Replies: 1 comment 8 replies
-
@LukeParky, yes you have found an inconsistency / bug. The SquaresTechniqe uses the However we have a custom material for points, see the vertex shader: So, basically for squares, the size is computed with some attenuation but not for circles. According to the documentation, the size of the squares / circles should be in pixels. So, from an API point of view, the square should not reduce its size based on the distance to the camera. It should stay a fixed size in screen space. However, we can make this configurable. For example, the lines can be configured to have either a width in meters or in pixels. And it should be easy to do this for the squares / circles. Unfortunately, we are very busy with internal tasks, so I don't see this being implemented soon. You could open a PR if you want to implement it yourself. Otherwise, you could hack the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi all, loving harp.gl but I've run into something that appears possibly inconsistent in the documentation and I'd like some advice.
Using
SquaresTechnique
for points, thesize
attribute represents size in the geo reference frame, whereas forCirclesTechnique
the size attribute represents size in pixels.In the source code PointTechniqueParams states size is in pixels so
SquaresTechnique
appears to be inconsistent.I want to render a circle with the size in the geo reference frame, so having the behaviour of
SquaresTechnique
but rendering a circle instead of a square. Is there a way to do this using the established square or circle techniques or will I need to do some calculations to convert pixel size to geo size?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions