- 366
- 20
Based on this new calculatio..
-
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.
Frieza Downgrade (Forms 1-4)
- Thread starter Gallavant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dragon ball frieza
- Status
- 10,051
- 9,311
Hmm, what was wrong with the old calc?
- 282
- 30
Yeah I agree with this calc far more
- 282
- 30
they had the same result actually its just the old calc for some reason added a vaporazation result even though it was clearly fragmentation why does the wiki use the vaporazation result when its clearly fragmentationPietro Maximoff said:
- 10,051
- 9,311
Ah OK, then I support this one then
- 167,703
- 76,303
Hmm. It would cause us lots of trouble to rescale most of the Dragon Ball characters again, so I am not enthusiastic, but you can ask the current calculation group members, along with Alakabamm and RavenSupreme, to take a look at if this seems accurate.
- 2,773
- 126
Interesting. 0.1 is quite small I guess. Lets see what the calc team thinks
- 11,582
- 549
This is what i assume to be a big change of sorts to all the characters from the Namek Saga and beyond, eh?
- 11,582
- 549
- 493
- 38
- 493
- 38
If you click the link the video should be downloaded.It's a download link.
- 493
- 38
- 2,512
- 261
Ok so look at the picture on the right:
At the top after 3 frames.
At the middle after 10 frames.
At the bottom after 24 frames.
3 frames is what we currently have for a value. 10 frames is still the same attack potency level (11 probably work as well). 24 frames is what the new calc suggests.
So for one thing the majority of the mass is already completly off screen we only see relatively small bits still flying around in the first two pictures. In the third we see none flying around. But those few pieces difference in itself aren't such a big amount that it would change the calc in my opinion.
Furthermore if one looks closely one will notice that the parts going to the right are already off-screen. The only planet parts still on screen didn't go straight to the side, but at the POV. The distance to the POV is different than the distance to the side of the screen.
So all in all I would think small star level is the more appropiate result, with dwarf star level being more of a low end.
At the top after 3 frames.
At the middle after 10 frames.
At the bottom after 24 frames.
3 frames is what we currently have for a value. 10 frames is still the same attack potency level (11 probably work as well). 24 frames is what the new calc suggests.
So for one thing the majority of the mass is already completly off screen we only see relatively small bits still flying around in the first two pictures. In the third we see none flying around. But those few pieces difference in itself aren't such a big amount that it would change the calc in my opinion.
Furthermore if one looks closely one will notice that the parts going to the right are already off-screen. The only planet parts still on screen didn't go straight to the side, but at the POV. The distance to the POV is different than the distance to the side of the screen.
So all in all I would think small star level is the more appropiate result, with dwarf star level being more of a low end.
- 11,582
- 549
Yeah, it's getting really annoying having to look at the pages being re-edited based on new things like this. I know that that's what we're kind of supposed to do but sometimes it get's ridonkulous, man~
- 366
- 20
- Thread starter
- #23
The calc assumes
-that we know the structure of the planet
-that the layers of a planet with odd impossible gravity all have the same density
-that the deeper and therefore denser parts of the planet weren't vaporized and as part of the explosio
-that the scattering rocks were the only things that had mass
Using the expansion speed (See second method) of the attack's explosion itself is far less assumptive.
-that we know the structure of the planet
-that the layers of a planet with odd impossible gravity all have the same density
-that the deeper and therefore denser parts of the planet weren't vaporized and as part of the explosio
-that the scattering rocks were the only things that had mass
Using the expansion speed (See second method) of the attack's explosion itself is far less assumptive.
- 2,773
- 126
Me and Lordaizen can do it for you, if it's a bother. I don't mind, and I don't think LAS would eitherAntvasima said:
- 2,512
- 261
It is a low end, but I don't think one can properly quantify how much higher than this it actually is. At least not to a relevant degree (working against gravity could be considered, but wouldn't make the value much higher)
It might be best to get input from the other calc members to make sure we have to rescale (and if we do that it is the last time), but I think we probably have to.
It might be best to get input from the other calc members to make sure we have to rescale (and if we do that it is the last time), but I think we probably have to.
- 167,703
- 76,303
Okay. I talked with Lord Kavpeny about this, and he says that he is able to rescale the Dragon Ball characters depending on the outcome, and Faisal says that he and Aizen can do the practical changes, so I suppose that it is alright.
- 2,631
- 130
OK, I took the liberty of breaking it down into frames myself (20 FPS) and the attached image is what I get for 3 frames (0.15 seconds). That lines up with what I saw in the original calc so I'm fine with that.
Frankly, I don't understand why we would use a higher timespan that this in calculating the mass ***********. If you are freaking out about the core of the planet. the core doesn't disappear even during the end of the clip itself, so there is no way to account for that. If we are considering just the little balls of light to be the majority of the planet's mass, most of them have completely left by the 3 frame interval.
I saw the new lowball version of the speed on the other calc, but I think that it is playing with depth a little too much because it intentionally picks a ball of light on the upper part of the screen. Also, having checked a bunch of the frames, I can confirm that a lot of those balls of light don't appear to move at all (which is inconsistent, likely a result of animation quality and suggests that using the balls of light for speed is inaccurate).
As for the gas *********** velocity, I think I am okay with it, but it is definitely a lowball.
Frankly, I don't understand why we would use a higher timespan that this in calculating the mass ***********. If you are freaking out about the core of the planet. the core doesn't disappear even during the end of the clip itself, so there is no way to account for that. If we are considering just the little balls of light to be the majority of the planet's mass, most of them have completely left by the 3 frame interval.
I saw the new lowball version of the speed on the other calc, but I think that it is playing with depth a little too much because it intentionally picks a ball of light on the upper part of the screen. Also, having checked a bunch of the frames, I can confirm that a lot of those balls of light don't appear to move at all (which is inconsistent, likely a result of animation quality and suggests that using the balls of light for speed is inaccurate).
As for the gas *********** velocity, I think I am okay with it, but it is definitely a lowball.
- 576
- 17
we never use FPS for timeframes, luckily we can compare to natural space explosions like supernova's and the like and see what we get, its not perfect but its better then FPS...
- 167,703
- 76,303
Well, DontTalk wrote a Cinematic Time page for these types of situations, but I don't remember if it mentioned frames per seconds.
- 3,077
- 121
I asked Kkapois once and he said it's still cinematic time so it probably shouldn't be used. I agree with Illuminati.
- 3,077
- 121
I see.
- 4,268
- 284
so are we using 1.7 tenaton base frieza?
keep in mind 50 percent frieza is approx 20 x kaoiken post zenkai goku
so 100 percent frieza is 40 x post zenkai goku
so even if we assume post zenkai goku = 3 x base frieza (which is not that much of a gap)
final form frieza will be like star level
so ssj goku to ssj trunks can be star level+
and andorids 17 and 18 can be explicitely star + to low end large star via powerscaling
keep in mind 50 percent frieza is approx 20 x kaoiken post zenkai goku
so 100 percent frieza is 40 x post zenkai goku
so even if we assume post zenkai goku = 3 x base frieza (which is not that much of a gap)
final form frieza will be like star level
so ssj goku to ssj trunks can be star level+
and andorids 17 and 18 can be explicitely star + to low end large star via powerscaling
- Status
Similar threads
