Improving Your Three.js Model Rendering

Based on your description, there are several key differences between the Three.js Editor's "realistic mode" and your current implementation that could explain the visual disparity.

Main Issues to Address

1. Renderer Configuration: The Three.js Editor's realistic mode likely uses additional renderer settings
2. Lighting Setup: Your current lighting is minimal compared to what's likely in the editor
3. Post-processing: The editor may be using effects like tone mapping and ambient occlusion
4. Material Handling: The materials might need proper configuration

Suggested Improvements

Here's how you can enhance your implementation:

JAVASCRIPTCopied
// Improved renderer settings
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({antialias: true});
renderer.outputColorSpace = THREE.SRGBColorSpace;
renderer.physicallyCorrectLights = true; // Use physically correct lighting model
renderer.toneMapping = THREE.ACESFilmicToneMapping; // Better tone mapping
renderer.toneMappingExposure = 1.0; // Adjust as needed
renderer.shadowMap.enabled = true; // Enable shadows
renderer.shadowMap.type = THREE.PCFSoftShadowMap; // Soft shadows
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

// Enhanced lighting setup
scene.background = new THREE.Color(0x000000); // Set background color

// Add ambient light for general illumination
const ambientLight = new THREE.AmbientLight(0xffffff, 0.5);
scene.add(ambientLight);

// Improved directional light with shadows
const dirLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
dirLight.position.set(0, 200, 100);
dirLight.castShadow = true;
dirLight.shadow.mapSize.width = 1024;
dirLight.shadow.mapSize.height = 1024;
scene.add(dirLight);

// Add some fill lights for better illumination
const fillLight1 = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 0.3);
fillLight1.position.set(100, 0, 100);
scene.add(fillLight1);

const fillLight2 = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 0.3);
fillLight2.position.set(-100, 0, -100);
scene.add(fillLight2);

// GLTF Loader with material handling
const loader = new THREE.GLTFLoader();
loader.load('./MoonJellyfishT.glb', function (gltf) {
    // Process materials if needed
    gltf.scene.traverse((child) => {
        if (child.isMesh) {
            // Enable shadows
            child.castShadow = true;
            child.receiveShadow = true;
            
            // If the model has transparent parts
            if (child.material) {
                child.material.transparent = true;
                child.material.side = THREE.DoubleSide;
            }
        }
    });
    
    scene.add(gltf.scene);
    gltf.scene.position.set(0, 0, 0);
    gltf.scene.scale.set(1, 1, 1);
}, undefined, function (error) {
    console.error(error);
});

Additional Considerations

1. Version Compatibility: You're using Three.js r128, which is relatively old. Consider updating to a newer version for better features and performance.

2. Post-processing: For more advanced effects like the ones in the editor, you might want to implement an EffectComposer with passes like:

   • SSAO (Screen Space Ambient Occlusion)
   • Bloom
   • Realistic depth of field

3. Environment Map: Adding an HDR environment map can significantly improve the realism of reflective materials:

JAVASCRIPTCopied
// Add environment map
const pmremGenerator = new THREE.PMREMGenerator(renderer);
pmremGenerator.compileEquirectangularShader();

new THREE.TextureLoader().load('path/to/environment.jpg', function(texture) {
    const envMap = pmremGenerator.fromEquirectangular(texture).texture;
    scene.environment = envMap;
    texture.dispose();
    pmremGenerator.dispose();
});

The Three.js Editor's "realistic mode" likely combines all these techniques to achieve the quality you're seeing. Implementing these improvements should help bridge the gap between your current render and the editor's output.