I want to create a plane and set the x,y,z locations for the plane individually. So, in three.js it would be something like this ...
var plane = new THREE.PlaneGeometry(planeSize, planeSize, planeDefinition, planeDefinition);
var plane = new THREE.Mesh(plane, new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({
color: meshColor,
wireframe: true
}));
for (var i = 0; i < plane.vertices.length; i++) {
plane.vertices[i].z += Math.random() * vertexHeight - vertexHeight;
plane.vertices[i]._myZ = plane.vertices[i].z
}
I don't need to update these vertices locations, so I don't need to use a hook of any kind. Is there a parameter to feed vertices locations directly into the react component? Is there a better way to do this? I tried creating the vertices and then feeding them into the vertices parameter with a primitive, but that requires you to make the faces as well and I could not get that to work.
Thanks
You can't feed vertices directly to the component, you'd have to set that imperatively like in Three.js. You could either get a ref to the geometry component and modify it in useLayoutEffect, or create the geometry inside of something like useMemo or useState and assign it to the geometry prop of the <mesh>. Note that PlaneGeometry is now a BufferGeometry in Three.js r125 so you can't set vertices like you've shown anymore.
Related
I'm doing something like this, How to create a custom square in a-frame but with custom shapes (i.e. drawing around an image to make a hotspot to make part of that image interactive)
I've got the line working and I'm now trying to convert this into a fill.
this._mesh = make('a-plane', {
geometry:"buffer: false"
}, this.el)
this._mesh.addEventListener('loaded', e => {
this._mesh.getObject3D('mesh').geometry.vertices = this._points
this._mesh.getObject3D('mesh').geometry.computeFaceNormals()
this._mesh.getObject3D('mesh').geometry.computeVertexNormals()
})
I'm getting close but it's only showing one triangle i.e. something like this
How do i get the shape to fill the whole area? I have done this before with a ConvexGeometry and Quick hull but it seems cumbersome.
I got the idea for updating the vertices of a plane from the above post.
If you create an array with Vector2 objects representing the contour of your shape in CCW order, you can use an instance of Shape and ShapeBufferGeometry to achieve the intended result. Just pass the array of points to the ctor of Shape. The following official three.js example demonstrates this approach:
https://threejs.org/examples/webgl_geometry_shapes
BTW: Instead of defining the contour by an array of points, you can also use the API of Shape to define shapes. A simple triangle would look like so:
var triangleShape = new THREE.Shape()
.moveTo( 80, 20 )
.lineTo( 40, 80 )
.lineTo( 120, 80 )
.lineTo( 80, 20 );
var geometry = new THREE.ShapeBufferGeometry( shape );
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
three.js R113
I'm working on an app where I visualize ATV trails in a 3d perspective (NAIP imagery draped over elevation data). I am using three.js for the rendering engine.
In the above image, the white line you see is just a THREE.Line instance, where I convert a trails gps coordinates into threejs coordinates. I'd like to add more of 3d perspective to this line. I tried implementing a THREE.TubeGeometry where the path was a THREE.CatmullRomCurve3 using the same Vector3 points as how I built the line you see in the image above. That did not produce a desirable result...
From the many, many THREE examples I have looked at, I really think an extruded geometry would achieve the look I am after... But I cant for the life of me figure out how to extrude a geometry for the line. Any suggestions/thoughts?
UPDATE 1:
Here is my desired look (same trail - no imagery). This image was produced in QGIS using the Q2Threejs plugin
UPDATE 2: Here is a code of how I have attempted to create a tubegeometry. Maybe I am messing something up in there...
// trailVectors are an array of Vector3 - same as ones used to create line
var trailCurve = new THREE.CatmullRomCurve3(trailVectors);
var tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeGeometry(trailCurve,80,1,15,false);
var material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0x00ff00});
var tubeMesh = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,material);
var wireframeMaterial = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({color:0xffffff,lineWidth:2});
var wireframe = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,wireframeMaterial);
tubeMesh.add(wireframe);
scene.add(tubeMesh);
UPDATE 3
THREE.TubeGeometry(trailCurve,80,4,2,false) per mzartman request
I think that you should be able to achieve what you want with a TubeGeometry. I think the big thing is that your example (from the picture shown) has more than 2 radius segments. That gives it the tubular shape and makes it look sort of like a blob. If you set the radial segment count to 2 (as it's shown below) then I think it would look a lot better.
tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeBufferGeometry(
[YOUR_PATH_HERE],
params.extrusionSegments, // <--- Edit this for higher resolution on the spline
3, // <--- This defines the height
2, // <--- This 2 keeps 2D (i.e. not a tube!!!!)
true );
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
var wireframe = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, wireframeMaterial );
mesh.add( wireframe );
scene.add( mesh );
Update:
I think that you might do better with a material that shows some shadow like the MeshPhong. Also, to do the wireframe you want to add it as an option in the material initialization. Give it a show with the following:
var tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeGeometry(curve,80,1,2,false);
var material = new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial({color:0x00ff00, wireframe: true});
var tubeMesh = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,material);
scene.add(tubeMesh);
I'm very new to both three.js & to js in general.
1st I select a polyHedron geometry with a dat.gui checkbox
which renders say a tetrahedron. these selections work.
I also have a dat.gui checkbox to either phongfill or wireframe render.
I initially wanted just a wireframe type mesh but not with all of the internal triangles. I found the edgesgeometry() function which draws pretty much what I want(hard edges only). there is however a known issue with linewidth not working in windows anymore. all lines drawn as strokeweight/width 1.
I'd like to use tubeGeometry() to draw tubes of whatever radius as opposed to 1weight lines. I know I'll have to draw something such as a sphere at/over the connection vertices for it to not look ridiculous.
geo = new THREE.TetrahedronBufferGeometry(controls0.Radius,controls0.Detail);
...
egeo = new THREE.EdgesGeometry( geo );
lmat = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({ color: 0x0099ff, linewidth: 4 });
ph = new THREE.LineSegments( egeo, lmat );
scene.add(ph);
....
playing around in the console I found some geometry/bufferGeomery arrays that are likely the vertices/indices of my selected X-hedron as their sizes change with type(tetra/icosa etc) selection & detail increase/decrease:
//p = dome.geometry.attributes.uv.array;
p = egeo.attributes.position.array
//p = geo.attributes.uv.array
...
var path = new THREE.Curve();
path.getPoint = function (t) {
// trace the arc as t ranges from 0 to 1
var segment = (0 - Math.PI*2) *t;
return new THREE.Vector3( Math.cos(segment), Math.sin(segment), 0);
};
var geomet = new THREE.TubeBufferGeometry( path, 10, 0.2, 12, false );
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geomet, mat );
scene.add( mesh );
from above the tubeGeometry() draws fine separately as well but with the "path" made by that curve example. How can I use the vertices from my tetrahedron for example to create that "path" to pass to tubegeometry() ?
maybe a function that creates "segment vectors" from the vertices ?
I think it needs other properties of curve/path as well ?
I'm quite stuck at this point.
ANY Help, suggestions or examples would be greatly appreciated !
thanks.
You can try to create a TubeGeometry for each edge. Generate a LineCurve3 as the input path. Use the vertices of the edge as the start and end vector for the line.
Consider to use something like "triangulated lines" as an alternative in order to visualize the wireframe of a mesh with a linewidth greater than 1. With the next release of three.js(R91) there are new line primitives for this. Demo:
https://rawgit.com/mrdoob/three.js/dev/examples/webgl_lines_fat.html
This approach is much more performant than drawing a bunch of meshes with a TubeGeometry.
I am using bullet/ammo.js with three.js. I have a 3d mesh and I want to use the exact shape for collision detection with a soft body. Is there a way I can create a 3d rigid body (in bullet) from a mesh (in three.js)?
Here is an example:
http://kidzinski.com/miamisura/lazy3d/ (please wait a second for the 3d model to download). I have a cloth falling on a 3d body and I need to simulate collision of this cloth with the body.
I am new to these frameworks sorry if I fundamentally misunderstood something.
It looks like you can do some work to turn an arbitrary Three.js mesh into a Bullet concave mesh. This is supported by Physi.js, which is a plug and play solution to link Three.js directly to ammo.js. I personally wouldn't recommend using the project (Physi.js) but you can look at the source code to see how they implement concave meshes.
First they loop over the geometry to create a custom list of "triangle" data objects on these lines of physi.js
for ( i = 0; i < geometry.faces.length; i++ ) {
face = geometry.faces[i];
if ( face instanceof THREE.Face3) {
triangles.push([
...
Then these triangles are passed off to Ammo.js to make a new Ammo.btBvhTriangleMeshShape on these lines:
for ( i = 0; i < description.triangles.length; i++ ) {
...
triangle_mesh.addTriangle( _vec3_1, _vec3_2, _vec3_3, true );
}
...
shape = new Ammo.btBvhTriangleMeshShape( triangle_mesh, true, true );
This should be a good starting point for building your own Ammo.js custom mesh.
There are lots of threads around the web, that Physijs Concave mesh does not work with collission. It seems, that btBvhTriangleMeshShape is not intended to work with collission in ammo.js, as I found out searching for that topic in bullet related forums.
What worked for me, is btConvexHullShape:
var triangle, triangle_mesh = new Ammo.btTriangleMesh;
var btConvexHullShape = new Ammo.btConvexHullShape();
var _vec3_1 = new Ammo.btVector3(0,0,0);
var _vec3_2 = new Ammo.btVector3(0,0,0);
var _vec3_3 = new Ammo.btVector3(0,0,0);
for ( i = 0; i < triangles.length; i++ ) {
triangle = triangles[i];
_vec3_1.setX(triangle[0].x);
_vec3_1.setY(triangle[0].y);
_vec3_1.setZ(triangle[0].z);
btConvexHullShape.addPoint(_vec3_1,true);
_vec3_2.setX(triangle[1].x);
_vec3_2.setY(triangle[1].y);
_vec3_2.setZ(triangle[1].z);
btConvexHullShape.addPoint(_vec3_2,true);
_vec3_3.setX(triangle[2].x);
_vec3_3.setY(triangle[2].y);
_vec3_3.setZ(triangle[2].z);
btConvexHullShape.addPoint(_vec3_3,true);
triangle_mesh.addTriangle(
_vec3_1,
_vec3_2,
_vec3_3,
true
);
}
return btConvexHullShape;
In the process of learning physic based 3d with threejs, I also want to mention the following best practice: when using complex models, create a low poly model that you can push to that converter function instead of the original model, or you will encounter a stack overflow.
I have some custom geometries obtained from a STEP file conversion and I use the mouse to rotate them. They rotate around the origin of the scene, but since they are far from it, they seem rotating on a virtual sphere. How can I move them to the origin so that they don't seem "floating" around (I mean that I'd like to reduce to zero the radius of the virtual sphere). This is the example I'd like to move. I've tried setting their position to (0, 0, 0) doing:
object.position.x = 0;
object.position.y = 0;
object.position.z = 0;
but it didin't work.
The typical solution to this problem is to translate the geometry right after it is created. You do that by applying a translation matrix to the geometry like so:
geometry.applyMatrix( new THREE.Matrix4().makeTranslation( distX, distY, distZ ) );
EDIT: You can simply do this, instead:
geometry.translate( distX, distY, distZ ); // three.js r.72
The function geometry.computeBoundingBox() may be of help to you in determining an amount to translate.
However, I see in your case, you have multiple geometries, so it it a bit more complicated, but doable. You will need to translate each geometry by the same amount.
EDIT
Tip: Instead of adding each object to the scene, create a parent object, add it to the scene, and then add the objects to the parent.
var parent;
parent = new THREE.Object3D();
scene.add( parent );
parent.add( object1 );
parent.add( object2 );
// and so on...
Then in your render function, just rotate the parent, not the individual objects.