Talk:Axonometric projection

message: Axonometric view seems pretty much a particular type of auxiliary view where one axis is usually shown as vertical. Shouldnt this be categorized as a type of auxiliary view?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.14.76 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, do we even need the categorization into "main-axis" and "auxiliary" view? E.g. for round objects those make not much sense. In the end, we simply should use whatever is used in other literature. --Allefant (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Axonometric view be a subheading of auxiliary view 

message: Axonometric projection is addressed at Orthographic projection, under Pictorials ... suggest present site might be discontinued Pat Kelso 21:16, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
:I have incorporated the info from orthographic projection into this article. Warofdreams 17:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axonometric projection at Orthographic projection 

message: I made a new image and put it in the article. I had some issues with the placement, could someone handier with wiki markup fix the placement? Thanks.
Phasmatisnox 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Placement looks good enough The problem is the navigation box to the right, it takes up the space normally used for images. I at some point moved it down to the bottom, but someone else moved it back up, so would need to first find a consensus to move it down - but the field of descriptive geometry seems somewhat abandoned currently. --Allefant 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I think this sentence in the  header is wrong. "in which the three coordinate axes appear equally foreshortened."  You can have an axonometric view from the top, don't you? and then the scale of the z axis is 0. 
I'd say that the common idea to all axonometric projections is that the scale of objects does not change with their distance to the observer, or, in other words, that the drawer is at infinite distance. Please, some specialist take care of this!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaianauta (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems that the previous edit, while improving quite a few stuff, moved this sentence to the wrong place. I reverted it for now, someone indeed should take care of this. I may when I find time, but probably won't. --Allefant (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix the problem here. If there is more please let me know. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: The history section seems to be based almost exclusively on this purile article by Krikke which is absolutely ludicrous. Axonometry had been used for centuries before Jesuits came back from China, since most military engineers used them for their drawings at least since the 14th century. Farish might have been the first who explained axonometries in english but Gaspard Monge preceded him undoubtedly and I bet most axonometries had been already described mathematically by Italian geometers (but i'm not sure of that).
93.67.104.181 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The concluding section of the article mentions Op Art and then M C Escher. Escher's work is not usually classed as Op Art (typified by Riley and Vasarely). And the example of his work given (The Waterfall) does not use axonometric projection: it uses true linear perspective, though with weak convergence (the vanishing points are well outside the picture margins) which might not be evident at first glance. It may be true that axonometric projections make this sort of thing more straightforward to devise, but they are not essential. Dayvey (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the current wording better? SharkD  Talk  01:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op Art & Escher 

message: Why is oblique projection listed here as a type of axonometric projection? I thought it was separate from these. SharkD  Talk  01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oblique projection? 

message: Source                                                                                                 	Notes
Architectural Graphics By Francis D. K. Ching                                                          	Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. Quote, "The term 'axonometric' is often misused to describe paraline drawings of oblique projections or the entire class of paraline drawings."
Axonometric and Oblique Drawing: A 3-D Construction, Rendering and Design Guide by Mohammed Saleh Uddin	Mentions axonometric and oblique projections many times (it is the focus of the entire book) but never to describe the same thing.
Machine Drawing:Includes Autocad By Singh Ajeet                                                        	Matches the current state of this article. 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Page 1 of Google Books search result ([https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=axonometric# link])

message: A third opinion has been requested.  Due to the highly technical nature of the subject and the lengthy exchange, it is hard to tell what the question is.  I can see that terminology is used differently in English than in German.  I will leave the Third Opinion request up for another editor, but would advise the two editors to formulate a concise question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One question might be, "Which definition of axonometric projection should we use in the article? German or English?" SharkD  Talk  18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the definitions in English and in German are different, we should state what both definitions are, precisely because this linguistic discrepancy in scholarship can cause confusion.  Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should focus on the English definition, but should clarify what the differences are.  If that is the question, that is the third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this entry from 3O because it was listed for longer than six days. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (Ag2gaeh): A) The German/French definition of an axonometric projection (Axonometrie) is rather general and covers orthogonal, oblique and scaled parallel projections. Because the definition is done by a procedure to construct images, it is necessary to prove that it delivers scaled parallel projections. This was done by Pohlke (Pohlke' theorem). The German definition comprises oblique axonometric projections (like cavalier, cabinet and military projection) and  scaled projections ( like the Standard-Isometrie, Ingenieur-Axonometrie). 
:B) The English definition is: an axonometric projection is an orthogonal parallel projection which uses coordinate axes. It does not cover oblique projections (like cavalier,...) or scaled projections ! The English definition needs not Pohlke's theorem, because an axonometric projection is per definition a parallel projection.
:I think these essential differences should be mentioned in order to prevent any confusion. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I disagree with these images. In the isometric example, v_x,v_y,v_z should not equal 1 if v equals 1. In isometric projection, the axes are foreshortened, so they should equal less than 1. The same is true for Ingenieur-Axonometrie; all three axes are foreshortened by some amount. The other two images are okay.
Also, I am looking again at the definition you provided. It says, "Choose forshortenings v_x,v_y,v_z" However, military and cavalier perspectives violate this rule; in these perspectives there is no foreshortening for two of the three axes. SharkD  Talk  16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first image is in accordance with the German/French/Spanish definition. It does not reflect the English definition. The definitions of cavalier, cabinet and military projection differ slightly in literature, but are in any cases oblique dimetric projections. The simplest case of an isometric projection, named  Standard-Isometrie (v_x=v_y=v_z=1, \alpha=\beta=120^\circ), delivers a scaled orthogonal projection. Scaling is omitted in English literature by choosing the common forshortening 0.816. The Ingenieur-Axonometrie seems not to appear in English literature. It is also a slightly scaled orthogonal projection. Standard-Isometrie and Ingenieur-Axonometrie are very popular, because the forshortenings are so simple. In English literature axonometric projection is always an orthogonal (non scaled) projection and does not contain cabinet, cavalier and military projection in contrary to the more general German definition. Pohlke's theorem is a statement on generaly (German) defined Axonometrie and not on (English) axonometric projections.To the German forshortenings: any positve real number is allowed. So, the word shortening should not be taken literally.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Definition\Illustrations 

message: I'm going to go through the same sources as earlier into more detail to find out exactly what is going on. SharkD  Talk  20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Later on: The word "Multiview" might not have actually been used in several of those sources. Confusion on my part. Sorry. ➧datumizer  ☎  01:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of sources 2 

message: Title                                                                                                 	Notes
Chapter 5 of an (unnamed in the scans) textbook                                                       	Dead link.
Descriptive geometry--pure and applied: with a chapter on higher plane ... By Frederick Newton Willson	Scheme K
Technical Graphics Communications                                                                     	Can't see much text. Quote: "The axonometric projection is produced by multiple parallel lines of sight perpendicular to the plane of projection, with the observer at infinity and the object rotated about an axis to produce a pictorial view."
:Later on: The word "Multiview" might not have actually been used in several of those sources. Confusion on my part. Sorry. ➧datumizer  ☎  01:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sources

message: I am using the mobile app. I just edited the page description; previously it was "consumption of feces", and the main image was a close up photograph of a fly.
Either this was vandalism, or a caching error, as there was nothing in the page history about this. Feel free to revert my change if it was just an issue with my device. Krackpipe (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange header image and description