![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk:Dimetric projection, Talk:Trimetric projection |
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)
Axonometric projection is addressed at Orthographic projection, under Pictorials ... suggest present site might be discontinued Pat Kelso 21:16, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
re: "Axonometric projection is a form of orthographic projection. It is a method for the visual representation of three-dimensional objects in which there are no vanishing points, objects are drawn to the same scale regardless of distance, and all line which are parallel in three-dimensional space are parallel in the two-dimensional picture."
The reference to no vanishing points and the scale being independent of distance is implicit in the definition of orthographic projection and therefore perhaps redundant. The mention of these, however, suggests a comparison with Perspective projection which may be an excellent point of departure for the entire article as it is not strictly addressed else where, to my knowledge.
The "Longer explanation of axonometric projection" is frought with misstatements and technical errors.... suggest it be discontinued.....
...... Pat Kelso 22:01, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would like to propose to merge Dimetric projection and Trimetric projection articles here. In it's current shape they have hardly anything offer anything more, then in the article already explained. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I like most of your changes, but there a couple of issues:
Regarding User:Mdd's deleted comments: While the "History" section begins solely with a discussion of isometry, it ends by discussing axonometry in general. Also, the limitations discussed in the "Limitations" section apply equally well to axonometric projection (or any type of parallel projection for that matter) as to isometric projection. For instance, M. C. Escher's Waterfall (1961) used in the section as an example is drawn in dimetric projection, not isometric projection. SharkD Talk 03:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Any more support/objections to the merger of isometric projection? I don't think we've reached consensus quite yet. (One for the merger, two against, one unspecified.) SharkD Talk 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to say that I agree that the three axonometric projections, trimetric, dimetric, and isometric, should be in this page for the fundamental reason that that is the order that is presented and taught in any proper technical drawing book. Miguelmadruga ( talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, the title Isometric seems more familiar to a reader, nevertheless who is reading, rather than Axonometric projection--
Dr.pragmatist (
talk)
10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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)Athanasius
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)
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)
I am not familiar how the axonometric projection is dealt in English literature. Here some statements common in German literature (see the German version of axonometric projection):
In order to get a nice picture You have to be careful while choosing the free parametrs.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start listing sources and notes here. Please add any that you find as well. SharkD Talk 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Source | Notes |
---|---|
CHAPTER FOURTEEN AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
9.Axonometric and Central Projections | I did not read the whole text, but it considers military perspective as a type of isometric perspective. |
Lecture 3: Composites, Conventions, Axonometrics | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
7.1 AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION - McGraw-Hill Education | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives. Orthographic perspective is mentioned once, but not defined. It may be defined in an earlier chapter. I think the file is missing a bunch of illustrations. |
BST12781 BUILDING COMMUNICATION multi view and single view | Considers oblique perspective a type of axonometric perspective, but considers isometric, dimetric and trimetric perspectives as types of orthographic perspective. |
technical drawing | Calls oblique perspective "planometric". Also seems to consider planometric and axonometric as synonyms. |
Pictorial Drawings: Axonometric Projection pictorial drawing | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
Slide Set 3 – Orthographic Projection II – Isometric | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
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) |
A New Approach to Axonometric Projection and Its Application to Shop Drawings by John Gilbert McGuire | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique projection. I could not view the whole text, so was unable to see how he places them w.r.t. orthographic projection. |
By Lorraine Farrelly | Defines axonometric projection as a type of "plan oblique drawing". |
Art and Representation: New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures By John Willats | Describes axonometric projection as a variety of "vertical oblique projection". I gather he means military projection. |
Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation By Stan Allen | Talks about axonometric projection, but does not mention oblique projection. |
Autodesk VIZ in Manufacturing Design: Autodesk VIZ/3ds Max for Engineering ... By Jon M. Duff | Defines axonometric projection without mentioning oblique projection. Distinguishes between axonometric and "principal orthogonal views (Top, Front, Side, etc.)". Does not define orthographic projection. |
Source | Notes |
---|---|
Chapter 5 of an (unnamed in the scans) textbook | Matches the article currently. 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
Descriptive geometry--pure and applied: with a chapter on higher plane ... By Frederick Newton Willson | Defines axonometric and oblique projections separately. |
Axonometric projection is a procedure of descriptive geometry to generate 2d-images of 3d-objects using coordinateaxes and coordinates of single points:
Pohlke's thorem says: The image of an object produced by this procedure is a scaled parallel projection. The image is mostly a scaled oblique projection. If You chose the parameters of the axonometric projection suitable, You get an exact orthographic projection (see the German site orthogonale Axonometrie). For special cases see the table. A popular axonometric projection with engineers (in Germany) is the Ingenieur- Axonometrie. It uses simple forshortenings () and delivers nearly an orthographic projection (scale factor is near 1). Cabinet projection, military projection are always oblique projections. The standard isometric projection with is a scaled orthographic projection (scale factor 1.225).-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
After looking into the links above and considering Your comments, I would say, an English definition of an axonometric projection may be as follows:
This definition is rather different from the German one and does not contain cabinet and military projection. The last ones are oblique axonometric projections. The German definition is more general and independent of any object. It depends only on the coordinate axes, and the image of the unit cube (angles,forshortenings) which all can be chosen (nearly) abitrarily. So the German definition comprises scaled orthographic and scaled oblique projections.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hence: The English axonometric projection is the German orthogonale Axonometrie. -- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
OK! If You are right, one should clarify the defintion of orthographic projection. But this is another issue. I still think that the English axonometric projection is equivalent to the German orthogonale Axonometrie. A better English name would be orthogonal axonometric projection. So, there would be space for oblique axonometric projection, which would comprise cabinet, cavalier and military projections. The last ones deal with coordinates and coordinate axes,too, and should bear the name axonometric, too. In both cases (orthogonal and oblique) there exist the three types: isometric, dimetric and trimetric projections.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi Ag2gaeh & SharkD, While the third opinion request has expired without anyone picking it up, I'm happy to have a look at the issue and provide an opinion if you think it would be helpful. To assist, could you each put a brief summary of your thoughts in the sections below? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryk72 ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
I disagree with these images. In the isometric example, should not equal 1 if 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 " 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)
Also, in the Ingenieur-Axonometry graphic, why is equal to 0.5, yet drawn as if it is equal to 1? SharkD Talk 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
Scheme A | Scheme B | Scheme C | Scheme D |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Scheme E | Scheme F | Scheme G | Scheme H |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Scheme I | Scheme J | Scheme K |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
Title | Notes |
---|---|
CHAPTER FOURTEEN AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION | Scheme A |
9.Axonometric and Central Projections | Dead link |
Lecture 3: Composites, Conventions, Axonometrics | Scheme B |
7.1 AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION - McGraw-Hill Education | Scheme C |
BST12781 BUILDING COMMUNICATION multi view and single view | Not sure |
technical drawing | Not sure |
Pictorial Drawings: Axonometric Projection pictorial drawing | Scheme D |
Slide Set 3 – Orthographic Projection II – Isometric | Scheme E |
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." |
1/13/2022 -- just replied to Nje-de at _bottom_ of this section; will go there to edit that reply.
Dec. xy, '21 --I would like to hear from someone that has studied higher dimensions about my generalization. I define a Axonometric Projection of an N-dimensional cube as its (N-1) dimensional image. The general equation that I need feedback on -- from a qualified person will be briefly described below.
22 December 2021 update of my 28 February 2021 comment below. Basically, if this gets printed, then most of the earlier comment can be ignored. I'm back to report some progress on corrections to my Spring 1989 article, "Axonometric Projections". From I brief scan of the article, I am using the English definition; not previously knowing of a German one. [As an aside, I think this topic should refer to the English definition; since German does not have these two words. Their definition is for a similar term in 'Deutshe worten': you can't just translate a term, and expect to carry the precise meaning in the other language to be translated into the English meaning.] & Now, to my reason to struggle back into this article; to report that "Engineering Design Graphics Journal has published a "Correction' to my 1989 article as a D.O.I. on the Internet, in APA style. Since it took 32 years to get to it, I'm glad to catch more than just the old typos. & Please see, http://www.edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237 and click on the "EDGJ Vol 53 No 2 Spring 1989" button. That will take you to the Correction page. Read this before the actual article, and perhaps print it out for reference when reading that article. Below the Correction, ou should find the full issue. The "Axonometric Projections" article appears on pages 19 - 25.
{{
u|Njd-de}}
, and signing the post with four tildes ~~~~
.Thanks for that explanation, but "tlx"? Meanwhile, someone couldn't let my note in the 'History' section of the 'Article' page stay up even a couple of hours; even though I expressly ask them to let it stay a day or so -- knowing that I might have used a comma instead of a semi-colon, or indented one space too much. Is the objective to be the first one to "get' someone? PS They missed the reference below however -- so far 17:29 EST.
Njd-de {{
u|Njd-de}}
Lemchastain (
talk)
22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I just attempted to get a 'further reading' citation correct this time. It definitely concerns this 'Axonometric Projection' topic. I don't know what was wrong with it last time, and don't know how to get to those archived edits. I don't expect it to stay up long, but some things last for hours. (I did not even try to explain what to do on the the cover page to get to the article, and I noticed the dot at the beginning: click on the Spring issue button on lower left. Oh, the DOI is above, in the paragraph just before the 8 Jan 2022 comment. Goingbatty Lemchastain ( talk) 04:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
PS Following GoingBatty pointing out a Tearoom mistake in the address of the DOI, I corrected it (added ".org" to "edgj"); then decided to check entry above, and had to change "hppp://" to "http://". I apologize to anyone that had a problem due to either of my errors. Goingbatty Lemchastain ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
&?? My recent addition to 'Other Reading' on the article page was immediately 'reverted'. I won't even put it there again, but why not _here_ so readers can test their 'reverting'skills: "Never mind!" -- see Whoops below.
Giesecke, F. E., Mitchell, A., Spencer, H. C., and Hill, I. L., "Technical Drawing", Sixth Edition, Macmillan, New York, NY 1974 ( talk) Ljc 23:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk:Dimetric projection, Talk:Trimetric projection |
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)
Axonometric projection is addressed at Orthographic projection, under Pictorials ... suggest present site might be discontinued Pat Kelso 21:16, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
re: "Axonometric projection is a form of orthographic projection. It is a method for the visual representation of three-dimensional objects in which there are no vanishing points, objects are drawn to the same scale regardless of distance, and all line which are parallel in three-dimensional space are parallel in the two-dimensional picture."
The reference to no vanishing points and the scale being independent of distance is implicit in the definition of orthographic projection and therefore perhaps redundant. The mention of these, however, suggests a comparison with Perspective projection which may be an excellent point of departure for the entire article as it is not strictly addressed else where, to my knowledge.
The "Longer explanation of axonometric projection" is frought with misstatements and technical errors.... suggest it be discontinued.....
...... Pat Kelso 22:01, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would like to propose to merge Dimetric projection and Trimetric projection articles here. In it's current shape they have hardly anything offer anything more, then in the article already explained. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I like most of your changes, but there a couple of issues:
Regarding User:Mdd's deleted comments: While the "History" section begins solely with a discussion of isometry, it ends by discussing axonometry in general. Also, the limitations discussed in the "Limitations" section apply equally well to axonometric projection (or any type of parallel projection for that matter) as to isometric projection. For instance, M. C. Escher's Waterfall (1961) used in the section as an example is drawn in dimetric projection, not isometric projection. SharkD Talk 03:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Any more support/objections to the merger of isometric projection? I don't think we've reached consensus quite yet. (One for the merger, two against, one unspecified.) SharkD Talk 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to say that I agree that the three axonometric projections, trimetric, dimetric, and isometric, should be in this page for the fundamental reason that that is the order that is presented and taught in any proper technical drawing book. Miguelmadruga ( talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, the title Isometric seems more familiar to a reader, nevertheless who is reading, rather than Axonometric projection--
Dr.pragmatist (
talk)
10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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)Athanasius
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)
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)
I am not familiar how the axonometric projection is dealt in English literature. Here some statements common in German literature (see the German version of axonometric projection):
In order to get a nice picture You have to be careful while choosing the free parametrs.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start listing sources and notes here. Please add any that you find as well. SharkD Talk 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Source | Notes |
---|---|
CHAPTER FOURTEEN AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
9.Axonometric and Central Projections | I did not read the whole text, but it considers military perspective as a type of isometric perspective. |
Lecture 3: Composites, Conventions, Axonometrics | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
7.1 AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION - McGraw-Hill Education | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives. Orthographic perspective is mentioned once, but not defined. It may be defined in an earlier chapter. I think the file is missing a bunch of illustrations. |
BST12781 BUILDING COMMUNICATION multi view and single view | Considers oblique perspective a type of axonometric perspective, but considers isometric, dimetric and trimetric perspectives as types of orthographic perspective. |
technical drawing | Calls oblique perspective "planometric". Also seems to consider planometric and axonometric as synonyms. |
Pictorial Drawings: Axonometric Projection pictorial drawing | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
Slide Set 3 – Orthographic Projection II – Isometric | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique perspectives, but lumps multiview and axonometric perspective together as types of orthographic perspective. |
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) |
A New Approach to Axonometric Projection and Its Application to Shop Drawings by John Gilbert McGuire | Distinguishes between axonometric and oblique projection. I could not view the whole text, so was unable to see how he places them w.r.t. orthographic projection. |
By Lorraine Farrelly | Defines axonometric projection as a type of "plan oblique drawing". |
Art and Representation: New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures By John Willats | Describes axonometric projection as a variety of "vertical oblique projection". I gather he means military projection. |
Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation By Stan Allen | Talks about axonometric projection, but does not mention oblique projection. |
Autodesk VIZ in Manufacturing Design: Autodesk VIZ/3ds Max for Engineering ... By Jon M. Duff | Defines axonometric projection without mentioning oblique projection. Distinguishes between axonometric and "principal orthogonal views (Top, Front, Side, etc.)". Does not define orthographic projection. |
Source | Notes |
---|---|
Chapter 5 of an (unnamed in the scans) textbook | Matches the article currently. 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
Descriptive geometry--pure and applied: with a chapter on higher plane ... By Frederick Newton Willson | Defines axonometric and oblique projections separately. |
Axonometric projection is a procedure of descriptive geometry to generate 2d-images of 3d-objects using coordinateaxes and coordinates of single points:
Pohlke's thorem says: The image of an object produced by this procedure is a scaled parallel projection. The image is mostly a scaled oblique projection. If You chose the parameters of the axonometric projection suitable, You get an exact orthographic projection (see the German site orthogonale Axonometrie). For special cases see the table. A popular axonometric projection with engineers (in Germany) is the Ingenieur- Axonometrie. It uses simple forshortenings () and delivers nearly an orthographic projection (scale factor is near 1). Cabinet projection, military projection are always oblique projections. The standard isometric projection with is a scaled orthographic projection (scale factor 1.225).-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
After looking into the links above and considering Your comments, I would say, an English definition of an axonometric projection may be as follows:
This definition is rather different from the German one and does not contain cabinet and military projection. The last ones are oblique axonometric projections. The German definition is more general and independent of any object. It depends only on the coordinate axes, and the image of the unit cube (angles,forshortenings) which all can be chosen (nearly) abitrarily. So the German definition comprises scaled orthographic and scaled oblique projections.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hence: The English axonometric projection is the German orthogonale Axonometrie. -- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
OK! If You are right, one should clarify the defintion of orthographic projection. But this is another issue. I still think that the English axonometric projection is equivalent to the German orthogonale Axonometrie. A better English name would be orthogonal axonometric projection. So, there would be space for oblique axonometric projection, which would comprise cabinet, cavalier and military projections. The last ones deal with coordinates and coordinate axes,too, and should bear the name axonometric, too. In both cases (orthogonal and oblique) there exist the three types: isometric, dimetric and trimetric projections.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi Ag2gaeh & SharkD, While the third opinion request has expired without anyone picking it up, I'm happy to have a look at the issue and provide an opinion if you think it would be helpful. To assist, could you each put a brief summary of your thoughts in the sections below? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryk72 ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
I disagree with these images. In the isometric example, should not equal 1 if 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 " 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)
Also, in the Ingenieur-Axonometry graphic, why is equal to 0.5, yet drawn as if it is equal to 1? SharkD Talk 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
Scheme A | Scheme B | Scheme C | Scheme D |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Scheme E | Scheme F | Scheme G | Scheme H |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Scheme I | Scheme J | Scheme K |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
Title | Notes |
---|---|
CHAPTER FOURTEEN AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION | Scheme A |
9.Axonometric and Central Projections | Dead link |
Lecture 3: Composites, Conventions, Axonometrics | Scheme B |
7.1 AXONOMETRIC PROJECTION - McGraw-Hill Education | Scheme C |
BST12781 BUILDING COMMUNICATION multi view and single view | Not sure |
technical drawing | Not sure |
Pictorial Drawings: Axonometric Projection pictorial drawing | Scheme D |
Slide Set 3 – Orthographic Projection II – Isometric | Scheme E |
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." |
1/13/2022 -- just replied to Nje-de at _bottom_ of this section; will go there to edit that reply.
Dec. xy, '21 --I would like to hear from someone that has studied higher dimensions about my generalization. I define a Axonometric Projection of an N-dimensional cube as its (N-1) dimensional image. The general equation that I need feedback on -- from a qualified person will be briefly described below.
22 December 2021 update of my 28 February 2021 comment below. Basically, if this gets printed, then most of the earlier comment can be ignored. I'm back to report some progress on corrections to my Spring 1989 article, "Axonometric Projections". From I brief scan of the article, I am using the English definition; not previously knowing of a German one. [As an aside, I think this topic should refer to the English definition; since German does not have these two words. Their definition is for a similar term in 'Deutshe worten': you can't just translate a term, and expect to carry the precise meaning in the other language to be translated into the English meaning.] & Now, to my reason to struggle back into this article; to report that "Engineering Design Graphics Journal has published a "Correction' to my 1989 article as a D.O.I. on the Internet, in APA style. Since it took 32 years to get to it, I'm glad to catch more than just the old typos. & Please see, http://www.edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237 and click on the "EDGJ Vol 53 No 2 Spring 1989" button. That will take you to the Correction page. Read this before the actual article, and perhaps print it out for reference when reading that article. Below the Correction, ou should find the full issue. The "Axonometric Projections" article appears on pages 19 - 25.
{{
u|Njd-de}}
, and signing the post with four tildes ~~~~
.Thanks for that explanation, but "tlx"? Meanwhile, someone couldn't let my note in the 'History' section of the 'Article' page stay up even a couple of hours; even though I expressly ask them to let it stay a day or so -- knowing that I might have used a comma instead of a semi-colon, or indented one space too much. Is the objective to be the first one to "get' someone? PS They missed the reference below however -- so far 17:29 EST.
Njd-de {{
u|Njd-de}}
Lemchastain (
talk)
22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I just attempted to get a 'further reading' citation correct this time. It definitely concerns this 'Axonometric Projection' topic. I don't know what was wrong with it last time, and don't know how to get to those archived edits. I don't expect it to stay up long, but some things last for hours. (I did not even try to explain what to do on the the cover page to get to the article, and I noticed the dot at the beginning: click on the Spring issue button on lower left. Oh, the DOI is above, in the paragraph just before the 8 Jan 2022 comment. Goingbatty Lemchastain ( talk) 04:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
PS Following GoingBatty pointing out a Tearoom mistake in the address of the DOI, I corrected it (added ".org" to "edgj"); then decided to check entry above, and had to change "hppp://" to "http://". I apologize to anyone that had a problem due to either of my errors. Goingbatty Lemchastain ( talk) 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
&?? My recent addition to 'Other Reading' on the article page was immediately 'reverted'. I won't even put it there again, but why not _here_ so readers can test their 'reverting'skills: "Never mind!" -- see Whoops below.
Giesecke, F. E., Mitchell, A., Spencer, H. C., and Hill, I. L., "Technical Drawing", Sixth Edition, Macmillan, New York, NY 1974 ( talk) Ljc 23:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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)