Common Calculation Concerns: Skull Crushing and FTE Movement

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

So here's a kinda related question. Let's there's a boxing match. It's viewed from tens of meters away. Luminosity is high.

The punches of the boxers (in the example that I'm using) are moving so fast nobody can seen them at all, even experienced boxers.

Would it be possible to even estimate something like this?

Wouldn't the boxers look tiny from this distance? This would make it much easier to appear to move faster than the eye even without subsonic speeds

Angular size is very important in order to calculate FTE feats, as tiny bugs such as flies can dissapear from our view easily even when they go at Below Average Human speeds, while for Humans it would require a lot higher speeds for that to happen

This is also likely one of the reasons they put TVs on stadiums for sport events for those that are far away, as they'll look very small when viewed with the eyes

 

[KatBoi69]

Well, I'm late to this and not a member of any special groups, and I'm supposed to be writing or relaxing with family right now, but:

1).FTE: I think you're right that this shouldn't be immediately scaled to any specific speed tier, even if the objects given in your initial arguments aren't human sized, meaning they aren't totally relevant to the situations we usually care about for this (roughly human sized combatants in close quarters combat). That being said, I'm sure there are either scaling arguments (x character can see y character move at z speed, but at a similar distance, can't see character q in motion) where the fte evidence would be relevant or maybe further research would give a way to mathematically calc how fast a human sized object needs to be to become FTE

But yeah, if FTE is all someone has for a speed tier, it shouldn't be assumed to meet subsonic without further support.


2). Crushing a skull: This can be sussed out from articles/published data. We could probably compile a table that has pressure or energy values required for different types of skull breaking (cracking vs. shattering vs. splattering, similar to how we scale breaking stone).

 

[Arceus0x]

Wouldn't the boxers look tiny from this distance? This would make it much easier to appear to move faster than the eye even without subsonic speeds

Angular size is very important in order to calculate FTE feats, as tiny bugs such as flies can dissapear from our view easily even when they go at Below Average Human speeds, while for Humans it would require a lot higher speeds for that to happen

This is also likely one of the reasons they put TVs on stadiums for sport events for those that are far away, as they'll look very small when viewed with the eyes

In my case neither the ones right beside the boxers nor the far sitting ones can see it

 

[KLOL506]

2). Crushing a skull: This can be sussed out from articles/published data. We could probably compile a table that has pressure or energy values required for different types of skull breaking (cracking vs. shattering vs. splattering, similar to how we scale breaking stone).

We only got lbs values specifically for the skull. And multiple conflicting ones at that. One article says 520 lbs, another says 1100 lbs and another says 2100 lbs.

 

[KatBoi69]

In my case neither the ones right beside the boxers nor the far sitting ones can see it

I mean you're tracking the fist, right?
That's small relative to a whole body.

 

[KatBoi69]

We only got lbs values specifically for the skull. And multiple conflicting ones at that. One article says 520 lbs, another says 1100 lbs and another says 2100 lbs.

Are they all talking about the same level of cracking/damage? I can look through the articles in a sec.

 

[Arceus0x]

I mean you're tracking the fist, right?
That's small relative to a whole body.

No you are tracking the arm

 

[KatBoi69]

No you are tracking the arm

Which is still small relative to an entire body.

 

[KLOL506]

Are they all talking about the same level of cracking/damage? I can look through the articles in a sec.

Yep, full on failure.

 

[KatBoi69]

Yep, full on failure.

Ok, so one thing I found in the study that produces the 520lb figure is that the test was for pediatric (children's) skull models, so that might be why that specific number is so low.

 

[KLOL506]

Ok, so one thing I found in the study that produces the 520lb figure is that the test was for pediatric (children's) skull models, so that might be why that specific number is so low.

Damn, I could've sworn it was something about bike helmet failures or something.

EDIT: NVM, I confused that with this article. But even this talks about mere fractures, not flat-out Mountaining of a skull.

 

[KatBoi69]

Damn, I could've sworn it was something about bike helmet failures or something.

EDIT: NVM, I confused that with this article. But even this talks about mere fractures, not flat-out Mountaining of a skull.

Yeah, it's bike helmet safety but specifically in children's skulls.

This second one, in the edit, is for cracking the temporal region, where the skull is its thinnest, and doesn't seem to be for catastrophic failure.

I'm also having a hell of a time trying to find anything, as most of the articles are either erased, unsourced, or related to that GoT feat (which links back to the articles we already have).

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, it's bike helmet safety but specifically in children's skulls.

This second one, in the edit, is for cracking the temporal region, where the skull is its thinnest, and doesn't seem to be for catastrophic failure.

I'm also having a hell of a time trying to find anything, as most of the articles are either erased, unsourced, or related to that GoT feat (which links back to the articles we already have).

Well **** me in the neck. I got nothing then.

And yeah, most of the references to skull crushing originally came from the GoT news articles, most of which have gone kaput.

 

[KatBoi69]

Well **** me in the neck. I got nothing then.

And yeah, most of the references to skull crushing originally came from the GoT news articles, most of which have gone kaput.

I feel like, maybe the DoD has this number in some weird doc.

I'm surprised by how hard it is to find a good number for this, considering the field of forensics exists.

 

[KLOL506]

I feel like, maybe the DoD has this number in some weird doc.

I'm surprised by how hard it is to find a good number for this, considering the field of forensics exists.

The Department of Defense? Bruh.

 

[KatBoi69]

The Department of Defense? Bruh.

Do you think we can extrapolate from the load bearing ability of bone in general somehow?

 

[KLOL506]

Do you think we can extrapolate from the load bearing ability of bone in general somehow?

Couldn't say.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

What about characters who run so fast that they're straight up invisible?

 

[KLOL506]

What about characters who run so fast that they're straight up invisible?

Like DT said, they would most likely qualify for Subsonic, assuming they aren't camouflaged and/or in dark places.

 

[Wokistan]

At really short ranges where you're doing melee strikes, you may not get to subsonic. People typically can't react to really fast jabs and stuff after they're thrown if they aren't already prepared for it.

Conversely if it's too fast to be seen far away it ends up with really high speeds, assuming it isn't just hard to see via being tiny like a non tracer bullet or something.

 

[KatBoi69]

At really short ranges where you're doing melee strikes, you may not get to subsonic. People typically can't react to really fast jabs and stuff after they're thrown if they aren't already prepared for it.

Conversely if it's too fast to be seen far away it ends up with really high speeds, assuming it isn't just hard to see via being tiny like a non tracer bullet or something.

To clarify, are you talking about the strike being fte or the whole combatant being fte? (wrt the first paragraph)

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

A bit off-topic, but since I'm about to do animal revisions, excluding KE would elephants even be 9-B at all tbh? Most of their 9-B "feats" seem exaggerated imo.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

A bit off-topic, but since I'm about to do animal revisions, excluding KE would elephants even be 9-B at all tbh? Most of their 9-B "feats" seem exaggerated imo.

Most animals aren't 9-B regularly, since they're scaled to a full speed KE charge for the tier

That would be the same as making an average human 9-C because the KE for their charge would be: (6.35)^2 * 62 = 2,499.995 joules. Which is slightly over 8 times baseline 9-C

 

[KLOL506]

A bit off-topic, but since I'm about to do animal revisions, excluding KE would elephants even be 9-B at all tbh? Most of their 9-B "feats" seem exaggerated imo.

Yeah, they would indeed be 9-B, since elephants via sheer size alone can toppe trees, wreck cars and even walk through actual IRL walls.

Only really, really big animals would serve to be 9-B, like bears, hippos, elephants, cattle and the like, since they do use tackles as a primary means of combat.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

We'd be separating KE tackles from their normal stats for the latter ones, something that I've never got the time to apply yet

 

[Antvasima]

So, if we make the changes suggested by the first post, which seems likely at this point, what procedure should we use in order to apply them in a wider context, to a large part of the profile pages that list subsonic speed in particular?

 

[KLOL506]

We'd be separating KE tackles from their normal stats for the latter ones, something that I've never got the time to apply yet

TBH KE tackles would really only apply to their dura and striking with really, really large animals. The big cats I find a bit iffy to scale their KE to their striking strength but their dura should still be equivalent to their KE charges, but everything larger than big cats would demonstrably be 9-B all-round through and through.

 

[KLOL506]

So, if we make the changes suggested by the first post, which seems likely at this point, what procedure should we use in order to apply them in a wider context, to a large part of the profile pages that list subsonic speed in particular?

The skull-crushing part we're gonna have to figure out a proper value for first, since most of the scientific journals we found lead to dead-ends (And at this point the only way we'll get something like that is if we prolly hack into some law enforcement site's forensics data center that deals in skull-crushing-related accidents).

As for Subsonic FTE movements, this'll depend on a case-by-case basis, as DT said, not every character profile with FTE movement is gonna be affected by this as most of them do qualify for the speed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We need to consider how and where we should provide official information about our standards for this then.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. We need to consider how and where we should provide official information about our standards for this then.

Hmmmm, maybe DT can cook something up for the FTE movement standards.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Let's hope so. He built a very large part of our calculations standard pages on his own after all.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

We'd be separating KE tackles from their normal stats for the latter ones, something that I've never got the time to apply yet

Ok. Maybe you can try ask for help in revising if you're busy with it if needed

 

[KLOL506]

Ok. Maybe you can try ask for help in revising if you're busy with it if needed

Armorchompy already has a similar thread like that, no?

 

[Jasonsith]

Yeah, they would indeed be 9-B, since elephants via sheer size alone can toppe trees, wreck cars and even walk through actual IRL walls.

Only really, really big animals would serve to be 9-B, like bears, hippos, elephants, cattle and the like, since they do use tackles as a primary means of combat.

This gets trickier as ocean animals use tentacles and/or bites to attack, which means a lot of piercing. While running KE becomes less applicable to combat.

Yes attack potencies for animals have been discussed before and we decide that only large animals that actually uses tackles or ramming to attack will be available for using running KE as attack potency yield.

Back to topic, some people may wish to state out their sources where their standings of skill crushing come from and how the yields are derived from.

---

As for FTE speed determinations, I do further notice that:

Normal humans do have a wide angle of view of around 120 degrees, but usually only concentrate on one smaller circle.
Meanwhile human eye can perceive around 30 fps to 60 fps.

So that when assessing "moving like a blur" feats, the distance crossed by the character in motion needs to be restrained to the distance falling on the concentrated part of the viewer. Then divide by 1/30 s for low end or 1/60 s for high end.

Hope this assists DT or even gets an approval from him/her/it/them.

---

Feel free to call me for any general feat calculation or evaluation or just some general determination direction. Despite I am busy IRL.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

There is this calculation that gets a value on characters being invisible while fighting. Unsure how trustworthy it is but it's a start.

 

[KLOL506]

This gets trickier as ocean animals use tentacles and/or bites to attack, which means a lot of piercing. While running KE becomes less applicable to combat.

Yes attack potencies for animals have been discussed before and we decide that only large animals that actually uses tackles or ramming to attack will be available for using running KE as attack potency yield.

Back to topic, some people may wish to state out their sources where their standings of skill crushing come from and how the yields are derived from.

Yeah, ocean animals are a bit trickier, but at the same time, whales jumping out of the water can cause massive waves that can often topple small boats, some of them are large enough to cause damage to boats as well.

As for skull-crushing, these are the following articles we found:

This (520 lbs or 2300 newtons, second link is the OG source of the 520 lbs value for skulls which the news articles took, but the problem is, this is for an unprotected child's skull and it's for bike helmets used by children, this is not the value for the skulls of adults)

This (This states a slightly higher value of 3492 newtons or 785 lbs, but then there's another problem, this is for fracturing the skull at its weakest points at the temporal lobes, and it's only for fracturing, not for complete catastrophic failure where the entire skull gets shattered)

This and this (second link's archive.vn link here because paywall) (As it turns out, the 520 lbs number was later corrected to 1100-1200 lbs of force. It also mentions another value for the skull's maximum pressure limit, 6.5 gigapascals)

This (Reddit link but apparently its true source is Fight Science National Geographic, where apparently in one episode they stated that one dude could easily survive being struck in the head with 2100 lbs of force whereas other peoples' heads would shatter, which tells me that not all skulls are the same)

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I'm pretty sure I saw 5000 Newtons somewhere but I'll have to find it

 

[KLOL506]

I'm pretty sure I saw 5000 Newtons somewhere but I'll have to find it

1100 lbs is 5000-ish newtons tho. 1200 lbs is 5338 newtons.

Also, apparently the same Washingtonpost article mentions the skull being able to withstand 6.5 gigapascals of pressure which is 942745 psi.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As for FTE speed determinations, I do further notice that:

Normal humans do have a wide angle of view of around 120 degrees, but usually only concentrate on one smaller circle.
Meanwhile human eye can perceive around 30 fps to 60 fps.

So that when assessing "moving like a blur" feats, the distance crossed by the character in motion needs to be restrained to the distance falling on the concentrated part of the viewer. Then divide by 1/30 s for low end or 1/60 s for high end.

Hope this assists DT or even gets an approval from him/her/it/them.

To comment on this:

One factor that is neglected here is the way the eye averages things out, which is a major factor. Take a camera flash for example. Those can easily be in the range of about 1/300th or 1/1000th of a second, yet you would never miss them. One reason for that might be that it is seriously blinding, but another is the relative amount of light. So much light of the camera flash enters the eyes, and activates the receptors, that the rest of the surrounding light doesn't fall as much into weight, even if it enters for a longer timeframe. The brain just favours the strong input and neglects the weak.
Now, bright flashes are not that much an issue but think about colour contrast. At the point where things get hard to see dark green on light green background would likely faster blur/vanish than dark red on a light blue background. The difference in the input is simply higher.
Of course brightness hence also has a role in that, not just for bright flashes. That is further complicated, as our eyes are better at detecting differences in (relatively) dark scenes than they are in bright scenes. That's for example also why computers usually assign more colours to the dark end of the spectrum, than to the light one.

With that things already get very complicated. And then comes the little circle you mentioned, the fovea centralis, which sees only the central 2° of the visual field. It sounds easy to say we should consider just that, but our vision is actually created by focusing on several area's in rapid succession with the best part and our eye then doing magic calculations to put that together in the image we see.

That link in general does a good job of showcasing of how our eye might work like a camera, but our vision has a ton of post-processing of our brain applied. That's exactly why we have stuff like optical illusions. And that's basically what we are talking about here, the optical illusion of something being blurry or even invisible.

Hence I'm not quite comfortable with putting together a formula for FTE stuff outside of simple comparisons (like motorcyclists or skydivers). Saying anything that isn't camouflaged will be seen if it's within the 2° of our best vision for more than 1/30s of a second is making the calculation without considering our brain's influence. That's the part I don't think we can overcome unless we find actual scientific research that just has a formula in it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out DontTalk. So what do you think that we should do here?