Talk:Isometric projection

Image

This entry could really benefitfrom an image. It' be really easy to create. I'd add it myself, but I've never added images to articles before and am not sure how to go To do this

I'd be glad to do it. Adding images is easy - just upload it and then link to it from the article, so if you have something prepared, go ahead! If not, I will post one sometime. -- Wapcaplet

I don't have anything prepared, but it wouldn't be a challenge to create something. If I get some spare time soon, I'll do it. I guess it's a race to see who'll do it first. :^) -Frecklefoot

Problem

Eventually, someone will point out that video games warrant only a footnote in this article, and that "isometric" is an adjective (so the first sentence is inappropriate) and there should be a link to this page from "isometry". I'm too busy now, though. -- Mike Hardy

You're right there. I suppose if the video game section gets too large we could devote a new article like Isometric video games to it. (There are certainly enough of them!) -- Wapcaplet

Sim City

Sim City wasn't isometric was it? I suppose the graphics you got when your commerical zone (or whatever) sprouted an actual building (what excitement!) were sort of isometric, but still, it seems somewhat misleading to put it here, cos the actual game was played on a 2D top-down square grid. It was in the Spectrum version anyway. Ah, how I miss the old speccy... --Camembert

Oops. 1 wasn't 2k, 3k and 4 are -- Tarquin 00:44 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

List of games

Should a new page be created, something like Isometric video games or List of isometric projection video games? The list is getting a bit long and starting to dominate the article. This seems inappropriate since video games are really just a footnote to the article. -Frecklefoot

I don't see any reason to devote an article just to a list of isometric games (there are just way too many of them, and too many possible interpretations of whether a game is/isn't isometric), but I do think it would be good to have an article devoted to iso games in general, since they really are almost a genre of their own. -- Wapcaplet

Too many games for their own article. Just find the most prominent ones in their own particular genre (e.g. Knight Lore in place of Alien 8 for early games - or better still, someone write an article for 3D Ant Attack - then Diablo for RPG, Starcraft (probably) for RTS, etc.) and stick them here; then can the rest. Kinitawowi 13:55, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Two years later and the list's still waaaay too long. :) My suggestion would be to crop it in favour of earlier games that actually made a difference (arcade, 8 bit), plus a few famous modern titles. Sequels should be dropped, and it may be an idea to ditch those for which we've no screenshots. As the list is so huge, we've got plenty to play with. Ordering the list by date rather than alphabetically may also be an idea. I'll do it myself in a few days, but will await comments. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. At least we've got 3D Ant Attack since 2004!

I've finally started trimming the list. I've not actually removed anything, I've merely commented entries out for now, and added a comment why afterwards. In most cases because of a lack of screenshots on the game articles. I've also removed a few as "Johnny-come-lately" entries - games that, while isometric, don't offer anything new (to my biased mind). I've erred on the side of earlier games, as these tend to be more influential to the genre. That and respect for elders - although I'm old enough to have played most of them at the time they came out ... --Plumbago 16:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. :) I'd still lose Alien 8, though (not much over Knight Lore except a bigger map, really; and given that they were both by Ultimate we don't really need both...). I've also got a copy of Edge Retro issue 2, where they interview Sandy White and he mentions that "isometric" was a term that came out of his sculpting background; is it worth noting this as one of the first examples of a game actually being described as "isometric"? Kinitawowi 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done as you requested, although I did love Alien 8 (particularly the "re-programming" sequence). I've added Marble Madness as that's an overlooked classic of the genre. As for further changes, it'd be good to thin out the more recent titles to key entries in particular genres, e.g. RTS, reality simulators, etc. These days I tend only to play FPS, so I'm out of touch with modern isometric games (bar Civilization).

Regarding your other point about the term "isometric", it might well be worth adding this (especially if you can find the source online and link to it). As 3D Ant Attack is one of the genre's first entries (and, actually, a pretty good one at that), Sandy White's comments may well be the first reference to isometric games. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost added the game Crystal Castles to the list, but then decided to stop by the talk page first. I'm kind of glad that I did now, as I'm not sure that it was a particularly influencial game, although it appears to have inspired Nacmo to make Pac-Mania several years later. Powerlord 06:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Landstalker (Mega Drive) Excellent example of the limitations of isometric projection. In an attempt to try and correct this limitation sections of the game contain moving objects/platforms, which aided spatial positioning during play. This was particularly important due to the fact that the no shadows we cast by any objects. Landstalker was the fist action RPG on the Mega Drive to use ¾ view. Screen Shots available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spark010 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Remove Isometric projection

Isometric projection is addessed under orthographic projection, Pictorials. Suggest this site my be considered for removal..... Pat Kelso 21:22, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Trying to clean up

By everyone's leave will try to clean this one up....Pat Kelso 00:22, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Looking good so far! However, the article should probably begin with a concise definition of what isometric projection is (as the old version did). I know you're in the middle of major revisions, but perhaps it'd be better to work on the revisions in a separate page (say, Talk:Isometric projection/Temp) and copy them wholesale into the article once it's in a more finished state. I fear that visitors to the article right now will be confused. -- Wapcaplet 22:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pat, it looks like you included some copyrighted material. This isn't allowed in the 'pedia. All material either must be public domain or released under the GFDL. The text you added wasn't either, so I reverted it. You also referred to images which weren't present. When making such big changes, take Wapcaplet's advice and work on it on a seperate page and replace the content of the article when you are done with your changes. —Frecklefoot 23:50, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that this page seems to go off track from the subject... it starts to talk about Isometric Projection, but then it goes off on games... I think this page needs a clean up! --Moped 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cut it down a long time ago to mention only notable titles, but several more titles (that may not fall within the requirement of notability) would be added again through time. We may need to eliminate the list and mention only a brief paragraph of the most notable few, each covering a specific type of isometric graphics system (8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, photorealistic). ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Good job cleaning it up. I did some additional fixing with regards to putting the term "isometric" in quotes when referring to pixel art. -SharkD 06:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innacurate

Strictly speaking, most, if not all, of the games listed actually use some form of dimetric projection. Ditto for the TV drawing. —Andux 09:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense, but what's the difference between these projection types? None of the articles on each (bar isometric projection) show a picture of what they mean. I think I understand what you're getting at, but a pictorial example would be helpful (for the other pages on projections too). Cheers, --Plumbago 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A drawing would be helpful and some clarification text should be added to the article. I already added some on the dimetric projection article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to tweak or fix the additions, I'm pretty busy at the moment. I would also recommend refering to Image:IsometricCubeGray.png and include the axis names and angles for clarity in the next version of the image. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

The title for this section is ~~innacurate~~ inaccurate. Jake95_(talk!) 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous or not, it's still verifiable that pixel art and gaming quarters inaccurately use "isometric" to refer to this angle. Look at deviantART [1] and MobyGames [2], for example. Both sites use "isometric" to identify pixel art or games that use this viewpoint. As much as it's dimetric, the angle is also unique from other dimetric angles in that it only uses 2x1 pixel lines in the x and y axes (compared to 1x1 pixel and 3x1 pixel lines). ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I think Jake was just trying to be clever. SharkD 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotations

"... it corresponds to rotation of the object by +/- 45° about the vertical axis, followed by rotation of approximately +/- 35.264° [= arcsin(tan(30°))] about the horizontal axis..."

It is actually +/-45 degrees and +/-45 degrees [around the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively] for true isometric, and +/-45 degress and +-30 degrees [around the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively] for the particular form of dimetric projection commonly found in computer games. I don't know where you got the arcsin(tan()) stuff. -SharkD 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly what the author was trying to state. Could someone please explain it to me? I'm tempted to change it... -SharkD 08:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just tested it in POV-Ray. The author is correct. -SharkD 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. It seems like the author of this article is talking about rotating the camera first around the Y (vertical) axis and then around the X (horizontal) axis. But if you do this, your camera ends up cock-eyed. Not to mention the fact that the math works out simpler if you rotate around X first, then Y. This way, you get a 2:1 slope at 30 degrees of X rotation ~~and true isometric projection at 45 degrees of X rotation~~... I suppose I could be missing something, but that's what seems to be the case based on an OpenGL app that I've written. Anyway, the numbers given in the "Isometric" projection in video games and pixel art section contradict the numbers given on the cube rendering right next to that section. (The one with the blue camera vector--it gives 30 degrees as the 2:1 video game rotation and 35.264 for true isometric.) 71.3.218.33 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How it is meant is, if you want to render e.g. a cube isometric. Then if you look straight to it (in z direction), you first rotate it 45° around the vertical (y), then 35.264 around horizontal (x). And it will appear isometric. So with OpenGL, you likely should use a projection matrix doing just that to all vertices. But you're right, if you view this in the way that you actually rotate the camera, you would first rotate it 35.264° around the global horizontal axis so it's bent down somewhat, then 45° around the global (not the camera's) vertical axis. Maybe should describe that in more detail.. feel free to. --Allefant (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2024

Actually the 35.264º rotation doesn't get you an isometric view. The correct angle is acos(1/sqrt(3)) aprox. 54.74º so the information is the page is incorrect at the moment. An easy way to check is to do this in opengl and look at the angle of a cube makes with the screen X-axis. You will get ~40º instead of the expected 30º for isometric projection.

See https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/181651/why-when-i-do-an-isometric-projection-do-i-get-a-dimmetric-view 135.180.33.83 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for using dimetric in pixel art

"The projection used in videogames usually deviates slightly from true isometric due to the limitations of raster graphics. Lines in the x and y axes would not follow a neat pixel pattern when drawn in the required 30° to the horizontal."

I think that it has more to do with the fact that "3/4" view is easier on the eyes than true isometric. True isometric view, while great for mechanical part schematics, often leaves viewers feeling disoriented. -SharkD 06:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that. -SharkD 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still feel it's not the only reason. SharkD 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As implied in the quote, the simple reason was: pixel ratio. You have to remember that, when isometric perspective became popular, screen resolutions were limited to 256x192 and sometimes even less (many isogames on CPC and C64 used lowres modes). You simply couldn't afford realistic perspectives on such screens, which would have actually disoriented gamers because of the limited resolution and strong pixel aliasing. Besides, the action in most isogames was focused on a single room at a time, which boundaries were confined enough to not confuse gamers. The main default of isogames was not the incorrect perspective, but the lack of projected shadows. Kaminari (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3/4's perspective

Back in the day, people would talk about games which were "three fourth's perspective." Does anybody know if that is an accurate synonym for isometric? --Adamrush 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "isometric" is typically inaccurate when used to describe the type of projection used in video games (see above discussion topic). However, the common misuse of the term is synonymous with "3/4 perspective". -SharkD 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "isometric"'s common usage is also synonymous with the term "axonometric projection". SharkD 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't see this discussion before I changed the picture descriptions - it would be very helpful if we could back such things up with proper sources. If it is just common usage by (pixel) artists, then I agree that "3/4 perspective" is just as good as "1:2 isometric perspective" - but using quotation marks as (likely, until we find a source) neither is the proper term (and this is still the encyclopedic article about isometric projection). --Allefant 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article that mentions 3/4 view. And, no, 3/4 does not refer to any particular pixel ratio. SharkD 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As I said on the talk page of 3/4 perspective, a more plausible meaning is that 3/4 view is just a very general term, meaning it's neither frontal/side/top-down view. What do you think about just calling the pictures with the 1:2 games "isometric" (with quotation marks)? --Allefant 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SharkD 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

limits of isometric projection

Any two distances that are equal in a 3 dimensional object will be equal in isometric projection.

I wasn't sure about this statement, so I stuck it here instead. Anyone know for sure? Algr 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now here is a funny situation. After finding enough references that I was satisfied that that statement was true, I then tried an experiment and proved it wrong! (It doesn't work for a 3D object with diagonal lines or circles.) Does no original research apply in the negative? Can doing nothing violate NOR? Algr 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above statement is only true when the distances being measured lie along one of the three cardinal axes (actually, relative to the camera). I think this question is better answered in the Orthographic Projection article. -SharkD 05:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent link

Here is an ... link to an [excellent] article discussing the use of orthographic projection in SimCity 4. For some reason [the link] was removed in a revision... -SharkD 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it was moved to the Trimetric Projection article. -SharkD 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage examples

We could use some example images of this perspective being used in engineering drafting. I know I used it in high school. -SharkD 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical projection widget

The 'See also' list was replaced with a 'Graphical projection' table. How do you create those? -SharkD 01:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I figured it out. -SharkD 02:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little crowded now

The addition of the two new 3D rendered images is becoming problematic. Are there any more suggestions to remove certain images and consider new arrangements? In terms of the former, I'm thinking about removing the pixel art TV (now that it's devoid of any real purpose after the redundant caption is gone) and one of the two game screenshots. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

The crowding will be diminished if the rotation images are cropped. If SharkD doesn't do it, then I'll do it myself in a day or two, per User_talk:SharkD (losslessly, of course) -- AnonMoos 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped the images so that they're square. Go ahead and reduce the size of the thumbnails if you need to (though it might become difficult to read the angle measurements). I'd just as well keep the TV image. -SharkD 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped them further from 600x600 to 464x432 (which was more what I originally had in mind), and correspondingly reduced the width of the thumbnails by a ratio of 464/600 (or from 256 to 198 pixels). AnonMoos 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "isometric" games section should be reduced to a stub and moved to the dimetric or axonometric projection articles? That would reduce crowding, as there's not much over there at the moment. -SharkD 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for having both images in the article

It's hard to compare true isometric projection with video-game quasi-"isometric" projection unless you have both of them in there. Maybe they should be set side by side (though I'm not sure exactly where the best place for that would be...). AnonMoos 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a composite image consisting of the two images placed side by side to make comparison easier. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do this losslessly. The resulting image is a little more grainy than the originals. SharkD (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image update

I updated the SVG image showing the isometric cube. Wikipedia's SVGtoPNG converter is a bit buggy, so there are errors introduced that aren't in the source file. Hopefully, WP will update their converter sometime in the near future. -SharkD 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over a year, and Wikipedia's converter is still buggy. I tried loading the image in InkScape to see if I could convert the arrowheads to paths, but InkScape is buggy too. Adobe's viewer is still the only one that displays the image properly. Unfortunately, my SVG skills are too rusty to try and recreate the arrowheads by hand in a way that works for all viewers/editors. SharkD (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing games that are not isometric

There's some disagreement as to whether the game Fallout is isometric or not, and whether it should be listed. Though it is in fact trimetric, it is referred to frequently as isometric. Also, only two games in the list are really isometric. What people really mean when they say "isometric" is that a game uses orthographic projection--which Fallout certainly does. Should we then not include all the rest? SharkD 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer desktop section

I consider computer desktop icons as being pixel art; therefore, I think that section is redundant and should be removed.SharkD 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima

I'm having trouble figuring out what form of graphical projection is used in parts of the Ultima series (starting with Ultima VI). Is it dimetric? SharkD 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I figured out it's axiometric projection. SharkD 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable games too long

I think the list of notable iso games is too long and would like to discuss which games should be removed. SharkD 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went through all the articles listed, here's my opinion:

- Amaurote doesn't seem to be isometric in any kind, so I removed it.
- Solstice seems not to be very notable, only one MobyGames reference in the article.
- Crusader seems to have no independent references at all.
- Ultima Online seems to use some kind of oblique projection, not dimetric (i.e. look at the screenshots in the article, the tiles look like top-down, just with walls added - of course as this article says, the term is blurred and everyone would still say isometric).
- Fallout is clearly trimetric and not isometric.
- The Commandos article is just a stub (?) so no reason to include.
- Habbo Hotel has lots of references, but non seems an independent review, so I'd say it's also not notable enough to mention here as example of a notable isometric game.
- Virtual Magic Kingdom has currently four of those "boxes", so we should not link to it as notable game either.

So I would remove all of those mentioned above. --Allefant 11:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I think Diablo should be added as a quite notable isometric game, but we could remove even more less notable ones instead. --Allefant 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Go ahead with the changes. SharkD 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add my two cents, loads of modern games use isometric projection in fairly non-groundbreaking ways, and it's not easy to reasonably separate notable ones from less notable ones. So, I'd suggest trimming the list to pioneering games (1980s; the list is already trimmed to the most notable of these) and those modern titles (post-1990) that best illustrate particular genres (sim games, platformers, adventure games, RPGs, MMOGs). A short list of ~5 or so would be good here. SimCity 2000 and Civilization II are two obvious, groundbreaking titles to my mind, but I'm not very au fait with modern isometric titles. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, pioneering aspect is probably a good criteria. I'd remove Transport Tycoon as the screenshot in its article looks just like SimCity 2000, but it was released 2 years later. But I don't really know about the notability of modern games either - Cadaver seems notable to me as it likely was the first to use a z-buffer or some other technique to allow arbitrary 3D positioning of all objects (would be hard finding an independent reference for this though). --Allefant 12:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe instead of a mere list, we should have a section describing some kind of history of isometric games by its notable examples. A lot more work, especially as it requires finding references for the notability of each cited example - but should stop everyone inserting their favorite games.. (hm, and no, I don't think I'd be up to this currently myself) --Allefant 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea but, you're right, it'd be quite a bit of work. It may also be difficult to single out particular advances in isometric gaming and then attribute these to individual titles. However, since we've already suggested thinning out the existing list in a similar manner, that's not specific to your suggestion. To a first approximation, perhaps we should get the list thinned, and then worry about how best to articulate advances? It's a lazy solution, I know. --Plumbago 07:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough to write such a section. SharkD 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it didn't prove to be a big problem, but still, with quite some delay, I've now attempted to do the above. If it's to stay, I'll also try to find references for the last paragraph and add fair use rationales for the two images. Some of the games mentioned are of course arbitrary choices so could be removed or replaced with better ones. And if someone really thinks more games need to be mentioned, then they could be added in a similar style showing why they should be mentioned. I think it's better than just a list in any case. --Allefant (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Maybe some mention should be made of isometric games that mix "true 3D" with bitmapped sprites. The Sims, for instance, uses a mix of sprites and 3D polygonal data. Other examples that I can think of are Prelude to Darkness and UFO: Alien Invasion (which has a special "orthographic" mode), though these latter two games aren't very notable (they're both freeware). SharkD (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isometric cube 3.jpg is NOT isometric

I notice that this 3D rendered image (and the similar one in videogames.) is NOT isometric. All the lines clearly converge to vanishing points. This seems important and should be noted somehow. Perhaps a corresponding image could be made that actually is isometric. (Although this might be tricky to do in a 3D rendering program.) Algr 09:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image itself is not supposed to be isometric. It's supposed to demonstrate how to orient the camera when capturing an isometric image. SharkD 09:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain the pictures better, for those who don't read the article text but just the pictures, like I do myself often with other articles :) Probably it could be formulated more elegantly. --Allefant 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The blue vector points towards the camera position which would result in an isometric view of the cube when looking towards the origin." I think this is still a problem. A 3D renderer would never give you an isometric image, no matter where you put the camera. Unless there is a specific "isometric mode" there would always be vanishing points, and objects would always grow as they approached the camera. Algr 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text just besides the picture says "starting from an orthographic projection relative to an object's face" - so it should be clear we do not use any perspective projection. But of course, there might be a way to formulate this more clear.. --Allefant 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could theoretically achieve an isometric projection in a 3D renderer by placing the camera infinitely far away and increasing the focal length (e.g., zooming) to an infinite amount. Check out this animation of Escher's Waterfall as an example of a camera placed at a very great distance, with a very great focal length (here is the text description of the animation). This doesn't apply to all forms of parallel projection, though. E.g., you can never achieve oblique projection using just a camera. SharkD (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image of Ultima Online: Kingdom Reborn which appears to be composed of computer rendered sprites. The projection used in the game is oblique projection; I'm not sure what tricks they used to manage this. SharkD (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both OpenGL and Direct3D can do orthographic and oblique projections, so games have it easy just rendering in either (no idea what UO uses, might be hand-drawn?) --Allefant (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation regarding the mistaken use of "isometric" in computer and video games

I wonder where and when this term began to be mistakenly applied to video games. I believe this is due to the fact that isometric projection is taught in introductory drafting courses in high school. Computer programmers probably took such courses and never learned of the existence of dimetric and trimetric projection. Note that dimetric and trimetric projection aren't taught in these courses, as they're much harder to construct using only a compass and straightedge. In my personal experience, we even played SimCity 2000 [edit] in the classroom once our assignments were completed. Therefore, the two are always linked, in my mind. SharkD (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting indeed. I just looked at some references at the Knight Lore page, and magazines in 1985 who reviewed the game titled it "3D", but not yet "isometric". No time to look for more right now. --Allefant (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric looking 3D

As a kind of legacy of the use of isometric projection in video games, I think it may also be worth mentioning games that use true 3D graphics but give a view that looks like an isometric one; although with perspective and possible rotation available. Typical of games, especially early 3D games, that are tile based and wanted to use 3D but stick with a familiar view. Games like Dark Savior, Civilization IV, Vandal Hearts, off the top of my head although I'm sure there must be more.Carlwev (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a game uses hardware-accelerated 3D graphics or 2D tiles makes no difference with regard to whether the game can be described as "isometric". What matters is whether the game uses a perspective camera or a parallel one. After all, many 2D sprites are themselves rendered in 3D software packages, such as 3D Studio Max. The article also already mentions some games that use perspective projection, but try to emulate the old isometric view by adjusting the camera's placement so that it lies farther away. This makes sense, since the definition of a parallel camera is that it lies infinitely far away and has infinite zoom. Maybe this section could be fleshed out more. SharkD (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

This image caught my attention

Although isometric projection appears to be used more recently, how much was it used in the past, and what for? and what was the first known use? This image from the 15th century looks Isometric. Carlwev (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it would actually be dimetric (or possbly trimetric). There's a website out there somewhere that estimated the camera rotation angles of traditional Chinese ink drawings and compared them with the camera rotation angles of isometric projection, but I didn't bookmark it, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just measure it with a standard ruler: the picture to the right is 2:1 dimetric. Quote from [3]: "There's another and more important reason to apply the 2:1 ratio besides the one dealing with the optical appearance: it makes the design of structures parallel to the ground plane a lot easier and oftentimes saves much time in calculating the proper lengths without really affecting the optical impression too much." -- Seems to me that this is the case in such drawings as well. Gulliveig (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed this as well. It's definitely worth a mention. I think a few years ago I did a search for sources on the subject (i.e. articles which mentioned Eastern drawings and "isometric"), but couldn't find anything. In the West (such as in medieval religious illustrations) I think oblique projection was more common. Someone with a degree in art history might know more. SharkD (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout and SimCity 4

I've been re-reading the article, and think that Fallout and SimCity 4 may in fact use a 2:1 pixel ratio despite being trimetric. Closer examination of the game sprites (in the case of Fallout; IIRC SimCity 4 doesn't use sprites) might be warranted. SharkD (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric view

The docs for the video game FATE describe the perspective it uses as "Asymmetric view". The view is one where a perspective camera is placed somewhat distant, so that it "feels" sort of like the traditional "isometric" view. I think this is a neat term, as it highlights the differences between it and isometric perspective, while still remaining a single word (so that it's easy to remember). SharkD (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur's Gate

Not sure whether this is worth mentioning in the article, but the Baldur's Gate series and The Temple of Elemental Evil use a rotation angle of 45 degrees from the horizontal instead of 35.264 degrees or 30 degrees. SharkD (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections with broad scope

The "History" and "Limitations..." sections could just as well go into Parallel projection or Axonometric projection, as the material that is covered applies nearly equally to them as well. SharkD Talk 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image display

The way the article is set up now, the images are all displayed at a rather small size (instead of standard 220px thumbnail view). AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an optical-grinding engine, not an optimal-grinding engine

The caption on the first figure in the "History and limitations" section should state the the machine is an optical-grinding engine, not an optimal-grinding engine. Yes, the file name ("Optimal-grinding engine model.jpg") says it's an optimal-grinding engine, but the image description clearly states: "Optical-grinding engine model. This is perhaps the first machine drawing rendered in 30 degrees isometric." Also of note is that the original source uses "optical", not "optimal" (noted in the edit history for the image).

Oddly, this was fixed at one point but someone changed it back, evidently without stopping to consider what exactly an optimal-grinding engine would do (although I suppose some might consider "grind optimally" to be a plausible answer). 69.77.169.106 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example images

Rotate on x for 45°

Rotate on y for arctan 1⁄√2

I think there is ...something wrong... with these images. Firstly, the axes are not labeled, so one cannot tell which is the x-axis, which is the y-axis, etc. Usually the x-axis is red, the y-axis is green and the z-axis is blue. Secondly, shouldn't you rotate first around the vertical axis by 45° and then the horizontal axis by arctan 1⁄√2? These images seem to do things in the wrong order. SharkD Talk 13:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember cropping those. They're certainly less clear than the images with a blue arrow at a cube vertex... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Isometric perspective" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Isometric perspective has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Isometric perspective until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]