- 177,461
- 90,404
@Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment
What do you think about this?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Expanding the References for Common Feats page
- Thread starter JPTheGamer
- Start date
What do you think about this?
- 35,086
- 41,690
I am inclined to not put much stock into this comment given it is from a banned member who may as well be a sockpuppet of Vzearr, who, let's be real, hasn't exactly been a bastion of proper calcs. I tend to not give such accounts the time of day, period.
Still, if you feel the need to address this, I suppose you can ask one of DontTalkDT or Executor_N0.
Still, if you feel the need to address this, I suppose you can ask one of DontTalkDT or Executor_N0.
- 177,461
- 90,404
- 2,603
- 5,160
Yes, but I am not willing to explain it here, so you'll just have to find it out yourself by investigating.
Aside from removing strikethrough text and adjusting the first-person pronouns to something less personal, I don't think there is anything else I need to do here.
So I guess just ping me again if I am needed somehow.
- 8,657
- 1,828
What about ripping them vertically in half?
Breadbear83
He/Him- 867
- 551
theres a typo on every ´´galaxy speed feats´´feat, you can tell the 1 month timeframe of all of them is 42x lower than the 1 week timeframe, despite months only being about 4.5x longer than weeks, the 1 year timeframes follows the errosr of 1 months timeframes, just make the 1 month and 1 year timeframes of all of them 10x times higher as they should
EDIT: also could the galaxy speed feats share the sources of the length/distance of those galaxies to earth? i cant find any source saying that abell 2218 galaxy is 13 billion lightyears away from earth, just some saying ´´over 2 billion lightyears´´
EDIT: also could the galaxy speed feats share the sources of the length/distance of those galaxies to earth? i cant find any source saying that abell 2218 galaxy is 13 billion lightyears away from earth, just some saying ´´over 2 billion lightyears´´
- 3,250
- 4,270
Could we replace the current car destruction calc with this one based on actual car crushers that's already been accepted by two calc group members? (48.47 MJ vs. 1.2 MJ)
(Keep in mind that a car slamming into a wall at 70 MPH and instantly coming to a dead stop is only 0.73 MJ, or about 65 times lower than the current yield for Car Destruction.)
The current calc on the page basically calcs the energy to destroy multiple uniform, homogeneous lumps of material that a car is made out of, when it reality everything being shaped and assembled introduces a bazillion points of failure, and makes the energy required to scrap a vehicle a lot lower.
Also, Wall level car destruction just feels more right than Small Building level car destruction.
(Keep in mind that a car slamming into a wall at 70 MPH and instantly coming to a dead stop is only 0.73 MJ, or about 65 times lower than the current yield for Car Destruction.)
The current calc on the page basically calcs the energy to destroy multiple uniform, homogeneous lumps of material that a car is made out of, when it reality everything being shaped and assembled introduces a bazillion points of failure, and makes the energy required to scrap a vehicle a lot lower.
Also, Wall level car destruction just feels more right than Small Building level car destruction.
Last edited:
Breadbear83
He/Him- 867
- 551
Bumping this too, I think intergalactic travell speed should have more example ends, like ones based on being on different galaxy clusters than just nearest to furthest galaxies
- 3,250
- 4,270
Bump.
- 9,537
- 1,474
That seems fine, but more CGMs should be contacted. I do think the 1.2 MJ seems more reasonable then the 48.47 one
- 17,887
- 15,375
I think they can coexist - "fragging" a car will be quite different from crushing it. If the original calc is removed though, something along the lines of what we did for the Digging up from Underground feat should be done. If a change is made one should put a note on the feat's header to point out that the calc has been changed
... Speaking of which
The very reason that was left in was so that it would let anyone going through a profile that linked back to the calc know it was removed. As far as I know nobody's gone and removed every reference to the calc from the wiki, so why was the header removed?
- 3,250
- 4,270
Feels kinda weird that a car fragging calc has a yield 40 times higher than a car crushing calc.
Noted
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,345
- 13,095
Can these please be looked over
- 17,887
- 15,375
Eh not really, the materials it's made of are going to be compressed more easily than they're torn apart. Our fragmentation system isn't perfect and tends to highball things but it's not the crazies thing.
Lilybitdun
She/Her- 2,455
- 1,442
To help with your point here:
Most car destroying feats aren't total fragmentation, the current calc factors in even the rubber of the car tires being destroyed
When have you seen a car destruction scene where the tires are destroyed? Most of the time it's just the car's main body being broken
The car crushing calc matches up a lot more with what generic car destruction is more commonly portrayed as
Problem with the car crushing feat tho is that it doesn't factor in that car crushers take time to crush. The math currently has that force applied over one second to crush it
The site for the Overbuilt Car Crusher used as reference has a video of it in operation, where it seems to take roughly 10 seconds for it to crush the car
- 3,250
- 4,270
Except overcoming Compressive Strength is seen as equivalent to Pulverization (for some reason), which is more than Fragging. (Not saying I agree with the logic, but that's what's used.)
Exactly; and if it lines up more with what generic car destruction is more commonly portrayed, then it's what should be used. The page is for References for Common Feats.
Nowhere in the equation is there a variable for time, nor an indirect variable for time like watts? It's a simple newtons * distance number crunch.
Materials are better at dealing with energy spread out over time/space versus in a single burst. If 1.2 Megajoules spaced out over ten seconds (and several square meters of area) does that to a vehicle, then 1.2 Megajoules in a single second from one point will do way more damage. So I don't see how that detracts from the calc; if anything it's an argument for it.
- 17,887
- 15,375
obviously crushing something and having it stay intact isn't equivalent to pulverizing it. Our values aren't perfect, you don't need me to tell you that.
If both are things that happen semi-commonly in fiction we can just list both and explain when one or the other is preferable.
- 3,250
- 4,270
Fair enough
- 3,250
- 4,270
With that said, I've noticed an error in the car fragging formula. They use a destruction value of 275.79 j/cm3 for aluminum, making it 30% stronger than steel(???), when the value we use is 48.75 j/cm3.
- 17,887
- 15,375
Huh, maybe it was an old value nobody's adjusted. That definitely should be changed.
Similar threads
