-
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.
Can the new Kirby calc be added?
- Thread starter Cumberjung
- Start date
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #43
@Efi I said smallest mountain range. Dose that still work or did you misread before?
Also any other change or is the rest good in your eyes? (like I said my mid estimate still assumes most animals are non-sentient).
Also any other change or is the rest good in your eyes? (like I said my mid estimate still assumes most animals are non-sentient).
- 15,580
- 13,080
That's only applicable if we have reason to think it's a normal mountain tho. It's Kirby, it's anything but standard.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #45
We can't assume it's weird without evidence that it should be.Chariot190 said:
Also you keep pushing the idea that I should do pixel measurements for to find how large Mt. Dedede is so I'm going to make things clear that I'm not going to do that.
Doing that would be a logistical nightmare. First off the only thing I have to compare it to is Castle Dedede or Popstar itself. The latter has me using only world maps which are clearly off scale and the former has only characters to compare it to.
While the former is "possible" it too just doesn't work well as not only have there been multiple Castle Dededes (due to it being demolished redesigned or just moved) but also almost always when the characters are seen outside they are very clearly upscaled in order to remain visible.
And finding the size by scaling the interior of all the rooms in all the games is just ridiculous.
If you still have that much of a problem with this then by all means you have a right to disapprove of my calc but the mountain is going to stay compared to the best real world equivalent.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Because it clearly ain't the same size? That's why.
Scale the inside of it, scale it from the gameplay where you play on the stage or cutscenes where there's characters to scale from, there's many ways other than what you're saying there are.
Mario world did that with its castle, and it's accepted by litterally everyone, it's a thing that can be and should be used in some cases.
If you aren't going to do that your calc is wrong and inherently flawed, it ain't a matter if dissaproving it's me saying your calc is wrong, fix it. Do that and I'm fine with for the most part, at the moment though it's straight up wrong.
Scale the inside of it, scale it from the gameplay where you play on the stage or cutscenes where there's characters to scale from, there's many ways other than what you're saying there are.
Mario world did that with its castle, and it's accepted by litterally everyone, it's a thing that can be and should be used in some cases.
If you aren't going to do that your calc is wrong and inherently flawed, it ain't a matter if dissaproving it's me saying your calc is wrong, fix it. Do that and I'm fine with for the most part, at the moment though it's straight up wrong.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #47
I... did you read what I wrote?
Anyway again your free to feel it is wrong but the popular opinion (favoring the opinions of Cal and Efi) is going to decide if it is accepted.
I have currently asked @Efi if the worlds smallest mountain range is good and and he seems to approve save for the possibility of a misunderstanding. When we are on the same page I will update the calc with a better comparison but no I will not be attempting pixel measurements and I would appreciate if you would stop asking me to.
Anyway again your free to feel it is wrong but the popular opinion (favoring the opinions of Cal and Efi) is going to decide if it is accepted.
I have currently asked @Efi if the worlds smallest mountain range is good and and he seems to approve save for the possibility of a misunderstanding. When we are on the same page I will update the calc with a better comparison but no I will not be attempting pixel measurements and I would appreciate if you would stop asking me to.
- 15,580
- 13,080
I did. I just ignored most of it because it ain't relevant.
While I can respect cal and efis options, that doesn't make it right. Plus efi already said otherwise.
I'm not asking you to, I'm telling you to do it otherwise your calc is inherently wrong and no matter who agrees with it won't suddenly make it ok. It's wrong so fix it. Hell I'll pixel scale it if I absolutely must but if I do it I'm picking the easy way, which is also the smallest so if you want it to be better I suggest you do it.
While I can respect cal and efis options, that doesn't make it right. Plus efi already said otherwise.
I'm not asking you to, I'm telling you to do it otherwise your calc is inherently wrong and no matter who agrees with it won't suddenly make it ok. It's wrong so fix it. Hell I'll pixel scale it if I absolutely must but if I do it I'm picking the easy way, which is also the smallest so if you want it to be better I suggest you do it.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #49
I have revamped my calculation with a using Sutter Buttes instead of Olympus. Unlike Olympus Sutter Buttes doesn't peak above any clouds which Mt. Dedede slightly dose so it should be a much more suitable lowball.
It's been approved mathematically again so discussion can continue from here.
It's been approved mathematically again so discussion can continue from here.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Planet popstar aint even anything like earth, cloud level could vary depending on a multitude of things.
It's been approved mathematically yes, there aint any issue with the math, it's the scale that's the issue. Also in star allies Mt Dedede doesnt raise up above the clouds. It does in other games but you said yourself it changes between games. Hell in one game it's in the upper atmosphere. Going off star allies it isnt though.
It's been approved mathematically yes, there aint any issue with the math, it's the scale that's the issue. Also in star allies Mt Dedede doesnt raise up above the clouds. It does in other games but you said yourself it changes between games. Hell in one game it's in the upper atmosphere. Going off star allies it isnt though.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #51
1. That is why I'm only saying it's above the lowest of clouds.
2. The upper atmosphere thing is just to be visually pretty (showing the night sky not actually being in it).
3. When we have nothing saying the clouds are of different altitudes then we can't really use it an an argument. That just doesn't make sense.
2. The upper atmosphere thing is just to be visually pretty (showing the night sky not actually being in it).
3. When we have nothing saying the clouds are of different altitudes then we can't really use it an an argument. That just doesn't make sense.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #52
4. In Star Allies in the opening the mountain is jut below the clouds which is very close (on this scale) to just above so there shouldn't be any problem here.
- 15,580
- 13,080
it isnt shown to be above any clouds in star allies, it's wrong to assume something that explicitly is shown not to be the case.
That's actually worse then, it's shown to be consistently below clouds then give or take a few.
Does popstar look like a normal planet to you? Moot point anyway, it aint above clouds, I just checked a walkthrough. In fact I can actually scale Mt dedede in star allies quite easily going off the opening cutscene. Give me a few hours.
That's actually worse then, it's shown to be consistently below clouds then give or take a few.
Does popstar look like a normal planet to you? Moot point anyway, it aint above clouds, I just checked a walkthrough. In fact I can actually scale Mt dedede in star allies quite easily going off the opening cutscene. Give me a few hours.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #54
This just because the lowest clouds in the sky aren't there at the time doesn't mean they don't exist.Cumberjung said:
- 15,580
- 13,080
Your height is 1687.9418458916127864890171454354037975inches or 42.873722885646962766 meters for star allies mt dedede.
And there aint any point where it's above clouds in star allies from what ive seen dude.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #56
1. If this were to be used you would need to submit it for evaluation.
2. You literally are agreeing with me that the scaling depiction is inconsistent which means direct/small scale scaling like this shouldn't be used.
3. The castle is very clearly one of those "smaller on the inside" things which throws even more scaling for a loop.
4. So super low clouds don't show up in that game? This is a point how?
5. The results are absurd it wouldn't even be a third of the night the smallest mountain on earth has.
6. Again characters outside the castle tend to be upscaled.
All in all I respect your attempt at this but I just don't think this is a good way of going about finding an approximate size due to the nature of the games having odd depictions.
2. You literally are agreeing with me that the scaling depiction is inconsistent which means direct/small scale scaling like this shouldn't be used.
3. The castle is very clearly one of those "smaller on the inside" things which throws even more scaling for a loop.
4. So super low clouds don't show up in that game? This is a point how?
5. The results are absurd it wouldn't even be a third of the night the smallest mountain on earth has.
6. Again characters outside the castle tend to be upscaled.
All in all I respect your attempt at this but I just don't think this is a good way of going about finding an approximate size due to the nature of the games having odd depictions.
- 15,580
- 13,080
>If this were to be used you would need to submit it for evaluation.
Fine, ill ring up cal but that also means your calc is in limbo too as Mt Dedede has no size atm.
>You literally are agreeing with me that the scaling depiction is inconsistent which means direct/small scale scaling like this shouldn't be used.
I am, which means we use it in the scene that 'you're calcing. The feat you're calcing has mt dedede as that size so we use that. I calced it's size in the feat you are trying to calc, so it's the best to use for your calc in question.
>The castle is very clearly one of those "smaller on the inside" things which throws even more scaling for a loop.
It's the exact opposite, it's a **** ton bigger on the inide but you didnt wanna calc that, so I did it the easy way.
>So super low clouds don't show up in that game? This is a point how?
At no point in star allies is Mt dedede shown above clouds, ever, the fact that it never happens means you ant assume it's the case when it litterally doesnt happen but is instead shown to be lower then clouds. You're arbitraily assuming it's above clouds that dont exist or are even shown at any point.
>The results are absurd it wouldn't even be a third of the night the smallest mountain on earth has.
Yeah so? And kirby characters are tiny, and Mt dedede isnt even the tallest mountain in the game, you're arguing out of disbelief, not an actual rebuttal.
>Again characters outside the castle tend to be upscaled.
Yeah maybe on the world map dude, not in cinematic cutscenes which is what youre using in your calc mind you.
>All in all I respect your attempt at this but I just don't think this is a good way of going about finding an approximate size due to the nature of the games having odd depictions.
In that case your entire calc cant be used because need I remind you, I calced Mt.Dedede as shown in the opening cutscene where the mindhax feat happens. If Mt.Dedede is wrong who's to say everything else aint too? If that's the case your calc is inherently flawed and cant be used for that very reason.
Fine, ill ring up cal but that also means your calc is in limbo too as Mt Dedede has no size atm.
>You literally are agreeing with me that the scaling depiction is inconsistent which means direct/small scale scaling like this shouldn't be used.
I am, which means we use it in the scene that 'you're calcing. The feat you're calcing has mt dedede as that size so we use that. I calced it's size in the feat you are trying to calc, so it's the best to use for your calc in question.
>The castle is very clearly one of those "smaller on the inside" things which throws even more scaling for a loop.
It's the exact opposite, it's a **** ton bigger on the inide but you didnt wanna calc that, so I did it the easy way.
>So super low clouds don't show up in that game? This is a point how?
At no point in star allies is Mt dedede shown above clouds, ever, the fact that it never happens means you ant assume it's the case when it litterally doesnt happen but is instead shown to be lower then clouds. You're arbitraily assuming it's above clouds that dont exist or are even shown at any point.
>The results are absurd it wouldn't even be a third of the night the smallest mountain on earth has.
Yeah so? And kirby characters are tiny, and Mt dedede isnt even the tallest mountain in the game, you're arguing out of disbelief, not an actual rebuttal.
>Again characters outside the castle tend to be upscaled.
Yeah maybe on the world map dude, not in cinematic cutscenes which is what youre using in your calc mind you.
>All in all I respect your attempt at this but I just don't think this is a good way of going about finding an approximate size due to the nature of the games having odd depictions.
In that case your entire calc cant be used because need I remind you, I calced Mt.Dedede as shown in the opening cutscene where the mindhax feat happens. If Mt.Dedede is wrong who's to say everything else aint too? If that's the case your calc is inherently flawed and cant be used for that very reason.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #58
Regardless this thread has been going just about nowhere anytime soon so I will be abandoning it and am going to either put put my calc on the larger general Kirby revision thread or will just discuss it with Cal directly on his wall.
If it's accepted you are free to dispute it after the fact and if not it should be no skin off your teeth.
I will no longer be commenting here.
If it's accepted you are free to dispute it after the fact and if not it should be no skin off your teeth.
I will no longer be commenting here.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Guess im taking this to the Kirby revision thread too then.
- 15,580
- 13,080
I could waste like 7 hours of my life scaling the interior but if we're using the opening cutscene to calc void's hax then we should use mt.dedede in the same cutscene.
- 15,580
- 13,080
That's easy to calc, I can do it fast I think? Context? Although seems kinda poitnless that aint anything above what even the weakest kirby fodder can do. And it's meta knight doing it and he can pop planets like an egg.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Thanks, this is a non-canon MK with who knows AP and 5-B durability, so the feat would be his tier.
I'm giving you the chapter in your wall on a minute, the context it's exactly what you would expect.
I'm giving you the chapter in your wall on a minute, the context it's exactly what you would expect.
- 15,580
- 13,080
I dont wanna be a stick in the mud, but that's only wall level, if I use normal human heights for them it'd end up like building level (calcing the hole and mountain busting could be much higher if I knew the speed of the pillow (I think that's what that is?) which I could calc the speed of the debree off of and find a KE of it which could apply to meta). Cant you just scale him to Kirby? Kirby and Knuckle Joe felt the need to get the hell out of the way of it so presumably it'd harm him at least a tad. Plus im sure theres a quote somewhere in there implying the two are decently comparable.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Here's the chapter.
They were going to lose on something if reached by the pillow, so it's nothing that would threat their durability. In all the chapters available MK doesn't have any solid reason to scale, I was looking forward to that.
They were going to lose on something if reached by the pillow, so it's nothing that would threat their durability. In all the chapters available MK doesn't have any solid reason to scale, I was looking forward to that.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Do you know any speed for that pillow? Or how tall these incarnations are? Because using 8cm and calcing the destruction it'd only be wall or human sized small building. If I can find a speed for the debree it could go up to like town level.
And actually? He doesnt but sectonia has a straight planet feat on accident? There aint any statement that implies that he's strong or anything? Even a statement implying he's strong in general should put him above sectonia.
And actually? He doesnt but sectonia has a straight planet feat on accident? There aint any statement that implies that he's strong or anything? Even a statement implying he's strong in general should put him above sectonia.
- 15,441
- 5,031
Beyond scaling, no idea. We never hear the size of this incarnations but most chapters are still not translated and we see characters playing the games, so we need to assume they're just as small.
Unfortunately, no. He either acts serious for a while or like a fool that others treat as a joke. As his profile says, he was going to challenge Marx, but then he got one-shotted by Kirby. He also defeated Dark Meta Knight, whose a featless version of him from another reality, but that shouldn't mean much.
Unfortunately, no. He either acts serious for a while or like a fool that others treat as a joke. As his profile says, he was going to challenge Marx, but then he got one-shotted by Kirby. He also defeated Dark Meta Knight, whose a featless version of him from another reality, but that shouldn't mean much.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Is it safe to assume then that the pillow is the same size as Kirby/Meta?
- 15,580
- 13,080
I didnt really take into account the angle but oh well, point is it's wall. Small building with pulv.
Halving diameter for the radius, treating it as a cylinder then plugging it into this calculator gets 113570.7929446 inches3
Converting that to cm gets 288469.81407928403cm3.
288469.81407928403cm3 x 8jjc (fragmentation) = 2307758.51263427224 joules.
And for a high end because while there's still some large debree most of the mass is kinda just gone so maybe you could assume the debree is just falling chunks? Idk.
288469.81407928403cm3 x 214.35 (pulv) = 61833504.6478945318305joules.
Low end: 0.0005515675221401224659 tons of tnt.
High end: 0.014778562296341904436 tons of tnt.
- 15,580
- 13,080
Yeah, I'll do it after this hunt.
- 15,441
- 5,031
On the Void Termina calc, there's yet another thing to add. All the Jamba Hearts weren't merged back into him, only like a 90%, so a 10% or so must be removed from the result.
The exact amount can be taken out by seeing how much is missing from the giant Jamba Heart before Hyness throws himself and the Mage-Sisters there. Assuming doing that wasn't exactly like having the missing Jamba Hearts, and that there are missing Jamba Hearts in the first place.
The exact amount can be taken out by seeing how much is missing from the giant Jamba Heart before Hyness throws himself and the Mage-Sisters there. Assuming doing that wasn't exactly like having the missing Jamba Hearts, and that there are missing Jamba Hearts in the first place.
- 15,580
- 13,080
I put it into a blog like a day or two ago. Forgot to post.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #75
Returned from break from the wiki and decided to revive this old thread flavored bump.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #76
Also I changed the notable discussion points in the original post to fit what currently makes the calc iffy for people.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #77
Not giving up on this calc style bump.
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #78
Bump
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #79
ƒà▒´©Åump
- 437
- 37
- Thread starter
- #80
I have changed the title in order to better indicate what this thread is discussing.
Similar threads
