I'm looking for an efficient method of overlaying a texture to cover a mesh. I'm not an expert, more a novice, when it comes to 3 dimensional mapping/objects. Below shows how I would like the end product to look.
When attempting to apply texture with the following code, the end result looks similar to below. I have not done any UV mapping, I believe my answer may be lay here. As you can see from the below image it roughly takes the general shade of the picture but I get the impression that the texture is being drawn between each vertice of the model rather than across the entirity.
var textureLoader = new THREE.TextureLoader();
var texture = textureLoader.load('resource/images/materials/Mahogany.jpg');
var STLLoader = new THREE.STLLoader();
STLLoader.load( 'test.stl', function ( geometry1 ) {
var meshMaterial = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({map:texture});
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry1, meshMaterial );
mesh.scale.set(1, 1, 1);
mesh.position.set(5, 20, 80);
scene.add(mesh);
});
The cube has the correct texturing, whereas my STL loaded mesh does not.
Please ignore the rotation of the object in the above picture, I will move to unioning my objects together once I have fixed my texturing issues.
Fairly new at asking questions on here so please do comment to help me expand my question if it's too general or not percise enough. Thank you.
You may use
THREE.MeshPhongMaterial()
instead of
THREE.MeshBasicMaterial()
THREE.MeshPhongMaterial() will wrap the material outside the object and we can get curved material as per the object.
Related
I am trying to get collision detection from meshes i lay out on my Three.js scene. I am confused on how the Raycaster reallu works and if i get it right.
Here is a fiddle to descripe what i have problem with
//Add cuba at 40/40
geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(20, 20, 20);
material = new THREE.MeshNormalMaterial();
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
mesh.position.setY(40)
scene.add(mesh);
//Add Ray
var origin = new THREE.Vector3(50, 0, 0),
direction = new THREE.Vector3(-1,0,0),
ray = new THREE.Raycaster(origin, direction),
collisionResults = ray.intersectObjects([mesh]);
if(collisionResults.length!==0){
alert('Ray collides with mesh. Distance :' + collisionResults[0].distance)
}
//Add Arrow to show ray
scene.add( new THREE.ArrowHelper(direction, origin, 50, 0x000000));
Not working:
http://jsfiddle.net/FredricBerling/LwfPL/1/
Working:
http://jsfiddle.net/FredricBerling/LwfPL/3/
Basically the fiddle lays out a cube and the 50 points form that i shoot a ray in a "direction". Problem seems to be that it states a "hit" even if it shouldnt.
I lay out a Arrowhelper to show where i suspect the Raycaster shoots its ray.
From other tests it seems like the direction in Raycaster is different from the one in Arrowhelper. Raycaster seems to shoot the ray into the 0,0,0 of the scene. I am confused
EDIT!. Rob gave the answer. I needed to make sure the meshes was rendered so that worl matrixes was applied. Fiddle is updated with the correct code that works for testing Raycaster as expected.
The apparent false positive you're seeing is due to the fact that even though you have set the box's position, it hasn't yet had its world transformation matrix updated. This normally only happens just before rendering.
If you move the raycast test to after the first render (or call updateWorld() manually), you won't get a hit.
I´m using Three.js and trying to create some custom shapes, similar to one that appears in a project from one of agencies using threejs:
three.js featured project esample
How did they generated these boxes with holes inside? (on that examples
boxes basically have only borders around and are empty inside).
As I saw in the code (I was trying to figure out myself) they use BoxGeometry but I have no idea how to accomplish that. Does anyone know or can give me any directions? It would be really helpfull as i´m stuck with this and have no idea on how to create them.
So in THREE.js Meshes represent any kind of 3D object. They combine Geometries and Shaders. Generally to create a mesh you call
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, shader );
If you use any of the builtin shaders (also known as Materials [ MeshBasicMaterial, MeshLambertMaterial, etc]) they have a wireFrame boolean attribute that allows this functionality.
var geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry( x, y, z ),
material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial( {
wireFrame: true, // This makes the object appear wireframe
color: 0xffffff // You can alter other properties
});
var box = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
// You can also change it later
box.material.wireFrame = false;
I'm rendering an object with textures using MTL and OBJ files with Three.js. My code here works but my model is displayed as flat shaded. How do I enable smooth shading?
var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var mtlLoader = new THREE.MTLLoader();
mtlLoader.setPath('assets/');
mtlLoader.setBaseUrl('assets/');
mtlLoader.load('asset.mtl', function(materials) {
materials.preload();
var objLoader = new THREE.OBJLoader();
objLoader.setMaterials(materials);
objLoader.setPath('assets/');
objLoader.load('asset.obj', function(object) {
//
// This solved my problem
//
object.traverse(function(child) {
if(child instanceof THREE.Mesh)
{
child.material.shading = THREE.SmoothShading;
}
});
//
//
scene.add(object);
});
});
EDIT:
I updated my code with a solution that fixed my problem based on the accepted answer.
It could be one of two things that I can think of right now.
It could be that the material is set to FlatShading. In this case just somehow retrieve the object and use object.material.shading = THREE.SmoothShading; to fix.
If that doesn't change it, it's possible that the object contains per-vertex-normals (meaning that every vertex of every triangle has a normal attached to it) and that all normals for each triangle point in the same direction. This is something that should better be solved in the 3d-editing process, but you can also re-compute the normals in three.js:
object.geometry.computeVertexNormals(true);
This should [1] recompute the normals for smooth surfaces. However, it will only work for regular Geometries and Indexed BufferGeometries (or, to put it the other way around: it won't work if the geometry doesn't have information about vertices being reused for adjacent faces)
[1]: I didn't test it myself and just go after what I just read in the code
You may need to smooth geometry as follows:
geometry = BufferGeometryUtils.mergeVertices(geometry, 0.1);
geometry.computeVertexNormals(true);
Possibly dumb question but here goes. Three.js geometries have 'parameter' feilds associated with them, see the box geometry here...
box Geometry parameters
I am trying to update these parameters like this...
var nodeSize = 10;
var geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(nodeSize, nodeSize, nodeSize);
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, new THREE.MeshNormalMaterial({side:THREE.DoubleSide}));
scene.add(mesh);
mesh.geometry.parameters.depth=20;
But of course, the geometry remains unchanged. Is there a way of updating the geometry by editing these parameters?
fiddle here https://jsfiddle.net/kn3owveg/2/
Any help appreciated!
parameters.depth is only used at geometry construction time. it has no effect when modifying it. you can think of it as read only.
Use the example at BoxGeometry and the gui on the right to see how to achieve what you want.
Gaitat is totally right, you can't change geometry with changing of parameters.
And there can be another solution. With scaling of your cube.
function setSize( myMesh, xSize, ySize, zSize){
scaleFactorX = xSize / myMesh.geometry.parameters.width;
scaleFactorY = ySize / myMesh.geometry.parameters.height;
scaleFactorZ = zSize / myMesh.geometry.parameters.depth;
myMesh.scale.set( scaleFactorX, scaleFactorY, scaleFactorZ );
}
...
setSize(mesh, 10, 10, 20);
jsfiddle example
Technically, scaling only creates the illusion of an updated geometry. I would say a better approach would be to reassign the geometry value of your mesh to a new geometry.
mesh.geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(newSize, newSize, newSize)
With this approach you can update any aspect of the geometry including depth segments for example. This is especially useful when working with non cube geometries like cylinders or spheres.
Here is a full rework of your original code using this approach, really only the last line has changed:
var nodeSize = 10;
var geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(nodeSize, nodeSize, nodeSize);
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, new THREE.MeshNormalMaterial({side:THREE.DoubleSide}));
scene.add(mesh);
mesh.geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry(nodeSize, nodeSize, 20);
I'm learning ThreeJS for 4 months, applying it into a personal project.
Yesterday, I achieved building a stronghold using most of ThreeJS geometries and some CSG tricks. The result looks fine, but I like precision and my geometry is kind of a mess (mostly after CSG subtractions).
[Question] I wonder if there's a known way to merge two geometries and replacing its old faces by new computed faces ? There is a JSFiddle to illustrate my question.
[Edit : Updated the fiddle with a fourth and a fifth mesh]
// FIGURE 1 : Basic merged geometry
var figure1 = new THREE.Geometry();
figure1.merge(box1Geometry);
figure1.merge(box2Geometry);
figure1.merge(box3Geometry);
figure1.computeFaceNormals();
figure1.computeVertexNormals();
var mesh = new THREE.Mesh(figure1, material);
scene.add(mesh);
// FIGURE 2 : Merged geometry with merged vertices
var figure2 = figure1.clone();
figure2.mergeVertices();
figure2.computeFaceNormals();
figure2.computeVertexNormals();
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(figure2, material);
// FIGURE 3 : Expected merged geometry (less faces)
var figure3 = new THREE.Geometry();
figure3`.vertices.push(
// manually create vertices here
);
figure3.faces.push(
// manually create the faces here
);
figure3.computeBoundingSphere();
figure3.computeFaceNormals();
figure3.computeVertexNormals();
mesh = new THREE.Mesh(figure3, material);
scene.add(mesh);
Three ways to get the same mesh
The first mesh on the left is a basic merged geometry composed of three boxGeometry.
The second mesh in the middle is exactly the same mesh, after calling the mergeVertices() function. It results saving 4 vertices. But faces inside the mesh are still there. It results not only in looking bad (for me), but also in issues for texturing or lighting these parts (face normals aren't where they should be).
The last mesh on the right is the mesh I would expect after merging. Look at the faces below the middle box, they only fit what they should.
The fact that it leads to texture and lighting issues (look at the JSFiddle, it lights the inner parts of the mesh) makes me think that it must be a simple and well-known way to solve this but I'm just feeling like a big noob.
This issue is directly linked with another question I'll ask if I don't find (or understand) any answer on SO (and maybe it'll help you to understand why I want to do that): Is there a way to apply a texture on this merged geometry without creating an unique material for each face of each geometry (because of the different UV mapping and mesh sizes) ? I can't imagine to do it manually for each face of my huge stronghold...
[EDIT] Writing my question, I just realized that ThreeCSG and its union() function do the trick. But I don't like the mess of vertices it creates. Even for basic geometry like these boxes, ThreeCSG will create strange vertices and faces on parts of the geometry where everything was already fine.
I updated the JSFiddle with a fourth mesh (CSG). In this simple usecase, we can see that there are 2 vertices and 2 faces more than expected. It seems that it kept the old faces (look at the wireframe !).
Is ThreeCSG union the best option for now ?
[EDIT 2] Fiddle updated with native CSG geometry. It gives the result I expected with only 20 vertices and 32 faces. Thanks to Wilt for this idea. The issue is that hard coding the polygons takes too long (take a look at the code for only three boxes). I have no JSON file to load and generate the polygons, I only have ThreeJS geometries. So I'll look at the conversion between ThreeJS and ThreeCSG geometries and I hope to understand why when there is a conversion, it gives a bad result.