threecrate

A high-performance 3D point cloud and mesh processing library for Rust, with Python bindings.

logo_3crate Small

What's inside

| Crate | What it does | |---|---| | threecrate-core | Point, PointCloud, TriangleMesh, Transform3D | | threecrate-algorithms | Filtering, ICP, NDT, global registration, segmentation, normals, FPFH/SHOT, mesh boolean, smoothing | | threecrate-gpu | GPU filtering, segmentation, ICP, normals, nearest-neighbor, TSDF, real-time rendering (wgpu) | | threecrate-io | PLY, OBJ, PCD, XYZ/CSV, LAS/LAZ\, E57\ — streaming and memory-mapped | | threecrate-reconstruction | Poisson, BPA, alpha shapes, Delaunay, Marching Cubes, MLS, auto-select | | threecrate-simplification | Quadric error, edge collapse, clustering, progressive mesh | | threecrate-visualization | Interactive viewer — orbit/pan/zoom, GPU-accelerated |

\* opt-in feature flags

Viewer

ThreeCrate Mesh Viewer

Quick start

Rust

[dependencies]
threecrate = "0.8.0"

use threecrate::prelude::*;
let cloud = readpointcloud("scan.ply")?; let cloud = voxelgridfilter(&cloud, 0.05)?; let normals = estimate_normals(&cloud, 10)?; let mesh = auto_reconstruct(&normals)?; write_mesh("output.obj", &mesh)?;

Python

pip install threecrate

import threecrate as tc
cloud = tc.readpointcloud("scan.ply") cloud = tc.voxeldownsample(cloud, voxelsize=0.05) normalcloud = tc.estimatenormals(cloud) mesh = tc.poissonreconstruct(normalcloud) tc.write_mesh(mesh, "output.ply")

Comparison

| Feature | threecrate | Open3D | PCL | |---|---|---|---| | Language | Rust + Python | Python (C++ core) | C++ | | pip install | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | Memory safety | ✅ Rust | ❌ | ❌ | | GPU compute | ✅ wgpu | ✅ CUDA | Partial | | Global registration | ✅ FPFH+RANSAC | ✅ | ✅ | | Surface reconstruction | ✅ 6 algorithms | ✅ | ✅ | | Streaming I/O | ✅ PLY/OBJ/XYZ | ❌ | ❌ | | E57 support | ✅ opt-in | ❌ | ❌ | | WebAssembly | Roadmap | ❌ | ❌ |

Benchmarks

We benchmarked ThreeCrate against Open3D 0.19 on the same machine, using full-resolution frames from three real datasets: TUM RGB-D, KITTI, and nuScenes-mini. Everything runs on CPU. In the table below, higher is better — a ratio above 1 means ThreeCrate is faster than Open3D.

| Workload | How ThreeCrate compares | |---|---:| | Reading files (raw float parsing) | 1.8x–2.2x faster | | Voxel downsampling (CPU) | 1.6x–1.8x faster | | Voxel downsampling (GPU, wgpu) | 1.8x–2.9x faster (vs our own CPU path, not Open3D) | | Normal estimation | 0.57x–1.09x (falls behind on big clouds) | | Single-scale ICP | 0.71x–0.99x (falls behind on big clouds) |

The short version: ThreeCrate is noticeably quicker at loading data and downsampling, and it trades blows with Open3D on the heavier compute work. On small and medium clouds it holds its own; on large clouds it still gives up some ground on normal estimation and dense ICP. We're being upfront about that — those are the two areas we're actively working on.

About the GPU row: the compute backend is wgpu, so it runs on any GPU (NVIDIA/AMD/Intel/Apple) with no CUDA lock-in. But to be honest about it, only voxel downsampling and TSDF fusion are actually faster on the GPU today. Normal estimation and ICP are still quicker on CPU right now (per-call pipeline rebuilds and blocking readbacks), so we don't list them as GPU wins — that work is tracked openly.

One thing we won't pretend about: we haven't benchmarked PCL yet. The harness to do it is written and ready in scripts/pcl_bench/, but until we've actually run it, there are no PCL numbers here to quote.

Want the full picture? docs/benchmarks.md has every number (full-resolution and capped), how we measured, the caveats we ran into, and the exact command to reproduce it yourself.