6 ms·

Yep, that and the controller has no weight. To make a realistic game you would then need to make the character have a max swing agility (slow than the player) a

Yep, that and the controller has no weight. To make a realistic game you would then need to make the character have a max swing agility (slow than the player) and also give the character a stamina bar. Anyway that's not to say you can't have fun sword fighting motion games. It just means you can't approximate reality 1:1 in all dimensions. But you can still approximate reality if you just accept the control dimension will be abstract! Consider that Sim City uses an abstract interface to simulate city planning. Surely thats not the interface real city planners use (meetings, proposals) but it's still approximating a reality of city planning much more closely than other games.

saulrh 14y ago
Swords are a lot lighter than people think, even the heaviest armor in use (completely different from the ceremonial stuff) was much less restrictive than usually believed, and the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier. I suspect that if you used a wiimote or a kinect-tracked stick things would all balance out. It would still require some abstraction, true, but not quite that much. [1] European longswords weigh 1.5 kg on average: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword [2] Guy doing gymnastics in armor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
- dfc 14y ago
  > the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier. I am curious if this is just speculation or if you have evidence for this statement? At first it seems reasonable but I am not so confident after you factor in modern medicine and advances in nutrition/diet and discount for stereotyping.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    Look into the physical fitness of Amish and the less developed world in general. You will also find the answer in any researched history of medieval life. The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights. But I don't have smallpox. Or cholera. Or an iodine deficiency, because I live so far from the ocean.
      - 1123581321 14y ago
        That is another discussion since we are talking about fitness, specifically upper body strength and endurance, not rates of illness.
      - flyinRyan 14y ago
        So if you had most of those things you'd be dead and therefor not factor into this discussion. The ones who didn't die were much stronger than the average person today. They had to be.
  - saulrh 14y ago
    Bit of a difference between overall health and sword-swinging fitness. I may be almost completely disease- and parasite-free, but the guy that's been training five hours a day since he was five will always lift more than me and run further than me.
    - goblin89 14y ago
      Does “overall health” mean being disease- and parasite-free, though? There's at least one disease I heard of from which the case may actually benefit with increased lifespan[0]. That said, I tend to agree that to equate fitness with health probably isn't correct either. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease#Screening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease#Screening
  - defen 14y ago
    Consider the draw weight of the longbow - "Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf)". And they would loose approximately 6 arrows per minute in combat. And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess. Another quote: "Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow
    - liedra 14y ago
      This is quite interesting. I did some archery a few years back (recurve bow) and picked up a second hand, 50lb bow, which, apparently, for a slender early 20s female would be "quite tough" to draw, but I managed it, and got quite good (and strong arms). I never really took it very seriously though, but it was lots of fun. I can only imagine how hard it would be to draw an 81+lb bow (though perhaps longbows distribute the force differently? Otherwise that's going to be some sore fingers!).
    - josephkern 14y ago
      > And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess. Yes in fact they did spend their whole lives practicing. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training): "Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards ... etons of longbow archers are recognisably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers." Further: "It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363." The popularization of the crossbow, in part, was the reduceded need for training. In some areas it also paid better.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - arethuza 14y ago
    I can recommend the book "The Time-traveller's Guide to Medieval England" - it mentions the amount of military training that both knights and commoners were expected to perform. Basically a knight was trained from a very early age to fight - no way would an average 21st century male be able to compete in skill or strength. Even for commeners they were still often legally required to spend a significant amount of time working on their marshal skills - mainly archery. http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/dp/1439112908 http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/... e.g. Here in Scotland there was a time that games like golf and football were officially banned as they were seen to distract men away from military training for the wars with England.
    - Simucal 14y ago
      Thanks for the book suggestion, I just purchased it. I had been looking to read a book about Medieval times but hadn't taken the time to find out what one to read. The reviews look promising.
  - sambeau 14y ago
    14th century knights had the physiques of professional rugby players: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060 http://www.stirlingcastle.gov.uk/home/newsevents/bbc2historycoldcasesecrectskeletons.htm http://www.stirlingcastle.gov.uk/home/newsevents/bbc2history... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery-medieval-knight-finally-revealed-modern-day-CSI-skills.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery...
- soult 14y ago
  Using a stick won't work because a typical living room doesn't have enough space to swing it around withoud damaging the furniture.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    Fortunately, human apathy does not yet rule all of reality.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Perhaps use a gyroscope to simulate the inertia of moving a larger weight?
- Someone 14y ago
  On the other hand, that long sword has more rotational inertia than the slightly heavier roman gladius, let alone a much smaller and lighter controller.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Having fenced a wee bit in high school I was shocked to get to waive a claymore around - a ~1.5m long two-handed broadsword has a lot of inertia.
- wazoox 14y ago
  I remember Gaston Phoebus' war armour displayed in Foix castle. It's made of relatively thin plates but reinforced with 5 mm thick iron bars and weigh at least 60 kilos. Of course the guy was a hell of a beast but... It doesn't look anything like the sort of tournament armour such as the one in the video or those most currently shown in museums (hint: if it's beautifully engraved, it's probably not war equipment).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

saulrh 14y ago

Swords are a lot lighter than people think, even the heaviest armor in use (completely different from the ceremonial stuff) was much less restrictive than usually believed, and the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier. I suspect that if you used a wiimote or a kinect-tracked stick things would all balance out. It would still require some abstraction, true, but not quite that much. [1] European longswords weigh 1.5 kg on average: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword [2] Guy doing gymnastics in armor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

dfc 14y ago
> the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier. I am curious if this is just speculation or if you have evidence for this statement? At first it seems reasonable but I am not so confident after you factor in modern medicine and advances in nutrition/diet and discount for stereotyping.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  Look into the physical fitness of Amish and the less developed world in general. You will also find the answer in any researched history of medieval life. The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights. But I don't have smallpox. Or cholera. Or an iodine deficiency, because I live so far from the ocean.
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      That is another discussion since we are talking about fitness, specifically upper body strength and endurance, not rates of illness.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      So if you had most of those things you'd be dead and therefor not factor into this discussion. The ones who didn't die were much stronger than the average person today. They had to be.
- saulrh 14y ago
  Bit of a difference between overall health and sword-swinging fitness. I may be almost completely disease- and parasite-free, but the guy that's been training five hours a day since he was five will always lift more than me and run further than me.
  - goblin89 14y ago
    Does “overall health” mean being disease- and parasite-free, though? There's at least one disease I heard of from which the case may actually benefit with increased lifespan[0]. That said, I tend to agree that to equate fitness with health probably isn't correct either. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease#Screening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease#Screening
- defen 14y ago
  Consider the draw weight of the longbow - "Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf)". And they would loose approximately 6 arrows per minute in combat. And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess. Another quote: "Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow
  - liedra 14y ago
    This is quite interesting. I did some archery a few years back (recurve bow) and picked up a second hand, 50lb bow, which, apparently, for a slender early 20s female would be "quite tough" to draw, but I managed it, and got quite good (and strong arms). I never really took it very seriously though, but it was lots of fun. I can only imagine how hard it would be to draw an 81+lb bow (though perhaps longbows distribute the force differently? Otherwise that's going to be some sore fingers!).
  - josephkern 14y ago
    > And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess. Yes in fact they did spend their whole lives practicing. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training): "Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards ... etons of longbow archers are recognisably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers." Further: "It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363." The popularization of the crossbow, in part, was the reduceded need for training. In some areas it also paid better.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- arethuza 14y ago
  I can recommend the book "The Time-traveller's Guide to Medieval England" - it mentions the amount of military training that both knights and commoners were expected to perform. Basically a knight was trained from a very early age to fight - no way would an average 21st century male be able to compete in skill or strength. Even for commeners they were still often legally required to spend a significant amount of time working on their marshal skills - mainly archery. http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/dp/1439112908 http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/... e.g. Here in Scotland there was a time that games like golf and football were officially banned as they were seen to distract men away from military training for the wars with England.
  - Simucal 14y ago
    Thanks for the book suggestion, I just purchased it. I had been looking to read a book about Medieval times but hadn't taken the time to find out what one to read. The reviews look promising.
- sambeau 14y ago
  14th century knights had the physiques of professional rugby players: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060 http://www.stirlingcastle.gov.uk/home/newsevents/bbc2historycoldcasesecrectskeletons.htm http://www.stirlingcastle.gov.uk/home/newsevents/bbc2history... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery-medieval-knight-finally-revealed-modern-day-CSI-skills.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery...
soult 14y ago
Using a stick won't work because a typical living room doesn't have enough space to swing it around withoud damaging the furniture.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  Fortunately, human apathy does not yet rule all of reality.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Perhaps use a gyroscope to simulate the inertia of moving a larger weight?
Someone 14y ago
On the other hand, that long sword has more rotational inertia than the slightly heavier roman gladius, let alone a much smaller and lighter controller.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Having fenced a wee bit in high school I was shocked to get to waive a claymore around - a ~1.5m long two-handed broadsword has a lot of inertia.
wazoox 14y ago
I remember Gaston Phoebus' war armour displayed in Foix castle. It's made of relatively thin plates but reinforced with 5 mm thick iron bars and weigh at least 60 kilos. Of course the guy was a hell of a beast but... It doesn't look anything like the sort of tournament armour such as the one in the video or those most currently shown in museums (hint: if it's beautifully engraved, it's probably not war equipment).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]