Would you call this isometric?
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Diversions
Forum Discription: Get to know your fellow pixel freaks. Chat about anything to do with video games, comic books, anime, movies, television, books, music, sports or any other off topic bs you can think of.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5475
Printed Date: 13 September 2025 at 3:29pm
Topic: Would you call this isometric?
Posted By: surt
Subject: Would you call this isometric?
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 3:37pm
|
When I was submitting this I saw the "isometric" check box and it struck me that it could be argued to be pixel isometric (tiles only, sprites were just packed in as best I could). It has a half length axis for the floor vertical like isometric and it does have some isometric axis lines, however the primary axes are rotated an eighth revolution.  Would you call this view style pixel isometric? If not what is you're argument? |
Replies:
Posted By: skamocore
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 4:02pm
|
no Just because it has some lines that are on the iso axis...it doesn't mean it is an iso piece....for example the bridges...if the piece was iso they would be on an isometric axis and even if the sprites are just packed in....they still add context, which makes it seem less like iso technically...every piece could be argued to be isometric...you could say that everything in a scene was positioned at exactly 26.565° and therefore it appears flat on when you pixelled it...so I'd say it needs to actually appear that is is iso to be iso |
Posted By: Monkey 'o Doom
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 4:23pm
|
I'd call it isometric; it fits the restrictions for the perspective and using a different rotation of an object doesn't make it any less isometric; I'm making an isometric rubik's cube, and when the cubes are halfway rotated, they don't suddenly lose their isometric quality just because they lack 26.565-degree lines. ------------- http://pixelmonkey.ensellitis.com"> 
RPG is numberwang. |
Posted By: greenraven
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 5:20pm
|
I wouldn't. This has more of a top down platformer feel. -------------  "pwnage comes with patience, practice and planning." ~ Jalonso 
|
Posted By: surt
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:30pm
|
skamocore: Using that logic no piece of more complex construction than a set of axially aligned boxes could be iso. MoD: That's what I'm thinking. greenraven: I'm preferably looking for something more objective than a feeling. |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:36pm
|
It could be and at the same time may not be. People fail to realize that elements in an isometric scene can be rotated and viewed from different sides. I see the center land mass as being an octagon. Funny thing is all you would need to do is add some more bridges and people would call it isometric. It seems that the ratio of skewing is correct for all your squares. People fail to understand that shapes may be viewed in an isometric grid but do not have to be aligned with the x and y grid. Things may be rotated even in isometric perspective. If your player moved twice as fast along the width of the screen as he moves along the height of the screen it would be isometric. There is no way to prove this is or isn't iso without an initial image. We need to see what distortion has taken place and use this as a ruler. The orthographic pixel art isometric grid consists of grid squares twice as wide as they are tall. People have a hard time thinking about isometric views but If they were told to draw an organic shape in "isometric" view they would be lost and could never prove that it is in the proper view without some trigonometric proofs. People expect to see corners in isometric and if the sides of shapes aren't aligned with an axis they just don't understand it as being isometric. If you rotated a cube along the z axis they would claim it isn't isometric but it still would be. The view is the camera's height from the point (0,0,0) paired with the downward pointing angle. My advice for anyone that doesn't understand isometric is to go into a 3d program and rotate a simple cube in isometric projection. The shapes' rotations do NOT directly effect the view, the view effects the shapes. You can rotate a shape in ANY direction while not changing the view. Technically an isometric cube can be rotated and not have any angled lines as you have done for your tiles.
I'll provide some proof later. ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/"> 
|
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:56pm
|
Here you go. See how the cubes can have no angled lines at all?
His image could still be isometric. There is just no proof without knowing the original shapes.
http://imageshack.us">  ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/">
|
Posted By: surt
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:59pm
 Same tiles and tiling pattern but no one would question its isoness. |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 9:13pm
|
Surprise! This shape is also shown in the isometric view. There is no real reference thought so it would be impossible to tell. My point is that anything can be drawn from any angle in isometric. Isometric perspective is a real perspective. Any point may be mapped. Views like oblique and offset projection are invented systems that can not produce accurate results. Pixel art "isometric" is not true isometric but it still can produce mathmatically accurate models. I would advise people to read and understand the subject of projections. An article from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_projection - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_projection You would be better off to find information from a drafting site. http://imageshack.us">  ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/">
|
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 9:27pm
 ------------- |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 9:46pm
|
Again any shape can be drawn at any angle in an isometric view. Since the isometric view can be mathmatically defined rules like translation, rotation and scaling still apply. Planometric or Oblique views simply mean the top most face is drawn without foreshorteinng and then extension lines are added. It has nothing to do with rotation along any axis. Isometric simply means the camera looks down to the viewing plane at an angle. It does not mean that all cubes must have a edge parallel to an axis. If rotation did not apply to the isometric view three cubes with touching sides could not be drawn. They can.
Notice that the lower right cube aligns with the z axis however the other touching cubes must rotate because they touch the sides of the cube aligned with the z axis. So they distort as they should to maintain the form of three touching cubes.
It needs to be known that many shapes CANNOT be aligned totally with a grid. One of the touching cubes was aligned but the others in the body must rotate to maintain their form.
http://imageshack.us">
 ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/">
|
Posted By: spartan_117
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 9:52pm
|
other than that, isometric means placing the camera in such a way to provide a view that doesnt require special shading effects on all three axis.
for example if u have 2 cubes one behind the other, u do not require to color the one farthest from the camera darker, considering default isometric lighting ( all object are equally lit ), because the isometric illusion leads us to believe that all objects are the same distance from the camera which ur picture clearly shows. ------------- |
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 10:08pm
|
isometric = all things are the same size with no perspective whatsoever. While there is one there is no 'plane' only 'metrics'. surts image has down/down perspective so even though all items remain the same size its still plano as its on a 'plane' of view. ------------- |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 27 November 2007 at 10:14pm
|
@ Spartan
Isometric projection has nothing to do with shading. There are many shading models you can use. Atmospheric shading coupled with distance and direction shading are what you are probably thinking of. You can still apply atmospheric effects like fog and directional lighting to iso. Look at any good CAD/CAM renderer and you will see. An ambient shading model would provide what you are refering to. Why would you draw hidden shapes at all though?
@ Others
Planometric simply means that one face in a series of cuboids is algined with the XY plain. There are 3 coordinate planes in isometric. XY, XZ and YZ. Planometric views are limited to shapes that are cuboids. Planometric has one mathmatical plane and 2 imaginary depective ones. All shapes can be defined in isometric planometric has nothing to do with rotation. As Jalonso has said there is no perspective distortion but there is a set perspective. It can only be understood by human draftsmen not computers. You cannot draw some shapes in planometric it is not a purely mathematical coordinate system. You can however draw all shapes in isometric. Isometric refers to the rotation and position of the camera NOT the shape. Depending on the position of the cube you might see as few as two or even one of its faces. The camera would still look down at the proper angle and would not move.
Planometric is just a faulty system used to describe simple shapes for draftsmen. ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/">
|
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 28 November 2007 at 1:43pm
I know you are not going to believe me, but this is 100% isometric. You cant proove me wrong now.. its just that this object would look VERY VERY VREY weird in real... ------------- |
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 28 November 2007 at 2:07pm
|
that the bottom of the feet are ___________ more than proves its not iso  ------------- |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 28 November 2007 at 2:39pm
|
Isometric view deals with the camera's relation to the origin not the cameras relation to the object.
He is right with his image. If the camera points down in an isometric projection and the middle of his character lies perpendicular to the camera's direction the view is isometric and his character should appear normal.
However there is no proof that it is isometric because it lacks a reference. In my 3 cubes picture I had one of the cubes aligned with the XY grid to show that indeed it was isometric.
His figure could be isometric if and only if the torso is perpendicular to the vector of the isometric camera direction. The figure would have to be rotated back wards at a 60 degree angle which is unrealistic.
This would be unnatural but would still appear in the isometric view as your image.
http://imageshack.us">
 Does your character bend backwards defying gravity? ;)Lets all just agree to rotate the shapes if possible to fit the grid. If you have a 90 degree corner go ahead and rotate the entire scene so at least one corner snaps to the grid. Again you can have any 3d shape at any angle, the camera's direction is what makes an isometric view. ------------- http://www.shmup-dev.com/forum/">
|
Posted By: Lawrence
Date Posted: 29 November 2007 at 9:52am
|
surt's scene is isometric (in pixel art terms) and PO is absolutely spot on. |