Lady Knight

Greetings from Lithuania, I really like your work. I have studied HEMA for 4 years now, and have experience in examining historical weapon and armour designs ranging from 2000 BC to 1600 AD. It is nice to see someone willing to show a little restraint towards making swim wear armour for the sake of getting viewers sexually aroused. There are still however, flaws in this design, and I will touch on them. The overall problem is that it still comes across as being too feminine.

-First issue that comes to mind is her lack of gorget. Most 14th century plate cuirasses were designed to have this particular item installed around the neck. The purpose of a gorget is to cover an individuals throat and upper breastbone, serving as an armoured collar.
-Her biceps and thighs are exposed. It is absolutely vital to keep as much of the body covered as possible. There was no such thing as short sleeved plate armor in the Middle Ages, because that would have left 1/4 of your body exposed to the enemy.
-The shape of her breasts are molded on the chest plate. This is often ridiculed by most armourers. They like to call this "boob plate" armour. Boob plates only serve a stylistic purpose for high fantasy settings more than anything else. Historical armor was unisex. A man can take off his armour, give it to a woman with similar waist and shoulder measurements, and there would be no problem for her in wearing it. There is plenty of room to fit your breasts in armor, after all, historical armor was designed to be worn with 3 layers of padding underneath anyway. Their are also 2 other issues with a chest plate shaped this way. It allows thrusting weapons to slide into the cleavage valley, making it easier to pierce your chest. Also, any bulges in the armour will be much easier to dent with blunt trauma as opposed to a flat surface. When those boobs cave inside-out, it will not be pleasant.
-Judging by the thin waist line, breast molds, and lack of sleeves, leads me to believe she is wearing nothing under the armor. You are usually expected to have 3 things under plate armor. This includes a shirt, some form of mail, and a gambeson or other padded apparel underneath. This is important, as when your armor is struck, it will vibrate, and if you are not properly padded underneath, you will experience percussion shock. This can cause minor injury such as the blistering of the flesh, but can under rare circumstances damage bones and muscle tendons. The extra padding was also useful for absorbing gun fire, since plate armor was quite inefficient against bullets.
-She is also lacking sabotons. This isn't necessary for horseback riders, and it did lose popularity with the development of Munitions Armor, but most foot soldiers in full plate wore steel sabatons to cover their feet. You don't want the enemy trying to cut off your toes.
-I noticed she is left handed. Most left handed warriors would have a slightly larger pauldron on the left shoulder than the right. This wasn't absolutely necessary, but it was helpful to have, because if you were left handed, chances are that the left side of your body will be the most exposed part to the enemy, so larger armor pieces would be used for these.
-Also because she is left handed, her sword scabbard should be on her right hip. This is because most soldiers would cross their abdomen to sheath or unsheath their swords. This was especially important with longswords, as it allowed more space to move the sword out of or into the scabbard.
-The length of her sword's hilt implies that it is some sort of bidenhander, but she is holding it with one hand, and has a shield in the other. This could waste the potential her sword could really have, as she is using it improperly. The blade may not be particularly long, but what determines whether a sword is to be used one handed or two handed, often depends on the length of the hilt. Not the length of the blade or weight of the sword like fantasy games show.

I sure hope you found my critique educational. I can't wait to see your next art projects.