Calc stacking with calculated distances

[Rocker1189]

@Rocker1189; this might be down to a difference of interpretation over terminology, but pixel scaling isn't quite the same thing as calcing to me. But I can see why it would be seen like that.

The Calc Stacking page needs a whole subsection explaining which forms of Calc Stacking are acceptable to use. As far as I know there are at least three:

1) Pixel Scaling (which is currently mentioned on there)

2) Distance/Size Stacking (which is what this thread is about)

3) Multipliers (detailed in the Multipliers page, but it is also worth mentioning on the Calc Stacking page)

Well, it certainly has to be a difference in terminology because pixel scaling is literally a calc, the only difference is that it is entirely visual based. Which most manga/comics are extremely inconsistent with anyway.

Also you can't separate size stacking from pixel scaling, pixel scaling is quite literally size stacking.

 

[Damage3245]

@Rocker1189; I know that. The difference is usually that pixel scaling is based on a figure which isn't derived from a separate calc.

To put it another way the difference between the case in the OP and some other cases is that it goes like this:

Calced Size -> Pixel Scaled Size -> Pixel Scaled Size, etc.

Official Size -> Pixel Scaled Size -> Pixel Scaled Size, etc.

Both are "size stacking" but the first one is dependent on a calc while the latter is not.

If it is fine, then there is no problem here, but all I'm saying is that the Calc Stacking page needs to be updated.

 

[Rocker1189]

If you want to say that, we have an official(extremely consistent) timeframe, official speeds and even official rest time.

 

[AstralKing7]

Thanks for the staff input. It was really helpful as usual

 

[DontTalkDT]

What exactly do "calced distances" refer to in this debate?

If it just means using something pixel scaled in another blog post in a calc for your own blog that obviously isn't calc stacking. Over how many blog posts a calc is spread doesn't affect the validity of a calc.

But I think other practices are meant?

 

[Jvando]

What exactly do "calced distances" refer to in this debate?

If it just means using something pixel scaled in another blog post in a calc for your own blog that obviously isn't calc stacking. Over how many blog posts a calc is spread doesn't affect the validity of a calc.

But I think other practices are meant?

In this instance, calced distances refers to using a statement such as "It takes three days to get from X to Y" and using either an assumed speed of travel (average walking speed if they walked) or a stated speed of travel (A can travel faster than Horses) to get a distance. Usually 8 hours rest per day is factored in if there's no reason to assume otherwise like a direct statement stating A can travel for B amount without rest.

 

[Damage3245]

Pretty much what Jvando has said.

It's not just pixel scaling a distance and using that for a calc; it is determining a distance through by making a calc for it, and using that as a basis for pixel scaling for another calc.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In this instance, calced distances refers to using a statement such as "It takes three days to get from X to Y" and using either an assumed speed of travel (average walking speed if they walked) or a stated speed of travel (A can travel faster than Horses) to get a distance. Usually 8 hours rest per day is factored in if there's no reason to assume otherwise like a direct statement stating A can travel for B amount without rest.

Hmmm... I see were the debate comes from.

Regarding speed of travel one has to ensure that this is speed of prolonged travel, that they actually travel as fast as they can and that they aren't slowed by having to carry stuff.

One also has to consider that given mountains, rivers, swamps etc. a path isn't always a straight line, of equal speed to travel through and of equal stamina requirements.

IMO the statement regarding the speed should also be made regarding the travel in question. Otherwise people will start doing calcs were they assume that a characters every move in a serious battle is supersonic, because they were stated to move supersonic one time at some point of a story.

Aside from that, if both time and speed are reliable statements, I guess I'm fine with it.


Thinking about this, it probably falls into the same category as calculating the speed of a bullet and then using the speed of said bullet, at that very same instance, in order to calculate the speed of a character dodging it. That usually is accepted as well.

The basic point in both is that the parameter can not have changed between the scenario of the first and the second calc. In my example, because the speed in both cases comes from the very same object at the very same time, and in the example that the thread is about, because distances don't usually change a lot.

So for the calc stacking page, I would then suggest rewriting the pixel scaling note into:

"However, parameters that are calculated in a first calculation can be accepted for use in a second calculation, if and only if they can not have changed between them. To provide a few examples:

• Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.
• Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.
• Using a reliable stated timeframe and speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

However, even for this parameters calc stacking is avoided as much as possible. That means that results taking less such steps are usually taken over results that rely on more calc stacking."

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with DonTalk

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

So is the calc good to go?

 

[Damage3245]

The suggested modification for the Calc Stacking page sounds good to me.

(Though I would add a 4th bullet point that Multipliers are an accepted form of calc stacking, and include a link to the main Multipliers page which contains more details on it.)

@Wrath Of Itachi; the calc is no longer invalid for original reason I evaluated for it, but I'll be giving a 2nd evaluation for it as soon as I get home.