Don McCurdy

Our definitions of "incorrect" and "too small" here depend on some assumptions of what the bounding box is being used for... for culling and raycasting, a conservative maximum accounting for...

Not suggesting any problem with #17940, but I think the OP was expecting a bounding box that ignored the presence of morph targets entirely... The three.js Editor doesn't support direct...

The Editor is using BoxHelper, rather than displaying `geometry.boundingBox` directly. I think it would be appropriate for BoxHelper to use the current frame's bounding box rather than the more conservative...

@WREQI The box you see is accounting for all possible deformations of the morph targets on the mesh. So the box may look much larger than the shape you see...

Any reason for replacing the `isInterpolantFactoryMethodGLTFCubicSpline=true` property with a `type` property? My assumption had been that the `isFoo` pattern was somewhat preferred in the three.js codebase, but I'm OK with...

Sorry for the long delay here! If you (or another contributor) would like to have this change and could rebase it, I think we can merge the PR.

Overlaps a bit with my comment in https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/pull/16223#issuecomment-482658595, but should objects opt in/out for lookups in the light probe volume? For example, static terrain should not be affected. A material-level...

> I prefer it on an object basis rather than on a material basis, it just makes more sense that way. But I guess that may be hard given the...

> It seems that given a set of light probes you just do a 3D delaunay tetrahedralization ... Pretty simple, just need a standard delaunay algorithm implemented along with a...

Here is the relevant code: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/compare/dev...donmccurdy:feat-lightprobevolume In particular, `LightProbeVolume.build`.