| Author |
Message |
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
 Posted: Thu 05 Feb, 2004 9:35 am Post subject: Comparison Tool's big swords |
 |
|
Nathan,
Were some of the big swords shrunk to fit into the comparison tool? I was trying to get an idea of how the available claymores and zweihanders matched up, and many seem to fill the box exactly -- like they might if they were 'cropped' to fit. I'm pretty sure the zweihanders are mostly longer than the claymores, based on the stats in various catalogs.
|
|
    |
 |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Feb, 2004 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Comparison Tool's big swords |
|
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | Nathan,
Were some of the big swords shrunk to fit into the comparison tool? I was trying to get an idea of how the available claymores and zweihanders matched up, and many seem to fill the box exactly -- like they might if they were 'cropped' to fit. I'm pretty sure the zweihanders are mostly longer than the claymores, based on the stats in various catalogs. |
No. Everything in the database is accurate according to the stats from the makers, etc. Shrinking them would sort of defeat the purpose, no? 
The database is out of date, though. Many items are no longer available on the market. So many others have come out and need to be added to the tool. Someday.. someday..
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriel Stevens
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Feb, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Its still a really cool tool though, I was just using it yesturday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Feb, 2004 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks Nathan, just checking. It does surprise me that claymores are of equal proportions to zweihanders. I'd have to dig up old catalogs to be sure, but I could've sworn that the former typically list in the 56-68" neighborhood, while the latter inhabit the 62-65"-ish range...
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Feb, 2004 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | | Thanks Nathan, just checking. It does surprise me that claymores are of equal proportions to zweihanders. I'd have to dig up old catalogs to be sure, but I could've sworn that the former typically list in the 56-68" neighborhood, while the latter inhabit the 62-65"-ish range... |
Rmember, the comparison tool includes reproductoins. The zweihanders included in the tool are probably much smaller than those found in authentic examples. You'll notice I didn't include my CASI "Lowlander" sword, as it's much too large to fit within the tool.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Feb, 2004 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking of replicas, actually...
Try this. Enter in the A&A 15thc. Two-Hander, listed at 59.25", and beside it the MRL Fighting Two-Hander, listed at 63.5." They appear to come out the same length, even though a difference of 4.25" is big enough that it should be clearly visible.
The vertical axis seems to top out at 5', which would clip the top of the MRL as well as other big swords over 5 ft. long. That's why I asked about the cropping/shrinking. 
r
PS: I like having the discontinued stuff there, as both a guide to future releases and to stuff that occasionally comes up on classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriel Stevens
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Feb, 2004 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think there's a typo on the 15th century two hander because the blade length is listed as 46.125 on AAs site
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike West
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: Swords that aren't manufactured any longer. |
|
|
|
Since many of those swords aren't for sale any longer, but often show up on the second hand market, I hope you keep them in the comparison tool if at all possible. I own several Del Tin swords, so it's easy to compare a potential sowrd from another company.
|
|
|
|
|
David Sadd
Location: Pittsburgh, PA Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2004 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here here! I agree. Just because a sword is no longer in production is no reason at all to delete it from your wonderful database.
Do you need/want help updating it? I use Photoshop for a living...
-david
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Mar, 2004 6:12 am Post subject: A&A 15th Century Two-Hander |
|
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | I was thinking of replicas, actually...
Try this. Enter in the A&A 15thc. Two-Hander, listed at 59.25", and beside it the MRL Fighting Two-Hander, listed at 63.5." They appear to come out the same length, even though a difference of 4.25" is big enough that it should be clearly visible.
The vertical axis seems to top out at 5', which would clip the top of the MRL as well as other big swords over 5 ft. long. That's why I asked about the cropping/shrinking.
r
PS: I like having the discontinued stuff there, as both a guide to future releases and to stuff that occasionally comes up on classifieds. |
Just measured and the A&A's pommel nut its the 60" mark on the tape exactly. The 4.25" is only 1/15 of the total length of the MRL's blade so I don't think it is easily visible as a difference. The Braveheart sword A&A made fo rme is 62" and standing side by side with the 15th Century Two-hander, the difference is negligable when you stand far enough back to see the entire length of both swords. I am not saying the comparason tool is 100% dead accurate, but preception can be tricky sometime.
|
|
 |
|
S. Clare
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Feb, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know that this is an old thread, but the point of it is still relevant. Is there any intent to update this highly useful tool?
Cheers,
S. Clare
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| S. Clare wrote: | | I know that this is an old thread, but the point of it is still relevant. Is there any intent to update this highly useful tool? |
Unfortunately no. I don't have time to work on it. If I could only figure out a way for this site to make money so I don't have to actually work for a living to pay the bills, I'd have more free time.
As it is, my hobby-related time is spent just keeping this thing going.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
S. Clare
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
A good point. These things do take on a life of their own. Thanks for the work that you are doing.
Cheers,
S. Clare
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
To go a bit further, I'm not sure people realize the amount of work Nathan put into that tool to get it going. The images all have to be processed for lighting/color/sometimes angle, scaled properly, and put on a consistent background. Even though Nathan is the best photo guru I know, that still takes some time. The appropriate stats/links/info must be gathered and input into the database. More time.
Since we publish every two weeks (without fail) and since we all have other things we have to/want to do with the rest of our time, this tool hasn't been updated, because time has been needed elsewhere. To update it would take hours and hours and it would have to be done regularly since Albion alone has introduced dozens of models in the last 3 1/2 years. A&A has added several also. Gus's line changes, too.
Though it would be great to have it updated, I'm still impressed with how slick a tool it is, especially having some idea of what kind of time went into its creation.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic