I have a container that contains three objects, when the container is moving with big speed it's children start to flicker and then jumping after some time, why is that so?
function init() {
// ...
geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(100, 100, 100);
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
container.add(mesh);
geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(50, 50, 50);
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
mesh.position.z = 75;
container.add(mesh);
geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(25, 25, 50);
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
mesh.position.z = 100;
container.add(mesh);
// ...
}
function render() {
// The bigger the speed of object the more its jumping
container.position.z += 1000000;
}
jsfiddle
EDIT:
I did some investigation and found out that when I apply modelVIewMatrix on position of children and compare difference (distance) between those children, the difference is changing after some time and that is when the objects start to jump.
jsfiddle
basically the problems are caused by floating point arithmetic errors..
the projection matrix used from camera looks like this - notice it contains non-integers
[1.7243168354034424, 0, 0, 0,
0, 2.1445069313049316, 0, 0,
0, 0, -1.0002000331878662, -1,
0, 0, -2.000200033187866, 0]
javascript uses floating-point representation of numbers, while it to some degree works well with integers there are slight errors with real numbers generally
for instance if you type 0.1 + 0.2 into javascript console the output will not be 0.3 but 0.30000000000000004
when you set position of your cube thingy to a few millions these errors in the projection matrix that were on less significant places move up and become noticeable,
the bigger the number the worse it gets and that is why it starts out like a smal vibration and then becomes utter disaster
if you really need objects to move that way you will have to make changes to THREE library and represent its matrix numbers in more bits(in some bytearray) or hack around floating-point operations in some other way
Related
What I'm trying to achieve is a rotation of the geometry around pivot point and make that the new definition of the geometry. I do not want te keep editing the rotationZ but I want to have the current rotationZ to be the new rotationZ 0.
This way when I create a new rotation task, it will start from the new given pivot point and the newly given rad.
What I've tried, but then the rotation point moves:
// Add cube to do calculations
var box = new THREE.Box3().setFromObject( o );
var size = box.getSize();
var offsetZ = size.z / 2;
o.geometry.translate(0, -offsetZ, 0)
// Do ratation
o.rotateZ(CalcUtils.degreeToRad(degree));
o.geometry.translate(0, offsetZ, 0)
I also tried to add a Group and rotate that group and then remove the group. But I need to keep the rotation without all the extra objects. The code I created
var box = new THREE.Box3().setFromObject( o );
var size = box.size();
var geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry( 20, 20, 20 );
var material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial( { color: 0xcc0000 } );
var cube = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
cube.position.x = o.position.x;
cube.position.y = 0; // Height / 2
cube.position.z = -size.z / 2;
o.position.x = 0;
o.position.y = 0;
o.position.z = size.z / 2;
cube.add(o);
scene.add(cube);
// Do ratation
cube.rotateY(CalcUtils.degreeToRad(degree));
// Remove cube, and go back to single object
var position = o.getWorldPosition();
scene.add(o)
scene.remove(cube);
console.log(o);
o.position.x = position.x;
o.position.y = position.y;
o.position.z = position.z;
So my question, how do I save the current rotation as the new 0 rotation point. Make the rotation final
EDIT
I added an image of what I want to do. The object is green. I have a 0 point of the world (black). I have a 0 point of the object (red). And I have rotation point (blue).
How can I rotate the object around the blue point?
I wouldn't recommend updating the vertices, because you'll run into trouble with the normals (unless you keep them up-to-date, too). Basically, it's a lot of hassle to perform an action for which the transformation matrices were intended.
You came pretty close by translating, rotating, and un-translating, so you were on the right track. There are some built-in methods which can help make this super easy.
// obj - your object (THREE.Object3D or derived)
// point - the point of rotation (THREE.Vector3)
// axis - the axis of rotation (normalized THREE.Vector3)
// theta - radian value of rotation
// pointIsWorld - boolean indicating the point is in world coordinates (default = false)
function rotateAboutPoint(obj, point, axis, theta, pointIsWorld){
pointIsWorld = (pointIsWorld === undefined)? false : pointIsWorld;
if(pointIsWorld){
obj.parent.localToWorld(obj.position); // compensate for world coordinate
}
obj.position.sub(point); // remove the offset
obj.position.applyAxisAngle(axis, theta); // rotate the POSITION
obj.position.add(point); // re-add the offset
if(pointIsWorld){
obj.parent.worldToLocal(obj.position); // undo world coordinates compensation
}
obj.rotateOnAxis(axis, theta); // rotate the OBJECT
}
After this method completes, the rotation/position IS persisted. The next time you call the method, it will transform the object from its current state to wherever your inputs define next.
Also note the compensation for using world coordinates. This allows you to use a point in either world coordinates or local space by converting the object's position vector into the correct coordinate system. It's probably best to use it this way any time your point and object are in different coordinate systems, though your observations may differ.
As a simple solution for anyone trying to quickly change the pivot point of an object, I would recommend creating a group and adding the mesh to the group, and rotating around that.
Full example
const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry();
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 });
const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
scene.add(cube)
Right now, this will just rotate around its center
cube.rotation.z = Math.PI / 4
Create a new group and add the cube
const group = new THREE.Group();
group.add(cube)
scene.add(group)
At this point we are back where we started. Now move the mesh:
cube.position.set(0.5,0.5,0)
Then move the group
group.position.set(-0.5, -0.5, 0)
Now use your group to rotate the object:
group.rotation.z = Math.PI / 4
I'm somewhat new to Three js, and my linear algebra days were back in the 90s so I don't recall much about quarternions. My issue is I have 8 vertices for a cube that I can use to create a custom geometry mesh from, but it doesn't set the position / rotation / scale info for its world matrix. Therefor it can not be used cleanly by other three js modules like controls. I can look up the math and calculate what position / scale / rotation (rotation gets a bit hairy with some fun acos stuff) should be and create a standard boxgeometry from that. But it seems like there should be some way to do it via three js objects if I can generate the proper matrix to apply to it. The quarternion setFromUnitVectors looked interesting, but I'd still have to do some work to generate the vectors. Any ideas would be appreciated thanks
Edit: :) So let me try and simplify. I have 8 vertices, I want to create a box geometry. But box geometry doesn't take vertices. It takes width, height, depth (relatively easy to calculate) and then you set the position/scale/rotation. So here's my code thus far:
5____4
1/___0/|
| 6__|_7
2/___3/
const box = new Box3();
box.setFromPoints(points);
const width = points[1].distanceTo(points[0]);
const height = points[3].distanceTo(points[0]);
const depth = points[4].distanceTo(points[0]);
const geometry = new BoxGeometry(width, height, depth);
mesh = new Mesh(geometry, material);
const center = box.getCenter(new Vector3());
const normalizedCorner = points[0].clone().sub(center);
const quarterian = new Quaternion();
quarterian.setFromUnitVectors(geometry.vertices[0], normalizedCorner);
mesh.setRotationFromQuaternion(quarterian);
mesh.position.copy(center);
The problem being my rotation element is wrong (besides my vectors not being unit vectors). I'm apparently not getting the correct quarternion to rotate my mesh correctly.
Edit: From WestLangley's suggestion, I'm creating a rotation matrix. However, while it rotates in the correct plane, the angle is off. Here's what I have added:
const matrix = new Matrix4();
const widthVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[6], points[7]).normalize();
const heightVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[6], points[5]).normalize();
const depthVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[6], points[2]).normalize();
matrix.set(
widthVector.x, heightVector.x, depthVector.x, 0,
widthVector.y, heightVector.y, depthVector.y, 0,
widthVector.z, heightVector.z, depthVector.z, 0,
0, 0, 0, 1,
);
mesh.quaternion.setFromRotationMatrix(matrix);
Per WestLangley's comments I wasn't creating my matrix correctly. The correct matrix looks like:
const matrix = new Matrix4();
const widthVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[7], points[6]).normalize();
const heightVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[5], points[6]).normalize();
const depthVector = new Vector3().subVectors(points[2], points[6]).normalize();
matrix.set(
widthVector.x, heightVector.x, depthVector.x, 0,
widthVector.y, heightVector.y, depthVector.y, 0,
widthVector.z, heightVector.z, depthVector.z, 0,
0, 0, 0, 1,
);
mesh.quaternion.setFromRotationMatrix(matrix);
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.
https://jsfiddle.net/sepoto/Ln7qvv7w/2/
I have a base set up to display a cube with different colored faces. What I am trying to do is set up a camera and apply a combined X axis and Y axis rotation so that the cube spins around both axis concurrently. There seems to be some problems with the matrices I set up as I can see the blue face doesn't look quite right. There are some examples of how this is done using older versions of glMatrix however the code in the examples no longer works because of some changes in vec4 of the glMatrix library. Does anyone know how this can be done using the latest version of glMatrix as I have attached a CDN to the fiddle?
Thank you!
function drawScene() {
gl.viewport(0,0,gl.viewportWidth, gl.viewportHeight);
gl.clear(gl.COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | gl.DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);
mat4.ortho( mOrtho, -5, 5, 5, -5, 2, -200);
mat4.identity(mMove);
var rotMatrix = mat4.create();
mat4.identity(rotMatrix);
rotMatrix = mat4.fromYRotation(rotMatrix, yRot,rotMatrix);
rotMatrix = mat4.fromXRotation(rotMatrix, xRot,rotMatrix);
mat4.multiply(mMove, rotMatrix, mMove);
setMatrixUniforms();
gl.bindBuffer(gl.ARRAY_BUFFER, triangleVertexPositionBuffer);
gl.vertexAttribPointer(shaderProgram.vertexPositionAttribute, triangleVertexPositionBuffer.itemSize, gl.FLOAT, false, 0, 0);
gl.bindBuffer(gl.ARRAY_BUFFER, triangleColorBuffer);
gl.vertexAttribPointer(shaderProgram.vertexColorAttribute, triangleColorBuffer.itemSize, gl.FLOAT, false, 0, 0);
gl.drawArrays(gl.TRIANGLES, 0, triangleVertexPositionBuffer.numItems);
yRot += 0.01;
xRot += 0.01;
}
As the name says, fromYRotation() initializes a matrix to a given rotation. Hence, you need two temporary matrices for the partial rotations, which you can then combine:
var rotMatrix = mat4.create();
var rotMatrixX = mat4.create();
var rotMatrixY = mat4.create();
mat4.fromYRotation(rotMatrixY, yRot);
mat4.fromXRotation(rotMatrixX, xRot);
mat4.multiply(rotMatrix, rotMatrixY, rotMatrixX);
And the reason why your blue face was behaving strangely, was the missing depth test. Enable it in your initialization method:
gl.enable(gl.DEPTH_TEST);
You dont need to use three matrices:
// you should do allocations outside of the renderloop
var rotMat = mat4.create();
// no need to set the matrix to identity as
// fromYRotation resets rotMats contents anyway
mat4.fromYRotation(rotMat, yRot);
mat4.rotateX(rotMat,xRot);
I am trying to use the Three.js library to display a large number of colored points on the screen (about half a million to million for example). I am trying to use the Canvas renderer rather than the WebGL renderer if possible (The web pages would also be displayed in the Google Earth Client bubbles, which seems to work with Canvas renderer but not the WebGL renderer.)
While I have the problem solved for a small number of points (tens of thousands) by modifying the code from here, I am having trouble scaling it beyond that.
But in the the following code using WebGL and the Particle System I can render half a million random points, but without colors.
...
var particles = new THREE.Geometry();
var pMaterial = new THREE.ParticleBasicMaterial({
color: 0xFFFFFF,
size: 1,
sizeAttenuation : false
});
// now create the individual particles
for (var p = 0; p < particleCount; p++) {
// create a particle with randon position values,
// -250 -> 250
var pX = Math.random() * POSITION_RANGE - (POSITION_RANGE / 2),
pY = Math.random() * POSITION_RANGE - (POSITION_RANGE / 2),
pZ = Math.random() * POSITION_RANGE - (POSITION_RANGE / 2),
particle = new THREE.Vertex(
new THREE.Vector3(pX, pY, pZ)
);
// add it to the geometry
particles.vertices.push(particle);
}
var particleSystem = new THREE.ParticleSystem(
particles, pMaterial);
scene.add(particleSystem);
...
Is the reason for the better performance of the above code due to the Particle System? From what I have read in the documentation it seems the Particle System can only be used by the WebGL renderer.
So my question(s) are
a) Can I render such large number of particles using the Canvas renderer or is it always going to be slower than the WebGL/ParticleSystem version? If so, how do I go about doing that? What objects and or tricks do I use to improve performance?
b) Is there a compromise I can reach if I give up some features? In other words, can I still use the Canvas renderer for the large dataset if I give up the need to color the individual points?
c) If I have to give up the Canvas and use the WebGL version, is it possible to change the colors of the individual points? It seems the color is set by the material passed to the ParticleSystem and that sets the color for all the points.
EDIT: ParticleSystem and PointCloud has been renamed to Points. In addition, ParticleBasicMaterial and PointCloudMaterial has been renamed to PointsMaterial.
This answer only applies to versions of three.js prior to r.125.
To have a different color for each particle, you need to have a color array as a property of the geometry, and then set vertexColors to THREE.VertexColors in the material, like so:
// vertex colors
var colors = [];
for( var i = 0; i < geometry.vertices.length; i++ ) {
// random color
colors[i] = new THREE.Color();
colors[i].setHSL( Math.random(), 1.0, 0.5 );
}
geometry.colors = colors;
// material
material = new THREE.PointsMaterial( {
size: 10,
transparent: true,
opacity: 0.7,
vertexColors: THREE.VertexColors
} );
// point cloud
pointCloud = new THREE.Points( geometry, material );
Your other questions are a little too general for me to answer, and besides, it depends on exactly what you are trying to do and what your requirements are. Yes, you can expect Canvas to be slower.
EDIT: Updated for three.js r.124