-
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.
A references for common feats page?
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- Status
- 30,100
- 31,409
For the Kinetic energy, it was done combining the fastest bullet ever fired, which was a lightweight bullet IRL, with the heaviest bullet ever fired, which was slow IRL. And then for penetration, it was the smallest bullet ever fired, volume wise despite having the mass of the heaviest bullet, which would give it an unrealistic density and compared it to the volume of a human body. Still, the calc was outdated and should have been compared to the fist rather than the body; so it's not valid to give a 100% bullet proof character like Robocop or Terminator 8-B durability just from that moment.
- 1,673
- 289
I don't think it should be implemented here, or recalced at all unless the current piercing damage argument is solved in the first place. The methodology used there can easily be applied the other way and be used to find the piercing AP of characters, meaning a baseline 9-A character becomes able to to hurt a 7-C just by picking up a knife and I doubt that's something everyone can agree with.
- 10,502
- 11,574
In our standards the durability to be completly bullet proof would be the KE of the bullet with greatest muzzle energy. I don't think the calc was intended to be used on profiles and it essentially uses a way of quantifying durability which is incomaptible with our practices (It would only make sense if we measured AP in energy over area, instead of just straight up total energy).
That aside, let me look through a few more of the calcs in the blog:
4. Digging: Source for choice of height and width should be added. For the final page it should be warned, that this only applies for a real bursting out, not for slower digging. Mathematically ok, I think.
5. Leaping unto roof: Looks fine.
6. Throwing to horizon: Wouldn't a normal human become basically invisible long before reaching the horizon purely because of its visible size becoming too small?
Aside from that this seems fine.
7. Jumping over the clouds: I'm not sure about 2000m as standard cloud height assumption. There are clouds which commonly are below that and clouds generally can vary a lot.
That aside, if we are talking about a pure (non-supernatural) jumping or throwing feats there are few cases were using a timeframe is the most appropiate method. Generally the velocity of an object that is launched upwards is entirely determined by its peak height.
Formula is (close to earth): initial speed = sqrt(2*9.81*peak height). So in this case sqrt(2*9.81*2000) = 198 m/s
Using 70kg for now: 0.5*70* 198^2 = 1.37214e6 J
That aside, let me look through a few more of the calcs in the blog:
4. Digging: Source for choice of height and width should be added. For the final page it should be warned, that this only applies for a real bursting out, not for slower digging. Mathematically ok, I think.
5. Leaping unto roof: Looks fine.
6. Throwing to horizon: Wouldn't a normal human become basically invisible long before reaching the horizon purely because of its visible size becoming too small?
Aside from that this seems fine.
7. Jumping over the clouds: I'm not sure about 2000m as standard cloud height assumption. There are clouds which commonly are below that and clouds generally can vary a lot.
That aside, if we are talking about a pure (non-supernatural) jumping or throwing feats there are few cases were using a timeframe is the most appropiate method. Generally the velocity of an object that is launched upwards is entirely determined by its peak height.
Formula is (close to earth): initial speed = sqrt(2*9.81*peak height). So in this case sqrt(2*9.81*2000) = 198 m/s
Using 70kg for now: 0.5*70* 198^2 = 1.37214e6 J
- 15,332
- 7,559
Depends on whether the throw is on the point of view of the thrower or the audience, since there are people who can identify others at a distance of nearly 2 miles.DontTalkDT said:
- 11,095
- 4,317
So the bullet calc should be removed?
- 10,502
- 11,574
Hm... interesting. Though unless its stated to be invisible for such a reason, the drawing limitations would mean that at a size of less than 1 pixel a person can certainly not be seen anymore.Kepekley23 said:
So as far as a standard use calc goes this has very limited use. It can stay, though, as long as the requirements are made clear on the final page.
Yes.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Next batch of evaluations:
8. Destroying Door: Seems ok.
9. Destroying a car: That density of plastic link gives me a 404.
"To find shear strength from tensile strength, just divide tensile strength by 1.74 "? Should I know where that's from?
Aside from that looks ok.
10 . Destroying a tree: Personally I would say, if we assume white oak size, we should also use white oak wood, if we can.
Is ok, though.
11. Destroying Wrecking Ball: Is ok.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I'd be hard pressed to identify someone at 2 miles out. It's hard enough at 500+ meters.
- 4,652
- 1,328
My problem with some of these feats is that some of them aren't that common.
Rarely ever do you see cars and trees being completely shattered or fragmented. Usually when you see a car get destroyed, it just blows up, but the main body of the vehicle is still in one piece, just really beat up. As for trees you normally see them getting chopped down.
And who on earth has a feat of crushing a king piece to dust?
Rarely ever do you see cars and trees being completely shattered or fragmented. Usually when you see a car get destroyed, it just blows up, but the main body of the vehicle is still in one piece, just really beat up. As for trees you normally see them getting chopped down.
And who on earth has a feat of crushing a king piece to dust?
- 32,811
- 38,013
I agree with Ant on this one. You can never know what kind of weird feats fiction can have in store for us.
Anyway, we'll need a common calc for blowing up sheds made of wood, stone, steel and whatnot.
I also wonder how we got 22.1 megajoules as the value for baseline 9-A.
Anyway, we'll need a common calc for blowing up sheds made of wood, stone, steel and whatnot.
I also wonder how we got 22.1 megajoules as the value for baseline 9-A.
- 444
- 28
9. Sorry about the URL I may have made of mistake when posting it. http://www.tregaltd.com/img/density of plastics[1].pdf use the entire URLDontTalkDT said:
Sorry about not putting a link. Shear strength can be found from ultimate tensile strength by a using a certain percentage of it. The percentage is just an estimation, not a concrete number. Doing further research I may have to fix that portion of my blog since usual percentage taken from UTS is 60%, not 74%, though i can be that high.
10. I will recalc that if that is deemed necessary.
- 12,552
- 2,508
So I calculated this a while back, using the same method as this feat. Ugarik has said that we shouldn't use digging in order to justify a character's AP, no matter how fast it is. Could we get some more calc member opinions on this, since it is one of the common feats listed in AN's blog.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,606
- 19,134
If you're digging as in physically sending things behind you at speed, KE of stuff can be used. Getting the mass of that earth might be difficult but in theory possible. In that case you provided he does seem to destroy it to get through it, though I'm unsure if in context that's correct so I can't really speak much more for that.
TL;DR if digging is done through destruction (digging being a broad term), then it can be used, and if digging involves fairly large bits of earth being hurled around then that, too, can be used. Otherwise, probably no dice.
TL;DR if digging is done through destruction (digging being a broad term), then it can be used, and if digging involves fairly large bits of earth being hurled around then that, too, can be used. Otherwise, probably no dice.
- 11,095
- 4,317
Is anyone willing to summarise what needs to be added/changed? My mid-terms will end tomorrow.
- 32,811
- 38,013
Votron5 corrected his carbusting calc.
I added in a cannon-busting calc by Bambu in the comments section.
We need a calc of vaporizing barrels too, because apparently, some characters can tank explosions powerful enough to vaporize gigantic wooden crates and barrels in one go.
I added in a cannon-busting calc by Bambu in the comments section.
We need a calc of vaporizing barrels too, because apparently, some characters can tank explosions powerful enough to vaporize gigantic wooden crates and barrels in one go.
- Status
