- 11,956
- 16,602
Not to rush you or anything, but how's this going?
-
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.
Kirin AP Discussion
- Thread starter Damage3245
- Start date
- Status
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #82
I can post a draft/example calc very soon tonight. Would probably still need a bit of refining afterwards but it would work to show the method.
- 5,460
- 1,861
Colored images should be used instead as the are far higher in quality and are better for PX scaling.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #85
That depends on where you get the images from. There might be higher resolution ones out there, but not on the site I usually use.
- 11,956
- 16,602
Wrath has high quality colored scans iirc, so he can give whatever you need.
- 5,460
- 1,861
I do have the color images
- 5,460
- 1,861
I'd also like to propose using the cloud height scaling as well.
- 11,956
- 16,602
Well, could you lay out the argument so that CGMs, staff, and knowledgeable members can properly evaluate it.
Also I presume that the CGMs should take a look at Damage's version, right?
- 5,460
- 1,861
These are my arguments for the cloud scaling;
According to my calculation, the clouds created by Sasuke are 936.21728395 m above the Uchiha Mountain. As we can see in this image, the clouds that Sasuke created with his Fire Style jutsu are not far above the hideout as we directly see Kirin coming directly out of the clouds. In the shot of Kirin destroying the Mountain, we see the tail end of the lightning bolt which also supports it being around the calculated distance above the mountain. My last image of support is of the far away shot of the destroyed mountain, we can clearly see the clouds at the top of the screen showing its relative distance above the mountain. I think we could also get a more accurate calc using Kirin as the basis and calcing its distance from the ground and just subtracting that from the cloud height to het the Mountain height, but I'll wait for others to give their views.
- 11,956
- 16,602
Well, I think that makes sense. We get a lot of shots where the cloud seems pretty close to the mountain/hideout.
Edit: and yeah, it's canonically supported like Arc said.
Edit: and yeah, it's canonically supported like Arc said.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #93
I'll make an alternate version to include that as well, though I'm not committed to fully switching over to that yet.
- 5,460
- 1,861
Also, if you need color image, just let me know and i can post them here.
- 5,460
- 1,861
So i don't really think it's necessary for you to remake the calc again as i also have my version of the calc and I'd rather not have you have us wait a few weeks then end up quitting on us again.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #96
We don't have to wait weeks. Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I was distracted from the thread. If you can post the color images, please do so and I'll see if they're better than what I have.
- 5,460
- 1,861
Here are all of the colored images used in your calc. If you need anymore, just let me know.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #98
Thank you. I'll have both versions of the alternate calc posted by tonight so that it can be evaluated and we can move on with the discussion of this thread.
- 11,956
- 16,602
Well, that's exciting.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #100
Draft version of the 2nd calc is done, but I want to double-check something before creating them. KLOL used average density of soil for his calc and Wrath of Itachi used density of stone. Which value are we going with?
- 5,460
- 1,861
What was the reason for soil? I used stone due to the fact that's the value we typically use for mountains and that's what it's described as along with no indication of it being made of soil.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Mostly because my google searches showed soil density to be of similar metric to rock.
But given from the visuals (Both the black-and-white and colored scans), the mountains have very little to no soil to begin with, almost all are solid rock pieces
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #104
Okay, I will adjust the calc accordingly.
- 5,460
- 1,861
Any update?
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #106
Calc is being updated. I'm changing the volume too so that it uses a Truncated Cone like your calc instead of the Cone it was previously. That combined with the updated density figure ought to result in an upgrade.
Initially I was thinking about a bit of hollowness being taken into account for the mountain volume since the sides of it are more like steps rather than the solid sides of a Truncated Cone. But I can't think of any reasonable value to apply for that, so it might not be worth including in the calc.
- 5,460
- 1,861
I know for sure where Itachi and Sasuke fought is hollow, but I'm not sure about the actual mountain itself as I was never really able to find anything on it.
We're you able to also update the scans used with the color images?
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #108
The color images don't appear to be a higher resolution than the black & white images tbh, but I think I'll switch over to them anyway just in case they help make things clearer for anyone viewing the calc.
EDIT: Monday is the busiest day of the week for me, but I'll see if I can have both updated calcs posted tomorrow.
Last edited:
- 5,460
- 1,861
Any update on the calcs?
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #110
Working on them now - but it is currently also the hottest day of the year so I'm just dying sitting in front of my PC, making it difficult to focus.
- 5,460
- 1,861
That's rough, don't kill yourself over it, the calc will still be there when it's cooler.
- 6,261
- 6,582
Used to be me in college
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #113
Aye, it'll be better off later tonight though, so I'll work on it more then when it's cooler.
I also double-checked and the colored scans are actually even worse in resolution than I thought compared to the B&W scans, so I'll stick with them. Need to re-do some of the pixelscaling.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #114
- 5,460
- 1,861
Few issues with this calc.
1.) Your scaling in this image doesn't line up with how you scaled in this image as you used the back of the pillar instead of the front like you used in the fist picture.
2.) In this image you stopped scaling, but we can clearly see there is far more to the mountain that you decided not to account for. The diameter is also longer as well, which the text bubble seems to be in the way of.
3.) "The average distance that the column of the mountain was compressed downwards would be half the height of the mountain." I'm just curious where exactly this reasoning come from.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #116
In the first image there doesn't appear to be any difference between the front and the back of the pillar. The 2nd image might be a bit inconsistent with that, but I'll re-adjust the scaling to go just from the back end for both images if that will hlep.
We can't see the rest of the base clearly in that image so I stopped at the text bubble to be safe. The height of the mountain is stopped at the top due to the angle from which the mountain is viewed.
Average material distribution in the column; the bottom half of the column is travelling a distance less than halfway the height of the column, the top half of the column is travelling a distance more than halfway of the column. Essentially the two balance out and the midpoint is halfway, so the average distance travelled for the total mass is equal to half the height.
- 5,460
- 1,861
That would very much help as the back half isn't drawn equally to the front half
The diameter portion is fine, but i very much disagree with the height portion, we can clearly see from all the images of the mountain that they extend lower into the ground. If anything we can see that at least half of the bottom is covered by trees, se we can calc what's shown and then just double it for a more accurate result.
This makes sense, was just curious with the justification behind it.
- 31,580
- 28,031
- Thread starter
- #118
Unable to do any work on it tonight.
Will make the new changes to it tomorrow, for both of them.
Will make the new changes to it tomorrow, for both of them.
- 5,460
- 1,861
Bump.
- Status
Similar threads
