I don't know what your first sentence means. What are "true" vanishing points? What does it mean for computer graphics to "do" them?
Basic computer graphics (linear algebra etc) does indeed create images that adhere to the rules of perspective. Lines that are parallel in 3d space, when projected onto the drawing plane, will now all intersect at a point on the plane. Etc. Whether or not the program actually calculates where that point is (typically, it doesn't) is not relevant.
So what do you even mean by this? Have you defined vanishing points in some oddly obscure way that by definition can't be "done" by computer graphics?
Maybe if you started your article with explaining how 3 point perspective is simply based on pinhole camera geometry (which is closely approximated by most camera lenses), it would help convince us that you are not simply stating a bunch of nonsense. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to say. The article doesn't seem to understand the basic theory of how perspective works, or has some odd idea of what it is that doesn't align with how others think about it. If somehow this aided understanding or insight, great, but it doesn't. Instead it simply tells people "don't bother understanding this thing, it is too complicated", but for no good reason.
The article would do well to at least discuss this basic theory before delving into... weirdness.
Basic computer graphics (linear algebra etc) does indeed create images that adhere to the rules of perspective. Lines that are parallel in 3d space, when projected onto the drawing plane, will now all intersect at a point on the plane. Etc. Whether or not the program actually calculates where that point is (typically, it doesn't) is not relevant.
So what do you even mean by this? Have you defined vanishing points in some oddly obscure way that by definition can't be "done" by computer graphics?
Maybe if you started your article with explaining how 3 point perspective is simply based on pinhole camera geometry (which is closely approximated by most camera lenses), it would help convince us that you are not simply stating a bunch of nonsense. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to say. The article doesn't seem to understand the basic theory of how perspective works, or has some odd idea of what it is that doesn't align with how others think about it. If somehow this aided understanding or insight, great, but it doesn't. Instead it simply tells people "don't bother understanding this thing, it is too complicated", but for no good reason.
The article would do well to at least discuss this basic theory before delving into... weirdness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera_model