just wanted to say that i've been using this mod for many years now and its so incredibly well done. So many thanks for your efforts and time you put into this!
In response to post #13889583. #16347905 is also a reply to the same post.
Spoiler:
Show
Thisguyagain wrote: "Swords are speed-dependent, not momentum-dependent weapons"
not entirely true, depending on era, personally i would prefer a sword hefty enough to crush a man even if its blunted (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword) than something fast and sharp (katana)
that said skyrim isnt about realism, its about looks, and your take on the swords look awesome,
The_Bereaver wrote: No offense or anything, but you're slightly wrong on that, don't really mean to get into a argument, so I'll keep it short.
Katana's are essentially the Japanese take on a Sabre, short, heavy and designed for cutting, although a heavy sword is only really about 3 KG, still a good sword though.
But yeah, it is about personal choice on aesthetics.
The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.
Increasing the mass adds weight which sucks if you have to carry it around not to mention fight with. If something is heavy it's harder to swing unless you're inhumanly strong. You can't win a fight with a heavy weapon if you can't hit your opponent. That's why a crowbar is a terrible weapon. The key is compromise between all the factors. A material that is strong enough to withstand high G forces without breaking but light enough that you can swing it fast enough to hit your opponent before they can react and can hold an edge(in the case of a sword).
Having held a 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword original I can say that they are surprisingly light. They are a slashing weapon for unarmored opponents. As were long swords. They got their slashing power from a fast moving horse. When plate armor became a thing swords became more pointed for thrusting. Like the iron sword in game. Now I'm rambling. At the end of the day its martial arts and the victor is the one who is the best at that moment. The heavier the material the thinner it needs to be and vice versa. If it's heavy and is made so thin that it breaks then it is a crap material to make swords out of.
Oh and if you're interested in crushing then there are better weapons for that than a blunt sword.
Thisguyagain wrote: "Swords are speed-dependent, not momentum-dependent weapons"
not entirely true, depending on era, personally i would prefer a sword hefty enough to crush a man even if its blunted (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword) than something fast and sharp (katana)
that said skyrim isnt about realism, its about looks, and your take on the swords look awesome,
The_Bereaver wrote: No offense or anything, but you're slightly wrong on that, don't really mean to get into a argument, so I'll keep it short.
Katana's are essentially the Japanese take on a Sabre, short, heavy and designed for cutting, although a heavy sword is only really about 3 KG, still a good sword though.
But yeah, it is about personal choice on aesthetics.
Verdigo wrote: The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.
Increasing the mass adds weight which sucks if you have to carry it around not to mention fight with. If something is heavy it's harder to swing unless you're inhumanly strong. You can't win a fight with a heavy weapon if you can't hit your opponent. That's why a crowbar is a terrible weapon. The key is compromise between all the factors. A material that is strong enough to withstand high G forces without breaking but light enough that you can swing it fast enough to hit your opponent before they can react and can hold an edge(in the case of a sword).
Having held a 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword original I can say that they are surprisingly light. They are a slashing weapon for unarmored opponents. As were long swords. They got their slashing power from a fast moving horse. When plate armor became a thing swords became more pointed for thrusting. Like the iron sword in game. Now I'm rambling. At the end of the day its martial arts and the victor is the one who is the best at that moment. The heavier the material the thinner it needs to be and vice versa. If it's heavy and is made so thin that it breaks then it is a crap material to make swords out of.
Oh and if you're interested in crushing then there are better weapons for that than a blunt sword.
Nexak wrote: Lindybeige?
Just in case anyone revisits this...
E=mc2 is the equation for mass-energy equivalence.
E does not equal Mass. E = Energy. m does = Mass. c = Speed of Light. c = ~3×108 m/s (not the velocity of your sword... but of light.... that would be one heck of an arm kid) As C is = to light, it doesn't matter if you square it or not. It has 0 relation to your sword swing. (Unless you count the acting force of Photons and other light stuff pushing your sword as you swing..)
Increasing your speed does have an effect on your sword swing. This is accomplished by increasing your speed RELATIVE to your sword swing. Even then, the acting forces are additive and not exponential. (like throwing a snowball at a car driving towards you vs parked.
Back on point...
Momentum is Calculated by p=mv, where Momentum (p) = Mass (m) times Velocity (v). (not what you were looking for either..)
But my good sir, to say "The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.", is just plain, down-right silly. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries. Study up, or I shall taunt you a second time.
Slightly confused about both these responses. The first post, because I have no idea what e = mc2 has to do with anything, that's an equation for mass-energy equivalence, not straight kinetic energy.
The second post because it discounts the value of increasing speed rather than mass in kinetics.
You are correct that p = mv, and hence momentum scales linearly with both mass and speed.
What you're not mentioning (and what the first guy was I think trying to get at) is that the formula for kinetic energy is:
Ek = 1/2*(mv2)
Hence, yes, kinetic energy DOES increase with speed (varies quadratically) much more than it does with a similar increase in mass (varies linearly).
All of this is making the point of this far more complicated than it needs to be: Swords, even big ones, favour speed over mass as compared to say, a warhammer.
And why are we still talking about this?? This makes swords pointier! that's it!
"Swords are speed-dependent, not momentum-dependent weapons"
not entirely true, depending on era, personally i would prefer a sword hefty enough to crush a man even if its blunted (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword) than something fast and sharp (katana)
that said skyrim isnt about realism, its about looks, and your take on the swords look awesome,
No offense or anything, but you're slightly wrong on that, don't really mean to get into a argument, so I'll keep it short.
Katana's are essentially the Japanese take on a Sabre, short, heavy and designed for cutting, although a heavy sword is only really about 3 KG, still a good sword though.
But yeah, it is about personal choice on aesthetics.
The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.
Increasing the mass adds weight which sucks if you have to carry it around not to mention fight with. If something is heavy it's harder to swing unless you're inhumanly strong. You can't win a fight with a heavy weapon if you can't hit your opponent. That's why a crowbar is a terrible weapon. The key is compromise between all the factors. A material that is strong enough to withstand high G forces without breaking but light enough that you can swing it fast enough to hit your opponent before they can react and can hold an edge(in the case of a sword).
Having held a 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword original I can say that they are surprisingly light. They are a slashing weapon for unarmored opponents. As were long swords. They got their slashing power from a fast moving horse. When plate armor became a thing swords became more pointed for thrusting. Like the iron sword in game. Now I'm rambling. At the end of the day its martial arts and the victor is the one who is the best at that moment. The heavier the material the thinner it needs to be and vice versa. If it's heavy and is made so thin that it breaks then it is a crap material to make swords out of.
Oh and if you're interested in crushing then there are better weapons for that than a blunt sword.
E=mc2 is the equation for mass-energy equivalence.
E does not equal Mass. E = Energy. m does = Mass. c = Speed of Light. c = ~3×108 m/s (not the velocity of your sword... but of light.... that would be one heck of an arm kid) As C is = to light, it doesn't matter if you square it or not. It has 0 relation to your sword swing. (Unless you count the acting force of Photons and other light stuff pushing your sword as you swing..)
Increasing your speed does have an effect on your sword swing. This is accomplished by increasing your speed RELATIVE to your sword swing. Even then, the acting forces are additive and not exponential. (like throwing a snowball at a car driving towards you vs parked.
Back on point...
Momentum is Calculated by p=mv, where Momentum (p) = Mass (m) times Velocity (v). (not what you were looking for either..)
Anyways, I don't know everything, but some people know everything about this thing so here is a link if anyone likes to learn new useless info. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170407/the-momentum-of-a-swinging-sword
But my good sir, to say "The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.", is just plain, down-right silly. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries. Study up, or I shall taunt you a second time.
just the mod I was looking for! ive always felt that most of the swords are too thick, especially the Imperial sword. feels kinda clunky when I swing it. nice job. is there a way to rework the Daedric sword too?
Is there a version or equivalent of this mod on Skyrim: Special Edition? I would really like to use it on SSE, but I don't think I can just install this mod there as-is.
Nope. Can do your own port or mesh conversion, should be straightforward enough as I think there's an oldrim>>SSE mesh converter. Just don't upload the conversions please.
Just don't copy the chillrend mesh over when installing then. Or delete it afterwards. Or install immersive artifacts after this mod and overwrite it. Any of the above solutions should work.
I've found this online : "You may have heard of the passage from Caesar's Gallic Wars where the barbarian warriors have to stop mid-battle and straighten their bent iron swords? Metallographic analyses of surviving swords from the period suggest that this was probably a true story. Early iron weapons were, on the whole, not very good, and this didn't really change until steel became widespread in the early middle ages." So basically speaking size matters swords in vanilla make sense since iron and steel weapons looks pretty much the same as swords from medieval times, and we don't know about elven, daedric e.t.c materials to compare every sword to steel standards, I mean they look big and broad, but considering most swords in Tamirel used for swing and slash, and probably because trying to pierce heavy armor like dwarwen or orcish or even elven is mostly waste of time plus wild animals is bigger than average mer or human they look like jurassic period animals or even bigger. I think carrying giant sword to protect yourself from sabrecat isn't such a bad idea after all.
Iron, you may have a point, but the tweak to iron in this case was very small. Steel, I completely disagree with. I haven't seen a steel sword yet in real life across many different cultures and eras that is comparable in size to the vanilla weapon. It doesn't look overtly ridiculous, but it does look too big, and specifically, too wide. You might have gotten away with it on horseback or as a heavy infantry/heavy cavalry sword, but specifically the one handed swords are very common infantry weapons in Skyrim, designed for single handed use with the other hand taking another weapon or shield. In this very common use case, I do not think a heavy weapon would be remotely useful, let alone appropriate. I think rather, the aesthetic has tended towards slightly oversized weapons as a form of emphasis, as in WoW.
I also don't agree that the animals are particularly big. Of course, some ARE big, but not overly so and have comparable size to those found today.
I think iron imperial sword way too narrow shouldn't be blade wide as handle end ? I like your take on daggers tho way better than original game design.
Have you seen any Roman Spatha pictures at all? They are kind of what I went for when I was redesigning the Imperial swords. They're certainly longer than the gladius', but I always envisioned Imperial swords being slightly longer than the gladius, not sure why. Probably because original Spathas had celtic/nordic influences, much like how I envision the original nordic/imperial design of the Septim empire follows.
Given the Spatha's lineage as a hybrid of roman/nordic weaponry (read:Imperial/Nord influences), that eventually replaced the gladius, I thought it more appropriate to use in this setting.
well maybe you right, maybe I can make my own version and there would be another gladius mod, you made these changes in blender? I did some weapons in fallout new vegas, but it's not working with skyrim nifs.
I used 3DS Max 2012, but I understand blender is great too. Remember to get the latest niftools plugin for Skyrim, though, because if you try to export with settings for New Vegas, it likely won't work in Skyrim. Maybe that is why your export had issues?
Give Feedback
193 comments
Slightly confused about both these responses. The first post, because I have no idea what e = mc2 has to do with anything, that's an equation for mass-energy equivalence, not straight kinetic energy.
The second post because it discounts the value of increasing speed rather than mass in kinetics.
You are correct that p = mv, and hence momentum scales linearly with both mass and speed.
What you're not mentioning (and what the first guy was I think trying to get at) is that the formula for kinetic energy is:
Ek = 1/2*(mv2)
Hence, yes, kinetic energy DOES increase with speed (varies quadratically) much more than it does with a similar increase in mass (varies linearly).
All of this is making the point of this far more complicated than it needs to be: Swords, even big ones, favour speed over mass as compared to say, a warhammer.
And why are we still talking about this?? This makes swords pointier! that's it!
not entirely true, depending on era, personally i would prefer a sword hefty enough to crush a man even if its blunted (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword) than something fast and sharp (katana)
that said skyrim isnt about realism, its about looks, and your take on the swords look awesome,
Katana's are essentially the Japanese take on a Sabre, short, heavy and designed for cutting, although a heavy sword is only really about 3 KG, still a good sword though.
But yeah, it is about personal choice on aesthetics.
Increasing the mass adds weight which sucks if you have to carry it around not to mention fight with. If something is heavy it's harder to swing unless you're inhumanly strong. You can't win a fight with a heavy weapon if you can't hit your opponent. That's why a crowbar is a terrible weapon. The key is compromise between all the factors. A material that is strong enough to withstand high G forces without breaking but light enough that you can swing it fast enough to hit your opponent before they can react and can hold an edge(in the case of a sword).
Having held a 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword original I can say that they are surprisingly light. They are a slashing weapon for unarmored opponents. As were long swords. They got their slashing power from a fast moving horse. When plate armor became a thing swords became more pointed for thrusting. Like the iron sword in game. Now I'm rambling. At the end of the day its martial arts and the victor is the one who is the best at that moment. The heavier the material the thinner it needs to be and vice versa. If it's heavy and is made so thin that it breaks then it is a crap material to make swords out of.
Oh and if you're interested in crushing then there are better weapons for that than a blunt sword.
E=mc2 is the equation for mass-energy equivalence.
E does not equal Mass. E = Energy.
m does = Mass.
c = Speed of Light. c = ~3×108 m/s (not the velocity of your sword... but of light.... that would be one heck of an arm kid)
As C is = to light, it doesn't matter if you square it or not. It has 0 relation to your sword swing. (Unless you count the acting force of Photons and other light stuff pushing your sword as you swing..)
Increasing your speed does have an effect on your sword swing. This is accomplished by increasing your speed RELATIVE to your sword swing. Even then, the acting forces are additive and not exponential. (like throwing a snowball at a car driving towards you vs parked.
Back on point...
Momentum is Calculated by p=mv, where Momentum (p) = Mass (m) times Velocity (v). (not what you were looking for either..)
Anyways, I don't know everything, but some people know everything about this thing so here is a link if anyone likes to learn new useless info.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170407/the-momentum-of-a-swinging-sword
But my good sir, to say "The absolute most important thing in using kinetics to cause damage is speed. E = M (C²) Mass times acceleration squared equals momentum or power. C² is the speed obviously and notice that the value is the speed squared. A small amount of added speed makes a huge difference in the amount of power vs just increasing the mass.", is just plain, down-right silly. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries. Study up, or I shall taunt you a second time.
Author, if you are somehow still here, Would you mind me asking for a Dragonbone swords reshape as well?
not developing this for skyrim currently, but rest assured that if I ever update this, I'll be sure to revisit some of the DLC weapon meshes.
So basically speaking size matters swords in vanilla make sense since iron and steel weapons looks pretty much the same as swords from medieval times, and we don't know about elven, daedric e.t.c materials to compare every sword to steel standards, I mean they look big and broad, but considering most swords in Tamirel used for swing and slash, and probably because trying to pierce heavy armor like dwarwen or orcish or even elven is mostly waste of time plus wild animals is bigger than average mer or human they look like jurassic period animals or even bigger. I think carrying giant sword to protect yourself from sabrecat isn't such a bad idea after all.
I also don't agree that the animals are particularly big. Of course, some ARE big, but not overly so and have comparable size to those found today.