对于粒子，Three.js BufferGeometry vs Geometry [英] Three.js BufferGeometry vs Geometry for particles

问题描述

某些粒子示例使用 THREE.BufferGeometry ，而其他粒子示例使用简单的 THREE.Geometry 。
关于每种方法的优点和缺点的一些线？

Some particle examples use THREE.BufferGeometry and others use a simply THREE.Geometry. Some lines about pros and cons of every method?

推荐答案

THREE.BufferGeometry 正在慢慢取代 THREE.Geometry ，因为它在计算上更有效率。

THREE.BufferGeometry is slowly replacing THREE.Geometry as it is computationally more efficient.

THREE.BufferGeometry API可能仍在进行更改，因此您必须为此做好准备。

The THREE.BufferGeometry API may still be undergoing changes, so you have to be prepared for that.

THREE.Geometry API可能更容易使用，但这可能是因为它更熟悉。

The THREE.Geometry API is easier to use, perhaps, but that may be because it is more familiar.

目前它们都受支持。

您使用哪一个取决于您。

Which one you use is up to you.

three.js r.67

three.js r.67

这篇关于对于粒子，Three.js BufferGeometry vs Geometry的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！