I haven't re-checked this for CS4/FP10, but I understand from the
reasons that Li mentions below, bothsides=false is not always
reliable. If you want the text to be fully rendered when viewed from
the front and invisible when viewed from the rear, you can make both
sides visible, then hide the whole text object if it is facing away
from the camera with an algorithm like this:
function hideReversedTextObject(obj, camPos){
// Does a crude backface culling
var v1:Number3D = new Number3D();
var v2:Number3D = new Number3D();
var ang;
v1 = obj.inverseSceneTransform.forward; // Vector facing away from
object
// Note: use inverseSceneTransform.forward (not
sceneTransform.forward) to get
// the vector that is normal to the plane of the object
(textfield).
v2.sub( obj.scenePosition, camPos ); // vector to camera
ang = Util3.degrees(v2.getAngle(v1)); // Angle between vector to
camera and vector facing away from the object.
obj.visible = (ang < 90);
}
Also, if you look for topic "What is the latest/best/simplest 3d text
method to use?" in the groups I had posted a step-by-step technique
for using TextField3D in CS3, following Li's guidance.
Ralph
On Nov 8, 9:02 pm, GBear <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Li, I'll give that a go and let you know how it comes out.
>
> Cheers
>
> Li wrote:
> > Hey GBear,
>
> > Textfield3D has bothsides = true by default, that is, backface culling is
> > disabled for text. You can enable it however by setting it to false. This
> > might cause some problems because of the way vector fonts are arbitrarily
> > designed; some glyphs are designed clockwise while others are designed anti
> > clockwise. This orientation in the definition is crucial for back face
> > culling to be implemented properly. There is no convention in font design
> > and I haven't yet produced a solution to counter this.
>
> > The back property is not applicable for textfield3d.
>
> > I would try using TextField3D with the font you have in mind and bothsides =
> > false and see how many glyphs pop out. It depends on the font really... If
> > you're not ok with that I would go for the Swf.as alternative. Break some
> > text in the Flash IDE and import it in Away3D as a Sprite via Swf.as. There
> > is a slight chance that by doing this (I still haven't tested it enough)
> > Flash will resolve the arbitrary font definitions to its own terms and hence
> > produce more coherent material for the engine.
>
> > hth
> > Li
>
>
