Does this calculation need Planet Curvature Scaling?

[ShionAH]

Below Heaven - Made in Hell

vsbattles.fandom.com

As such one should usually not use planet curvature scaling unless the point of view is from high above the planet. It should be in space, outside of the earth's atmosphere.

We are far outside the planet's atmosphere, the planet is so far that in our POV is even tiny, no way is the atmosphere or pollutants obstructing our view at that distance.

Yet two CGMs believe we need it, could someone explain or give insight? Do we need PCS for the KE end too?

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

Yeah I know lots of DB calcs where the pov is even closer to the Planet and we don't use PCS for em

 

[Floxy178]

It'll hardly make any difference but yeah.

We are far outside the planet's atmosphere, the planet is so far that in our POV is even tiny, no way is the atmosphere or pollutants obstructing our view at that distance.

That's correct. The sentence you linked also supports using PC for it. So what's the problem here?

 

[ShionAH]

So what's the problem here?

Yeah I know lots of DB calcs where the pov is even closer to the Planet and we don't use PCS for em

I guess this type of stuff

 

[Floxy178]

I guess this type of stuff

It'd be better if there's any case where using PC is suggested but rejected. This instance seems more like forgetting to use it.

Why do y'all think that we shouldn't use Planet Curvature when planet is fully visible in the first place? Is there any reason for it except "this calc doesn't use it"?

 

[ShionAH]

Why do y'all think that we shouldn't use Planet Curvature when planet is fully visible in the first place? Is there any reason for it except "this calc doesn't use it"?

I don't know much about PCS, this was created to get a clarification

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

It'd be better if there's any case where using PC is suggested but rejected. This instance seems more like forgetting to use it.

Why do y'all think that we shouldn't use Planet Curvature when planet is fully visible in the first place? Is there any reason for it except "this calc doesn't use it"?

According to @SeijiSetto apparently you'd only get a change of like 5% when the planet takes up half the PoV, in this case it doesn't even take a 10th of the screen, wouldn't PCS, literally change nothing?

 

[Floxy178]

According to @SeijiSetto apparently you'd only get a change of like 5% when the planet takes up half the PoV, in this case it doesn't even take a 10th of the screen, wouldn't PCS, literally change nothing?

Yeah? I literally said:

It'll hardly make any difference

It's just It was argued in comments of blog that when planet is fully visible, you can't use the formula, which is obviously wrong, you can apply it to object covering 1/100 of the screen if you want to for example.

I wouldn't push for using PCS here personally, but disagreement was not because "difference is negligible", but "PCS is not for celestial bodies fully visible". I needed to clear the confusion.

 

[ShionAH]

I wouldn't push for using PCS here personally, but disagreement was not because "difference is negligible", but "PCS is not for celestial bodies fully visible". I needed to clear the confusion.

So can you evaluate the calculation maybe? I am dying to get this accepted

 

[Floxy178]

So can you evaluate the calculation maybe? I am dying to get this accepted

Using rel KE directly seems acceptable (omnidirectional one won't work) so I'd say KE end is fine.

 

[Anonymous_Learner]

Using rel KE directly seems acceptable (omnidirectional one won't work) so I'd say KE end is fine.

So wait, which end of the calc works?

 

[Floxy178]

So wait, which end of the calc works?

Last one

 

[Anonymous_Learner]

ok then, Rela and 5-B it is

 

[ShionAH]

Last one

Thank you GOAT

 

[DarkLock92]

Last one

Is the part that calcs the speed of the beam valid? From what I understand the Rela+ value only concerns the shockwave created by the beam when it hits the shield.