three-point-perspective

I did have art class in high school, and I’m aware that most artists won’t have been taught the formulas in full mathematical detail. But you’re the one describing your method as “based on how it gets taught in art class” and calling it “strict” and “true” three-point perspective (or at least calling the usual method “not true three-point perspective”). What I’m suggesting is that maybe you should examine the extra assumptions you made in addition to the rules from art class before drawing conclusions from them. (Filed https://github.com/Pomax/three-point-perspective/issues/1 as you asked.)

Except this article isn't interested in "the usual computer graphics". We already know how to do that one, it looks great, it barely has any problems, and on the whole if you want to render things in a cool perspective, use a camera. The whole point of the article is to show what happens if we don't follow conventional computer graphics wisdom and instead implement it based on how it gets taught in art class, and what happens if you break the fundamental "don't get too close to your vanishing points" rule you get taught there. Mind you, it's great advice in general, it just doesn't match up with art class, which was the whole point of this article. That said, if you want to file an issue over on the repo (https://github.com/Pomax/three-point-perspective/issues), I'm sure a new section can be added at the end going "how can we fix this?"