• 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.

Club Penguin

Vzearr said:
Okay, I've concluded that to calculate some of this stuff, I need to either be in a lab and conducting experiments to calculate the drag coefficient of a airfoil and cylinder combined because I can't create a formula and don't believe there is a single valid formula to calculate something as complex as that (its extremely complex and I wasted my time looking into it so you don't have to). I also either need to be in the verse to see the distance the lightning actually moved and burned the floor mat at, which also requires another complex formula, albeit, not as complex as the last.
Click to expand...
And what about the other calculations? What will happen?
 
Idek, if there are new calc result or new calculation, calc members need to evaluate them for the thread to pass
 
Vzearr said:
No I don't, it's literally impossible in the realm of physics to calculate them.
Click to expand...
Faulty calculations can be used if there are no better ways to do it.
Captura-de-tela-2025-09-17-204647.png


It's your downgrade crt, you have to know how to solve this since you're the one who wanted to "fix it".
 
Phsccarvalho said:
It's your downgrade crt, you have to know how to solve this since you're the one who wanted to "fix it".
Click to expand...
I didn't expect my downgrades to literally debunk the entire feat to an extent that it's uncalculatable, I thought I could calculate them, but it turns out I was wrong.

Anywho, Bambu here is wrong, well, in a logical sense he's wrong.

If we were to use faulty calculations then vs matches would all be based on those faulty calculations, making them invalid, we remove vs matchups if a calculation is deemed as faulty, so why would we use faulty calculations in a vs match when we don't apply the same logic in other cases.
 
Vzearr said:
I didn't expect my downgrades to literally debunk the entire feat to an extent that it's uncalculatable, I thought I could calculate them, but it turns out I was wrong.
Click to expand...
That's why I told you at the beginning of the crt that you should have recalculations ready, but you refused.

You created a downgrade topic without having the slightest idea of how you would recalculate the calculations or how you would apply the crt.

Vzearr said:
Anywho, Bambu here is wrong, well, in a logical sense he's wrong.

If we were to use faulty calculations then vs matches would all be based on those faulty calculations, making them invalid, we remove vs matchups if a calculation is deemed as faulty, so why would we use faulty calculations in a vs match when we don't apply the same logic in other cases.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't care about your opinion.

Just follow what Bambu said and do the recalculations based on that, and if you have any problems, complain to him.

Instead of wasting everyone's time on a downgrade thread that goes nowhere.
 
Phsccarvalho said:
That's why I told you at the beginning of the crt that you should have recalculations ready, but you refused.
Click to expand...
I didn't refuse, I provided reasoning as to why I didn't have to, literally every downgrade thread doesn't have recalculations ready as they have to first discuss if the debunks are correct.
Phsccarvalho said:
You created a downgrade topic without having the slightest idea of how you would recalculate the calculations or how you would apply the crt.
Click to expand...
I had a pretty good idea of how to calculate it, I even had a formula in mind, but it was wrong, so don't lie.
Phsccarvalho said:
Well, I don't care about your opinion.
Click to expand...
It's not an opinion, it's logical reasoning as to why your evidence of bambu is wrong.
 
Vzearr said:
I didn't refuse, I provided reasoning as to why I didn't have to, literally every downgrade thread doesn't have recalculations ready as they have to first discuss if the debunks are correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, the great justification of "waste of time", which is what is happening now.

Vzearr said:
I had a pretty good idea of how to calculate it, I even had a formula in mind, but it was wrong, so don't lie.
Click to expand...
If you really had it, you could calculate it.

Vzearr said:
It's not an opinion, it's logical reasoning as to why your evidence of bambu is wrong.
Click to expand...
The logic you think doesn't matter.
 
Phsccarvalho said:
I literally don't care. Bambu, someone with more authority than you has already said that flawed calculations can be used if there are no better alternatives.
Click to expand...
Holy Appeal to Authority.
 
Let's go slowly, first of all, is fishing the Aqua grabber still a valid feat? we may not have It's drag confiderence(idk how to weite It) but we still have the weight of the thing

The explosion, could It be calced using the main part of the explosion instead of the spikes?

and lastly could the lightning feat be done using cinematic time conversion?
 
I don't know what the OP is about and I don't have the time to get into it now. I haven't inspected the debunks of the calculations or determined whether they are valid or not.

As it stands, a downgrade cannot occur if an alternative is not proposed. Without any effort made to calculate feats or provide that alternative, all this thread can really support is a statement from us that says "yeah, this might not be valid". We need to determine alternatives or the profiles can't be changed. They cannot just be blank.

I was given the statement that this thread argues that some of these calculations can only be performed in a lab. This notion is itself against our ideology here. We work under communally agreed upon assumptions that we deem reasonable, because we cannot possibly attain the actual reliability of scientists, and work within margins of error. It is truly rare that a calculation is literally impossible: I find it hard to believe that every calc for Club Penguin in particular falls within this case.

I am speaking here now on the basis that I will try to speak again when I've the time. My schedule is increasingly demanded and increasingly unavailable for this site. Nevertheless, I will try to give some of that time here when I've the opportunity to do so.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
As it stands, a downgrade cannot occur if an alternative is not proposed. Without any effort made to calculate feats or provide that alternative, all this thread can really support is a statement from us that says "yeah, this might not be valid". We need to determine alternatives or the profiles can't be changed. They cannot just be blank.
Click to expand...
I made effort to calculate the feat, do not make the assumption that I didn't, it can be seen here. Your statement that the profiles "can't be changed" even though they've been deemed as incorrect by calc group members is flawed, why would we index incorrect calculations? It makes no sense, it'd be better to change it to something like the submarines weight instead of an incorrect calculation regarding the lifting strength needed to lift it.
Mr. Bambu said:
I was given the statement that this thread argues that some of these calculations can only be performed in a lab. This notion is itself against our ideology here. We work under communally agreed upon assumptions that we deem reasonable, because we cannot possibly attain the actual reliability of scientists, and work within margins of error. It is truly rare that a calculation is literally impossible: I find it hard to believe that every calc for Club Penguin in particular falls within this case.
Click to expand...
You want me to explain it? Sure. I find it sad that my status as a former calc group member is being questioned as if I don't know how to calculate.

The submarine calculation: The drag coefficient is a property of a single, specific geometry. When you combine two shapes, you create a brand new one. The airflow over this new object is completely different from the airflow over the individual parts. Because fluid dynamics are required to be complex with non-linear equations that are impossible to solve analytically for most real. world shapes, like a submarine. The behavior of fluid dynamics and drag force is not simple, it's crazy and turbulent, with unpredictablalness that significantly effect the drag. A simple equation can't account for all the factors involved, such as the object's exact shape, surface roughness, and the flow conditions, all of which change in a non linear way. Therefore you need a bloody lab experiment.

The lightning calculation: It's impossible to calculate the total timeframe for this feat because the time the lightning takes to hit the floor is an unknown variable. formulas, like the time = distance÷speed, determine the duration of the lightning's travel from its place in where it was to the floor. However, without a value for the time the lightning spends literally hitting the floor, you can't sum the two parts of the event to get a total duration.
 
Last edited:
I made effort to calculate the feat, do not make the assumption that I didn't, it can be seen here. Your statement that the profiles "can't be changed" even though they've been deemed as incorrect by calc group members is flawed, why would we index incorrect calculations? It makes no sense, it'd be better to change it to something like the submarines weight instead of an incorrect calculation regarding the lifting strength needed to lift it.
Click to expand...
My caveat was, explicitly, that a replacement had to be proposed. I don't care what the proposal is. I also stated, explicitly, that I had not yet had the time to go through the specific calcs in the OP, and had rather been told broad statements like, "Vapourrr is refusing to do any calc work while also arguing against all the calcs, leaving us with nothing left to work with". Traditionally a CRT would be accompanied by some amount of work made to present an alternative, since otherwise it is a track without a destination. If you're proposing an alternative, great! It makes this all simpler.

You want me to explain it? Sure. I find it sad that my status as a former calc group member is being questioned as if I don't know how to calculate.
Click to expand...
You ought not make this all about you. I don't care much who you were before, if you're arguing from positions unsupported by wiki standard and tradition, then I'm going to note that it is wrong.

The submarine calculation: The drag coefficient is a property of a single, specific geometry. When you combine two shapes, you create a brand new one. The airflow over this new object is completely different from the airflow over the individual parts. Because fluid dynamics are required to be complex with non-linear equations that are impossible to solve analytically for most real. world shapes, like a submarine. The behavior of fluid dynamics and drag force is not simple, it's crazy and turbulent, with unpredictablalness that significantly effect the drag. A simple equation can't account for all the factors involved, such as the object's exact shape, surface roughness, and the flow conditions, all of which change in a non linear way. Therefore you need a bloody lab experiment.

The lightning calculation: It's impossible to calculate the total timeframe for this feat because the time the lightning takes to hit the floor is an unknown variable. formulas, like the time = distance÷speed, determine the duration of the lightning's travel from its place in where it was to the floor. However, without a value for the time the lightning spends literally hitting the floor, you can't sum the two parts of the event to get a total duration.
Click to expand...
We operate under assumptions. To speak on specifics, I would need to go through the calcs- again, scheduling- but it seems to me we would typically say "the submarine's shape isn't so simple, but we can give it an approximate shape of an ellipsoid" and have that be broadly, basically true. That tends to be sufficient for our purposes.

I, again, cannot speak for the lightning calc- I haven't even seen it yet. I suppose I'll get to it when I get to it. But assumptions are the bread and butter of our little industry here. I find it very hard to believe no adequate assumption can possibly be made, that it is only possible to achieve any relatively reasonable result when using a fully equipped lab.
 
The only alternative I can assume is using an airfoil, but that's again wrong because of the massive sphere in the middle.
 
Vzearr has told me that he doesn't think that it is fundamentally mathematically possible to accurately recalculate these feats, or at least he doesn't know how to do so. 🙏
 
I will calculate any additional feats you guys show me. ☺️🙏
Vzearr said:
I made effort to calculate the feat, do not make the assumption that I didn't, it can be seen here. Your statement that the profiles "can't be changed" even though they've been deemed as incorrect by calc group members is flawed, why would we index incorrect calculations? It makes no sense, it'd be better to change it to something like the submarines weight instead of an incorrect calculation regarding the lifting strength needed to lift it.

You want me to explain it? Sure. I find it sad that my status as a former calc group member is being questioned as if I don't know how to calculate.

The submarine calculation: The drag coefficient is a property of a single, specific geometry. When you combine two shapes, you create a brand new one. The airflow over this new object is completely different from the airflow over the individual parts. Because fluid dynamics are required to be complex with non-linear equations that are impossible to solve analytically for most real. world shapes, like a submarine. The behavior of fluid dynamics and drag force is not simple, it's crazy and turbulent, with unpredictablalness that significantly effect the drag. A simple equation can't account for all the factors involved, such as the object's exact shape, surface roughness, and the flow conditions, all of which change in a non linear way. Therefore you need a bloody lab experiment.

The lightning calculation: It's impossible to calculate the total timeframe for this feat because the time the lightning takes to hit the floor is an unknown variable. formulas, like the time = distance÷speed, determine the duration of the lightning's travel from its place in where it was to the floor. However, without a value for the time the lightning spends literally hitting the floor, you can't sum the two parts of the event to get a total duration.
Click to expand...
I explained it here but these feats are far beyond what they’re worth to calculate.
 
Calc One: You could low-ball it. Don't scale the spikes, instead do a scaling line to the points between the spikes. The calc is possible. Honestly, my bigger concern is that the explosion is seemingly implied to be a bit further in the background, lowering the result a bit. Still, given the small size of the locale (judging by the door size), I think it's borderline but probably tolerable.

Still low on time, not sure if further discussion occurred in thread but them's my thoughts on calc one.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Calc One: You could low-ball it. Don't scale the spikes, instead do a scaling line to the points between the spikes. The calc is possible. Honestly, my bigger concern is that the explosion is seemingly implied to be a bit further in the background, lowering the result a bit. Still, given the small size of the locale (judging by the door size), I think it's borderline but probably tolerable.

Still low on time, not sure if further discussion occurred in thread but them's my thoughts on calc one.
Click to expand...
Nobody said calc 1 isn’t calcable, it’ll just yield very low results far below what the verses scaling is with other calcs. So it’d be irrelevant to calculate.
 
Vzearr said:
Nobody said calc 1 isn’t calcable, it’ll just yield very low results far below what the verses scaling is with other calcs. So it’d be irrelevant to calculate.
Click to expand...
But it is a feat. Your whole shtick here has been claiming that to calculate these, you'd need a lab, so we need other feats. Calc One just needs a (very trivial) adjustment that leaves it as a low-ball.

I'll go through the other feats later.
 
Vzearr said:
it’ll just yield very low results far below what the verses scaling is with other calcs.
Click to expand...
Dude, what are you talking about? The verse only has one accepted calculation for each statistic. This is literally the only accepted AP calculation. There is no other scale.
 
Phsccarvalho said:
Dude, what are you talking about? The verse only has one accepted calculation for each statistic. This is literally the only accepted AP calculation. There is no other scale.
Click to expand...
There are multiple other scales, I looked in the general discussion thread, stop pin pointing me as the "bad guy" because your verses calculations were wrong.
 
Even it being wrong is kinda subjective. The art style being what it is means I wouldn't describe the original calc as strictly wrong. I'd still lean in favor of adjustment but this was painted as a much more severe thing than it seems to be upon closer inspection. I suppose I'll get around to looking at the other calcs and see if they might be salvaged yet.
 
Vzearr has offered to help out here, so he is trying to accommodate you, but if Bambu thinks that a part of the calculations can easily be redone, it would be good if he collaborates in that regard as well, yes. 🙏
 
I don't really want to reinstall GIMP on this laptop I am burdened with using, so I'd really rather someone else does it, but I would happily evaluate it when it gets done.
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏
 
The first one, at least, is a valid feat, you only ought to change the scaling line. Rather than extend the line measuring the blast radius to the outer tips of the explosion, measure it to one of the points between the spikes. When it is adjusted, I can take a look at it, and it should be good to go. I have yet to get to the other calcs yet, sorry.
 
For the lightning feat, could we use cinematic time to discover how fast the penguin moved in comparing to the speed of the lightning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JustANormalLemon
  • Locked
The most important and scale changing CRT in Vs wiki history(Cub Penguin edition)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Phsccarvalho
Phsccarvalho
JustANormalLemon
Zangief fights a Penguin (1-0-0) (Street Fighter vs Club Penguin)
Replies
39
Views
3K
User_A_98732165489
JustANormalLemon
Is this calc correct?
Replies
8
Views
965
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Phsccarvalho
  • Locked
Penguin is... a smurf? (Club Penguin)
Replies
29
Views
2K
Phsccarvalho
Phsccarvalho
FragrantJaguar150
Lookism AP Revision/Downgrade
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
Powerscalingcat
Powerscalingcat
Back
Top