Art classes don’t teach that objects appear exponentially smaller as they recede into the distance. To make something appear half the size, you need to move it twice as far away, not move it by a constant amount.
Either you never had art class in high school, or you forgot that it does not get explained that nicely. Most kids, as well as adults taking casual courses, will never learn this.
Can we go "hey we can fix all of this with a switch in function"? Absolutely. Should I ammend the article with that? Yeah, also absolutely. Is it how the vast majority of people get taught three point perspective? Very much not.
Again, please file an issue so that I don't forget to write that section, because pages on the internet well outlast their life on hackernews, but I work on a million projects and will forget about this if there's no issue =)
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.
I think you might have just had a bad class on the topic. For what it's worth I watched Erik Olson's artistic linear perspective class lectures on New Masters Academy and it definitely didn't teach perspective working the way you describe.
