• 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.

Ackermans should not scale to Titans

Status
Not open for further replies.
See this is the type of evidence that should have been brought up earlier, this could definitely warrant an upgrade.
However the Hannes blocking an attack doesn't really look like a block and I have a feeling in the next panel he is gonna get absolutely ****** by the titan.
Could you post the next few panel's for Hannes?
After Hannes prevented the attack from the Titan, he went into battle with the Titan.And after that he missed and was killed.
 
Last edited:
What has been accepted here can probably be applied now. Is somebody here willing and able to properly do so please?
 
What has been accepted here can probably be applied now. Is somebody here willing and able to properly do so please?
Can somebody list the members who have helped out here so far please? I can send a notification message to them afterwards.
 
Okay so I was going through and applying the changes when I noticed BOTH our calcs are wrong

Manhatten's calc incorrectly stated the result was (9-A) when the result was 0.023 Tons (9-B+)
I also went back and redid mine and also got (9-B+) Values

HOWEVER when I looked at Manhattens measurements for the size of a floor I noticed that it was incredibly small, only about 7.2 feet in height.
Since my calc has even smaller values than Manhatten's mine was even worse than that.
We know that is not the case because of this shot right here


As well as multiple other shots that portray it as larger as well as common ******* sense.

So I went back and re-did the calc using the height of the average floor as a basis which is what I probably should have done from the start.
Yes, we have to assume it is similar in height to modern day buildings but it's miles better than ENTIRE FLOORS being the size of a NBA player.

Subsequently this also brings us back up to 9-A levels of energy (YAY)
 
Okay so I was going through and applying the changes when I noticed BOTH our calcs are wrong

Manhatten's calc incorrectly stated the result was (9-A) when the result was 0.023 Tons (9-B+)
I also went back and redid mine and also got (9-B+) Values

HOWEVER when I looked at Manhattens measurements for the size of a floor I noticed that it was incredibly small, only about 7.2 feet in height.
Since my calc has even smaller values than Manhatten's mine was even worse than that.
We know that is not the case because of this shot right here


As well as multiple other shots that portray it as larger as well as common ******* sense.

So I went back and re-did the calc using the height of the average floor as a basis which is what I probably should have done from the start.
Yes, we have to assume it is similar in height to modern day buildings but it's miles better than ENTIRE FLOORS being the size of a NBA player.

Subsequently this also brings us back up to 9-A levels of energy (YAY)

Good work 👍
 
Okay so I was going through and applying the changes when I noticed BOTH our calcs are wrong

Manhatten's calc incorrectly stated the result was (9-A) when the result was 0.023 Tons (9-B+)
I also went back and redid mine and also got (9-B+) Values

HOWEVER when I looked at Manhattens measurements for the size of a floor I noticed that it was incredibly small, only about 7.2 feet in height.
Since my calc has even smaller values than Manhatten's mine was even worse than that.
We know that is not the case because of this shot right here


As well as multiple other shots that portray it as larger as well as common ******* sense.

So I went back and re-did the calc using the height of the average floor as a basis which is what I probably should have done from the start.
Yes, we have to assume it is similar in height to modern day buildings but it's miles better than ENTIRE FLOORS being the size of a NBA player.

Subsequently this also brings us back up to 9-A levels of energy (YAY)

I agree with your calculations. But I think you should use the standard size of the window Or maybe use this image to find window size. that will get more accurate results. Because the height of the window you measured 353 cm is unusually tall. It is evident from this picture that the height of the window is unlikely to reach 353cm.
 
Last edited:
Okay so I was going through and applying the changes when I noticed BOTH our calcs are wrong

Manhatten's calc incorrectly stated the result was (9-A) when the result was 0.023 Tons (9-B+)
I also went back and redid mine and also got (9-B+) Values

HOWEVER when I looked at Manhattens measurements for the size of a floor I noticed that it was incredibly small, only about 7.2 feet in height.
Since my calc has even smaller values than Manhatten's mine was even worse than that.
We know that is not the case because of this shot right here


As well as multiple other shots that portray it as larger as well as common ******* sense.

So I went back and re-did the calc using the height of the average floor as a basis which is what I probably should have done from the start.
Yes, we have to assume it is similar in height to modern day buildings but it's miles better than ENTIRE FLOORS being the size of a NBA player.

Subsequently this also brings us back up to 9-A levels of energy (YAY)

@Therefir @Dark-Carioca @Damage3245

Would you be willing to evaluate this please?
 
I agree with your calculations. But I think you should use the standard size of the window Or maybe use this image to find window size. that will get more accurate results. Because the height of the window you measured 353 cm is unusually tall. It is evident from this picture that the height of the window is unlikely to reach 353cm.
This is agreeable.

Shmeaty's windows being 4 m tall is a bit much. It may be inconsistent art but what Manhattan proposes is better for this.
 
I agree with your calculations. But I think you should use the standard size of the window Or maybe use this image to find window size. that will get more accurate results. Because the height of the window you measured 353 cm is unusually tall. It is evident from this picture that the height of the window is unlikely to reach 353cm.
This is agreeable.

Shmeaty's windows being 4 m tall is a bit much. It may be inconsistent art but what Manhattan proposes is better for this.

I actually believe the floor height is the best option for this.
According to this site the largest windows reach about 72 inches
Converted to cm equals 182.88 cm
Using my found window height we get
182.88/84.96 = 2.152542373 cm/pp
2.152542373*102.65 = 220.9584746 cm or 7.24 feet for the height of an entire floor, which once again is just wrong.

I think the best thing to do is to just chalk this up to inconsistent art, however I still believe that the average floor height is the best to be used.

Why? Because it better portrays the height shown in the multiple panels we see of the interior

What do you guys think?
 
Thank you for helping out, Dark-Carioca.
 
I actually believe the floor height is the best option for this.
According to this site the largest windows reach about 72 inches
Converted to cm equals 182.88 cm
Using my found window height we get
182.88/84.96 = 2.152542373 cm/pp
2.152542373*102.65 = 220.9584746 cm or 7.24 feet for the height of an entire floor, which once again is just wrong.

I think the best thing to do is to just chalk this up to inconsistent art, however I still believe that the average floor height is the best to be used.

Why? Because it better portrays the height shown in the multiple panels we see of the interior

What do you guys think?
I agree with using the average floor height. As for window size, I think we should use this image to measure. We will get the size of the window is 59cm*96cm

The result we can get from the calculations is 6054872.15452cc - (59*96*30.48)
= 6054872.15452cc - 172638.72cc
= 5882233.43452cc
Energy : 5882233.43452*69 = 405,874,106.982 Joules 9A
 
Last edited:
I agree with using the average floor height. As for window size, I think we should use this image to measure. We will get the size of the window is 59cm*96cm

The result we can get from the calculations is 6054872.15452cc - (59*96*30.48)
= 6054872.15452cc - 172638.72cc
= 5882233.43452cc
Energy : 5882233.43452*69 = 405,874,106.982 Joules 9A
Will do when I get the chance I'll add this as an alternate version to find the windows size.
 
You're gonna have a hard time getting your calc done if you don't update it accordingly... You were supposed to use the window size to find the volume of the hole using the window's dimensions as well, not just subtract the window's volume from the previous result, because the previous result still has rather inflated numbers, plus the assumption of the wall being 1 foot thick when you can measure that in the page itself.

I've done it here, you can add it to your blog post and have other CGMs evaluate it.
 
You're gonna have a hard time getting your calc done if you don't update it accordingly...
What do you mean by this?
You were supposed to use the window size to find the volume of the hole using the window's dimensions as well, not just subtract the window's volume from the previous result, because the previous result still has rather inflated numbers, plus the assumption of the wall being 1 foot thick when you can measure that in the page itself.
No, the best way we have to do it is the floor method. By your own measurements the size of the hole would be around 5.5 feet across and 4.3 feet high.
Does this look 5.5 feet across and 4.3 feet high?


Chalk it up to inconsistent art or whatever but the the floor height version more accurately portrays what we see
 
You're gonna have a hard time getting your calc done if you don't update it accordingly... You were supposed to use the window size to find the volume of the hole using the window's dimensions as well, not just subtract the window's volume from the previous result, because the previous result still has rather inflated numbers, plus the assumption of the wall being 1 foot thick when you can measure that in the page itself.

I've done it here, you can add it to your blog post and have other CGMs evaluate it.
It was impossible for the wall to be only 1.7 meters high. If the wall was only 1.7 meters high, Riner's head was definitely hitting the ceiling because he was 1.85 meters tall.
 
You need to follow the instructions from our calc group members.
 
What do you mean by this?

No, the best way we have to do it is the floor method. By your own measurements the size of the hole would be around 5.5 feet across and 4.3 feet high.
Does this look 5.5 feet across and 4.3 feet high?


Chalk it up to inconsistent art or whatever but the the floor height version more accurately portrays what we see

Never mind.

@Dark-Carioca

What do you think about this?
 
Chalk it up to inconsistent art or whatever but the the floor height version more accurately portrays what we see
I mean it is inconsistent art but I'd take realistically sized windows next to properly sized 15 m Titans than assume they're 20 m+ and that the windows are gigantic when they shouldn't be, be it due to the time period or because we never see windows that huge in AoT, at least in buildings within the three walls.
It was impossible for the wall to be only 1.7 meters high. If the wall was only 1.7 meters high, Riner's head was definitely hitting the ceiling because he was 1.85 meters tall.
I'm aware, but it's either we go with the size of the windows measured next to Reiner to find the hole from outside in the panel where we first see the hole in the wall or find a panel where you can more properly calculate how tall the floor is. 'cause using modern storey measurements does not work here, especially with the poor art AoT is stuck with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top