search

mrdoob / three.js

JavaScript 3D Library.
https://threejs.org/
MIT License
102.66k stars 35.37k forks source link

Editor should have most of THREE's features #16234

Open Temdog007 opened 5 years ago

Temdog007 commented 5 years ago
Description of the problem

There are several features of THREE that aren't accessible from the Editor. When I say accessible, I mean combination of:

Ideally, the Editor should be capable of creating and editing most objects and features that the API contains. This issue is really more to keep track of what the Editor can and can't do currently. I'm listing features that I think the Editor would be capable of handling.

Cameras

* = Serializable, but not deserializable ** = Serializable, but not as the original geometry (i.e. WireframeGeometry is serialized as BufferGeometry)

Three.js version
Browser
OS
webprofusion-chrisc commented 5 years ago

If you have used the threejs inspector chrome extension (which is not really operational anymore, especially for modules) https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/threejs-inspector/dnhjfclbfhcbcdfpjaeacomhbdfjbebi?hl=en you can see it has many options for adjusting material scale/wrapping and lighting attributes. This lets you take you current screen and adjust elements in real time (like materials, bump map scaling etc) and is great for experimenting.

It would be great if the editor could be fired up for any active scene (by including it as a module) like a dev tools for three.js and relevant to this issue it would be great if you could really access all properties - so perhaps where there is no UI to adjust something you could still set it using some custom json against that scene object?

mrdoob commented 5 years ago

I'm hoping we can create an official extension later this year.

danksky commented 5 years ago

I haven't been able to export my scene objects with their corresponding scripts. (Or at least, when I import my scene.json file, the scripts are missing on objects). Is this in the works?

Temdog007 commented 5 years ago

15779

makcreative commented 4 years ago

Can I please leave my two cents regarding the Editor supporting export of animations. This would be a very valuable feature to have. I love using the editor so a thank you to everyone for creating it and all of it's features!

Mugen87 commented 4 years ago

Can I please leave my two cents regarding the Editor supporting export of animations.

You can already export animated models to glTF.

Mugen87 commented 3 years ago

@mrdoob What do you think about introducing Object3D.animations. It would be an array that holds the model's animation clips. In this way, the editor would not save/restore animations separately anymore but could use Object3D.toJSON() and ObjectLoader.parse(). And animation clips would be present in JSON files when using Export Object or Export Scene.

There are use cases where animation clips are not necessarily assigned to a single 3D object e.g. when using AnimationObjectGroup. Object3D.animations seems to be a good default though.

mrdoob commented 3 years ago

@Mugen87 Hmm, what about adding it to Scene instead?

Mugen87 commented 3 years ago

Normally I would expect that clicking on objects in a 3D editor shows the respective animations. If the animations are added to Scene.animations (assuming a flat array of clips), it's not possible to reflect this relation.

Think about importing multiple animated glTF assets into the editor. Once you reload the scene, you would not know which animations belong to which model.

Besides, how would this work if you just want to export a single object (and not a scene)?

mrdoob commented 3 years ago

I was thinking it would be a reference list, instead of a flat array.

In fact, the editor already has a animations property and when we select an object, we look through that list. I think this should support importing multiple glTF assets?

I think a centralized list of animations is also how glTF does it. If we added them to Object3D and some animations were reused, we would end up with duplicated animations when exporting.

Besides, how would this work if you just want to export a single object (and not a scene)?

I think it's okay to not support animations when exporting single objects.

Mugen87 commented 3 years ago

If we added them to Object3D and some animations were reused, we would end up with duplicated animations when exporting.

If we serialize animation clips similar to materials or geometries, this won't happen. 3D object would point with UUIDs to their clips.

Nevertheless, I see you favor the Scene approach. I'll playing with it around and see how it goes.

webprofusion-chrisc commented 3 years ago

On the topic of animation, I was looking at this the other day and wondering how to re-use character animations (walking, running) across multiple models, so yes for me animation may be relevant to more than model in the scene. I've barely used animations the three so I've not idea what the technical limitations of that are.

On a tangent it would still be great if the editor could be hooked up to an existing (non-editor created) THREE scene, via extension or included as a module, as a way to play with the scene in memory (adjusting lights etc) - perhaps this is already possible? I was playing with the idea of a 3d interactive storybook tool (https://dojo3d.webprofusion.com) and a lot of the coding effort for kids using it is spent messing with positions/scale etc of objects.

Mugen87 commented 3 years ago

@mrdoob Do you know the origin of the following code section in ObjectLoader?

https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/45b0103e4dd9904b341d05ed991113f2f9edcc70/src/loaders/ObjectLoader.js#L133-L137

I do not understand how json.animations is created. Should I remove this code when implementing the scene approach?

Mugen87 commented 3 years ago

Nevertheless, I see you favor the Scene approach. I'll playing with it around and see how it goes.

I've implemented this approach today here: https://github.com/Mugen87/three.js/commit/c27d8c2316807f5a03c7fdeffae3614f366b6935

https://raw.githack.com/Mugen87/three.js/8917105377839889844f77c127d4d479f1844998/editor/index.html

My conclusion is that managing animations on Scene level introduces an unnecessary complexity that you don't see if you manage animations on Object3D level.

To sum up: I do not recommend to manage animations on scene level. If we do this on object level, we can still ensure that clips are serialized once and not nested inside the JSON structure. Sorry but I'm currently not able to see the benefits of having animations on scene level. Benefits which justify the additional complexity in code. It's like assigning materials to Scene instead of Object3D and then model the relationship between 3D objects and materials in Scene. It's just does not feel right.

mrdoob commented 3 years ago

@Mugen87 Thanks a lot for giving a try 🙏 Yes, lets add animation to Object3D instead.

JaimeTorrealba commented 8 months ago

Hi guys @mrdoob @Mugen87, I would like to contribute to the editor. How is the process? Is there a roadmap or something? or just I open an issue to see if is accepted or no ¿?

mrdoob commented 8 months ago

What do you want to add?

JaimeTorrealba commented 8 months ago

What do you want to add?

Well, I was thinking of adding more THREE stuff like extrude or shape, but you have already in the code, so maybe layers, line or others functionalities like focus or isolate objects?. Maybe another section for objects in the add-ons (could be a good idea to group the "add" menu in sub-menus, otherwise could grow too much, like cameras, primitives, lights, etc.) wdyt?

davcri commented 6 months ago

Does the editor support GLTF variants? If not would it be a good issue to work on?