66 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# Task: Parent-Child Hierarchy
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
The objective was to create a simple 3D scene with two objects in a parent-child hierarchy, then verify that transformations applied to the parent (such as position and scale) are correctly inherited by the child.
|
|
|
|
## Vanilla three.js
|
|
- Possible: Yes
|
|
- Notes: Implemented by creating sunMesh and attaching an earthOrbit group to it (`sunMesh.add(earthOrbit)`), then adding earthMesh to that group. Parent transforms propagate correctly to child.
|
|
- Key concepts: Scene graph hierarchy, `THREE.Group` as orbit pivot, local vs world transforms, animation loop for orbit/spin.
|
|
- Complexity: Easy
|
|
|
|
## R3F
|
|
- Possible: Yes
|
|
- Notes: Implemented by nesting Earth inside a `<group ref={orbitRef}>` inside the Sun `<mesh>`, making Earth a child in the same scene graph hierarchy.
|
|
- What R3F abstracted: Declarative JSX scene creation, automatic render lifecycle integration with React, and frame updates via `useFrame` instead of manual renderer/loop setup.
|
|
- Complexity: Easy
|
|
|
|
## Thob Page Builder
|
|
- Possible: Yes
|
|
- Notes: Implemented by putting the Earth mesh inside the Sun mesh (parent-child). Changing Sun position/scale also affects Earth as expected (Earth follows position and scale inheritance). However, when Earth position is changed directly, Earth shape appears to distort/stretch as it moves farther from Sun.
|
|
- Builder steps: Create Sun mesh -> add Earth mesh as child of Sun -> test parent transform inheritance by changing Sun position/scale -> test child local transform by changing Earth position.
|
|
- Complexity: Easy
|
|
|
|
## Comparison Summary
|
|
- Possible in all 3? Yes
|
|
- Main differences:
|
|
- Vanilla gives explicit low-level control;
|
|
- R3F gives cleaner declarative hierarchy;
|
|
- Thob gives fastest visual setup but less predictable child transform behavior in this case.
|
|
- Animation was not possible in Thob but was possible in vanilla and r3f.
|
|
- Where Thob is better: Quick setup and visual parenting without writing code.
|
|
- Where Thob is weaker: Child transform behavior is less transparent when editing child position under a transformed parent.
|
|
- What feels awkward or unclear: Local vs inherited transforms are not obvious in the editor, and distortion behavior on child position change is unexpected.
|
|
|
|
## Limitation Type (if any)
|
|
- [x] Editor UX limitation
|
|
- [x] Runtime limitation
|
|
- [ ] Schema / data model limitation
|
|
- [x] Component limitation
|
|
- [ ] Event system limitation
|
|
- [ ] Asset pipeline limitation
|
|
- [ ] Unknown / needs investigation
|
|
|
|
## Workaround
|
|
- Is there a workaround?
|
|
- NO
|
|
- No, I tried a lot of different things, like many groupa and flex inside the parent mesh and different ways to place the components.
|
|
|
|
## Suggested Improvement
|
|
- What should improve in Thob?
|
|
- Make transform inheritance behavior explicit and stable for nested meshes, especially when parent scale is applied and child position is edited.
|
|
- It is:
|
|
- editor
|
|
- component
|
|
- runtime
|
|
- UX
|
|
|
|
## Difficulty Estimate
|
|
Easy
|
|
|
|
## Business Value
|
|
High
|
|
|
|
## Recommendation
|
|
Should Thob support this better? Why?
|
|
- Yes. Parent-child transform consistency is a core 3D workflow; reliable nested transforms reduce confusion, improve trust in the builder, and make more advanced scenes practical without code-level debugging. |