Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added TriangleGeometry Class #29882

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Added TriangleGeometry Class #29882

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

pxninja
Copy link

@pxninja pxninja commented Nov 14, 2024

Description

I noticed Three JS primitives do not include a triangular plane. This PR adds that primitive with the following parameters: width, height, skew, and detail.

While the default parameters create an equilateral triangle, adjusting the width / height / skew will produce any type (isosceles, scalene, right, obtuse). Increasing the detail uniformly subdivides the plane, where "detail" is the number of edge divisions, and the number of facets per division is ( detail + 1 ) ^ 2.

Example of uniform subdivision (aka. what to expect):

image

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2024

📦 Bundle size

Full ESM build, minified and gzipped.

Before After Diff
WebGL 339.37
79.06
339.38
79.06
+17 B
+2 B
WebGPU 478.22
132.63
478.23
132.64
+17 B
+3 B
WebGPU Nodes 477.68
132.51
477.7
132.52
+17 B
+3 B

🌳 Bundle size after tree-shaking

Minimal build including a renderer, camera, empty scene, and dependencies.

Before After Diff
WebGL 464.82
112.02
464.82
112.02
+0 B
+0 B
WebGPU 546.95
148.2
546.95
148.2
+0 B
+0 B
WebGPU Nodes 502.83
137.91
502.83
137.91
+0 B
+0 B

@pxninja
Copy link
Author

pxninja commented Nov 15, 2024

After giving it some thought, I can see how normalizing the height could be confusing. Height is now a literal unit and the UV maps to the base and apex of the geometry.

@Mugen87
Copy link
Collaborator

Mugen87 commented Nov 15, 2024

Do you mind moving TriangleGeometry into https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/tree/dev/examples/jsm/geometries?

This kind of geometry generator has not been requested so far so I do not see it as a core module.

@pxninja
Copy link
Author

pxninja commented Nov 15, 2024

Moved, as requested. For what it's worth, because a triangle is the most fundamental geometry, I (personally) would expect a triangle to be a primitive. Coupled with it being the only geometry that easily creates the Three JS logo, it seems like src/geometry/ is a better fit, but not a big deal either way.

@linbingquan
Copy link
Contributor

related: #29690 (comment)

@linbingquan
Copy link
Contributor

linbingquan commented Nov 16, 2024

UVsDebug:
image

@linbingquan
Copy link
Contributor

linbingquan commented Nov 16, 2024

How about do this.

  1. Make detail default value is 1
  2. Rename detail to segments
--- a/examples/jsm/geometries/TriangleGeometry.js
+++ b/examples/jsm/geometries/TriangleGeometry.js
@@ -3,17 +3,19 @@ import { Float32BufferAttribute } from '../core/BufferAttribute.js';

 class TriangleGeometry extends BufferGeometry {

-       constructor( width = 1, height = Math.sqrt( 3 ) / 2, skew = 0, detail = 0 ) {
+       constructor( width = 1, height = Math.sqrt( 3 ) / 2, skew = 0, segments = 1 ) {

                super();

                this.type = 'TriangleGeometry';

+               segments = Math.max( Math.floor( segments ), 1 );
+
                this.parameters = {
                        width: width,
                        height: height,
                        skew: skew,
-                       detail: detail
+                       segments: segments
                };

                // buffers
@@ -25,7 +27,6 @@ class TriangleGeometry extends BufferGeometry {

                // vertex helper variables

-               const segments = Math.max( Math.floor( detail + 1 ), 1 );
                const offsetX = width / 2;
                const offsetY = height / 3;

@pxninja
Copy link
Author

pxninja commented Nov 16, 2024

  • details is now segments
  • The UV looks correct to me ... is there something I'm missing? Would this be better if mapped as an equilateral (ie. the base V coordinate is greater than 0 and the apex V coordinate is less than 1), or proportional to the width / height / skew?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants