In Three.js, I have a 3d object where I am using local clipping planes to only render a part of the object.
However, since 3d objects are "hollow" (meaning only the outer surface is rendered), when we clip anything off that surface we can "see into" the object. Here's an example of what I mean, clipping a corner off a cube. Notice how we can see the backside of the opposite corner.
I would like to give the appearance of the object being solid. Based on this issue, it seems that the best way to accomplish this is to create a surface over the clipped region, thus capping the hole and making the object appear like it isn't hollow.
My question is, how do I know where to build this surface? Does Three.js provide a way to get a list of vertices that intersect between a plane and any arbitrary surface? If not, how might I approach this problem myself?
I found this question, but the author didn't describe how they solved the problem I am having here.
You want to render a clipped surface as if it were a solid -- i.e., not hollow.
You can achieve that effect with MeshPhongMaterial -- or any three.js material for that matter -- with a simple hack to the material shader.
material.onBeforeCompile = function( shader ) {
shader.fragmentShader = shader.fragmentShader.replace(
'#include <output_fragment>',
`
vec3 backfaceColor = vec3( 0.4, 0.4, 0.4 );
gl_FragColor = ( gl_FrontFacing ) ? vec4( outgoingLight, diffuseColor.a ) : vec4( backfaceColor, opacity );
`
)
};
This should look pretty good. It will require material.side = THREE.DoubleSide;
Alternatively, see https://threejs.org/examples/webgl_clipping_stencil.html.
three.js r.148
I made a THREE.SectionHelper class which could be interesting if you want to set a different material/color for the inside of the mesh that you are clipping. Check a demo in this fiddle.
var sectionHelper = new THREE.SectionHelper( mesh, 0xffffff );
scene.add(sectionHelper);
Related
I have a complex object, i.e. a box, and I would like to cut it dynamically. This jsFiddle is a very simple example:jsFiddle
Very simple plane
var plane = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material3 );
plane.rotation.x =1.3; // -Math.PI / 2;
gui.add(plane.rotation, "x", 0.1, Math.PI / 2).name("angle");
gui.add(plane.position, "y", -1, 1).name("h");
scene.add( plane );
I would like to remove from my object the upper part. Just like to cut off a piece from an apple using a knife.
The plane is the knife: In my example, you can play with 2 controls to move the plane up and down or change the angle.
Can you help me to hide the removed part from the object?
You've got two options:
You could use clipping as WestLangley mentioned above.
Clipping does not modify the vertex geometry, it's only visual.
Is non-destructive, so it's good for animating or making constant updates.
Clipping is mostly done with a few planes instead of complex geometry.
You could use a boolean operation with Constructive Solid Geometry.
Boolean does affect the vertex geometry, which can be exported.
Operation is "destructive", so you can't make updates once it's done.
Boolean can be performed with complex geometries, as long as they're "manifold".
Boolean operations require both geometries to be manifold geometries in order to work. This means both meshes have to be closed, without open faces. You cannot use infinitely thin planes, so the example in your JSFiddle wouldn't work. You would need to give each side a little bit of thickness, like using a box with a width of 0.0001 instead of a plane.
I have a three.js model of an object. Now I'm interested in the contours on different heights(corner points as well as some points on curves to determine curvature). At the moment we convert our model to an object in a CSG Library(csg.js), intersect it with a small flat box(because just a plane is not possible somehow) on that specific height and then create an image and use OpenCV findContours() to get back the points we're interested in.
This process gets somewhat slow the bigger the models get and the more slices I have, so I wondered whether you guys know of a better way to tackle that problem. Maybe I just oversaw something in the documentation that would help me, but so far I couldn't find anything that looked like it would help me.
The contours might be convex and concave depending on the object, so the solution needs to be generic on that part.
I'd really appreciate any input or pointer to something that might help me.
Use a shaderMaterial. In the uniforms, set
myUniforms = {
uClipPlane: { type: "v4", value: new THREE.Vector4( 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, -300.0) },
clipOffset: { type: "f", value: 1.0 },
}
The clipPlane defines a plane where you will be clipping the object. The clipOffset defines the tolerance on the clipping process.
In the vertex shader, set
vec4 pos4 = modelViewMatrix * vec4( position, 1.0 );
vClip = dot ( uClipPlane, pos4);
And in the fragment shader, set
if (vClip < 0 || vClip > clipOffset ) discard;
The reason you need a clipOffset is the same that you need a box in your process, the points in your shape will never be in an exact plane, but at some small distance of the plane.
I am very stuck, I do not understand why my objects are disappearing with canvas renderer. While it works exactly as expected with webGL renderer, I need to display this on mobile devices and as such do not have access to a webGL renderer
I have tried overdraw:true but this does not seem to make the missing objects disappear
http://jsfiddle.net/xH9GD/3/
When I comment out the room the boxes remain but they get very mangled on my iPhone.
I understand the concept of Z-fighting however I don't think this is occurring as the zPosition of each of the faces should be seperate to the others
floor = drawTopFacingWall(room.width, room.length );
wall1 = drawLeftFacingWall( room.length, room.depth );
wall2 = drawFrontFacingWall( room.width, room.depth );
wall3 = drawRightFacingWall( room.length, room.depth );
roof = drawBottomFacingWall( room.width, room.length );
wall4 = drawBackFacingWall( room.width, room.depth );
The "disappearing" geometry is caused by a limitation of CanvasRenderer due to the way it handles depth-sorting.
While WebGLRenderer sorts at the pixel level, CanvasRenderer sorts at the polygon level.
The best you can do is to increase the tessellation of your geometry.
var geometry = new THREE.PlaneGeometry( width, height, 10, 10 );
three.js r.66
Is there a way to create a Three.js 3D line series with width and thickness?
Even though the Three.js line object supports linewidth, this attribute is not yet supported in all browsers on all platforms in WebGL.
Here's where you set linewidth in Three.js:
var material = new THREE.LineBasicMaterial({
color: 0xff0000,
linewidth: 5
});
The Three.js ribbon object - which had width - has recently been dropped.
The Three.js tube object generates 3D extrusions but - being Bezier-based - the lines do not pass through the control points.
Can anybody think of a method of drawing a line series (polylines, plotlines) in Three.js that has some sort of user definable 'bulk' such as width, thickness or radius?
This question may be a restating of this question:
Extruding a graph in three.js.
Given that I do not think that there is a readily available method, I would be happy to participate in an effort to create a simple function that responds to this question.
But a response that points to an existing workable method would be cool...
As WestLangley suggests, one possible solution includes the polyline being of constant pixel width - as is currently available with the Three.js canvas renderer.
A comparison of the two renderers is shown here:
Canvas and WebGL Lines Compared via GitHub Pages
Canvas and WebGL Lines Compared via jsFiddle
A solution where you could specify linewidth and similar results occurred on both renderers would be very cool.
There are, however, other ways of thinking of 3D lines where lines have actual physical constructs. They cast shadows, they respond to events. These also need to be looked into.
Here are links to GitHub Pages with two demos of lines made up of multiple meshes:
Sphere and Cylinder Polylines
An 'expensive solution. Each joint is made up of a full sphere.
Cubes Polylines
My guess is that building either of these as smooth single meshes will be complex to problems to solve. So in the meantime here is a link to a partial visualization of 3D lines that are wide and have height:
3D Box Line on jsFiddle
The goal is have to code 'with a low level of complexity - in other words - for dummies'. Thus a 3D line should be as easy and as familiar as adding a sphere or cube. Geometry + material = mesh > scene. And the geometry should be quite economical in terms of creating vertices and faces.
The lines should have width and height. Up is always in the Y direction. The demo shows this. What the demo does not show is corners being mitred nicely...
I cooked up a possible solution which I believe meets most of your requirements:
http://codepen.io/garciahurtado/pen/AGEsf?editors=001
The concept is fairly simple: render any arbitrary geometry in "wireframe mode", then apply a full screen GLSL shader to it to add thickness to the wireframe lines.
The shader is inspired by the blur shaders in the ThreeJS distro, which essentially copy the image a bunch of times along the horizontal and vertical axis. I automated that process and made the number of copies a user defined parameter, while ensuring that the copies were offset by 1 pixel.
I used a 3D cube mesh in my demo (with an ortho camera), but it should be trivial to convert it to a poly line.
The real meat and potatoes of this thing is in the custom shader (fragment shader portion):
uniform sampler2D tDiffuse;
uniform int edgeWidth;
uniform int diagOffset;
uniform float totalWidth;
uniform float totalHeight;
const int MAX_LINE_WIDTH = 30; // Needed due to weird limitations in GLSL around for loops
varying vec2 vUv;
void main() {
int offset = int( floor(float(edgeWidth) / float(2) + 0.5) );
vec4 color = vec4( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0);
// Horizontal copies of the wireframe first
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_LINE_WIDTH; i++) {
float uvFactor = (float(1) / totalWidth);
float newUvX = vUv.x + float(i - offset) * uvFactor;
float newUvY = vUv.y + (float(i - offset) * float(diagOffset) ) * uvFactor; // only modifies vUv.y if diagOffset > 0
color = max(color, texture2D( tDiffuse, vec2( newUvX, newUvY ) ));
// GLSL does not allow loop comparisons against dynamic variables. Workaround below
if(i == edgeWidth) break;
}
// Now we create the vertical copies
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_LINE_WIDTH; i++) {
float uvFactor = (float(1) / totalHeight);
float newUvX = vUv.x + (float(i - offset) * float(-diagOffset) ) * uvFactor; // only modifies vUv.x if diagOffset > 0
float newUvY = vUv.y + float(i - offset) * uvFactor;
color = max(color, texture2D( tDiffuse, vec2( newUvX, newUvY ) ));
if(i == edgeWidth) break;
}
gl_FragColor = color;
}
Pros:
No need for additional geometry beyond the line vertices
Line thickness is user definable
A full screen shader should be relatively gentle on the GPU
Can be implemented fully within the WebGL canvas
Cons:
Line thickness is close to pixel perfect on horizontal and vertical edges, but slightly off on diagonal edges. This is due to the algorithm used and is a limitation of the solution. Having said that, for low line thickness and complex geometries, this is barely noticeable with the naked eye.
The joints between lines will show gaps for large enough line thickness. You can play with the Codepen demo to see what I mean. I started to implement a solution to this by adding a second "diagonal pass", but it got a little hairy and I think this would only be an issue for higher line thicknesses (+8 pixels) or extreme line angles. If you are interested in this solution, you can look at the original source to see where I was going with it.
Since this uses a full screen filter, you can only use the WebGL context for displaying objects of this thickness. Showing various line widths would require additional rendering passes.
As a potential solution. You could take your 3d points, then use THREE.Vector3.project method to figure out screen-space coordinates. Then simply use canvas and it's lineTo and moveTo operations. Canvas 2d context does support variable line thickness.
var w = renderer.domElement.innerWidth;
var h = renderer.domElement.innerHeight;
vector.project(camera);
context2d.lineWidth = 3;
var x = (vector.x+1)*(w/2);
var y = h - (vector.y+1)*(h/2);
context2d.lineTo(x,y);
Also, i don't think you can use the same canvas for that, so it would have to be a layer (another canvas) above your gl rendering context canvas.
If you have infrequent camera changes - it is also possible to construct line out of polygons and update it's vertex positions based on camera transform. For orthographic camera this would work best as only rotations would require vertex position manipulation.
Lastly, you could disable canvas clearing and draw your lines several times with offset inside a circle or a box. After that you can re-enable clearing. This would require several extra draw operations, but it's probably the most scalable approach.
The reason lines don't work as you'd expect out of the box is due to how ANGLE works, it's used in Chrome and in Firefox to my knowledge, it emulates OpenGL via DirectX. Guys from ANGLE state that WebGL spec only requires support of line thickness up-to 1, so they do not see it as a bug and don't intend to "fix" it. Line thickness should work on non-windows OSs though, where ANGLE is not used.
I am using the Three.JS library to display a point cloud in a web brower. The point cloud is generated once at start up and no further points are added or removed. But it does need to be rotated, panned and zoomed. I've gone through the tutorial about creating particles in three.js here
Using the example I can create particles that are squares or use an image of a sphere to create a texture. The image is closer to what I want, but is it possible to generate the point clouds without using the image? The sphere geometry for example.
The problem with the image is that when you have thousands of points it seems they sometimes obscure each other around the edges. From what I can gather it seems like the black region in a point's png file blocks the image immediately behind the current point. (But it is transparent to points further behind)
This obscuring of the images is the reason I would like to generate the points using shapes. I have tried replacing particles = new THREE.Geometry() with THREE.SphereGeometry(radius, segments, rings) and tried to change the vertices to spheres.
So my question is. How do I modify the example code so that it renders spheres (or points) instead of squares? Also, is a particle system the most efficient system for my particular case or should I just generate the particles and set their individual positions? As I mentioned I only generate the points once, but then rotate, zoom, pan the points. (I used the TrackBall sample code to get the mouse events working).
Thanks for your help
I don't think rendering a point cloud with spheres is very efficient. You should be able to get away with a particle system and use a texture or a small canvas program to draw a circle.
One of the first three.js sample uses a canvas program, here are the important bits:
var PI2 = Math.PI * 2;
var program = function ( context )
{
context.beginPath();
context.arc( 0, 0, 1, 0, PI2, true );
context.closePath();
context.fill();
};
var particle = new THREE.Particle( new THREE.ParticleCanvasMaterial( {
color: Math.random() * 0x808008 + 0x808080,
program: program
} ) );
Feel free to adapt the code for the WebGL renderer.
Another clever solution I've seen in the examples is using an encoded webm video to store the data and pass that to a GLSL shader which is rendered through a particle system in three.js
If your point cloud comes from a Kinect, these resources might be useful:
DepthCam
KinectJS
When comparing my code to http://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_custom_attributes_particles3
I saw the only difference was:
vec4 outColor = texture2D( texture, gl_PointCoord );
if ( outColor.a < 0.5 ) discard;
gl_FragColor = outColor;
Added to the fragment shader, fixed this problem for me.
It wasn't z fighting because randomly, some corners would overlap distant particles.
material.alphaTest = 0.5 didn't work and turning off depth writes/tests messed up the viewing order.
The problem with the image is that when you have thousands of points
it seems they sometimes obscure each other around the edges. From what
I can gather it seems like the black region in a point's png file
blocks the image immediately behind the current point. (But it is
transparent to points further behind)
You can get rid of the transparency overlapping problem of the underlying square structure by turning
depthTest:false
The problem then is, if you are adding additional objects to the scene the depth-testing will fail and the PointCloud will be rendered in front of the other objects, ignoring the actual order. To get around that you can additionally turn off
depthWrite:false