Imagine a sheet of corrugated iron. This has a length and width. Across the width, its basically lots of fairly tight curves. A curve repeats every couple of inches for the fill width of the sheet. To represent this in threejs I have created a shape which is a lot of Bezier curves. Basically the following is repeated until I have the desired width:
shape.bezierCurveTo(start + adjustment, curveHeight, start + curveWidth - adjustment, curveHeight, start + curveWidth, 0);
shape.bezierCurveTo(start + curveWidth + adjustment, -curveHeight, start + 2 * curveWidth - adjustment, -curveHeight, start + 2 * curveWidth, 0);
I then use ExtrudeGeometry to create a geometry:
var extrudeSettings = {
steps: 1,
amount: this.length,
bevelEnabled: false,
bevelThickness: 0,
bevelSize: 0,
bevelSegments: 0
};
let wallGeometry = new THREE.ExtrudeGeometry(shape, extrudeSettings);
But its slow. It obviously generates a lot of points. It's a very smooth curve though. Is there a setting I can use to reduce the points it uses in the curve to make it less smooth? That would reduce the overall number of triangles and speed things up.
The only other alternative I can think of is to use a texture which looks like the light/shadow of the curves. The problem with this is that it will only look good at one angle. As I rotate my structure the light/shadow won't change. When I use the ExtrudeGeometry it has the correct shadows and it looks beautiful.
What is interesting is that once the structure is fully drawn I can rotate and zoom in/out and it all works well. So it's obviously the number of points it has to work with initially that is causing the problem.
Any suggestions on how to speed up?
Besides of using curveSegments of extrudeSettings, you can deform a thin box geometry:
var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(60, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 1, 1000);
camera.position.set(0, 2, 5);
var renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({
antialias: true
});
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);
var controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera, renderer.domElement);
var light = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, .5);
light.position.setScalar(10);
scene.add(light);
scene.add(new THREE.AmbientLight(0xffffff, .5));
var geom = new THREE.BoxGeometry(5, 5, .125, 50, 1, 1);
geom.vertices.forEach(function(v){
v.z += Math.sin(v.x * Math.PI * 2) * .125;
});
geom.computeFaceNormals();
geom.computeVertexNormals();
var corrugated = new THREE.Mesh(geom, new THREE.MeshLambertMaterial({color: "silver"}));
scene.add(corrugated);
render();
function render(){
requestAnimationFrame(render);
renderer.render(scene, camera);
}
body {
overflow: hidden;
margin: 0;
}
<script src="https://threejs.org/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://threejs.org/examples/js/controls/OrbitControls.js"></script>
Or use the solution from 2pha.
Related
I am using the following code to create this 3D transparent cube.
// Create the cube itself
const cubeGeom = new THREE.BoxGeometry( 1, 1, 1 );
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial( {color: 0x00ff00, opacity:0.4, transparent:true});
const cube = new THREE.Mesh( cubeGeom, material );
// Also add a wireframe to the cube to better see the depth
const _wireframe = new THREE.EdgesGeometry( cubeGeom ); // or WireframeGeometry( geometry )
const wireframe = new THREE.LineSegments( _wireframe);
// Rotate it a little for a better vantage point
cube.rotation.set(0.2, -0.2, -0.1)
wireframe.rotation.set(0.2, -0.2, -0.1)
// add to scene
scene.add( cube )
scene.add( wireframe );
As can been seen, the cube appears as a single volume that is transparent. Instead, I would want to create a hollow cube with 6 transparent faces. Think of a cube made out of 6 transparent and colored window-panes. See this example: my desired result would be example 1 for each of the 6 faces, but now it is like example 2.
Update
I tried to create individual 'window panes'. However the behavior is not as I would expect.
I create individual panes like so:
geometry = new THREE.PlaneGeometry( 1, 1 );
material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial( {color: 0x00ff00, side: THREE.DoubleSide, transparent:true, opacity:0.2});
planeX = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material);
planeY = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material);
planeZ = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material);
And then I add all three planes to wireframe.
Then I rotate them a little, so they intersect at different orientations.
const RAD_TO_DEG = Math.PI * 2 / 360;
planeX.rotation.y = RAD_TO_DEG * 90
planeY.rotation.x = RAD_TO_DEG * 90
Now I can see the effect of 'stacking' the panes on top of each other, however it is not as it should be.
I would instead expect something like this based on real physics (made with terrible paint-skills). That is, the color depends on the number of overlapping panes.
EDIT
When transparent panes overlap from the viewing direciton, transparancy appears to work perfectly. However, when the panes intersect it breaks.
Here I have copied the snipped provided by #Anye and added one.rotation.y = Math.PI * 0.5 and commented out two.position.set(0.5, 0.5, 0.5); so that the panes intersect.
var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera( 75, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000 );
var renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize( window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight );
document.body.appendChild( renderer.domElement );
var cube = new THREE.Group();
one = new Pane();
two = new Pane();
one.rotation.y = Math.PI * 0.5
one.position.z = 0.2;
// two.position.set(0.5, 0.5, 0.5);
cube.add(one);
cube.add(two);
cube.rotation.set(Math.PI / 4, Math.PI / 4, Math.PI / 4);
scene.add(cube);
function Pane() {
let geometry = new THREE.PlaneGeometry(1, 1);
let material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0x00ff00, transparent: true, opacity: 0.4});
let mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
return mesh;
}
camera.position.z = 2;
var animate = function () {
requestAnimationFrame( animate );
renderer.render(scene, camera);
};
animate();
body {
margin: 0;
overflow: hidden;
}
canvas {
width: 640px;
height: 360px;
}
<html>
<head>
<title>Demo</title>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/three.js/87/three.min.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
EDIT
The snipped looks pretty good; it clearly shows a different color where the panes overlap. However, it does not show this everywhere. See this image. The left is what the snippet generates, the right is what it should look like. Only the portion of overlap that is in front of the intersection shows the discoloration, while the section behind the intersection should, but does not show discoloration.
You might want to take a look at CSG, Constructive Solid Geometry. With CSG, you can create a hole in your original cube using a boolean. To start, you could take a look at this quick tutorial. Below are some examples of what you can do with CSG.
var cube = new CSG.cube();
var sphere = CSG.sphere({radius: 1.3, stacks: 16});
var geometry = cube.subtract(sphere);
=>
CSG, though, has some limitations, since it isn't made specifically for three.js. A cheap alternative would be to create six individual translucent panes, and format them to create a cube. Then you could group them:
var group = new THREE.Group();
group.add(pane1);
group.add(pane2);
group.add(pane3);
group.add(pane4);
group.add(pane5);
group.add(pane6);
Update
Something may be wrong with your code, which is why it isn't shading accordingly for you. See this minimal example, which shows how the panes shade appropriately based on overlaps.
Update 2
I updated the snippet so the 2 panes aren't touching at all... I am still able to see the shading. Maybe if you were to try to reproduce this example?
var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera( 75, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000 );
var renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize( window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight );
document.body.appendChild( renderer.domElement );
var cube = new THREE.Group();
one = new Pane();
two = new Pane();
one.rotation.y = Math.PI * 0.5;
one.position.z = 0.2;
cube.add(one);
cube.add(two);
cube.rotation.set(Math.PI / 4, Math.PI / 4, Math.PI / 4);
scene.add(cube);
function Pane() {
let geometry = new THREE.PlaneGeometry(1, 1);
let material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0x00ff00, transparent: true, opacity: 0.4});
material.depthWrite = false
let mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
return mesh;
}
camera.position.z = 2;
var animate = function () {
requestAnimationFrame( animate );
renderer.render(scene, camera);
};
animate();
body {
margin: 0;
overflow: hidden;
}
canvas {
width: 640px;
height: 360px;
}
<html>
<head>
<title>Demo</title>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/three.js/87/three.min.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
Update 3
Below is a screenshot of what I see in your snippet... Seems to be working fine...
You're experiencing one of my first head-scratchers:
ShaderMaterial transparency
As the answer to that question states, the three.js transparency system performs order-dependent transparency. Normally, it will take whichever object is closest to the camera (by mesh position), but because all of your planes are centered at the same point, there is no winner, so you get some strange transparency effects.
If you move the plane meshes out to form the actual sides of the box, then you should see the effect you're looking for. But that won't be the end of strange transparency effects, And you would need to implement your own Order-Independent Transparency (or find an extension library that does it for you) to achieve more physically-accurate transparency effects.
I'm currently working on a soft / blurred shadow effect that is casted on a plane directly under my object (just for giving it some more depth). The light source (DirectionalLight) shares the center coordinates of the object but with an offset in Y, so that it's straight above. It is pointing down to the center of the object.
I experimented a little bit with the shadow parameters of the light and found out that lowering the shadow map size gives me quite a nice soft shadow effect which would be sufficient for me. For example:
light.shadow.mapSize.width = 32;
light.shadow.mapSize.height = 32;
However, i noticed that there is an offset to the shadow which lets the observer assume that the light source is not coming directly from above:
I created this fiddle from which i created the image. As shadow type i use the PCFSoftShadowMap.
With this setup I would assume that the shadow effect is equally casted on all four sides of the cube, but it's obviously not. I also noticed that this 'offset' gets smaller when increasing the shadow map size and is barely noticable when using for example sizes like 512 or 1024.
This method would be an easy and performant solution for the desired effect, so I really appreciate any help on this
EDIT:
As stated out in the comments, tweaking the radius of the LightShadow isn't a satisfiying solution because the shadow gradient has hard edges instead of soft ones.
I think what is happening is that your shadowmap is low enough resolution, that you're seeing rounding error. If you switch back to THREE.BasicShadowMap, I think you will see that the physical lightmap pixels being hit happen to lie on the side of the object that you're seeing the larger edge, and as you move the object, the shadow will move in steps the size of the pixels on the map.
Generally in practice, you want to use a higher res lightmap, and keep its coverage area as tight around the focal point of your scene as possible to give you the most resolution from the lightmap. Then you can tweak the .radius of of the LightShadow to get the right softness.
One solution i came up with is using four light sources, all with a very slight positional offset, so that the 'shadow-offset' would come from four different directions (http://jsfiddle.net/683049eb/):
// a basic three.js scene
var container, renderer, scene, camera, controls, light, light2, light3, light4, cubeCenter, cube;
init();
animate();
function init() {
// renderer
renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({
antialias: true
});
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
renderer.setClearColor(0xccccff);
renderer.shadowMap.enabled = true;
renderer.shadowMap.type = THREE.PCFSoftShadowMap;
container = document.createElement('div');
document.body.appendChild(container);
container.appendChild(renderer.domElement);
// scene
scene = new THREE.Scene();
// camera
camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(45, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 1, 10000);
camera.position.set(0, 200, 800);
camera.lookAt(scene.position);
// (camera) controls
// mouse controls: left button to rotate,
// mouse wheel to zoom, right button to pan
controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera, renderer.domElement);
var size = 100;
// ambient light
var ambient = new THREE.AmbientLight(0xffffff, 0.333);
scene.add(ambient);
// mesh
var cubeGeometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(size, size, size);
var cubeMaterial = new THREE.MeshLambertMaterial({
color: 0xff0000
});
cube = new THREE.Mesh(cubeGeometry, cubeMaterial);
cube.position.y = size / 2.0;
cube.castShadow = true;
cube.receiveShadow = false;
scene.add(cube);
// Get bounding box center
var boundingBox = new THREE.Box3().setFromObject(cube);
cubeCenter = new THREE.Vector3();
boundingBox.getCenter(cubeCenter);
var position1 = new THREE.Vector3(0, size * 2, 0.0000001);
createDirectionalLight(scene, 0.15, position1, size, cubeCenter);
var position2 = new THREE.Vector3(0, size * 2, -0.0000001);
createDirectionalLight(scene, 0.15, position2, size, cubeCenter);
var position3 = new THREE.Vector3(0.0000001, size * 2, 0);
createDirectionalLight(scene, 0.15, position3, size, cubeCenter);
var position4 = new THREE.Vector3(-0.0000001, size * 2, 0);
createDirectionalLight(scene, 0.15, position4, size, cubeCenter);
// shadow plane
var planeGeometry = new THREE.PlaneGeometry(500, 500, 100, 100);
var planeMaterial = new THREE.MeshLambertMaterial({
// opacity: 0.6,
color: 0x65bf32,
side: THREE.FrontSide
});
var plane = new THREE.Mesh(planeGeometry, planeMaterial);
plane.receiveShadow = true;
plane.rotation.x = -Math.PI / 2;
scene.add(plane);
// events
window.addEventListener('resize', onWindowResize, false);
}
function onWindowResize(event) {
camera.aspect = window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight;
camera.updateProjectionMatrix();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
}
function animate() {
controls.update();
renderer.render(scene, camera);
requestAnimationFrame(animate);
}
function createDirectionalLight(scene, intensity, position, cameraSize, targetPosition) {
var light = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, intensity);
light.position.set(position.x, position.y, position.z);
light.target.position.set(targetPosition.x, targetPosition.y, targetPosition.z);
light.target.updateMatrixWorld(true);
light.castShadow = true;
scene.add(light);
light.shadow.mapSize.width = 32;
light.shadow.mapSize.height = 32;
light.shadow.camera.left = -cameraSize;
light.shadow.camera.right = cameraSize;
light.shadow.camera.bottom = -cameraSize;
light.shadow.camera.top = cameraSize;
light.shadow.camera.near = 1.0;
light.shadow.camera.far = cameraSize * 3;
light.shadow.bias = 0.0001;
scene.add(new THREE.CameraHelper(light.shadow.camera));
}
<script src="http://threejs.org/build/three.js"></script>
<script src="http://threejs.org/examples/js/controls/OrbitControls.js"></script>
According to the docs for THREE.DirectionalLight:
This light will behave as though it is infinitely far away and the rays produced from it are all parallel.
But, I'm finding that as a move an object with THREE.MeshStandardMaterial farther away from the light (but kept at the same relative angle), the intensity of the light decreases. This doesn't seem right to me.
var canvas = document.createElement("canvas");
document.body.appendChild(canvas);
var dpr = window.devicePixelRatio;
var renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({canvas: canvas, antialias: true});
renderer.setPixelRatio(dpr);
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
renderer.setClearColor(0);
var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(45, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
camera.position.z = 700;
var planeGeom = new THREE.PlaneGeometry(200, 200);
var plane = new THREE.Mesh(planeGeom, new THREE.MeshStandardMaterial({color: 0xff00ff, metalness: 1}));
plane.position.z = -10;
scene.add(plane);
var light = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
light.position.set(-50, 50, 100);
scene.add(light);
var helper = new THREE.DirectionalLightHelper(light, 10);
scene.add(helper);
function update(time) {
plane.position.x = 200 * Math.sin(time);
plane.position.y = 200 * Math.cos(time/2);
}
function render() {
requestAnimationFrame(render);
update(performance.now() / 1000);
renderer.render(scene, camera);
}
render();
body {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/three.js/86/three.min.js"></script>
I expect the plane to be lit the same no matter what position it's in. What am I doing wrong?
You are using MeshStandardMaterial and have set metalness to 1.
Metals reflect primarily specularly; the diffuse component of the reflection is minimal.
So what you are seeing is the "hot spot" of the reflection. Set the metalness to zero, for example, and you will see primarily a diffuse reflection.
Also, when using MeshStandardMaterial, you should include an environment map (material.envMap) so there is something to reflect. Materials -- especially metals -- will look much better that way.
three.js r.87
I have a project, where I have to show a globe on home page, where visitor can select location(major known cities) & then make a search. I google & find some best examples like :
http://paperplanes.world &
http://news-lab-trends-experiment.appspot.com/
If there is any raw code available so that I can make changes as per requirements. I look around some js https://threejs.org/ & http://www.webglearth.org, how these can be helpful.
If you just want some abstract representation of the earth, it doesn't make much sense to go for webglearth and the likes, as you a) will not need that complexity they implement and b) can't easily adjust the appearance of the globe towards something as simple as the examples.
The good news is that all that isn't really as complicated as it might sound at first. For a simplified 3d-model, there are some of them out there. Just have a look at these search-results. I believe this is the one that was used for the paperplanes project.
Positioning stuff on a spherical shape isn't that hard either, you just need to make yourself familiar with spherical coordinates (the math-version of latitude/longitude) and the THREE.Spherical class. A simple example for this below (for simplicity using a unit-sphere as earth, but it would be mostly the same if you would load a complex-model instead, as long as it's roughly spherical):
const textureLoader = new THREE.TextureLoader();
function setup(scene) {
// add some helpers
scene.add(new THREE.GridHelper(50, 100, 0x444444, 0x222222));
scene.add(new THREE.AxisHelper(2));
// add a textured sphere representing the earth
const texture = textureLoader.load(
'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/' +
'jiwonkim/d3gl/master/img/earth-blank.png'
);
const earth = new THREE.Mesh(
new THREE.SphereGeometry(1, 36, 18),
new THREE.MeshStandardMaterial({
map: texture,
metalness: 0,
roughness: 1
})
);
scene.add(earth);
const marker = new THREE.Mesh(
new THREE.BoxGeometry(0.05, 0.2, 0.05),
new THREE.MeshStandardMaterial({color: 0xff5500})
);
const lat = 52.5;
const lng = 10;
// compute position (adjust theta/phi conversion to the
// orientation of your model)
const spherical = new THREE.Spherical(
1, // radius
(90 - lat) / 180 * Math.PI, // latitude -> phi
(90 + lng) / 180 * Math.PI // longitude -> theta
);
marker.position.setFromSpherical(spherical);
earth.add(marker);
// compute orientation
const v3 = new THREE.Vector3();
v3.copy(marker.position).normalize();
marker.quaternion.setFromUnitVectors(marker.up, v3);
}
// ---- boilerplate-code
// .... setup renderer
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ alpha: true, antialias: true });
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
// .... setup scene
const scene = (window.scene = new THREE.Scene());
// .... setup camera and controls
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(
70,
window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight,
.01,
100
);
const controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera);
camera.position.set(-3, 3, 4);
camera.lookAt(new THREE.Vector3(0, 0, 0));
// .... setup some lighting
const dirLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 0.6);
dirLight.position.set(1, 0, 0.5);
scene.add(dirLight, new THREE.AmbientLight(0x666666));
// .... setup and run demo-code
setup(scene);
requestAnimationFrame(function loop(time) {
controls.update();
renderer.render(scene, camera);
requestAnimationFrame(loop);
});
// .... bind events
window.addEventListener("resize", ev => {
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
camera.aspect = window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight;
camera.updateProjectionMatrix();
});
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);
body {margin: 0; background: black;}
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/mrdoob/three.js/master/build/three.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/mrdoob/three.js/master/examples/js/controls/OrbitControls.js"></script>
A rotated object (cylinder in this case) cuts off objects (a triangle made by lines in this case) even though the renderOrder of the second object is higher. See this jsfiddle demo for the effect.
The triangle should be rendered completely on top of the cylinder but is cut off where the outside of the cylinder intersects with it. It's easier to understand what's happening when a texture is used, but jsfiddle is bad at using external images.
var mesh, renderer, scene, camera, controls;
init();
animate();
function init() {
renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({
antialias: true,
preserveDrawingBuffer: true
});
renderer.setClearColor(0x24132E, 1);
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);
scene = new THREE.Scene();
camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(40, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 10000);
camera.position.set(0, 0, 7);
camera.lookAt(scene.position)
scene.add(camera);
var geometry = new THREE.CylinderGeometry(1, 1, 100, 32, 1, true);
var material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({
color: 0x0000ff
});
material.side = THREE.DoubleSide;
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
mesh.rotation.x = Math.PI / 2;
scene.add(mesh);
var c = 3, // Side length of the triangle
a = c / 2,
b = Math.sqrt(c * c - a * a),
yOffset = -b / 3; // The vertical offset (if 0, triangle is on x axis)
// Draw the red triangle
var geo = new THREE.Geometry();
geo.vertices.push(
new THREE.Vector3(0, b + yOffset, 0),
new THREE.Vector3(-a, 0 + yOffset, 0),
new THREE.Vector3(a, 0 + yOffset, 0),
new THREE.Vector3(0, b + yOffset, 0)
);
var lineMaterial = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({
color: 0xff0000,
linewidth: 5,
linejoin: "miter"
});
plane = new THREE.Line(geo, lineMaterial);
// Place it on top of the cylinder
plane.renderOrder = 2; // This should override any clipping, right?
scene.add(plane);
}
function animate() {
requestAnimationFrame(animate);
render();
}
function render() {
renderer.render(scene, camera);
}
Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
for the effect that you want use a second scene and render it onto the first one
function init(){
.....
renderer.autoClear = false;
scene.add(tube);
overlayScene.add(triangle);
.....
}
function render() {
renderer.clear();
renderer.render(scene, camera);
renderer.clearDepth();
renderer.render(overlayScene, camera);
}
renderOrder does not mean what you think it means, look at the implementation in WebGLRenderer
objects are sorted by the order, if it meant what you anticipated from it, there would always be some fixed rendering order and colliding objects would be seen through each other, renderOrder is AFAIK used when you have issues with order of transparent/ not opaque objects
I worte a little plugin for three.js for flares for my game. Three.js built-in flares plugin is slow and I preferred not to run another rendering pass which was cutting framerate in half. Here's how I got flares visible on top of objects which were actually in front of them.
Material parameters:
{
side: THREE.FrontSide,
blending: THREE.AdditiveBlending,
transparent: true,
map: flareMap,
depthWrite: false,
polygonOffset: true,
polygonOffsetFactor: -200
}
depthWrite - set to false
polygonOffset - set to true
polygonOffsetFactor - give negative number to get object in front of others. Give it some really high value to be really on top of everything i.e. -10000
Ignore other params, they are needed for my flares