• 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

ThePrimalHunter said:
This calculation needs approval, but if it works it can be added to the References For Common Feats Page
Click to expand...
NeverForgett said:
There is too little for it to be accurate. You're using tensile strength which is good. But a torso is not a hollow cylinder, but I am not good at biology so I cannot suggest a replacement. You only used muscle tensile strength but forgot skin, bones (the spine), and more.

Force = Area x Tensile strength is wrong. Tensile strength makes sense, it is good to use here, but you are misapplying the idea of tensile strength. Tensile strength experiments are for uniformly, same density, objects, not for such a complex object such as this.

This is a very low number and we need to fix it.
Click to expand...
@Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment

What do you think about this? 🙏
 
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.
 
Oiguana2701 said:
Were they banned?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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´´
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Breadbear83 said:
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´´
Click to expand...
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
 
ElajRuengies said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bump.
 
ElajRuengies said:
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.
Click to expand...
That seems fine, but more CGMs should be contacted. I do think the 1.2 MJ seems more reasonable then the 48.47 one
 
ElajRuengies said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Just a Random Butler said:
I can remove the Digging up header, but there are likely still pages linking to that specific section, so please edit those out if you come across them.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Armorchompy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Feels kinda weird that a car fragging calc has a yield 40 times higher than a car crushing calc.
Armorchompy said:
If a change is made one should put a note on the feat's header to point out that the calc has been changed
Click to expand...
Noted
 
ElajRuengies said:
Feels kinda weird that a car fragging calc has a yield 40 times higher than a car crushing calc.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ElajRuengies said:
Feels kinda weird that a car fragging calc has a yield 40 times higher than a car crushing calc.
Click to expand...
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
 
Armorchompy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
Lilybitdun said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Lilybitdun said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Lilybitdun said:

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ElajRuengies said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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.
ElajRuengies said:
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.
Click to expand...
If both are things that happen semi-commonly in fiction we can just list both and explain when one or the other is preferable.
 
Armorchompy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
What do you want me to say? The calcs should be updated and notes should be left accordingly.
 
Breadbear83 said:
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´´
Click to expand...
Since May 2025, it was discovered an even farther galaxy named MoM-z14 at 33.8 Billion Light-years at a proper distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoM-z14#:~:text=travel distance)-,33.8,-billion light-years

The Abel 2218 Galaxy ends in the wiki have been since 2023 (look at section 17.4.3): https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/R...d=8096227#From_Earth_to_farthest_known_Galaxy

So this should be changed due to it just being wrong now

For the milky way, fixed on the the typo of the result:

Milky Way
Distance from Earth to the edge of Milky Way = 25000 light years

Speed = 25000 LY / 2,628e+6 s
Speed = 300210 c (Massively FTL+)
1 year

Speed = 25010 c (Massively FTL+)

From Earth to nearest Galaxy
Distance from Earth to Andromeda = 2.537.000 light years

1 year

Speed = 2.53 Million c (Massively FTL+)

From Earth to farthest known Galaxy
Distance from Earth to MoM-z14 = 33.8 billion light years

1 second

Speed = Distance / Time
Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 1 s
Speed = 1.06 Quintillion c (Massively FTL+)
1 minute

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 60 s
Speed = 17.77 quadrillion c (Massively FTL+)
1 hour

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 3600 s
Speed = 296.29 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
1 day

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 86400 s
Speed = 12.34 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
1 week

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 604800 s
Speed = 1.76 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
1 month

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 2,628e+6 s
Speed = 411.51 billion c (Massively FTL+)
1 year

Speed = 33.8 Billion c (Massively FTL+)

(If another CGM will put the changes, put a link of wikipedia to MoM-z14 distance for clarification)
 
Breadbear83 said:
Speed = 25000 LY / 2,628e+6 s
Speed = 300210 c (Massively FTL+)
1 year
Click to expand...
Minor typo, 2.628e6 s is a month, not an year... I at least think its a typo, it's either that or, unfortunately, the formatting on your end is a bit confusing
Breadbear83 said:
Speed = 25010 c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
This is the speed from Earth to the edge of Milky Way in an year
Breadbear83 said:
Speed = 2.53 Million c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
This is the speed from Milky Way to Andromeda in an year, correct. You also mentioned the typo on the month part, which I'm not seeing in this comment (You might have edited it while I was typing this), but it would be 30,460,954c
Breadbear83 said:
1 second
Speed = 1.06 Quintillion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Would be better if you used scientific notation imo (1.0666468799992294e18c), but otherwise, correct.
Breadbear83 said:
1 minute
Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 60 s
Speed = 17.77 quadrillion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Also correct (1.7777447999987154e16c)
Breadbear83 said:
1 hour

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 3600 s
Speed = 296.29 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Correct (2.9629079999978594e14c)
Breadbear83 said:
1 day

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 86400 s
Speed = 12.34 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Correct (1.234544999999108e13c)
Breadbear83 said:
1 week

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 604800 s
Speed = 1.76 trillion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Correct (1.7636357142844399e12c)
Breadbear83 said:
1 month

Speed = 33.8 billion LY / 2,628e+6 s
Speed = 411.51 billion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Correct (4.0587780821888489e11c)
Breadbear83 said:
1 year

Speed = 33.8 Billion c (Massively FTL+)
Click to expand...
Correct (3.3823187751738525e10c)
 
Drite77 said:
Minor typo, 2.628e6 s is a month, not an year... I at least think its a typo, it's either that or, unfortunately, the formatting on your end is a bit confusing

This is the speed from Earth to the edge of Milky Way in an year

This is the speed from Milky Way to Andromeda in an year, correct. You also mentioned the typo on the month part, which I'm not seeing in this comment (You might have edited it while I was typing this), but it would be 30,460,954c

Would be better if you used scientific notation imo (1.0666468799992294e18c), but otherwise, correct.

Also correct (1.7777447999987154e16c)

Correct (2.9629079999978594e14c)

Correct (1.234544999999108e13c)

Correct (1.7636357142844399e12c)

Correct (4.0587780821888489e11c)

Correct (3.3823187751738525e10c)
Click to expand...
The results of the year end in the milky way one (25000 c) are below "year", whats above year (300,000) is the results of the month, forgot to clarify
 
Drite77 said:
Minor typo, 2.628e6 s is a month, not an year... I at least think its a typo, it's either that or, unfortunately, the formatting on your end is a bit confusing

This is the speed from Earth to the edge of Milky Way in an year

This is the speed from Milky Way to Andromeda in an year, correct. You also mentioned the typo on the month part, which I'm not seeing in this comment (You might have edited it while I was typing this), but it would be 30,460,954c

Would be better if you used scientific notation imo (1.0666468799992294e18c), but otherwise, correct.

Also correct (1.7777447999987154e16c)

Correct (2.9629079999978594e14c)

Correct (1.234544999999108e13c)

Correct (1.7636357142844399e12c)

Correct (4.0587780821888489e11c)

Correct (3.3823187751738525e10c)
Click to expand...
so Drite77 will you add that? or you can take your time if you want, dont know if CGMs have perms by default to simply edit the page

btw why does Section 8 exists? the results should be Section 7.11 as its parts of cloud calculations, unless deleting Section 8 mess up any links people have in blogs about later sections (as deleting 1 section downgrades them by 1 section)
 
Breadbear83 said:
so Drite77 will you add that? or you can take your time if you want, dont know if CGMs have perms by default to simply edit the page
Click to expand...
How many CGMs do we need to alter the page @Antvasima ?

Breadbear83 said:
btw why does Section 8 exists? the results should be Section 7.11 as its parts of cloud calculations, unless deleting Section 8 mess up any links people have in blogs about later sections (as deleting 1 section downgrades them by 1 section)
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that page is more ancient then me, so I don't know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Breadbear83
´´References for common feats´´ page has 2 differents speeds for snails, when it should have only one
Replies
2
Views
829
Breadbear83
Breadbear83
Poiesis_Element
Reference for Common Feat: Pulverizing a Human Being
Replies
1
Views
576
Poiesis_Element
Poiesis_Element
LegendariumOfLies
Common Feat Addition - Drawing & Slashing A Sword Faster Than The Human Eye Can See
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comma Issues: Black Hole Feats in Fiction
Replies
0
Views
163
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
NeverForgett
  • Locked
Freezing Feats
Replies
17
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top