简体   繁体   English

对于粒子,Three.js BufferGeometry vs Geometry

[英]Three.js BufferGeometry vs Geometry for particles

Some particle examples use THREE.BufferGeometry and others use a simply THREE.Geometry . 一些粒子示例使用THREE.BufferGeometry ,其他粒子示例使用简单的THREE.Geometry Some lines about pros and cons of every method? 关于每种方法的利弊有哪些方面?

THREE.BufferGeometry is slowly replacing THREE.Geometry as it is computationally more efficient. THREE.BufferGeometry正逐渐取代THREE.Geometry因为它在计算上更有效率。

The THREE.BufferGeometry API may still be undergoing changes, so you have to be prepared for that. THREE.BufferGeometry API可能仍在进行更改,因此您必须为此做好准备。

The THREE.Geometry API is easier to use, perhaps, but that may be because it is more familiar. THREE.Geometry API可能更容易使用,但这可能是因为它更熟悉。

Currently they are both supported. 目前他们都受到支持。

Which one you use is up to you. 您使用哪一个取决于您。

three.js r.67 three.js r.67

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM