I am creating a viewer using three.js and found that setting camera near and far plane to fixed values is causing flickering for some 3d models.
I see that this is due to the fact that GPU is running out of precision for model having bounding box length around 4000-5000.
Near plane is currently set to 0.1 and far to 20000.
You can move up your near plane to get more resolution. Maybe 1.0...
Another option to be aware of is logarithmic depth buffer:
https://threejs.org/examples/webgl_camera_logarithmicdepthbuffer.html
You can get the bounding box of the mesh via its geometry... geometry.boundingBox and geometry.boundingSphere .. sometimes you need to recalculate them using mesh.geometry.computeBoundingBox and computeBoundingSphere...
To get the bounding box in camera space is a bit tricky.. I don't know of a super optimal one-liner to do it, but someone else may weigh in...
a brute force way would be to transform the mesh vertices to screen space..
Maybe something like:
var gclone = mesh.geometry.clone();
for(var i=0;i<geometry.vertices.length;i++)
gclone.vertices[i].applyMatrix4(mesh.matrixWorld).project(camera)
gclone.computeBoundingBox()
var zExtent = gclone.boundingBox.max.z-gclone.boundingBox.min.z
Related
Is there any way to get the face of the bounding box as we get in geometry. As I tried the bounding box only generates the min max value.
What I can't figure out is how to get a face for the bounding box-- is this possible?
An AABB has no concept of faces. So no, Box3 does not provide properties/methods for face access. However, you can try to apply the translation of the AABB to a mesh with the same size and then work with the respective box geometry.
Keep in mind that a bounding box in three.js (an instance of Box3) is always axis-aligned. So you can't apply any rotation to it.
three.js R109
I have a grid of points (object3D's using THREE.Points) in my Three.js scene, with a model sat on top of the grid, as seen below. In code the model is called default mesh and uses a merged geometry for performance reasons:
I'm trying to work out which of the points in the grid my perspective camera can see at any given point i.e. every time the camera position is update using my orbital controls.
My first idea was to use raycasting to create a ray between the camera and each point in the grid. Then I can find which rays are being intersected with the model and remove the points corresponding to those rays from a list of all the points, thus leaving me with a list of points the camera can see.
So far so good, the ray creation and intersection code is placed in the render loop (as it has to be updated whenever the camera is moved), and therefore it's horrendously slow (obviously).
gridPointsVisible = gridPoints.geometry.vertices.slice(0);
startPoint = camera.position.clone();
//create the rays from each point in the grid to the camera position
for ( var point in gridPoints.geometry.vertices) {
direction = gridPoints.geometry.vertices[point].clone();
vector.subVectors(direction, startPoint);
ray = new THREE.Raycaster(startPoint, vector.clone().normalize());
if(ray.intersectObject( defaultMesh ).length > 0){
gridPointsVisible.pop(gridPoints.geometry.vertices[point]);
}
}
In the example model shown there are around 2300 rays being created, and the mesh has 1500 faces, so the rendering takes forever.
So I 2 questions:
Is there a better of way of finding which objects the camera can see?
If not, can I speed up my raycasting/intersection checks?
Thanks in advance!
Take a look at this example of GPU picking.
You can do something similar, especially easy since you have a finite and ordered set of spheres. The idea is that you'd use a shader to calculate (probably based on position) a flat color for each sphere, and render to an off-screen render target. You'd then parse the render target data for colors, and be able to map back to your spheres. Any colors that are visible are also visible spheres. Any leftover spheres are hidden. This method should produce results faster than raycasting.
WebGLRenderTarget lets you draw to a buffer without drawing to the canvas. You can then access the render target's image buffer pixel-by-pixel (really color-by-color in RGBA).
For the mapping, you'll parse that buffer and create a list of all the unique colors you see (all non-sphere objects should be some other flat color). Then you can loop through your points--and you should know what color each sphere should be by the same color calculation as the shader used. If a point's color is in your list of found colors, then that point is visible.
To optimize this idea, you can reduce the resolution of your render target. You may lose points only visible by slivers, but you can tweak your resolution to fit your needs. Also, if you have fewer than 256 points, you can use only red values, which reduces the number of checked values to 1 in every 4 (only check R of the RGBA pixel). If you go beyond 256, include checking green values, and so on.
I'm interested in drawing a stardome in THREE.js using either mesh points or a particle system.
I don't want the camera to be able to move any closer to any part of the stardome, since the stars are effectively at infinite distance.
I can think of a couple of ways to do this:
A very large mesh (or very large point/particle distances)
Camera and stardome have their movement exactly linked.
Is there any way to specify a mesh, point, or particle system is automaticaly rendered at infinite distance so it is always drawn behind any foreground objects?
I haven't used three.js, but my guess is no. OpenGL camera's need a "near clipping plane" and "far clipping plane", which effectively denote the minimum and maximum distance that it'll render things in. If you've played video games where you move too close to a wall and start to see through it, or see things in the distance suddenly vanish as you move away, those were probably the clipping planes at work.
The workaround is usually one of 2 ways:
1) Set the far clipping plane distance as high as it'll let you go. I don't know what data type three.js would use for this, but my guess is a 32-bit float.
2) Render it in "layers". Render all the stars first before anything else in the scene.
Option 2 is the one I usually use.
Even if you used option 1, you would still synchronize the position of the camera and skybox.
If you do not depth cull, draw the skybox first and match its position, but not rotation, to the camera.
Also disable lighting on the skybox. Instead, bake an ambience directly into its texture.
You're don't want things infinitely away, you just want them not to move with respect to the viewer and to not appear in front of things. The best way to do that is to prevent the viewer from getting closer to them which produces the illusion of the object being far away. The second thing is to modify your depth culling function so that the skybox is always considered further away than whatever you are currently drawing.
If you create a very large mesh object, you'll have to set your camera's far plane large enough to include the mesh which means you'll end up drawing things that you really do want to cull.
I am rendering a complex scene in WebGL (180 meshes) corresponding to a car model (Nissan GTX) . However when I move the camera around , it seems as if triangles were missing ,
These 'missing triangles' seem to jump randomly over the surface. Can this be a depth buffer problem or a normal calculation problem? I have no idea.
Nevertheless, if I zoom-in near the surface of the model, all triangles are there .
Does anyone have had this problem? any tips?!
I guess, you have a wireframe mesh directly on top of (or very near) a solid mesh and this is just a depth buffer problem. It works when zooming in, because the depth buffer precision is higher in the near area of the viewing frustum.
Try adjusting the screen space depth by working with the polygon offset (or a similar fragment shader modifying gl_FragDepth) when rendering a wireframe overlay directly on top of the solid mesh. Or just move them farther away in object space.
You might be right when you suspect a depth-buffer problem - the fact that the distance to the camera affects things suggests it could be a buffer precision problem. Check out the answer to this question for a possible solution.
Context: trying to take THREE.js and use it to display conic sections.
Method: creating a mesh of vertices and then connect face4's to all of them. Used two faces to produce a front and back side so that when the conic section rotates it won't matter from which angle the camera views it.
Problems encountered: 1. Trying to find a good way to create a intuitive mouse rotation scheme. If you think in spherical coordinates, then it feels like just making up/down change phi and left/right change phi would work. But that requires that you can move the camera. As far as I can tell, there is no way to change actively change the rotation of anything besides the objects. Does anyone know how to change the rotation of the camera or scene? 2. Is there a way to graph functions that is better than creating a mesh? If the mesh has many points then it is too slow, and if the mesh has few points then you cannot easily make out the shape of the conic sections.
Any sort of help would be most excellent.
I'm still starting to learn Three.js, so I'm not sure about the second part of your question.
For the first part, to change the camera, there is a very good way, which could also include zooming and moving the scene: the trackball camera.
For the exact code and how to use it, you can view:
https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/examples/webgl_trackballcamera_earth.html
At the botton of this page (http://mrdoob.com/122/Threejs) you can see the example in action (the globe in the third row from the bottom).
There is an orbit control script for the three.js camera.
I'm not sure if I understand the rotation bit. You do want to rotate an object, but you are correct, the rotation is relative.
When you rotate or move your camera, a matrix is calculated for that position/rotation, and it does indeed rotate the scene while keeping the camera static.
This is irrelevant though, because you work in model/world space, and you position your camera in it, the engine takes care of the rotations under the hood.
What you probably want is to set up an object, hook up your rotation with spherical coordinates, and link your camera as a child to this object. The translation along the cameras Z axis relative to the object should mimic your dolly (zoom is FOV change).
You can rotate the camera by changing its position. See the code I pasted here: https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/79219/three-js-camera-turning-leftside-right
As others are saying OrbitControls.js is an intuitive way for users to manage the camera.
I tackled many of the same issues when building formulatoy.net. I used Morphing Geometries since I found mapping 3d math functions to a UV surface to require v little code and it allowed an easy way to implement different coordinate systems (Cartesian, spherical, cylindrical).
You could use particles instead of a mesh I suppose but a mesh seems best. The lattice material is not too useful if you're trying to understand a surface mathematically. At this point I'm thinking of drawing my own X,Y lines on the surface (or phi, theta lines etc) to better demonstrate cross-sections.
Hope that helps.
You can use trackball controls by which you can zoom in and out of an object,rotate the object,pan it.In trackball controls you are moving the camera around the object.Object still rotates with respect to the screen or renderer centre (0,0,0).