I have created a planegeometry and a texture which is made by ImageUtils with CanvasRenderer,
and then I created a mesh and finished all relative parameters'settings. The result is that a PlaneGeometry with the image
texture in the space,but a diagonal line is showed up,what's more, one image are divided into two
parts by this diagonal line,thus images on this two parts become dismatched.How should I resolve it? The key code are as follows:
var planeGeo=new THREE.PlaneGeometry(2000,3000);
var map = THREE.ImageUtils.loadTexture( 'images/greenLines.png' );
map.wrapS=map.wrapT = THREE.RepeatWrapping;
map.repeat.set(2,2);
map.anisotropy = 16;
var planeMaterial=new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0xFFBBEE,map:map,overdraw:true});
var planeMesh=new THREE.Mesh(planeGeo,planeMaterial);
planeMesh.position.set(2000,-2000,5000);
scene.add(planeMesh);
NOTICE:the images are constructed by green lines.The result displays that lines are cut and one
line has become two lines which are located on two divided triangles .
Now how should I modify my code so that the two parts of this image looks matched well without displacement!
Can the diagonal line be removed?
Related
I'm working on an app where I visualize ATV trails in a 3d perspective (NAIP imagery draped over elevation data). I am using three.js for the rendering engine.
In the above image, the white line you see is just a THREE.Line instance, where I convert a trails gps coordinates into threejs coordinates. I'd like to add more of 3d perspective to this line. I tried implementing a THREE.TubeGeometry where the path was a THREE.CatmullRomCurve3 using the same Vector3 points as how I built the line you see in the image above. That did not produce a desirable result...
From the many, many THREE examples I have looked at, I really think an extruded geometry would achieve the look I am after... But I cant for the life of me figure out how to extrude a geometry for the line. Any suggestions/thoughts?
UPDATE 1:
Here is my desired look (same trail - no imagery). This image was produced in QGIS using the Q2Threejs plugin
UPDATE 2: Here is a code of how I have attempted to create a tubegeometry. Maybe I am messing something up in there...
// trailVectors are an array of Vector3 - same as ones used to create line
var trailCurve = new THREE.CatmullRomCurve3(trailVectors);
var tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeGeometry(trailCurve,80,1,15,false);
var material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:0x00ff00});
var tubeMesh = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,material);
var wireframeMaterial = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({color:0xffffff,lineWidth:2});
var wireframe = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,wireframeMaterial);
tubeMesh.add(wireframe);
scene.add(tubeMesh);
UPDATE 3
THREE.TubeGeometry(trailCurve,80,4,2,false) per mzartman request
I think that you should be able to achieve what you want with a TubeGeometry. I think the big thing is that your example (from the picture shown) has more than 2 radius segments. That gives it the tubular shape and makes it look sort of like a blob. If you set the radial segment count to 2 (as it's shown below) then I think it would look a lot better.
tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeBufferGeometry(
[YOUR_PATH_HERE],
params.extrusionSegments, // <--- Edit this for higher resolution on the spline
3, // <--- This defines the height
2, // <--- This 2 keeps 2D (i.e. not a tube!!!!)
true );
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
var wireframe = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, wireframeMaterial );
mesh.add( wireframe );
scene.add( mesh );
Update:
I think that you might do better with a material that shows some shadow like the MeshPhong. Also, to do the wireframe you want to add it as an option in the material initialization. Give it a show with the following:
var tubeGeometry = new THREE.TubeGeometry(curve,80,1,2,false);
var material = new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial({color:0x00ff00, wireframe: true});
var tubeMesh = new THREE.Mesh(tubeGeometry,material);
scene.add(tubeMesh);
Im trying to make a particle system adapt to a certain geometric shape, I am using THREE.GeometryUtils.randomPointsInGeometry and can and array from this that I can then position particles however regardless of the geometry I use (primitive or dae) the particles fill the space of the geometry bounding (I presume) and always fill a box shape.
The key lines
var object = new THREE.Mesh( new THREE.OctahedronGeometry( 50, 2 ), new
THREE.MeshBasicMaterial( {color: 0x00ff00} ) );
var positionsX =
THREE.GeometryUtils.randomPointsInGeometry(object.geometry, 20000);
Full running code here:
https://jsfiddle.net/joe_shields/5sbcfzqt/5/
Any Ideas what I need to change to ensure that the particles honour the shape fo the original geometry?
I'm very new to both three.js & to js in general.
1st I select a polyHedron geometry with a dat.gui checkbox
which renders say a tetrahedron. these selections work.
I also have a dat.gui checkbox to either phongfill or wireframe render.
I initially wanted just a wireframe type mesh but not with all of the internal triangles. I found the edgesgeometry() function which draws pretty much what I want(hard edges only). there is however a known issue with linewidth not working in windows anymore. all lines drawn as strokeweight/width 1.
I'd like to use tubeGeometry() to draw tubes of whatever radius as opposed to 1weight lines. I know I'll have to draw something such as a sphere at/over the connection vertices for it to not look ridiculous.
geo = new THREE.TetrahedronBufferGeometry(controls0.Radius,controls0.Detail);
...
egeo = new THREE.EdgesGeometry( geo );
lmat = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({ color: 0x0099ff, linewidth: 4 });
ph = new THREE.LineSegments( egeo, lmat );
scene.add(ph);
....
playing around in the console I found some geometry/bufferGeomery arrays that are likely the vertices/indices of my selected X-hedron as their sizes change with type(tetra/icosa etc) selection & detail increase/decrease:
//p = dome.geometry.attributes.uv.array;
p = egeo.attributes.position.array
//p = geo.attributes.uv.array
...
var path = new THREE.Curve();
path.getPoint = function (t) {
// trace the arc as t ranges from 0 to 1
var segment = (0 - Math.PI*2) *t;
return new THREE.Vector3( Math.cos(segment), Math.sin(segment), 0);
};
var geomet = new THREE.TubeBufferGeometry( path, 10, 0.2, 12, false );
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geomet, mat );
scene.add( mesh );
from above the tubeGeometry() draws fine separately as well but with the "path" made by that curve example. How can I use the vertices from my tetrahedron for example to create that "path" to pass to tubegeometry() ?
maybe a function that creates "segment vectors" from the vertices ?
I think it needs other properties of curve/path as well ?
I'm quite stuck at this point.
ANY Help, suggestions or examples would be greatly appreciated !
thanks.
You can try to create a TubeGeometry for each edge. Generate a LineCurve3 as the input path. Use the vertices of the edge as the start and end vector for the line.
Consider to use something like "triangulated lines" as an alternative in order to visualize the wireframe of a mesh with a linewidth greater than 1. With the next release of three.js(R91) there are new line primitives for this. Demo:
https://rawgit.com/mrdoob/three.js/dev/examples/webgl_lines_fat.html
This approach is much more performant than drawing a bunch of meshes with a TubeGeometry.
In Object3D contains a mesh
Object3D has an arbitrary scaling
Mesh has an arbitrary rotation. So my mesh is scaled relative to world coordinates.
But when I detach my mesh in the scene (for example, with the aid of THREE.SceneUtils.detach (mesh, obj3d, scene) I get an incorrect result, the mesh is scaled only locally.
I tried to change the geometry of the mesh, but still get an incorrect result:
http://jsfiddle.net/Ni55aN/VsWb9/3426/
var euler = new THREE.Euler(-mesh.rotation.x,-mesh.rotation.y,-mesh.rotation.z);
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationFromEuler(mesh.rotation));
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(new THREE.Matrix4().makeScale(
obj.scale.x,
obj.scale.y,
obj.scale.z
));
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationFromEuler(euler));
mesh.geometry.verticesNeedUpdate=true;
I realized what was my mistake.
It was necessary to apply getInverse of my first matrix instead .makeRotationFromEuler with negative values
var firstMatrix=new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationFromEuler(mesh.rotation);
var inverseMatrix=new THREE.Matrix4().getInverse(firstMatrix);
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(firstMatrix);
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(new THREE.Matrix4().makeScale(
obj.scale.x,
obj.scale.y,
obj.scale.z
));
mesh.geometry.applyMatrix(inverseMatrix);
mesh.geometry.verticesNeedUpdate=true;
I have an effectsComposer creating a result that is heavy in white.
var composer = new THREE.EffectComposer(renderer);
var renderPass = new THREE.RenderPass(shaderHeavyScene, camera);
composer.render(delta)
In the same project I have a material and scene with with a second image loaded into it.
When I replace: composer.render(delta);
with: renderer.render( secondImageScene, camera );
I can see my secondary image loaded into the three.js canvas.
My plan was to multiply the white heavy image of effectsComposer over the secondImageScene. (Revealing secondImageScene through the white)
My question is this: How would I go about multiplying the end result of the effectsComposer overtop of secondImageScene?
Use another pass that has input of two textures that were rendered in the previous passes, that multiplies them.