Make the Exorcist Fall in Love: High 6-A Downgrade

[MrTayman616]

The calculation: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blogemonGodMitchAubin/Make_The_Exorcist_Fall_In_Love:_Leviathan's_Fire_Breath

This is a thread to remove the current size values accepted for the calculation.

This is a simple problem imo. The problem is the diameter/radius. In this calc, it is found by using the same panel as the view of outside the planet but this just appears to be a forced artistic decision since the beam wouldn't be visible otherwise(Or based on the light of the fire?). We've already seen the beam's diameter in the previous pages which it is at most a few meters. The radius should be taken from one of those pages. (The pages in order)

I've made a blog based on using this page for the new result.

The blog: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MrTayman616/Make_The_Exorcist_Fall_In_Love:_Leviathan's_Fire_Breath

 

[MrTayman616]

Bump

 

[MrTayman616]

Bump

 

[MrTayman616]

Bump

 

[Drite77]

There is nothing wrong with the previous one so I don't mind its usage

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

Any proof that the laser didn't expanded? We see in one of the panels that it's far bigger than a satellite, which would be impossible if it was only 3 meters big

 

[MrTayman616]

There is nothing wrong with the previous one so I don't mind its usage

This is a simple problem imo. The problem is the diameter/radius. In this calc, it is found by using the same panel as the view of outside the planet but this just appears to be a forced artistic decision since the beam wouldn't be visible otherwise(Or based on the light of the fire?). We've already seen the beam's diameter in the previous pages which it is at most a few meters. The radius should be taken from one of those pages. (The pages in order)

The method is correct, but the diameter isn't.

We see the diameter many times in the previous pages. It is at most a few meters. The planet panel can't be used for diameter based on previous pages and the fact that the artist is forced to do this in order to make it visible.(there can be many explanation, but the previous pages remains the same)

So it shouldn't be fine to use here.

 

[Drite77]

We see the diameter many times in the previous pages. It is at most a few meters. The planet panel can't be used for diameter based on previous pages and the fact that the artist is forced to do this in order to make it visible.(there can be many explanation, but the previous pages remains the same)

Saying that the beam is only a few meters wide, but still having that wide shot panel, doesn't sit well with me. Regardless of the artist's intention, it is clear the beam is not just a few meters wide. On top of Life of King's comment, I think the original calculation still works and does not need a recalc

 

[MrTayman616]

Any proof that the laser didn't expanded? We see in one of the panels that it's far bigger than a satellite, which would be impossible if it was only 3 meters big

Saying that the beam is only a few meters wide, but still having that wide shot panel, doesn't sit well with me. Regardless of the artist's intention, it is clear the beam is not just a few meters wide. On top of Life of King's comment, I think the original calculation still works and does not need a recalc

The satellite there appears to be a small one based on the design of it, which is like a few meters in size as well. So this also contradicts it being "a few kilometers" and supports the diameter being a few meters in diameter.

For the wide shot earth panel, the beam itself reaches space and has massive length. So it isn't out of blue or anything.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

Tho, the KE is wrong. You shouldnt use 0.5 for beams since they lack linear/uniform speed. You gotta use 1/4

 

[MrTayman616]

The satellite there appears to be a small one based on the design of it, which is like a few meters in size as well. So this also contradicts it being "a few kilometers" and supports the diameter being a few meters in diameter.

For the wide shot earth panel, the beam itself reaches space and has massive length. So it isn't out of blue or anything.

The beam is literally only a single pixel in width as well, which is the smallest possible for the panel. So it doesn't really help for the argument of it being actually a few kilometers in width while having these contradictions.

 

[Drite77]

You can send me to satellite in question, but even with that in mind, I'll once again say that I don't have any problems with the previous calculation

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

You can send me to satellite in question, but even with that in mind, I'll once again say that I don't have any problems with the previous calculation

 

[Drite77]

I don't think that's the small kind, and if it is, the beam is clearly much bigger, which supports it is not a few meters wide.

Overall, I disagree with this thread, the planet image being used to find the beam's diameter works, it being only 1 px wide should not disqualify it, we have several example of beams being bigger for other shots when they are normally not that big (Such as Dragon Ball), so I don't see why the same shouldn't apply here