So I know the documentation says that a bumpMap will be ignored if a normalMap is applied to a Standard/Physical material
BUT (and excuse my ignorance)
Can we not just turn off this restriction in the shader?
So we CAN have both.
I would eventually like to extend the bumpMap to have it's own repeat values so we I can have some nice tiled roughness bumps when we view the model up close
WHILE having a non repeat normalMap do it's magic
Related
What is the current solution in r136 to blend lights, shadows and color in a ShaderMaterial ? I already found the solution for the fog support.
I found some examples in previous revision (r108) like this codesandbox.
Actually, I'm looking for this kind of result : codesandbox.
Should I copy MeshPhongMaterial shaders as code base for my own shaders ?
The usage of custom shaders is mandatory in my projects, that's why i'm not using built-in materials.
Any idea or example ?
Thanks !
This question is huge, and does not have a single answer. Creating lights, shadows, and color varies from material to material, and includes so many elements that it would require a full course to learn.
However, you can look at the segments of shader code used by Three.js in this folder called /ShaderChunk. If you look up "light", you'll see shader segments (or "chunks"), for each material, like toon, lambert, physical, etc. Some materials need parameters to be defined at the beginning of the shader code, (those are the _pars files), some are calculated in the vertex shader, some in fragment, some need to split the code between _begin and _end, etc:
Shadows are even more complex because they require a separate render pass to build the shadowmap. Like I said, re-building your own lights, shadows, and color is a huge undertaking, and it would need a full course to learn. I hope this answer at least points you in the right direction.
Is it possible to have a custom geometry emit light in Three.js?
There is a similar question from 5 years ago here.
In my particular case, I have created a TorusGeometry. I would like this torus to also give off light. Is that possible?
The only true way to do this is raytracing, in which case your torus becomes an "emitter" of photons and its geometry is used to calculate the initial directions of said photons.
Otherwise, light technically doesn't exist. Only (mathematical) descriptions of lights exist. (Remember, lights aren't visible/aren't rendered unless you're using a LightHelper.) These descriptions are used by material shaders, which use the light descriptions (and other objects in the scene, in the case of shadows) to determine the color the current fragment should contribute to a pixel.
With this in mind, if you could write a shader to handle a torus-shaped light, then all you need to do is provide that light's information to the shader. You can do this by extending a THREE.js light class to make your own TorusLight to add to the scene, then give the objects in your scene your custom shader.
THAT SAID, if you'd be satisfied with simulating the torus light, and want a visible torus, you can always add a PointLight at the position of your torus (or several throughout the body of the torus), and give your torus some kind of glow effect.
In three.js r71 the ambient property has been removed from THREE.Material.
Previously I used ambient to set correct rendering (lighting) effect of the materials that I used on my meshes. Now the appearance of all my meshes changed dramatically.
How can I get my materials rendered exactly as before r71?
Here comes the why...
According to #WestLangley; I quote from his post in the discussion (link from #pprchsvr):
material.ambient was the ambient reflectance of the material. For real-world objects, it should normally match material.color, the diffuse reflectance of the material. (Objects, after all, do not know where the photons came from.)
We chose to simplify the API, and hardwire material.ambient to match material.color. Consequently, material.ambient has been removed.
This means you will no longer be able to set an ambient color that differs from the material color and there is as far as I know no "quick fix" to get the same rendering results for those materials as before.
A possible solution would be to try make the material appear as before by tuning/changing the material color and the ambient lighting in your scene.
See also the three.js documentation for THREE.AmbientLight and THREE.MeshBasicMaterial (and the other materials) for reference.
Alternatively you could create your own shader material using THREE.ShaderMaterial where you (re)create a shader that allows you to explicitly set an ambient color.
This issue is discussed here:
https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/issues/6501
Or you could override the r71 shader(s) with the earlier shader(s) (or just use the older version of three).
I'm trying to highlight meshes (animated characters etc) in my game on a mouse-over event.
They have multiple textures and sometimes skin.
I thought I would wrap them into a ShaderMaterial and on hit-test change uniforms to brighten it up with a fragment shader.
To do this, can I somehow just manipulate the regular shading?
Can I mix multiple materials, making my shader take color values from the standard shader and just tweak them?
Or do I need whole separate render pass and blend it with composer?
Or maybe just something else entirely, like ambient light applied to just one object/shader?
Thanks for any suggestions.
repost, see comments for details/discussion:
"you could change the whole material/shader on mouse over, although i guess this is somewhat performance intensive, depending on the number of switches the user usually does and what the rest of your app is doing. What i used once is the emissive color of the regular phong material with material.emissive.setRGB() for example. This will give you some nice effects, too".
There are some examples of this that you can probably learn a lot from. Take a look at their source:
Mouse over meshes
Interactive cubes
In addition to what GuyGood said, if you do indeed decide to use .setRGB() on your material you need to use the values of Red Green Blue ranging from 0 to 1 as documented in the Three.js Documentation
Or if you prefer, like I do, the .setHex() function also exists.
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 oriënted 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.