"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I see what you are trying to do, but actually to be equivilant, segment d should
> equal segment b.  You are assuming that a is shown as the correct length, but in
> the iso projection, a is shortened from what it should be (ie, not 1:1), whereas
> segment b is already the correct length as it has no distortion from the
> projection.  This means that the same horizontal camera sizeworks for both
>
> -tgq

No. In the images, segment d *does* equal segment b. The isometric image uses
the correct unit scale along all three axes (hence the term "isometric", "equal
measure"). The distortion caused by the oblique projection causes the vertical
(in this case) axis to become stretched.

Post a reply to this message

Also, 1/sqrt(2) is equal to sind(45), which is a ratio already mentioned by
someone in a previous post in this thread (go figure). I'm using that in all my
scenes from now on.

Post a reply to this message

"SharkD" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I see what you are trying to do, but actually to be equivilant, segment d should
> > equal segment b.  You are assuming that a is shown as the correct length, but in
> > the iso projection, a is shortened from what it should be (ie, not 1:1), whereas
> > segment b is already the correct length as it has no distortion from the
> > projection.  This means that the same horizontal camera sizeworks for both
> >
> > -tgq
>
> No. In the images, segment d *does* equal segment b. The isometric image uses
> the correct unit scale along all three axes (hence the term "isometric", "equal
> measure"). The distortion caused by the oblique projection causes the vertical
> (in this case) axis to become stretched.

I take that back. You're right. The scaling is not necessary.

Post a reply to this message