Is there a way to make a mesh unprintable with a 3D printer, but still viewable with three.js.
Motivation is that I want to show users a preview of a mesh before he can buy it. But as the JS code is viewable he could download it without paying for it. Degrading the quality of the preview mesh would be a way, but as the quality of the mesh is a selling point I would like to avoid that.
My idea was to add some kind of triangulation defects which would prevent the printing of the mesh, but which would not prevent threejs from showing the mesh.
Tools like Netfabb or Meshlab should also not be able to automatically repair the mesh.
Is there something like a bad sector copy protection equivalent for 3d models?
Just a few ideas.
1) Augment your shaders to ignore some interval of vertices from the buffer (like every 3rd or something). In this way you can add "garbage" to the model file so it can not be lifted easily from the network.
2) Once in the buffer it can still be pulled out with a savvy user, unless you split the model up into many chunks and render out of order or only render the front half of the model making it less useful for 3D printing. One could also render in split views or using stereoscopic interlaced with a separation of zero.
3) Only render a none symmetrical half of your model with an camera control locked to that half :P
Kinda wonky, a ton of work to implement, and still someone will find a way I'm sure. But that's my two cents worth anyway, hope it helps.
I've seen some online shops preview with renders taken from each 10-30 degrees around the model. That way you only pass the resulting image, not the model.
why not show a detailed HD video of your model?
If the mesh is non-manifold it will not print.
a) Render serverside, stream results in an interactive video
b) destroy the mesh while still keeping the normals intact for shading. You can randomly flip faces, render with double sided. You can "extrude" edges to mess up topology. As long as you map the normals correctly, it will shade without any of these defects affecting it.
Related
I’ve designed a 3D model in SketchUp and I didn’t use any texture. I’m faced with an issue related with lagging on mouse move and rotate process. When I exported the model by Dae format and imported to the three js online editor (three js online editor) mouse movement is being very slow. I think it occurs fps drop. I couldn’t understand what’s problem with my model that I designed. I need your suggestions and ideas how to resolve this issue. Thanks for your support. I’ve uploaded 3D model’s image. Please take a look.
Object Count: 98.349, Vertices: 2,107.656, Triangles: 702.552
Object Count: 98.349,
The object count results in an equal number draw calls. Such a high value will degrade the performance no matter how complex the respective geometry eventually is.
I suggest you redesign the model and ensure to merge individual objects as much as possible. Also try to lower the number of vertices and faces.
Keep in mind that three.js does not automatically merge or batch render items. So it's your responsibility to optimize assets for rendering. It's best to do this right when designing the model. Or in code via methods like BufferGeometryUtils.mergeBufferGeometries() or via instanced rendering.
I have up to 200'000 individual images in a scene (done with sprites, so far). I want to look at these sprites, and when I fly around they should always face the camera (as sprites do).
My question is: How can I achieve the best performance WebGL-wise? Are Sprites with useScreenCoordinates:false rendered as with GL_POINT?
At the moment the fps drops with very low image counts already. I'm using mipmapping and sprites so far. And since they need to turn around to face me I didn't want to use BufferGeometry..
I'd highly appreciate some ideas and inputs :) Thanks!
PS: Point of it all is that you can "fly" through 200'000 images and stop/select the ones you figure to be interesting
My team needed to accomplish this too, and sadly Doidel's notes trail off before the project is completed. We developed PixPlot, a three.js visualization layer for images:
I put together a blog post outlining the details here: http://douglasduhaime.com/posts/visualizing-tsne-maps-with-three-js.html
In short, if others face this problem, you'll want to create one geometry (ideally) with one large image atlas (a single jpg of size 2048px by 2048px containing lots of smaller images) serving as the texture for the geometry. Add vertices, faces, and vertexUV's for each of the little images to display, and pull each image from the atlas texture.
Used tons of techniques and stuff, I'll be writing about it on http://blogs.fhnw.ch/threejs/ once I got it all working
I am in the process of learning how to create a lens flare application. I've got most of the basic components figured out and now I'm moving on to the more complicated ones such as the glimmers / glints / spikeball as seen here: http://wiki.nuaj.net/images/e/e1/OpticalFlaresLensObjects.png
Or these: http://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/1996229/preview/stock-footage-blue-flare-rotate.jpg
Some have suggested creating particles that emanate outwards from the center while fading out and either increasing or decreasing in size but I've tried this and there are just too many nested loops which makes performance awful.
Someone else suggested drawing a circular gradient from center white to radius black and using some algorithms to lighten and darken areas thus producing rays.
Does anyone have any ideas? I'm really stuck on this one.
I am using a limited compiler that is similar to C but I don't have any access to antialiasing, predefined shapes, etc. Everything has to be hand-coded.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I would create large circle selections, then use a radial gradient. Each side of the gradient is white, but one side has 100% alpha and the other 0%. Once you have used the gradient tool to draw that gradient inside the circle. Deselect it and use the transform tool to Skew or in a sense smash it. Then duplicate it several times and turn each one creating a spiral or circle holding Ctrl to constrain when needed. Then once those several layers are in the rotation or design that you want. Group them in a folder and then you can further effect them all at once with another transform or skew. WHen you use these real smal, they are like little stars. But you can do many different things when creating each one to make them different. Like making each one lower in opacity than the last etc...
I found a few examples of how to do lens-flare 'via code'. Ideally you'd want to do this as a post-process - meaning after you're done with your regular render, you process the image further.
Fragment shaders are apt for this step. The easiest version I found is this one. The basic idea is to
Identify really bright spots in your image and potentially down sample it.
Shoot rays from the fragment to the center of the image and sample some pixels along the way.
Accumalate the samples and apply further processing - chromatic distortion etc - on it.
And you get a whole range of options to play with.
Another more common alternative seems to be
Have a set of basic images (circles, hexes) and render them as a bunch of bright objects, along the path from the camera to the light(s).
Composite this image on top of the regular render of you scene.
The problem is in determining when to turn on lens flare, since it is dependant on whether a light is visible/occluded from a camera. GPU Gems comes to rescue, with better options.
A more serious, physically based implementation is listed in this paper. This is a real-time version of making lens-flares, but you need a hardware that can support both vertex and geometry shaders.
I used ReconstructMe
to scan my first half body (arm and head). The result I got is a 3d mesh. I open them in 3dsmax. What I need to do now is to add animation/motion to the 3d arm and head.
I think ReconstructMe created a mesh. Do I need to convert that mesh to a 3d object before adding animation? If so, how to do it?
Do I need to seperate the head and arm to add different animation to them? How to do it?
I am a beginner in 3ds max. I am using 3ds max 2012, student edition.
Typically you would set up bones, and link the mesh to the bones with skin or physique modifier, then animate the bones as needed.
You can have 1 mesh, or separate meshes, depends on your needs.
For setting up the rigging, it would be good to utilize a tutorial like this
http://www.digitaltutors.com/11/training.php?pid=332
I find Digital Tutors to be very concise and detailed for anybody to grasp the concepts if your patient enough. Depending on the motion you will like some parts of the bones will require FK (forward kinematics) or IK (inverse kinematics) or a mixture of both FK/IK control in areas like the elbows of the arms etc.
Certain other parts of the character would also like the ability to utilize CAT controls. Through the whole rigging process the biggest foundation or theory to maintain is hierarchy and the process of parenting the controls/linking correctly.
Also your meshes topo needs to be correct, when scanning from an outside source you will get either a. a lot of triangles or b. bad edge flow, before the rigging process make sure to take the time to get your scan's topology to the correct state it should be in.
Given a set of 2d images that cover all dimensions of an object (e.g. a car and its roof/sides/front/read), how could I transform this into a 3d objdct?
Is there any libraries that could do this?
Thanks
These "2D images" are usually called "textures". You probably want a 3D library which allows you to specify a 3D model with bitmap textures. The library would depend on platform you are using, but start with looking at OpenGL!
OpenGL for PHP
OpenGL for Java
... etc.
I've heard of the program "Poser" doing this using heuristics for human forms, but otherwise I don't believe this is actually theoretically possible. You are asking to construct volumetric data from flat data (inferring the third dimension.)
I think you'd have to make a ton of assumptions about your geometry, and even then, you'd only really have a shell of the object. If you did this well, you'd have a contiguous surface representing the boundary of the object - not a volumetric object itself.
What you can do, like Tomas suggested, is slap these 2d images onto something. However, you still will need to construct a triangle mesh surface, and actually do all the modeling, for this to present a 3D surface.
I hope this helps.
What there is currently that can do anything close to what you are asking for automagically is extremely proprietary. No libraries, but there are some products.
This core issue is matching corresponding points in the images and being able to say, this spot in image A is this spot in image B, and they both match this spot in image C, etc.
There are three ways to go about this, manually matching (you have the photos and have to use your own brain to find the corresponding points), coded targets, and texture matching.
PhotoModeller, www.photomodeller.com, $1,145.00US, supports manual matching and coded targets. You print out a bunch of images, attach them to your object, shoot your photos, and the software finds the targets in each picture and creates a 3D object based on those points.
PhotoModeller Scanner, $2,595.00US, adds texture matching. Tiny bits of the the images are compared to see if they represent the same source area.
Both PhotoModeller products depend on shooting the images with a calibrated camera where you use a consistent focal length for every shot and you got through a calibration process to map the lens distortion of the camera.
If you can do manual matching, the Match Photo feature of Google SketchUp may do the job, and SketchUp is free. If you can shoot new photos, you can add your own targets like colored sticker dots to the object to help you generate contours.
If your images are drawings, like profile, plan view, etc. PhotoModeller will not help you, but SketchUp may be just the tool you need. You will have to build up each part manually because you will have to supply the intelligence to recognize which lines and points correspond from drawing to drawing.
I hope this helps.