Talk:Axonometric projection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Visualization.
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Shouldn't Axonometric view be a subheading of auxiliary view[edit]

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 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Axonometric projection at Orthographic projection[edit]

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)

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)

New image[edit]

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)

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

Proposal to merge Dimetric projection and Trimetric projection here[edit]

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)

Sounds OK. Just make sure to move the video game related stuff in these articles to Video games with isometric graphics. SharkD (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Because there were no further objections in the past two weeks I have merged both articles here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I’ve restored the video-game relation information lost during the merge. As an aside, I don’t think Diablo used Dimetric projection; it looks isometric to me (each tile is a symmetrical rombic rectangle). Samboy (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. Use of axonometric projection in video games is discussed in Video games with isometric graphics. SharkD  Talk  05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved a lot of content from Isometric projection to here, so maybe we should merge it as well. SharkD  Talk  09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the Isometric projection article should be a separate article, because it is by far the most important projection method in technical drawing. -- Mdd (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but minus the (now) duplicated content, it's basically a stub article. SharkD  Talk  23:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important for Isometric projection to exist as a separate article. I would never have found the isometric information if it were merged into Axonometric projection. I was specifically looking for isometric projection, and have never heard of axonometric before, so I would never have looked at it or even guessed that it contained isometric information. --AridWaste (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The search feature would still have led you here via a redirect. SharkD  Talk  00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I like most of your changes, but there a couple of issues:

  • The cabinet image is helpful. There is no reason to remove it.
  • Some sections still do not have references. Please find and add references. Samboy (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I had added some references to Parallel projection previously (which is very similar to this article). I copied them over to here. The "Limitations" section is missing some refs, but it uses diagrams that readers can easily refer to. SharkD  Talk  03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm against the merger as it tends to hamper expansion. Specifically, for the last couple of months I've been working on one of the methods of creating axonometric projections which involves using vector graphic software. This is where you, in the simplest case, take the face on views of the sides of a cube, and squeeze and skew them appropriately. At this point I have several images and animations describing the more general process. I have also created a spreadsheet where you type in your desired downward viewing angle, horizontal viewing angle, tilt of the wall/plane and horizontal rotation of the wall/plane and then the spreadsheet calculates the necessary squeezes and skews and a 2x2 transformation matrix. I am planning to create in each of the isometric, dimetric and trimetric projection articles, a section devoted to how to create these projections. From my point of view it would not work well to jam it all into a single article. By the way, it is my understanding that there is no way to store and then link to a spreadsheet file in the same way that one can store and then link to a image file in Wikipedia. Am I correct in this view and if so does anyone have any suggestions about the best way to provide access to a spreadsheet file? Dave3457 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a few hours ago I wrote the above comment but have since began writing the text for the images I created and have begun to have second thoughts about my position because I have found myself repeating things more often than I thought I would. I'll hold off on a position until I'm further along.
As the two relevant pages still have merge banners it would be nice for me if this issue could be settled one way or the other before I get to far along in my text. Dave3457 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 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). (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Athanasius