Juubi Tenpenchii Calc Major Problems

[Damage3245]

I think it's the other way around.

Their crater came first, so the Tenpenchii crater should be smaller and located within their crater.

 

[Dariel_Senju]

I'm not sure about that. I'll take a look for some more widespread shots of the area.

Here: https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11121/111210761/4591973-5990824026-45913.jpg

 

[Dariel_Senju]

I think it's the other way around.

Their crater came first, so the Tenpenchii crater should be smaller and located within their crater.

No lol, the smaller crater was also made by the Tenpenchii, there it concentrated more destruction so it is deeper.

 

[MostPowerfull]

Inconsistent drawings are famous in Naruto.
We have several drawings that are inconsistent with what was shown after, during or before ... The very size of Bijus, Meteors, Susano'os and etc ... Basically anything that is colossal in size, usually already suffer inconsistencies.
Even Gamabunta himself ... The same had been comparable to the Shukaku in size in Part 1, which was stupidly large, but was claimed to be 17m (or 20m), being much larger than several trees.

I am neutral, but much more inclined to disagree with downgrades based on commonly inconsistent arts.

 

[IMadeThisOn8-1-2017]

With inconsistent drawings I prefer statements, but Naruto doesnt have much.

I still side with Damage however, the art being consistent means I'd favor a safe and more reasonable. Plus, it more consistently seems small than large as previously calc'd. Gaara's statement of the Shinju roots being only a few kilometers away also gives me more belief to support a smaller size.

 

[MostPowerfull]

Suggest miles by itself, does not say anything ... Unless you say that the roots of Shinju have a maximum of 9km, which is ridiculous (And does not go well with Shinju and its roots can be seen by the curvature of the planet, if not I'm wrong!), the statement is simply inconsistent, as is the whole drawing.

I am still neutral and I will see all the arguments, but for the time being, it seems to me a redundant argument and it will not get anywhere.

 

[1997KD]

Bump, this it even gets concluded?

 

[Damage3245]

I made an updated version of the calc used to get the crater size which was accepted. And most people seem to be in favour of updating the old calc, though nothing has happened yet.

I'll see what I can do to a make a new version of the Tenpenchii calc and I'll post the results here when I get it evaluated.

 

[1997KD]

Ok, that enough for now