometry with the material you'd like (Phong, Lambert, Physical, etc...) and use an InstancedMesh to create thousands of instances, just like in this example.
Based on that example, the pseudo-code of how you could achieve a similar effect is something like this:
const count = 100000;
const geometry = new PlaneGeometry();
const material = new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial();
mesh = new THREE.InstancedMesh( geometry, material, count );
mesh.instanceMatrix.setUsage( THREE.DynamicDrawUsage ); // will be updated every frame
scene.add( mesh );
const dummy = new THREE.Object3D();
update() {
// Sets the rotation so it's always perpendicular to camera
dummy.lookAt(camera);
// Updates positions of each plane
for (let i = 0; i < count; i++){
dummy.position.set( x, y, z );
dummy.updateMatrix();
mesh.setMatrixAt( i ++, dummy.matrix );
}
}
The for() loop would be the most expensive part of each frame, so if you need to update it on each frame, you might want to calculate this in the vertex shader, but that's another question altogether.
Related
Let's say I have a vertical list of meshes created from PlaneBufferGeometry with ShaderMaterial. The meshes are distributed vertically and evenly spaced.
The list will have two states:
Displaying the meshes as they are
Displaying meshes with each object's vertices transformed by the vertex shader to the same arbitrary value, let's say z = -50. This gives a zoomed out effect and the user can scroll through this list (in the code we do this by moving the camera y position)
In my app I'm trying to make my mouseover events work for the second state but it's tricky since the GPU transforms the vertices so the updated vertices are not reflected in the attributes on the JS side.
*Note I've looked into GPU picking and do not want to use it because I believe there should be a simpler way to do this without render targets
Attempted Solution
My current approach is to manually change the boundingBox of each plane when we are in the second state like so:
var box = new THREE.Box3().setFromObject(plane);
box.min.z = -50;
box.max.z = -50;
plane.geometry.boundingBox = box;
And then to change the boundingSphere's center to have the same z position of -50 after computing it.
I did this approach because I looked into the Raycaster and Mesh code for THREE.js and it seems like they check both boundingSphere and boundingBox for object intersections. So I thought if I modified both of them to reflect the transforms done by the GPU, the raycaster would work fine but it doesn't seem to be working for me.
The relevant raycaster code is here:
// mouse being vec2 of normalized coordinates and camera being a perspective camera
raycaster.setFromCamera( mouse, camera );
const intersects = raycaster.intersectObjects( planes );
Possible Theories
The only thing I can think of that's wrong about this approach is maybe I'm not projecting the mouse coords right? Since all the objects now lie on the plane z = -50 would I need to project those mouse coordinates to that plane?
Inspired by the link posted by #prisoner849 I found a working solution to just create additional transparent planes equal to the number of planes in the scene. In these planes, I set the z position to -50 and just intersect with these when in state #2.
A bit hacky, but works for now.
I've been struggling with this one for hours, and found nothing either in the docs or here on SO that would point me to the right direction to achieve what I aim at.
I'm loading a scene containing several meshes. The first one is used as an actual mesh, rendered on the scene, the other ones are just used as morph targets (their geometries, properly speaking).
loader.load("scene.json", function (loadedScene) {
camera.lookAt( scene.position );
var basis = loadedScene.getObjectByName( "Main" ).geometry;
var firstTarget = loadedScene.getObjectByName( "Target1" ).geometry;
// and so on for the rest of the "target" meshes
basis.morphTargets[0] = {name: 'fstTarget', vertices: firstTarget.vertices};
var MAIN = new THREE.Mesh(basis);
This works very well, and I can morph the MAIN mesh with no hassle by playing with the influence values. The differences between the basis mesh and the target are not huge, basically they're just XY adjustments (2D shape variations).
Now, I'm using a textures material: UVs are properly projected (Blender export) and the result is nice with the MAIN mesh as is.
The problem comes when the basis shape is morphed towards a target geometry: as expected, the texture (UVs) adapts automatically, but this is not what I need to achieve => I'd need to have the UVs "morph" towards the morph target's UVs for the texture to look the same.
Here is an example of what I have now (left: basis mesh, right: morphTargetInfluences = 1 for the first morph target)
morph target and texture
What I'd like to have is the exact same texture projection on the final, morphed mesh...
I can't figure out how to do that the right way. Should I reassign the target UVs to the MAIN mesh (and how would I do that)?
The result would be like having a cloth below which a shape is morphed, and the cloth being "shrinked-wrapped" all the time against that underlying shape => you can actually see the shape changes, but the cloth itself is not deformed, just wrapping itself properly and consistently around the shape...
Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance :)
When using a cube camera one normally sets the envMap of the material to the cubeCamera.renderTarget, e.g.:
var myMaterial = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0xffffff,
envMap: myCubeCamera.renderTarget,
side: THREE.DoubleSide});
This works great for meshes that are meant to reflect or refract what the cube camera sees. However, I'd like to simply create a texture and apply that to my mesh. In other words, I don't want my object to reflect or refract. I want the face normals to be ignored.
I tried using a THREE.WebGLRenderTarget, but it won't handle a cube camera. And using a single perpspective camera with WebGLRenderTarget does not give me a 360 texture, obviously.
Finally, simply assigning the cubeCamera.renderTarget to the 'map' property of the material doesn't work either.
Is it possible to do what I want?
r73.
Edit: this is not what the author of the question is looking for, I'll keep my answer below for other people
Your envmap is already a texture so there's no need to apply it as a map. Also, cubemaps and textures are structurally different, so it won't be possible to swap them, or if you succeed in doing that the result is not what you probably you might expect.
I understand from what you're asking you want a static envmap instead to be updated at each frame, if that's the case simply don't run myCubeCamera.updateCubeMap() into your render function. Instead place it at the end of your scene initialization with your desired cube camera position, your envmap will show only that frame.
See examples below:
Dynamic Cubemap Example
Static Cubemap Example
The answer is: Set the refractionRatio on the material to 1.0. Then face normals are ignored since no refraction is occurring.
In a normal situation where the Cube Camera is in the same scene as the mesh, this would be pointless because the mesh would be invisible. But in cases where the Cube Camera is looking at a different scene, then this is a useful feature.
I'm trying to make a Plane to always face the camera or another moving object but I want the Plane to only rotate on 1 axis. How can I use the lookAt function to make it only rotate side ways without tilting to look up or down at the moving object?
thanks, I managed to solve it easily by just keeping the y position of the rotating object constant.
if(planex){
var yaw_control = controls.getYawObject();
pos = new THREE.Vector3( yaw_control.position.x, planex.position.y, yaw_control.position.z );
planex.lookAt(pos);
}
http://www.lighthouse3d.com/opengl/billboarding/index.php?billCyl
maybe this article of any help for you. You are looking for those cylindrical billboards i think but read up from the first page ;) You can modify the specific mesh matrix yourself, although i am not sure if this is the most efficient way. I also did this myself once.
Get the camera look vec:
three.js set and read camera look vector
Then get the camera upVec and afterwards get the cross prodcut of those = rightVec according to the article above.
using those vectors, you can fill in a new Three.Matrix4() like explained in the article and then replace the meshes matrix with the newly created one. As I said, i am not quite into the matrix stuff in three.js but this works but it is probably not that efficient.
For this to work you will have to deactive the meshes auto matrix update with
mesh.matrixAutoUpdate = false;
I am building quite a complex 3D environment in Three.js (FPS-a-like). For this purpose I wanted to structure the loading of textures and materials in an object oriƫnted way. For example; materials.wood.brownplank is a reusable material with a certain texture and other properties. Below is a simplified visualisation of the process where models uses materials and materials uses textures.
loadTextures();
loadMaterials();
loadModels();
//start doing stuff in the scene
I want to use that material on differently sized objects. However, in Three.js you can't (AFAIK) set a certain texture scale. You will have to set the repeat to scale it appropiate to your object. But I don't want to do that for every plane of every object I use.
Here is how it looks now
As you can see, the textures are not uniform in size.
Is there an easy way achieve this? So cloning the texture and/or material every time and setting the repeat according to the geometry won't do :)
I hope someone can help me.
Conclusion:
There is no real easy way to do this. I ended up changing my loading methods, where things like materials.wood.brownplank are now for example getMaterial('wood', 'brownplank') In the function new objects are instantiated
You should be able to do this by modifying your geometry UV coordinates according to the "real" dimensions of each face.
In Three.js, UV coordinates are relative to the face and texture (as in, 0.0 = one edge, 1.0 = other edge), no matter what the actual size of texture or face is. But by modifying the UVs in geometry (multiply them by some factor based on face physical size), you can use the same material and texture in different sizes (and orientations) per face.
You just need to figure out the mapping between UVs, geometry scale and your desired working units (eg. mm or m). Sorry I don't have, or know a ready algorithm to do it, but that's the approach you probably need to take. Should be quite doable with a bit of experimentation and google-fu.