I'm not sure that's true. He's not talking about fencing, he's talking about the physics of impact. Or are you saying that impact force is path dependent?
It's absolutely path-dependent... the force with which you're hitting is a vector, not a scalar... (not to mention that he picks the absolutely most stupid path possible, simply because it simplifies his physics.... wait, no, now I remeber, ARMA guys actually swing swords like that... ewwww)
The impact force is a scalar, actually; at least if you're hitting like a stick it is, which's whence it's derived. I'll leave it to wiser folks as to ARMA proclivities or not. The think I thought was interesting, though, was the idea about the function of the pommel.
6 comments:
"Keep in mind that the target doesn't care how your swing looked an instant prior to impact, only at the instant of impact."
This is kind of like Eason's conversation listening to some dude talk about Soviet tanks. "Yep, yep, uh huh, uh huh -- Oh, he's full of shit!"
I'm not sure that's true. He's not talking about fencing, he's talking about the physics of impact. Or are you saying that impact force is path dependent?
It's absolutely path-dependent... the force with which you're hitting is a vector, not a scalar... (not to mention that he picks the absolutely most stupid path possible, simply because it simplifies his physics.... wait, no, now I remeber, ARMA guys actually swing swords like that... ewwww)
The impact force is a scalar, actually; at least if you're hitting like a stick it is, which's whence it's derived. I'll leave it to wiser folks as to ARMA proclivities or not. The think I thought was interesting, though, was the idea about the function of the pommel.
But a sword is not a stick...and that's the problem with the approach of that article, imho.
Oooooh-boy... thats..umm..yeah.
Post a Comment