Three.js vs Babylon.js: A Tale of Two 3D Frameworks

Quick Start Comparison

Last night while at Pinthouse Pizza I started to look into both Three.js and Babylon.js to create a simple D20 die renderer. Both frameworks offer impressive capabilities, but they take different approaches to 3D web development.

Three.js: Power Through Granularity

Three.js provides granular control over every aspect of 3D rendering. This power comes with a learning curve:

• Manual setup of scenes, cameras, and renderers
• Explicit control over geometry and materials
• Direct management of WebGL context
• More boilerplate code required

Babylon.js: Productivity Through Convention

Babylon.js takes a more opinionated approach, offering:

• Built-in scene management
• Automatic camera controls
• Integrated physics engine
• More "batteries included" functionality

Initial Observations

After implementing the same D20 renderer in both frameworks:

1. Setup Time:

   • Three.js required more initial setup but offered more flexibility
   • Babylon.js got us rendering faster with less code

2. TypeScript Support:

   • Three.js needed separate @types package
   • Babylon.js includes TypeScript definitions out of the box

3. Material Handling:

   • Three.js gave more direct control over materials and textures
   • Babylon.js provided simpler multi-material management

4. Learning Curve:

   • Three.js: Steeper but more educational
   • Babylon.js: Gentler but more abstracted

Code Comparison

Here's a quick look at creating a basic scene in both frameworks:

Scene Setup

typescript
// Scene setup
const scene = new THREE.Scene();
scene.background = new THREE.Color(0x222222);
// Camera setup
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, width/height, 0.1, 1000);
camera.position.set(2, 2, 4);
camera.lookAt(0, 0, 0);
// Renderer setup
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ antialias: true });
renderer.setSize(width, height);
containerRef.current.appendChild(renderer.domElement);
// Basic D20
const d20Geometry = new THREE.IcosahedronGeometry(1);
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({
color: 0xff0000,
wireframe: true,
side: THREE.DoubleSide
});
const d20 = new THREE.Mesh(d20Geometry, material);

And Babylon.js provides a more structured approach:

const engine = new Engine(containerRef.current, true);
const scene = new Scene(engine);
scene.clearColor = new Color3(0.1, 0.1, 0.1);
// Camera setup - much simpler!
const camera = new ArcRotateCamera(
"camera",
0,
Math.PI / 3,
8,
Vector3.Zero(),
scene
);
camera.attachControl(containerRef.current, true);
// Basic D20 - one line!
const d20 = MeshBuilder.CreatePolyhedron("d20", {
type: 3, // type 3 is icosahedron
size: 1.5
}, scene);

Animation Loop Comparison

Three.js requires manual animation frame handling:

typescript
const animate = () => {
requestAnimationFrame(animate);
d20.rotation.x += 0.002;
d20.rotation.y += 0.003;
controls.update();
renderer.render(scene, camera);
};
animate();

Babylon.js provides a more structured approach:

typescript
scene.registerBeforeRender(() => {
d20.rotation.y += 0.002;
d20.rotation.x += 0.003;
});
engine.runRenderLoop(() => {
scene.render();
});

Early Verdict

Both frameworks are powerful and capable, but they serve different needs:

• Choose Three.js if you need:

  • Maximum control over rendering
  • Lighter weight bundle
  • Deep understanding of 3D graphics

• Choose Babylon.js if you want:

  • Faster development time
  • Built-in features
  • More structured approach

This is just the beginning of my exploration into WebGL frameworks. Stay tuned for more detailed comparisons and advanced features!