If decals are not absolutely required this would be much easier to achieve with a texture, and a mesh created in blender for example. I don’t think a decal here actually achieves anything and would be more work to render / setup correctly.
As @dubois has suggested, it seems a bit overkill to use decals in this scenario, however as that’s what you’re going for I think having your decal at position 0,0,0 is the issue here, you may need to move it just outside of the bounds of the geometries and in front of each, eg. If one of your objects is at position 0,0,0 you’d likely do…
That works and you and @dubois were right, Decals are overkill. But I tried to use the same texture and map it to a meshStandardMaterial but that stretch the image to cover the mesh and that is not what I want. Is there any way to work around that problem?
Well, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes with this syntax. It’s not just your code interacting with threejs it’s your code interacting with something that interacts with threejs.
If it’s “vanilla” at least you can compare it to the examples easier.
However, being that about half of all the threejs users do use react for it, it does make sense to have it as part of this “community”.