Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
TextGeometry changes and support in editor #27931
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
TextGeometry changes and support in editor #27931
Changes from 3 commits
bea5c1f
be77eef
33a29dd
e646d48
89d73f3
b7645d8
67ae50e
575e31d
cf8174b
809ffb6
24fe50f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR does two things in one go. It adds support to the editor and renames the
height
parameter todepth
.Ideally, there is a single PR for each change since both changes are independent of each other.
Besides, if
height
is renamed, the example code (meaningwebgl_geometry_text.html
and others) should be updated in order to avoid deprecation warnings.That said, I also favor
depth
sinceheight
was a confusing name for describing the thickness (or depth) of the text.Would you be okay with moving the renaming change to a separate PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure I can do that. I'll wait on the confirmation of the
loader.registerGeometry()
api before making the changes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
actually the change to extract is easier to do, so it's in #27949
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is the bounding box computed at this point? It will be automatically recomputed when calling
BufferGeometry.scale()
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BTW: Is the introduction of a
scale
parameter really necessary? Couldn't apps just useObject3D.scale
instead?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the reason to do it here is getting a scaled down (0.01) geometry mostly for connivence to be used in Editor.
the
object.scale
could be used, but I wasn't sure if it was a good idea to insert a TextGeometry at a custom object scale, hence having it in the geometry seems like a more convenient way.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In order to keep the parameters of
TextGeometry
to a minimum, it would be better to useObject3D.scale
and not introduce an additional way for transforming geometry, imo.