Skip to content
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

Bad render results for Alpha Blend Mode test model #381

Closed
cdata opened this issue Feb 20, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #975
Closed

Bad render results for Alpha Blend Mode test model #381

cdata opened this issue Feb 20, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #975

Comments

@cdata
Copy link
Contributor

cdata commented Feb 20, 2019

As of #360 , we will be including the Khronos Alpha Blend Mode Test model in our fidelity tests. Unfortunately, <model-viewer> seems to produce incorrect render results in four out of five cases tested by the model:

<model-viewer> Filament gltf_renderer Khronos' example
image image image
@donmccurdy
Copy link
Contributor

@donmccurdy
Copy link
Contributor

Result also looks more correct in the https://truthful-roof.glitch.me demo –

screen shot 2019-03-06 at 12 51 58 pm

I'm wondering if the scene.clone() call used inside <model-viewer/> has lost some information...

@cdata
Copy link
Contributor Author

cdata commented Mar 6, 2019

If it's useful, the live test using <model-viewer> is here: https://googlewebcomponents.github.io/model-viewer/test/fidelity/khronos-AlphaBlendModeTest/

It does look like the automation screenshot results in artifacts that are not present in the live render. Screenshot of live render as of now looks like https://truthful-roof.glitch.me:

image

Still, I think it's fair to say that it is wrong (otherwise we would see more checkmarks).

@donmccurdy
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed! Also possible related: mrdoob/three.js#15483

@cdata
Copy link
Contributor Author

cdata commented May 7, 2019

This was fixed in #423

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants