I'm using mapboxgl and I'm also using ThreeJS be able to import 3D model to the scene. The 3D model that I used has very high polygon count. Due to MapboxGl's render function triggering in each frame my browser is being very laggy. Is it possible to trigger the render function only once or which function must use at this point istead of render function ? I would like to render my 3D model only once on the map.
Here is my codes:
mapBoxGLSetup: function () {
mapboxgl.accessToken = "";
oOriginPoint = [29.400261610397465, 40.87692013157027, 1];
oMap = new mapboxgl.Map({
logoPosition: "bottom-right",
container: oSceneContainer.id,
style: 'mapbox://styles/mapbox/streets-v11',
center: oOriginPoint,
zoom: 15,
pitch: 0,
antialias: true
});
var modelOrigin = oOriginPoint;
var modelAltitude = 0;
var modelRotate = [Math.PI / 2, Math.PI / 6.5, 0];
var modelAsMercatorCoordinate = mapboxgl.MercatorCoordinate.fromLngLat(
modelOrigin,
modelAltitude
);
o3DModelTransform = {
translateX: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.x,
translateY: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.y,
translateZ: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.z,
rotateX: modelRotate[0],
rotateY: modelRotate[1],
rotateZ: modelRotate[2],
scale: (modelAsMercatorCoordinate.meterInMercatorCoordinateUnits() / 1000) * 0.85
};
},
oSceneMapSetup: function () {
oMap.on('style.load', function () {
oMap.addLayer({
id: 'custom_layer',
type: 'custom',
renderingMode: '3d',
onAdd: function (oMapElement, oGlElement) {
base.oMapElement = oMapElement;
base.setupRenderer(oMapElement, oGlElement);
base.setupLayout(); // I'm loading 3D model in this function
base.setupRayCaster();
},
render: function (gl, matrix) {
// This render function is triggering each frame
var rotationX = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(1, 0, 0), o3DModelTransform.rotateX);
var rotationY = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(0, 1, 0), o3DModelTransform.rotateY);
var rotationZ = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(0, 0, 1), o3DModelTransform.rotateZ);
var oMatrix = new THREE.Matrix4().fromArray(matrix);
var oTranslation = new THREE.Matrix4().makeTranslation(o3DModelTransform.translateX, o3DModelTransform.translateY, o3DModelTransform.translateZ)
.scale(new THREE.Vector3(o3DModelTransform.scale, -o3DModelTransform.scale, o3DModelTransform.scale))
.multiply(rotationX)
.multiply(rotationY)
.multiply(rotationZ);
oCamera.projectionMatrix = oMatrix.multiply(oTranslation);
oRenderer.resetState();
oRenderer.render(oScene, oCamera);
base.oMapElement.triggerRepaint();
}
})
});
},
Thanks for your help and support.
As long as you still calling triggerRepaint on each layer render loop, you will repaint the full map, it’s inherent to the way CustomLayerInterface and update layer work in Mapbox.
When I did my first research on the TriggerRepaint topic, I found a quite old issue in Mapbox where a guy tested all the different options, including having a fully separated context and even 2 mapbox instances, one of them empty. Here is the link
The performance was obviously better in terms of FPS/memory, but there were other collaterals that I personally wouldn't assume for threebox, like losing the depth calculation between mapbox fill-extrusions and 3D custom layer.
Sharing context
Different contexts & canvas
The second issue is the delay between the movement of both cameras. While current sharing context ensures the objects are fixed and stuck to a coords set, creating different contexts will produce a soft dragging effect where the delay between the 2 contexts render can be visually perceived when the map moves first and the 3D objects follow. It's perceivable even with ne single cube, so with thousands of objects will be definitely clearer.
Related
I am trying to visualise a three.js scene in Mapbox, using an approach based on this tutorial: https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/add-3d-model/
I have a prepared scene named "threescene", which I added to the scene of the custom layer. It contains geometries of buildings. The coordinates are in WGS84, and it seems like they would be transformed properly in the tutorial code.
However, the layer simply does not show up. I don't know if I should do something else with the coordinates, or if there is another problem. I have already attempted to normalise the coordinates within the scene.
My code is as follows:
mapboxgl.accessToken = 'pk.eyJ1IjoiamxpZW1wdCIsImEiOiJjanpzZHNhOGwxZ3RjM2JuenBpcjN4eTh3In0.dnO_1v0NDfRMZBhv-hVvjQ';
var map = window.map = new mapboxgl.Map({
container: 'map',
style: 'mapbox://styles/mapbox/light-v10',
zoom: 18,
center: [6.8309373573, 53.0475174735], // min of bbox
pitch: 60,
antialias: true // create the gl context with MSAA antialiasing, so custom layers are antialiased
});
// parameters to ensure the model is georeferenced correctly on the map
var modelOrigin = [6.8309373573, 53.0475174735]; // min of bbox
var modelAltitude = 0;
var modelRotate = [Math.PI / 2, 0, 0];
var modelAsMercatorCoordinate = mapboxgl.MercatorCoordinate.fromLngLat(modelOrigin, modelAltitude);
// transformation parameters to position, rotate and scale the 3D model onto the map
var modelTransform = {
translateX: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.x,
translateY: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.y,
translateZ: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.z,
rotateX: modelRotate[0],
rotateY: modelRotate[1],
rotateZ: modelRotate[2],
/* Since our 3D model is in real world meters, a scale transform needs to be
* applied since the CustomLayerInterface expects units in MercatorCoordinates.
*/
scale: modelAsMercatorCoordinate.meterInMercatorCoordinateUnits()
};
var THREE = window.THREE;
// configuration of the custom layer for a 3D model per the CustomLayerInterface
var customLayer = {
id: '3d-model',
type: 'custom',
renderingMode: '3d',
onAdd: function(map, gl) {
this.camera = new THREE.Camera();
this.scene = new THREE.Scene();
this.scene.add(threescene); // here I include my scene
// create two three.js lights to illuminate the model
var directionalLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff);
directionalLight.position.set(0, -70, 100).normalize();
this.scene.add(directionalLight);
var directionalLight2 = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff);
directionalLight2.position.set(0, 70, 100).normalize();
this.scene.add(directionalLight2);
this.map = map;
// use the Mapbox GL JS map canvas for three.js
this.renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({
canvas: map.getCanvas(),
context: gl,
antialias: true
});
this.renderer.autoClear = false;
},
render: function(gl, matrix) {
var rotationX = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(1, 0, 0), modelTransform.rotateX);
var rotationY = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(0, 1, 0), modelTransform.rotateY);
var rotationZ = new THREE.Matrix4().makeRotationAxis(new THREE.Vector3(0, 0, 1), modelTransform.rotateZ);
var m = new THREE.Matrix4().fromArray(matrix);
var l = new THREE.Matrix4().makeTranslation(modelTransform.translateX, modelTransform.translateY, modelTransform.translateZ)
.scale(new THREE.Vector3(modelTransform.scale, -modelTransform.scale, modelTransform.scale))
.multiply(rotationX)
.multiply(rotationY)
.multiply(rotationZ);
this.camera.projectionMatrix.elements = matrix;
this.camera.projectionMatrix = m.multiply(l);
this.renderer.state.reset();
this.renderer.render(this.scene, this.camera);
this.map.triggerRepaint();
}
};
map.on('style.load', function() {
map.addLayer(customLayer, 'waterway-label');
});
You say your coordinates are in WGS84 so you're saying your model is in WGS84, which has units of degrees, yet later on in the code you've inherited the modelScale as in meters.
So which units is your model in, meters or degrees, and which coordinate reference system is it? As you'll need to apply the correct scale transform depending on this.
I've edited this post with a clean edge flow model and maps you can access if that helps in getting feedback. I can replicate the hard marked edges issue for this case too:
I'm finding the rendering result in three.js shows very hard marked polygons of the low poly object, I'm comparing this to sketchfab , unity3d and Iray render results.
Here's a snapshot of the edge flow shown in maya : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qNA4VoZf-rSyq3_MQdeZqdFC6BxsE3un
Here's what the model looks in maya's view panel (not subdivided): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1US-fv5-v2ygReqjRPgcsQSusrAXTxVG5
Here's a snapshot of the three.js render (marked in red box more noticeable)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K3CIBLvA7skVUPWL0qInLcFrK74DtriK
here sketchfabs without shadows/post-processing filters
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rozZyBSU1HwPPk4EnKFyc7SVvFNXQBwz
here Iray render in substance painter:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cXJzw780-kWH0nANy5ekM0HjRKAdaVQ2
Here's Unity render: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lLFLd8UT48OSvxJcp7arwygZZISsaHkS
Here is the fbx if you'd need to inspect mesh / edge flow: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BwljZNKL3dWJSSca6WYlqSK7os1Hp4pT
I'm also adding the normal map as I thought the problem may relate to my three.js setup for this(?): https://drive.google.com/open?id=149r3n9JGnb9xEJkf9Eh7ELK2bM83bJX_
albedo map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rGgDUOKbbeE6mrAlTG_6C7b8LgqQ1DF0
I'm reusing envmap hdr example and hdr setting.
Can someone please share some thoughts on what I can try differently?
Thank you for your help, Sergio.
I tried the following:
I softened edges in maya.
I also tried the lines below separately and combined but there was not result.
//vaseMesh.geometry.mergeVertices(); and //vaseMesh.geometry.computeVertexNormals();
normalScale appears to be best at material.normalScale.x = -1;
I also tried but had same result without hdr or tonemapping settings as per displacement three.js example https://threejs.org/examples/?q=displ#webgl_materials_displacementmap
renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.toneMapping = THREE.LinearToneMapping;
//load vase material textures once loaded
manager.onLoad=function () {
material = new THREE.MeshStandardMaterial( {
color: 0xffffff,
roughness: params.roughness,
metalness: params.metalness,
map: albedoM,
normalMap: normalMap,
normalScale: new THREE.Vector2( 1, -1 ),
aoMap: aoMap,
aoMapIntensity: 1,
flatShading: true,
side: THREE.DoubleSide
} );
var myObjectLoader = new THREE.FBXLoader( );
myObjectLoader.load( "Piece1.fbx", function ( group ) {
console.log("On object loading");
var geometry = group.children[ 0 ].geometry;
geometry.attributes.uv2 = geometry.attributes.uv;
geometry.center();
vaseMesh = new THREE.Mesh( geometry, material );
vaseMesh.material=material;
//vaseMesh.geometry.mergeVertices();
//vaseMesh.geometry.computeVertexNormals();
material.normalScale.x = -1;
scene.add( vaseMesh );
console.log("Finished adding to scene");
vaseMesh.position.set(0,0,0);
animate();
} );
}
var textureLoader = new THREE.TextureLoader(manager);
var albedoM = textureLoader.load( "vaseTextures/albedo.png");
var normalMap = textureLoader.load( "vaseTextures/normal.png");
var aoMap = textureLoader.load( "vaseTextures/ao.png");
Giving credit to #Mugen87 for the answer, removing the setting flatShading to true did it!
https://discourse.threejs.org/t/render-of-low-poly-model-tris-showing-very-hard-marked-in-three-js-compared-to-sketchfab-unit3d-iray/6829/2?u=mugen87
Cheers, Sergio
I'm playing with creating a Konva-based GridLayer for Leaflet (basically an abstraction around canvas elements to try and render tens of thousands of features efficiently). I have some code that seems to work to some degree (the lines in my sample data seem to line up with what I would expect), but I am getting strange behavior. Specifically, features will seem to visibly "teleport" or disappear completely. Additionally, it is not uncommon to see breaks in lines at the edges of the tiles. I suspect this means I'm calculating the pixel location within each tile incorrectly (although it's certainly possible something else is wrong). I am basically identifying the pixel location of the tile (x, y in renderStage()), and am translating the map pixel position by that many pixels (pt.x and pt.y, generated by projecting the lat/lon). This is intended to create an array of [x1, y1, x2, y2, ...], which can be rendered to the individual tile. Everything is expected to be in EPSG:4326.
Does anyone know how to properly project lat/lon to pixel coordinates within individual tiles of a GridLayer? There are plenty of examples for doing it for the entire map, but this doesn't seem to translate cleanly into how to find those same pixel locations in tiles offset from the upper left of the map.
import { GridLayer, withLeaflet } from "react-leaflet";
import { GridLayer as LeafletGridLayer } from "leaflet";
import { Stage, Line, FastLayer } from "konva";
import * as Util from 'leaflet/src/core/Util';
import _ from "lodash";
export const CollectionLayer = LeafletGridLayer.extend({
options: {
tileSize: 256
},
initialize: function(collection, props) {
Util.setOptions(this, props)
this.collection = collection;
this.stages = new Map();
this.shapes = {};
this.cached = {};
this.on('tileunload', (e) => {
const stage = this.stages[e.coords]
if (stage) {
this.stages.delete(e.coords)
stage.destroy()
}
})
},
renderStage: function(stage, coords, tileBounds) {
const x = coords.x * this._tileSize.x
const y = coords.y * this._tileSize.y
const z = coords.z;
const layer = stage.getLayers()[0]
if (!layer || !tileBounds) return;
_.each(this.collection.data, (entity, id) => {
if (entity.bounds && tileBounds.intersects(entity.bounds)) {
let shape = this.shapes[id]
if (!shape) {
shape = new Line()
shape.shadowForStrokeEnabled(false)
this.shapes[id] = shape
}
layer.add(shape);
const points = entity.position.reduce((pts, p) => {
const pt = this._map.project([p.value[1], p.value[0]], this._tileZoom)
pts.push(pt.x - x);
pts.push(pt.y - y);
return pts
}, [])
shape.points(points);
shape.stroke('red');
shape.strokeWidth(2);
this.shapes[id] = shape
}
})
layer.batchDraw()
},
createTile: function(coords) {
const tile = document.createElement("div");
const tileSize = this.getTileSize();
const stage = new Stage({
container: tile,
width: tileSize.x,
height: tileSize.y
});
const bounds = this._tileCoordsToBounds(coords);
const layer = new FastLayer();
stage.add(layer);
this.stages[coords] = stage
this.renderStage(stage, coords, bounds);
return tile;
}
});
class ReactCollectionLayer extends GridLayer {
createLeafletElement(props) {
console.log("PROPS", props);
return new CollectionLayer(props.collection.data, this.getOptions(props));
}
updateLeafletElement(fromProps, toProps) {
super.updateLeafletElement(fromProps, toProps);
if (this.leafletElement.collection !== toProps.collection) {
this.leafletElement.collection = toProps.collection
this.leafletElement.redraw();
}
}
}
export default withLeaflet(ReactCollectionLayer);
Everything is expected to be in EPSG:4326.
No.
Once you are dealing with raster data (image tiles), everything is expected to be either in the map's display CRS, which is (by default) EPSG:3857, or in pixels relative to the CRS origin. These concepts are explained a bit more in-depth in one of Leaflet's tutorials.
In fact, you seem to be working in pixels here, at least for your points:
const pt = this._map.project([p.value[1], p.value[0]], this._tileZoom)
However, your calculation of the pixel offset for each tile is too naïve:
const x = coords.x * this._tileSize.x
const y = coords.y * this._tileSize.y
That should instead rely on the private method _getTiledPixelBounds of L.GridLayer, e.g.:
const tilePixelBounds = this._getTiledPixelBounds();
const x = tilePixelBounds.min.x;
const y = tilePixelBounds.min.y;
And use these bounds to add some sanity checks while looping through the points:
const pt = this._map.project([p.value[1], p.value[0]], this._tileZoom);
if (!tilePixelBounds.contains(pt)) { console.error(....); }
On the other hand:
[...] an abstraction around canvas elements to try and render tens of thousands of features efficiently
I don't think using Konva to actually draw items on a <canvas> is going to improve the performance - the methods are just the same used by Leaflet (and, if we're talking about tiling vector data, the same used by Leaflet.VectorGrid ). Ten thousand calls to canvas draw functions are going to take the same time no matter what the library on top. If you have time to consider other alternatives, Leaflet.GLMarkers and its WebGL rendering might offer better performance at the price of less compatibility and higher integration costs.
I have a project built on a tileset, which I currently map to CubeGeometries via a number of ShaderMaterials.
When the cubes are rendered, there is bleeding and flickering around the edges of the cubes. Also, it seems to be an awfully bad way to do it, performance-wise.
So I looked up THREE.GeometryUtils.merge that apparently merges my cubes to one geometry, vertices and all.
Is it possible to make the merged mesh keep the materials I used on each of the cubes?
Is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do?
Edit:
This is an example of what is not working.
http://jsfiddle.net/CpQ77/3/
var shaderMat1 = new THREE.ShaderMaterial({
fragmentShader: document.getElementById("red-fragment").innerText,
vertexShader: document.getElementById("vertex").innerText
});
var shaderMat2 = new THREE.ShaderMaterial({
fragmentShader: document.getElementById("blue-fragment").innerText,
vertexShader: document.getElementById("vertex").innerText
});
var cube1 = new THREE.Mesh(new THREE.CubeGeometry(64, 64, 64), new THREE.MeshFaceMaterial([shaderMat1, shaderMat1, shaderMat1, shaderMat1, shaderMat1, shaderMat1]));
cube1.position.x = 0;
cube1.position.y = 300;
var cube2 = new THREE.Mesh(new THREE.CubeGeometry(64, 64, 64), new THREE.MeshFaceMaterial([shaderMat2, shaderMat2, shaderMat2, shaderMat2, shaderMat2, shaderMat2]));
cube2.position.x = 64;
cube2.position.y = 300;
var geo = new THREE.Geometry();
THREE.GeometryUtils.merge(geo, cube1);
THREE.GeometryUtils.merge(geo, cube2);
var mergedMesh = new THREE.Mesh(geo, new THREE.MeshFaceMaterial());
scene.add(mergedMesh);
It gives an error saying, "Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'map' of undefined", when trying to use the MeshFaceMaterial as used in a couple of places around the web.
I can't figure out what I'm missing though.
Edit2:
One workaround I found was to loop through all the faces of the new geometry, and applying a materialIndex to it before calling geometry.mergeVertices().
Thanks for this post, the comments were helpful in finding a solution. Instead of supplying the materials array to the Geometry, you should supply it as the only argument to MeshFaceMaterial.
Example in CoffeeScript:
materials = []
for i in [0...6]
texture = window["texture_" + i] # This is a Texture that has already been loaded
materials.push new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial(
color : color
map : texture
)
size = 1
geometry = new THREE.CubeGeometry size, size, size
cube = new THREE.Mesh geometry, new THREE.MeshFaceMaterial materials
cube.position.x = x
cube.position.y = y
cube.position.z = z
scene.add cube
return cube
I'm using RaphaelJS 2.0 to create several shapes in a div. Each shape needs to be able to be dragged and dropped within the bounds of the div, independently. Upon double clicking a shape, that shape needs to rotate 90 degrees. It may then be dragged and dropped and rotated again.
I've loaded some code onto fiddler: http://jsfiddle.net/QRZMS/. It's basically this:
window.onload = function () {
var angle = 0;
var R = Raphael("paper", "100%", "100%"),
shape1 = R.rect(100, 100, 100, 50).attr({ fill: "red", stroke: "none" }),
shape2 = R.rect(200, 200, 100, 50).attr({ fill: "green", stroke: "none" }),
shape3 = R.rect(300, 300, 100, 50).attr({ fill: "blue", stroke: "none" }),
shape4 = R.rect(400, 400, 100, 50).attr({ fill: "black", stroke: "none" });
var start = function () {
this.ox = this.attr("x");
this.oy = this.attr("y");
},
move = function (dx, dy) {
this.attr({ x: this.ox + dx, y: this.oy + dy });
},
up = function () {
};
R.set(shape1, shape2, shape3, shape4).drag(move, start, up).dblclick(function(){
angle -= 90;
shape1.stop().animate({ transform: "r" + angle }, 1000, "<>");
});
}
The drag and drop is working and also one of the shapes rotates on double click. However, there are two issues/questions:
How can I attach the rotation onto each shape automatically without having to hard-code each item reference into the rotate method? I.e. I just want to draw the shapes once, then have them all automatically exposed to the same behaviour, so they can each be dragged/dropped/rotated independently without having to explicitly apply that behaviour to each shape.
After a shape has been rotated, it no longer drags correctly - as if the drag mouse movement relates to the original orientation of the shape rather than updating when the shape is rotated. How can I get this to work correctly so that shapes can just be dragged and rotated many times, seamlessley?
Many thanks for any pointers!
I've tried several times to wrap my head around the new transform engine, to no avail. So, I've gone back to first principles.
I've finally managed to correctly drag and drop an object thats undergone several transformations, after trying to work out the impact of the different transformations - t,T,...t,...T,r,R etc...
So, here's the crux of the solution
var ox = 0;
var oy = 0;
function drag_start(e)
{
};
function drag_move(dx, dy, posx, posy)
{
r1.attr({fill: "#fa0"});
//
// Here's the interesting part, apply an absolute transform
// with the dx,dy coordinates minus the previous value for dx and dy
//
r1.attr({
transform: "...T" + (dx - ox) + "," + (dy - oy)
});
//
// store the previous versions of dx,dy for use in the next move call.
//
ox = dx;
oy = dy;
}
function drag_up(e)
{
// nothing here
}
That's it. Stupidly simple, and I'm sure it's occurred to loads of people already, but maybe someone might find it useful.
Here's a fiddle for you to play around with.
... and this is a working solution for the initial question.
I solved the drag/rotate issue by re-applying all transformations when a value changes. I created a plugin for it.
https://github.com/ElbertF/Raphael.FreeTransform
Demo here:
http://alias.io/raphael/free_transform/
As amadan suggests, it's usually a good idea to create functions when multiple things have the same (initial) attributes/properties. That is indeed the answer to your first question. As for the second question, that is a little more tricky.
When a Rapheal object is rotated, so is the coordinate plane. For some reason, dmitry and a few other sources on the web seem to agree that it's the correct way to implement it. I, like you, disagree. I've not managed to find an all round good solution but I did mange to create a work around. I'll briefly explain and then show the code.
Create a custom attribute to store the current state of rotation
Depending on that attribute you decide how to handle the move.
Providing that you are only going to be rotating shapes by 90 degrees (if not it becomes a lot more difficult) you can determine how the coordinates should be manipulated.
var R = Raphael("paper", "100%", "100%");
//create the custom attribute which will hold the current rotation of the object {0,1,2,3}
R.customAttributes.rotPos = function (num) {
this.node.rotPos = num;
};
var shape1 = insert_rect(R, 100, 100, 100, 50, { fill: "red", stroke: "none" });
var shape2 = insert_rect(R, 200, 200, 100, 50, { fill: "green", stroke: "none" });
var shape3 = insert_rect(R, 300, 300, 100, 50, { fill: "blue", stroke: "none" });
var shape4 = insert_rect(R, 400, 400, 100, 50, { fill: "black", stroke: "none" });
//Generic insert rectangle function
function insert_rect(paper,x,y, w, h, attr) {
var angle = 0;
var rect = paper.rect(x, y, w, h);
rect.attr(attr);
//on createion of the object set the rotation position to be 0
rect.attr({rotPos: 0});
rect.drag(drag_move(), drag_start, drag_up);
//Each time you dbl click the shape, it gets rotated. So increment its rotated state (looping round 4)
rect.dblclick(function(){
var pos = this.attr("rotPos");
(pos++)%4;
this.attr({rotPos: pos});
angle -= 90;
rect.stop().animate({transform: "r" + angle}, 1000, "<>");
});
return rect;
}
//ELEMENT/SET Dragger functions.
function drag_start(e) {
this.ox = this.attr("x");
this.oy = this.attr("y");
};
//Now here is the complicated bit
function drag_move() {
return function(dx, dy) {
//default position, treat drag and drop as normal
if (this.attr("rotPos") == 0) {
this.attr({x: this.ox + dx, y: this.oy + dy});
}
//The shape has now been rotated -90
else if (this.attr("rotPos") == 1) {
this.attr({x:this.ox-dy, y:this.oy + dx});
}
else if (this.attr("rotPos") == 2) {
this.attr({x: this.ox - dx, y: this.oy - dy});
}
else if (this.attr("rotPos") == 3) {
this.attr({x:this.ox+dy, y:this.oy - dx});
}
}
};
function drag_up(e) {
}
I can't really think of clear concise way to explain how the drag_move works. I think it's probably best that you look at the code and see how it works. Basically, you just need to work out how the x and y variables are now treated from this new rotated state. Without me drawing lots of graphics I'm not sure I could be clear enough. (I did a lot of turning my head sideways to work out what it should be doing).
There are a few drawbacks to this method though:
It only works for 90degree rotations (a huge amount more calculations would be needed to do 45degrees, nevermind any given degree)
There is a slight movement upon drag start after a rotation. This is because the drag takes the old x and y values, which have been rotated. This isn't a massive problem for this size of shape, but bigger shapes you will really start to notice shapes jumping across the canvas.
I'm assuming the reason that you are using transform is that you can animate the rotation. If this isn't necessary then you could use the .rotate() function which always rotates around the center of the element and so would eliminate the 2nd drawback I mentioned.
This isn't a complete solution, but it should definitely get you going along the correct path. I would be interested to see a full working version.
I've also created a version of this on jsfiddle which you can view here: http://jsfiddle.net/QRZMS/3/
Good luck.
I usually create an object for my shape and write the event handling into the object.
function shape(x, y, width, height, a)
{
var that = this;
that.angle = 0;
that.rect = R.rect(x, y, width, height).attr(a);
that.rect.dblclick(function() {
that.angle -= 90;
that.rect.stop().animate({
transform: "r" + that.angle }, 1000, "<>");
});
return that;
}
In the above, the constructor not only creates the rectangle, but sets up the double click event.
One thing to note is that a reference to the object is stored in "that". This is because the "this" reference changes depending on the scope. In the dblClick function I need to refer to the rect and angle values from my object, so I use the stored reference that.rect and that.angle
See this example (updated from a slightly dodgy previous instance)
There may be better ways of doing what you need, but this should work for you.
Hope it help,
Nick
Addendum: Dan, if you're really stuck on this, and can live without some of the things that Raphael2 gives you, I'd recommend moving back to Raphael 1.5.x. Transforms were just added to Raphael2, the rotation/translation/scale code is entirely different (and easier) in 1.5.2.
Look at me, updating my post, hoping for karma...
If you don't want to use a ElbertF library, you can transform Cartesian Coordinates in Polar Coordinates.
After you must add or remove the angle and transform again in Cartesian Coordinate.
We can see this example with a rect rotate in rumble and moved.
HTML
<div id="foo">
</div>
JAVASCRIPT
var paper = Raphael(40, 40, 400, 400);
var c = paper.rect(40, 40, 40, 40).attr({
fill: "#CC9910",
stroke: "none",
cursor: "move"
});
c.transform("t0,0r45t0,0");
var start = function () {
this.ox = this.type == "rect" ? this.attr("x") : this.attr("cx");
this.oy = this.type == "rect" ? this.attr("y") : this.attr("cy");
},
move = function (dx, dy) {
var r = Math.sqrt(Math.pow(dx, 2) + Math.pow(dy, 2));
var ang = Math.atan2(dy,dx);
ang = ang - Math.PI/4;
dx = r * Math.cos(ang);
dy = r * Math.sin(ang);
var att = this.type == "rect" ? { x: this.ox + dx, y: this.oy + dy} : { cx: this.ox + dx, cy: this.oy + dy };
this.attr(att);
},
up = function () {
};
c.drag(move, start, up);?
DEMO
http://jsfiddle.net/Ef83k/74/
my first thought was to use getBBox(false) to capture the x,y coordinates of the object after transform, then removeChild() the original Raphael obj from the canvas, then redraw the object using the coordinate data from getBBox( false ). a hack but i have it working.
one note though: since the object the getBBox( false ) returns is the CORNER coordinates ( x, y) of the object you need to calculate the center of the re-drawn object by doing ...
x = box['x'] + ( box['width'] / 2 );
y = box['y'] + ( box['height'] / 2 );
where
box = shapeObj.getBBox( false );
another way to solve the same problem