Nearby culling in Three.js despite camera not being near face - three.js

I've run into an issue after switching to a logarithmic depth buffer in Three.js. Everything runs nicely except for nearby culling of the ground as described in the following photos:
As you can see, the camera is elevated above the ground significantly. The character box that is shown is about 2 units above the ground, and my camera is set up as such:
var WIDTH = window.innerWidth
, HEIGHT = window.innerHeight;
var VIEW_ANGLE = 70
, ASPECT = WIDTH / HEIGHT
, NEAR = 1e-6
, FAR = 9000;
var aspect = WIDTH / HEIGHT;
var camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(VIEW_ANGLE, ASPECT, NEAR, FAR);
camera.rotation.order = 'YXZ';
So my NEAR parameter is nowhere near 2, the distance between the camera and the ground. You can see in the second image that I even move up the camera with my PointerLockControls and still run into the issue.
Can anyone diagnose my issue?
I also tested my issue by seeing if this bug occurred with a static camera as well. It does.
Additionally, this problem only happens with the logarithmic depth buffer, as it doesn't happen with the default depth buffer.
I have my camera as a child to a controls object, which is defined as follows:
controls = new THREE.PointerLockControls(camera);
controls.getObject().position.set(strtx, 50, strtz);
scene.add(controls.getObject());
camera.position.z += 2;
camera.position.y += .1;
Here's the relevant code for PointerLockControls:
var pitchObject, yawObject;
var v = new THREE.Vector3(0, 0, -1);
THREE.PointerLockControls = function(camera){
var scope = this;
camera.rotation.set(0, 0, 0);
pitchObject = new THREE.Object3D();
pitchObject.rotation.x -= 0.3;
pitchObject.add(camera);
yawObject = new THREE.Object3D();
yawObject.position.y = 10;
yawObject.add(pitchObject);
var PI_2 = Math.PI / 2;
var onMouseMove = function(event){
if (scope.enabled === false) return;
var movementX = event.movementX || event.mozMovementX || event.webkitMovementX || 0;
var movementY = event.movementY || event.mozMovementY || event.webkitMovementY || 0;
yawObject.rotation.y -= movementX * 0.002;
pitchObject.rotation.x -= movementY * 0.002;
pitchObject.rotation.x = Math.max( - PI_2, Math.min( PI_2, pitchObject.rotation.x ) );
};
this.dispose = function() {
document.removeEventListener( 'mousemove', onMouseMove, false );
};
document.addEventListener( 'mousemove', onMouseMove, false );
this.enabled = false;
this.getObject = function () {
return yawObject;
};
this.getDirection = function() {
// assumes the camera itself is not rotated
var rotation = new THREE.Euler(0, 0, 0, "YXZ");
var direction = new THREE.Vector3(0, 0, -1);
return function() {
rotation.set(pitchObject.rotation.x, yawObject.rotation.y, 0);
v.copy(direction).applyEuler(rotation);
return v;
};
}();
};
You'll also notice that it's only the ground that is being culled, not other objects
Edit:
I've whipped up an isolated environment that shows the larger issue. In the first image, I have a flat PlaneBufferGeometry that has 400 segments for both width and height, defined by var g = new THREE.PlaneBufferGeometry(380, 380, 400, 400);. Even getting very close to the surface, no clipping is present:
However, if I provide only 1 segment, var g = new THREE.PlaneBufferGeometry(380, 380, 1, 1);, the clipping is present
I'm not sure if this intended in Three.js/WebGL, but it seems that I'll need to do something to work around it.

I don't think this is a bug, I think this is a feature of how the depthbuffer in the different settings works. Look at this example. On the right, the depthbuffer can't make up its mind between the letters in "microscopic" and the sphere. This is because it has lower precision at very small scales and starts doing rounding that oscilates between one object and another, and favoring draw order over z-depth.
It's always a tradeoff. If you want to forgo this issue, you can try raising the scale of your scene overall, so that the 'near' of the camera will never be so close to something that it can round it off - so just work in a number range that won't be rounded in the exponential model of the logarithmic z-buffer.
Also another question - how is the blue defined, because maybe what you're seeing is not clipping from being too close, but confusion between whether blue or the ground is closer. If it's just a blue box encompassing everything, you could try making it bigger and more distant from the ground.
EDIT:
Okay, this looks like it should work. so I would start looking for edge cases. What can you do to change the scene so that it does work? What can you do to make other things start breaking?
try moving the landscape far down/ far up (does the issue persist when looking up instead of down at it, does it persist even when it's unquestionably far away?)
try rotating the landscape
try changing the camera FOV
try changing the camera far plane
try changing the camera near plane from 1e-x notation to .000001, .0001,.01,.1, etc. see what effect it has.
console.log the camera object in your render function, and make sure that the fov, near, far etc, is as you set on setup and that it's not being overwritten and reset to default. check what it prints out in chrome's developer tools, you can browse the whole object, check position, parent name, all that stuff.
basically i don't see a blatant mistake, so I would guess it's something hard to spot, or it's working exactly as it should. Figure out what you can do to improve the effect/ make it worse, and that will clarify a direction to go.
A good rule of thumb for debugging is to try and just take things to an extreme, without trying to fix it, or keep the code true to its purpose, and just see in what way it breaks further/changes. report back when you find something.

Related

threejs - Defect in rotation - THREE.OrbitControls

I use OrbitControls now but still i have strange bug. It is hard to explain. When i drag mouse down in the begin work normally and then in one moment whole scene begin to rotate in wrong direction and flip my whole scene.
I got warnings :
OrbitControls.js:1103 [Violation] Added non-passive event listener to
a scroll-blocking 'wheel' event. Consider marking event handler as
'passive' to make the page more responsive. See
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5745543795965952
Here is my code:
controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera, renderer.domElement);
//controls.addEventListener( 'change', render ); // call this only in static scenes (i.e., if there is no animation loop)
controls.enableDamping = true; // an animation loop is required when either damping or auto-rotation are enabled
controls.dampingFactor = 0.05;
controls.screenSpacePanning = true;
controls.minDistance = 14;
controls.maxDistance = 120;
controls.maxPolarAngle = Math.PI / 3;
controls.target.set(5, 4, -20);
I need to limit rotation , disable 360 rotating scene.
For example i wanna allow max angle of 45.
Try this, i had a familiar issue and applied it to my code and worked
camera.up = new THREE.Vector3( 0, 0, 1 );
Did you take a look at the documentation? It outlines four different properties to limit angles of rotation. These are the defaults:
// How far you can orbit vertically, upper and lower limits.
// Range is 0 to Math.PI radians.
controls.minPolarAngle = 0; // radians
controls.maxPolarAngle = Math.PI; // radians
// How far you can orbit horizontally, upper and lower limits.
// If set, must be a sub-interval of the interval [ - Math.PI, Math.PI ].
controls.minAzimuthAngle = - Infinity; // radians
controls.maxAzimuthAngle = Infinity; // radians
Edit:
The above solution is for OrbitControls, which is not what the original question asked. TrackballControls does not offer the ability to limit angles of rotation.

what's wrong with it - or how to find correct THREE.PerspectiveCamera settings

I have a simple THREE.Scene where the main content is a THREE.Line mesh that visualizes the keyframe based path that the camera will follow for some scripted animation. There is then one THREE.SphereGeometry based mesh that is always repositioned to the current camera location.
The currently WRONG result looks like this (the fractal background is rendered independently but using the same keyframe input - and ultimately the idea is that the "camera path" visualization ends up in the same scale/projection as the respective fractal background...):
The base is an array of keyframes, each of which represents the modelViewMatrix for a specific camera position/orientation and is directly used to drive the vertexshader for the background, e.g.:
varying vec3 eye, dir;
void main() {
gl_Position = vec4(position, 1.0);
eye = vec3(modelViewMatrix[3]);
dir = vec3(modelViewMatrix * vec4(position.x , position.y , 1, 0));
}
(it is my understanding that "eye" is basically the camera position while "dir" reflects the orientation of the camera and by the way it is used during the ray marching implicitly leads to a perspective projection)
The respective mesh objects are created like this:
visualizeCameraPath: function(scene) {
// debug: visualize the camera path
var n= this.getNumberOfKeyFrames();
var material = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({
color: 0xffffff
});
var geometry = new THREE.Geometry();
for (var i= 0; i<n; i++) {
var m= this.getKeyFrameMatrix(true, i);
var pos= new THREE.Vector3();
var q= new THREE.Quaternion();
var scale= new THREE.Vector3();
m.decompose(pos,q,scale);
geometry.vertices.push( new THREE.Vector3( pos.x, pos.y, pos.z ));
}
this.camPath = new THREE.Line( geometry, material );
this.camPath.frustumCulled = false; // Avoid getting clipped - does not seem to help one little bit
scene.add( this.camPath );
var radius= 0.04;
var g = new THREE.SphereGeometry(radius, 10, 10, 0, Math.PI * 2, 0, Math.PI * 2);
this.marker = new THREE.Mesh(g, new THREE.MeshNormalMaterial());
scene.add(this.marker);
}
in order to play the animation I update the camera and the marker position like this (I guess it is already wrong how I use the input matrix "m" directly on the "shadowCamera" - eventhough I think that it contains the correct position):
syncShadowCamera(m) {
var pos= new THREE.Vector3();
var q= new THREE.Quaternion();
var scale= new THREE.Vector3();
m.decompose(pos,q,scale);
this.applyMatrix(m, this.shadowCamera); // also sets camera position to "pos"
// highlight current camera-position on the camera-path-line
if (this.marker != null) this.marker.position.set(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z);
},
applyMatrix: function(m, targetObj3d) {
var pos= new THREE.Vector3();
var q= new THREE.Quaternion();
var scale= new THREE.Vector3();
m.decompose(pos,q,scale);
targetObj3d.position.set(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z);
targetObj3d.quaternion.set(q.x, q.y, q.z, q.w);
targetObj3d.scale= scale;
targetObj3d.updateMatrix(); // this.matrix.compose( this.position, this.quaternion, this.scale );
targetObj3d.updateMatrixWorld(true);
},
I've tried multiple things with regard to the camera and the screenshot reflects the output with disabled "this.projectionMatrix" (see below code).
createShadowCamera: function() {
var speed = 0.00039507;
var z_near = Math.abs(speed);
var z_far = speed * 65535.0;
var fH = Math.tan( this.FOV_Y * Math.PI / 360.0 ) * z_near;
var fW = Math.tan( this.FOV_X * Math.PI / 360.0 ) * z_near;
// orig opengl used: glFrustum(-fW, fW, -fH, fH, z_near, z_far);
var camera= new THREE.PerspectiveCamera();
camera.updateProjectionMatrix = function() {
// this.projectionMatrix.makePerspective( -fW, fW, fH, -fH, z_near, z_far );
this.projectionMatrix= new THREE.Matrix4(); // hack: fallback to no projection
};
camera.updateProjectionMatrix();
return camera;
},
My initial attempt had been to use the same kind of settings that the opengl shader for the fractal background had been using (see glFrustum above). Unfortunately it seems that I have yet managed to correctly map the input "modelViewMatrix" (and the projection implicitly performed by the raymarching in the shader) to equivalent THREE.PerspectiveCamera settings (orientation/projectionMatrix).
Is there any matrix calculation expert here, that knows how to obtain the correct transformations?
Finally I have found one hack that works.
Actually the problem was made up of two parts:
1) Row- vs column-major order of modelViewMatrix: The order expected by the vertex shader is the oposite of what the remaining THREE.js expects..
2) Object3D-hierarchy: i.e. Scene, Mesh, Geometry, Line vertices + Camera: where to put the modelViewMatrix data so that it creates the desired result (i.e. the same result that the old bloody opengl application produced): I am not happy with the hack that I found here - but so far it is the only one that seems to work:
I DO NOT touch the Camera.. it stays at 0/0/0
I directly move all the vertices of my "line"-Geometry relative to the real camera position (see "position" from the modelViewMatrix)
I then disable "matrixAutoUpdate" on the Mesh that contains my "line" Geometry and copy the modelViewMatrix (in which I first zeroed out the "position") into the "matrix" field.
BINGO.. then it works. (All of my attempts to achieve the same result by rotating/displacing the Camera or by displacing/rotating any of the Object3Ds involved have failed miserably..)
EDIT: I found a better way than updating the vertices and at least keeping all the manipulations on the Mesh level (I am still moving the world around - like the old OpenGL app would have done..). To get the right sequence of translation/rotation one can also use ("m" is still the original OpenGL modelViewMatrix - with 0/0/0 position info):
var t= new THREE.Matrix4().makeTranslation(-cameraPos.x, -cameraPos.y, -cameraPos.z);
t.premultiply ( m );
obj3d.matrixAutoUpdate=false;
obj3d.matrix.copy(t);
If somebody knows a better way that also works (one where the Camera is updated without having to directly manipulate object matrices) I'd certainly be interested to hear it.

three.js pointerlock multiplayer enemies rotation not working properly

I am creating a little multiplayer game basing on this three.js pointerlock example
I need to rotate the enemies avatars on the actual player screen, so he can see the direction they are looking at, but I cannot figure out how to properly do it
At the moment each enemy is sending an object with his position and rotation to the server
{
position: controls.getObject().position,
rotation: controls.getDirection(new THREE.Vector3())
}
the server receives it and sends to the actual player who with a function selects the respective enemy mesh (avatar) in the map and applies the position/rotation to it
var object = scene.getObjectByName(data.player);
object.position.x = data.position.x;
object.position.y = data.position.y;
object.position.z = data.position.z;
object.rotation.x = data.rotation.y;
object.rotation.y = data.rotation.x;
object.rotation.z = data.rotation.z;
But only the position works, the rotation is not working properly: the resulting rotation axes seem to be inverted and they also vary depending on the direction the actual player is looking at
Edit:
I tried also to "clone" it into another camera with different rotation.order as described here
var camera2 = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 1, 1000);
camera2.rotation.order = 'YXZ';
var yawObject = controls.getObject();
var pitchObject = yawObject.children[0];
camera2.rotation.set(pitchObject.rotation.x, yawObject.rotation.y, 0);
and making enemies send
{
position: controls.getObject().position,
rotation: camera2.rotation
}
but rotation is still wrong
I realised that I can rotate objects into pointerlock direction in this way:
var dir = controls.getDirection(new THREE.Vector3());
var dis = 100;
mesh.lookAt({x:d.x * dis, y:d.y * dis, z:d.z * dis});
so I can make enemies send their direction instead of rotation, then make them look at a small distance in that direction.

Three.js - Sprite / Text Label Performance

There is a three.js scene with some 3D objects and 200 - 300 small text labels (< 10% are visible to the camera at one perspective). Adding the text sprites decreased the FPS from 60 to 30 - 40 and its also very memory consuming.
Is there a way to make the sprites faster?
I read about caching material, but labels are all unique - so this isn't possible.
Test: https://jsfiddle.net/h9sub275/4/
(You can change SPRITE_COUNT to see an FPS drop on your machine)
Edit 1: Setting the canvas size to the text bounds will decrease memory consumption, but not improve the FPS.
var Test = {
SPRITE_COUNT : 700,
init : function() {
this.renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({antialias : true}); // false, a bit faster without antialias
this.renderer.setPixelRatio(window.devicePixelRatio);
this.renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
this.container = document.getElementById('display');
this.container.appendChild(this.renderer.domElement);
this.camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(45, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 1, 1000);
this.scene = new THREE.Scene();
this.group = new THREE.Object3D();
this.scene.add(this.group);
for (var i = 0; i < this.SPRITE_COUNT; i++) {
var sprite = this.makeTextSprite('label ' + i, 24);
sprite.position.set(Math.random() * 20 - 10, Math.random() * 20 - 10, Math.random() * 20 - 10);
this.group.add(sprite);
}
this.stats = new Stats();
this.stats.domElement.style.position = 'absolute';
this.stats.domElement.style.left = '0px';
this.stats.domElement.style.top = '0px';
document.body.appendChild(this.stats.domElement);
this.render();
},
render : function() {
var self = this;
this.camera.rotation.x += 0.002;
this.renderer.render(this.scene, this.camera);
this.stats.update();
requestAnimationFrame(function() {self.render();});
},
makeTextSprite : function(message, fontsize) {
var ctx, texture, sprite, spriteMaterial,
canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
ctx.font = fontsize + "px Arial";
// setting canvas width/height before ctx draw, else canvas is empty
canvas.width = ctx.measureText(message).width;
canvas.height = fontsize * 2; // fontsize * 1.5
// after setting the canvas width/height we have to re-set font to apply!?! looks like ctx reset
ctx.font = fontsize + "px Arial";
ctx.fillStyle = "rgba(255,0,0,1)";
ctx.fillText(message, 0, fontsize);
texture = new THREE.Texture(canvas);
texture.minFilter = THREE.LinearFilter; // NearestFilter;
texture.needsUpdate = true;
spriteMaterial = new THREE.SpriteMaterial({map : texture});
sprite = new THREE.Sprite(spriteMaterial);
return sprite;
}
};
window.onload = function() {Test.init();};
You are correct, three.js is indeed causing the GPU to use a lot of texture memory this way. Keep in mind that every texture sent to the GPU must be as high as it is wide, so you'll be wasting a lot of memory by making a single canvas for each sprite.
A challenge here is the three.js design choice to have a single set of UV coordinates on a Texture; even when you combine the label sprites in a single texture map and you .clone() your texture for each material without some extra effort, it'll still send each Texture to the GPU without sharing the memory. In short, it currently has no documented way of telling it these textures are the same, and you can't point each Material at the same Texture as it's not the Material which keeps the UVs. https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/issues/5821 discusses that problem.
I've worked around these issues by combining my sprites in one or more texture maps. For this I created a "sprite texture atlas manager" which manages the allocation of sprite textures as I need them, and I ported a knapsack algorithm to JS which helps me to (mostly) fill up these texture maps with my labels so not a lot of memory is wasted.
I've extracted my code for this out in a separate library, and it is available here: https://github.com/Leeft/three-sprite-texture-atlas-manager with a live example (which does not yet use sprites, but that should be easy to add) at http://jsfiddle.net/Shiari/sbda72k9/.
Fortunately, while this is not documented yet, I also found that it's quite easy now in recent versions (r73 at least, perhaps r72 as well) to force the textures to share the GPU memory by making sure they all have the same .uuid value. My library makes sure to make use of this, and in my testing so far (with 2048x2048 sprite maps; I only need two of those at the size that I'm rendering) that this brings GPU memory down from ~2.6GB when not shared to ~300-600MB when shared. (2048px is far too large when you're only placing a single label there though, and reducing the texture size helps greatly when the maps are not shared).
Lastly, as per your own answer, drawcalls and culling are also a performance issue in r73. I never hit that problem though, since I was already batching my draw calls by grouping everything.
This was a bug in the three.js WebGLRenderer (missing view frustum check for sprites in <= r73). It is already fixed in the dev branch. So you can expect it to be available in r74.
Issue and Details https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/issues/7371
Fixed version with latest dev build: https://jsfiddle.net/h9sub275/9/
Performance Test with r73: https://jsfiddle.net/h9sub275/7/
(Click to see the performance difference between manually removing invisible sprites and not removing them)
Latest Dev Build:
<script src="https://rawgit.com/mrdoob/three.js/dev/build/three.js"> </script>

How to click an object in THREE.js

I'm working my way through this book, and I'm doing okay I guess, but I've hit something I do not really get.
Below is how you can log to the console and object in 3D space that you click on:
renderer.domElement.addEventListener('mousedown', function(event) {
var vector = new THREE.Vector3(
renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageX - this.offsetLeft) / this.width * 2 - 1,
-renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageY - this.offsetTop) / this.height * 2 + 1,
0
);
projector.unprojectVector(vector, camera);
var raycaster = new THREE.Raycaster(
camera.position,
vector.sub(camera.position).normalize()
);
var intersects = raycaster.intersectObjects(OBJECTS);
if (intersects.length) {
console.log(intersects[0]);
}
}, false);
Here's the book's explanation on how this code works:
The previous code listens to the mousedown event on the renderer's canvas.
Get that, we're finding the domElement the renderer is using by using renderer.domElement. We're then binding an event listener to it with addEventListner, and specifing we want to listening for a mousedown. When the mouse is clicked, we launch an anonymous function and pass the eventvariable into the function.
Then,
it creates a new Vector3 instance with the mouse's coordinates on the screen
relative to the center of the canvas as a percent of the canvas width.
What? I get how we're creating a new instance with new THREE.Vector3, and I get that the three arguments Vector3 takes are its x, y and z coordinates, but that's where my understanding completely and utterly breaks down.
Firstly, I'm making an assumption here, but to plot a vector, surely you need two points in space in order to project? If you give it just one set of coords, how does it know what direction to project from? My guess is that you actually use the Raycaster to plot the "vector"...
Now onto the arguments we're passing to Vector3... I get how z is 0. Because we're only interested in where we're clicking on the screen. We can either click up or down, left or right, but not into or out of the screen, so we set that to zero. Now let's tackle x:
renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageX - this.offsetLeft) / this.width * 2 - 1,
We're getting the PixelRatio of the device, timsing it by where we clicked along the x axis, dividing by the renderer's domElement width, timsing this by two and taking away one.
When you don't get something, you need to say what you do get so people can best help you out. So I feel like such a fool when I say:
I don't get why we even need the pixel ratio I don't get why we times that by where we've clicked along the x
I don't get why we divide that by the width
I utterly do not get why we need to times by 2 and take away 1. Times by 2, take away 1. That could genuinely could be times by an elephant, take away peanut and it would make as much sense.
I get y even less:
-renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageY - this.offsetTop) / this.height * 2 + 1,
Why are we now randomly using -devicePixelRatio? Why are now deciding to add one rather than minus one?
That vector is then un-projected (from 2D into 3D space) relative to the camera.
What?
Once we have the point in 3D space representing the mouse's location,
we draw a line to it using the Raycaster. The two arguments that it
receives are the starting point and the direction to the ending point.
Okay, I get that, it's what I was mentioning above. How we need two points to plot a "vector". In THREE talk, a vector appears to be called a "raycaster".
However, the two points we're passing to it as arguments don't make much sense. If we were passing in the camera's position and the vector's position and drawing the projection from those two points I'd get that, and indeed we are using the camera.position for the first points, but
vector.sub(camera.position).normalize()
Why are we subtracting the camera.position? Why are we normalizing? Why does this useless f***** book not think to explain anything?
We get the direction by subtracting the mouse and camera positions and
then normalizing the result, which divides each dimension by the
length of the vector to scale it so that no dimension has a value
greater than 1.
What? I'm not being lazy, not a word past by makes sense here.
Finally, we use the ray to check which objects are located in the
given direction (that is, under the mouse) with the intersectObjects
method. OBJECTS is an array of objects (generally meshes) to check; be
sure to change it appropriately for your code. An array of objects
that are behind the mouse are returned and sorted by distance, so the
first result is the object that was clicked. Each object in the
intersects array has an object, point, face, and distance property.
Respectively, the values of these properties are the clicked object
(generally a Mesh), a Vector3 instance representing the clicked
location in space, the Face3 instance at the clicked location, and the
distance from the camera to the clicked point.
I get that. We grab all the objects the vector passes through, put them to an array in distance order and log the first one, i.e. the nearest one:
console.log(intersects[0]);
And, in all honestly, do you think I should give up with THREE? I mean, I've gotten somewhere with it certainly, and I understand all the programming aspects of it, creating new instances, using data objects such as arrays, using anonymous functions and passing in variables, but whenever I hit something mathematical I seem to grind to a soul-crushing halt.
Or is this actually difficult? Did you find this tricky? It's just the book doesn't feel it's necessary to explain in much detail, and neither do other answers , as though this stuff is just normal for most people. I feel like such an idiot. Should I give up? I want to create 3D games. I really, really want to, but I am drawn to the poetic idea of creating an entire world. Not math. If I said I didn't find math difficult, I would be lying.
I understand your troubles and I'm here to help. It seems you have one principal question: what operations are performed on the vector to prepare it for click detection?
Let's look back at the original declaration of vector:
var vector = new THREE.Vector3(
renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageX - this.offsetLeft) / this.width * 2 - 1,
-renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageY - this.offsetTop) / this.height * 2 + 1,
0
);
renderer.devicePixelRatio relates to a ratio of virtual site pixels /
real device pixels
event.pageX and .pageY are mouseX, mouseY
The this context is renderer.domElement, so .width, .height, .offsetLeft/Right relate to that
1 appears to be a corrective "magic" number for the calculation (for the purpose of being as visually exact as possible)
We don't care about the z-value, THREE will handle that for us. X and Y are our chief concern. Let's derive them:
We first find the distance of the mouse to the edge of the canvas: event.pageX - this.offsetLeft
We divide that by this.width to get the mouseX as a percentage of the screen width
We multiply by renderer.devicePixelRatio to convert from device pixels to site pixels
I'm not sure why we multiply by 2, but it might have to do with an assumption that the user has a retina display (someone can feel free to correct me on this if it's wrong).
1 is, again, magic to fix what might be just an offset error
For y, we multiply the whole expression by -1 to compensate for the inverted coordinate system (0 is top, this.height is bottom)
Thus you get the following arguments for the vector:
renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageX - this.offsetLeft) / this.width * 2 - 1,
-renderer.devicePixelRatio * (event.pageY - this.offsetTop) / this.height * 2 + 1,
0
Now, for the next bit, a few terms:
Normalizing a vector means simplifying it into x, y, and z components less than one. To do so, you simply divide the x, y, and z components of the vector by the magnitude of the vector. It seems useless, but it's important because it creates a unit vector (magnitude = 1) in the direction of the mouse vector!
A Raycaster casts a vector through the 3D landscape produced in the canvas. Its constructor is THREE.Raycaster( origin, direction )
With these terms in mind, I can explain why we do this: vector.sub(camera.position).normalize(). First, we get the vector describing the distance from the mouse position vector to the camera position vector, vector.sub(camera.position). Then, we normalize it to make it a direction vector (again, magnitude = 1). This way, we're casting a vector from the camera to the 3D space in the direction of the mouse position! This operation allows us to then figure out any objects that are under the mouse by comparing the object position to the ray's vector.
I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to comment and I will answer them as soon as possible.
Oh, and don't let the math discourage you. THREE.js is by nature a math-heavy language because you're manipulating objects in 3D space, but experience will help you get past these kinds of understanding roadblocks. I would continue learning and return to Stack Overflow with your questions. It may take some time to develop an aptitude for the math, but you won't learn if you don't try!
This is more universal no matter the render dom location, and the dom and its ancesters's padding margin.
var rect = renderer.domElement.getBoundingClientRect();
mouse.x = ( ( event.clientX - rect.left ) / ( rect.width - rect.left ) ) * 2 - 1;
mouse.y = - ( ( event.clientY - rect.top ) / ( rect.bottom - rect.top) ) * 2 + 1;
here is a demo, scroll to the bottom to click the cube.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<script src="http://threejs.org/build/three.min.js"></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://libs.baidu.com/bootstrap/3.0.3/css/bootstrap.min.css" />
<style>
body {
font-family: Monospace;
background-color: #fff;
margin: 0px;
}
#canvas {
background-color: #000;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
border: 1px solid black;
margin: 10px;
padding: 0px;
top: 10px;
left: 100px;
}
.border {
padding:10px;
margin:10px;
height:3000px;
overflow:scroll;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="border">
<div style="min-height:1000px;"></div>
<div class="border">
<div id="canvas"></div>
</div>
</div>
<script>
// Three.js ray.intersects with offset canvas
var container, camera, scene, renderer, mesh,
objects = [],
count = 0,
CANVAS_WIDTH = 200,
CANVAS_HEIGHT = 200;
// info
info = document.createElement( 'div' );
info.style.position = 'absolute';
info.style.top = '30px';
info.style.width = '100%';
info.style.textAlign = 'center';
info.style.color = '#f00';
info.style.backgroundColor = 'transparent';
info.style.zIndex = '1';
info.style.fontFamily = 'Monospace';
info.innerHTML = 'INTERSECT Count: ' + count;
info.style.userSelect = "none";
info.style.webkitUserSelect = "none";
info.style.MozUserSelect = "none";
document.body.appendChild( info );
container = document.getElementById( 'canvas' );
renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize( CANVAS_WIDTH, CANVAS_HEIGHT );
container.appendChild( renderer.domElement );
scene = new THREE.Scene();
camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera( 45, CANVAS_WIDTH / CANVAS_HEIGHT, 1, 1000 );
camera.position.y = 250;
camera.position.z = 500;
camera.lookAt( scene.position );
scene.add( camera );
scene.add( new THREE.AmbientLight( 0x222222 ) );
var light = new THREE.PointLight( 0xffffff, 1 );
camera.add( light );
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(
new THREE.BoxGeometry( 200, 200, 200, 1, 1, 1 ),
new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial( { color : 0x0080ff }
) );
scene.add( mesh );
objects.push( mesh );
// find intersections
var raycaster = new THREE.Raycaster();
var mouse = new THREE.Vector2();
// mouse listener
document.addEventListener( 'mousedown', function( event ) {
var rect = renderer.domElement.getBoundingClientRect();
mouse.x = ( ( event.clientX - rect.left ) / ( rect.width - rect.left ) ) * 2 - 1;
mouse.y = - ( ( event.clientY - rect.top ) / ( rect.bottom - rect.top) ) * 2 + 1;
raycaster.setFromCamera( mouse, camera );
intersects = raycaster.intersectObjects( objects );
if ( intersects.length > 0 ) {
info.innerHTML = 'INTERSECT Count: ' + ++count;
}
}, false );
function render() {
mesh.rotation.y += 0.01;
renderer.render( scene, camera );
}
(function animate() {
requestAnimationFrame( animate );
render();
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>

Resources