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.
Related
I am setting up a particle system in threejs by adapting the buffer geometry drawcalls example in threejs. I want to create a series of points, but I want them to be round.
The documentation for threejs points says it accepts geometry or buffer geometry, but I also noticed there is a circleBufferGeometry. Can I use this?
Or is there another way to make the points round besides using sprites? I'm not sure, but it seems like loading an image for each particle would cause a lot of unnecessary overhead.
So, in short, is there a more performant or simple way to make a particle system of round particles (spheres or discs) in threejs without sprites?
If you want to draw each "point"/"particle" as a geometric circle, you can use THREE.InstancedBufferGeometry or take a look at this
The geometry of a Points object defines where the points exist in 3D space. It does not define the shape of the points. Points are also drawn as quads, so they're always going to be a square, though they don't have to appear that way.
Your first option is to (as you pointed out) load a texture for each point. I don't really see how this would introduce "a lot" of overhead, because the texture would only be loaded once, and would be applied to all points. But, I'm sure you have your reasons.
Your other option is to create your own shader to draw the point as a circle. This method takes the point as a square, and discards any fragments (multiple fragments make up a pixel) outside the circle.
I am curious about the limits of three.js. The following question is asked mainly as a challenge, not because I actually need the specific knowledge/code right away.
Say you have a game/simulation world model around a sphere geometry representing a planet, like the worlds of the game Populous. The resolution of polygons and textures is sufficient to look smooth when the globe fills the view of an ordinary camera. There are animated macroscopic objects on the surface.
The challenge is to project everything from the model to a global map projection on the screen in real time. The choice of projection is yours, but it must be seamless/continuous, and it must be possible for the user to rotate it, placing any point on the planet surface in the center of the screen. (It is not an option to maintain an alternative model of the world only for visualization.)
There are no limits on the number of cameras etc. allowed, but the performance must be expected to be "realtime", say two-figured FPS or more.
I don't expect ayn proof in the form of a running application (although that would be cool), but some explanation as to how it could be done.
My own initial idea is to place a lot of cameras, in fact one for every pixel in the map projection, around the globe, within a Group object that is attached to some kind of orbit controls (with rotation only), but I expect the number of object culling operations to become a huge performance issue. I am sure there must exist more elegant (and faster) solutions. :-)
why not just use a spherical camera-model (think a 360° camera) and virtually put it in the center of the sphere? So this camera would (if it were physically possible) be wrapped all around the sphere, looking toward the center from all directions.
This camera could be implemented in shaders (instead of the regular projection-matrix) and would produce an equirectangular image of the planet-surface (or in fact any other projection you want, like spherical mercator-projection).
As far as I can tell the vertex-shader can implement any projection you want and it doesn't need to represent a camera that is physically possible. It just needs to produce consistent clip-space coordinates for all vertices. Fragment-Shaders for lighting would still need to operate on the original coordinates, normals etc. but that should be achievable. So the vertex-shader would just need compute (x,y,z) => (phi,theta,r) and go on with that.
Occlusion-culling would need to be disabled, but iirc three.js doesn't do that anyway.
When several objects overlap on the same plane, they start to flicker. How do I tell the renderer to put one of the objects in front?
I tried to use .renderDepth, but it only works partly -
see example here: http://liveweave.com/ahTdFQ
Both boxes have the same size and it works as intended. I can change which of the boxes is visible by setting .renderDepth. But if one of the boxes is a bit smaller (say 40,50,50) the contacting layers are flickering and the render depth doesn't work anymore.
How to fix that issue?
When .renderDepth() doesn't work, you have to set the depths yourself.
Moving whole meshes around is indeed not really efficient.
What you are looking for are offsets bound to materials:
material.polygonOffset = true;
material.polygonOffsetFactor = -0.1;
should solve your issue. See update here: http://liveweave.com/syC0L4
Use negative factors to display and positive factors to hide.
Try for starters to reduce the far range on your camera. Try with 1000. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be having overlapping faces in your 3d scene, unless they are treated in a VERY specific way (look up the term 'decal textures'/'decals'). So basically, you have to create depth offsets, and perhaps even pre sort the objects when doing this, which all requires pretty low-level tinkering.
If the far range reduction helps, then you're experiencing a lack of precision (depending on the device). Also look up 'z fighting'
UPDATE
Don't overlap planes.
How do I tell the renderer to put one of the objects in front?
You put one object in front of the other :)
For example if you have a camera at 0,0,0 looking at an object at 0,0,10, if you want another object to be behind the first object put it at 0,0,11 it should work.
UPDATE2
What is z-buffering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-buffering
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb976071.aspx
Take note of "floating point in range of 0.0 - 1.0".
What is z-fighting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting
...have similar values in the z-buffer. It is particularly prevalent with
coplanar polygons, where two faces occupy essentially the same space,
with neither in front. Affected pixels are rendered with fragments
from one polygon or the other arbitrarily, in a manner determined by
the precision of the z-buffer.
"The renderer cannot reposition anything."
I think that this is completely untrue. The renderer can reposition everything, and probably does if it's not shadertoy, or some video filter or something. Every time you move your camera the renderer repositions everything (the camera is actually the only thing that DOES NOT MOVE).
It seems that you are missing some crucial concepts here, i'd start with this:
http://www.opengl-tutorial.org/beginners-tutorials/tutorial-3-matrices/
About the depth offset mentioned:
How this would work, say you want to draw a decal on a surface. You can 'draw' another mesh on this surface - by say, projecting a quad onto it. You want to draw a bullet hole over a concrete wall and end up with two coplanar surfaces - the wall, the bullet hole. You can figure out the depth buffer precision, find the smallest value, and then move the bullet hole mesh by that value towards the camera. The object does not get scaled (you're doing this in NDC which you can visualize as a cube and moving planes back and forth in the smallest possible increment), but does translate in depth direction, ending up in front of the other.
I don't see any flicker. The cube movement in 3D seems to be super-smooth. Can you try in a different computer (may be faster one)? I used Chrome on Macbook Pro.
Assume I have a camera defined by its position and direction, and a box defined by its center and extents (three orthogonal vectors from the box center to face centers). Face is visible when its outer surface is facing the camera and invisible when its inner surface is facing it.
It seems obvious that depending on box position and orientation there may be 1-3 faces of the box visible. Is there some clever way how to determine which faces are visible? An obvious solution would be to compute 6 dot-products of the face normal against the face-camera vector for each face. Is there a better way?
Note: perspective projection will be used, but I do not think it matters, the property of "facing camera" seems independent to a projecting.
I believe the method you described is the normal way to do this. It's a very fast calculation so you shouldn't be worried too much about speed. This is the same method they use to reduce the number of calculations for ray-triangle intersection algorithms. If the front of the face isn't visible, the method doesn't continue calculations for that face. See this paper for a c++ implementation of this algorithm. It's in the first half of the calculations. http://jgt.akpeters.com/papers/MollerTrumbore97/code.html
The only cleverness is that if a face of the cube is visible, the opposing face definitely isn't. At least in a regular perspective projection.
Note that the opposite might not be true: if a face is invisible, the opposing face might be invisible too. This is because the type of projection does matter. Imagine the cube being really up close to the camera, which is looking straight at one face. Then rotate the cube slightly, and while with a parallel projection, another face would immediately become visible, in a perspective projection this doesn't happen.
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).