- 17,025
- 22,860
Lightning doesn’t make that sound
-
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
- 5,418
- 1,768
Lightning doesn't exist.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #123
Calc will be up when it is up.
Regarding the pixelscaling; I think that the reason there is a small discripency between the "front and back" of the pillar in this shot, is because we're actually seeing two different sides of the pillar.
Looking at the pillar in this shot, we can see that the "front" of the pillar appears shorter because of the dome of the roof compared to the back of the pillar.
So I think that the current pixelscaling I've got that should still work.
Regarding the pixelscaling; I think that the reason there is a small discripency between the "front and back" of the pillar in this shot, is because we're actually seeing two different sides of the pillar.
Looking at the pillar in this shot, we can see that the "front" of the pillar appears shorter because of the dome of the roof compared to the back of the pillar.
So I think that the current pixelscaling I've got that should still work.
- 5,418
- 1,768
The shots are exactly the same, since we see the two other pillars are in the same order. I remember Jvando bringing up an issue with that curve in the roof before and noted that it shouldn't be used, but I can't really remember his exact reasons.
Though at the moment, I'd just say we should get these calcs finished first, then we calc discuss it more when we decide which one to use.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #125
Agreed. Just wanted to bring it up so that it explains why I left that bit of the calc the same when I post the revised version.
- 5,418
- 1,768
Bump.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #127
I've posted both versions. Sent them off for evaluation. They'll probably be evaluated by the time I'm awake tomorrow. Will discuss any potential issues only after they've been evaluated.
- 10,277
- 17,268
2 Inches.Evaluate this
- 17,025
- 22,860
- 10,901
- 14,206
Holy shit, I can't believe this is finally happening. I honestly don't even care which version we go with, or what result we get in the end. I just wanna finally get a usable Kirin calc.
This might just motivate me to work on the Bijū scaling thread more.
- 15,278
- 15,442
Don’t do it, they don’t deserve it
- 10,901
- 14,206
- 1,143
- 818
- 15,278
- 15,442
- 7,978
- 1,309
Oh can ya show us?
- 10,901
- 14,206
- 32,780
- 37,958
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #140
The full height is compressed; it's just that the average distance travelled by the material is equivalent to half the height of it. I explained it to Wrath up above.
- 10,901
- 14,206
Could you evaluate the calcs by any chance? Sorry, I know we've been asking a lot of you lately, but unfortunately not that many people are even willing to look at Naruto stuff.
- 10,901
- 14,206
Yuh, we basically divided by 8.
First half the value to account for Amaterasu, then divide by 4 because Sasuke used 4 Katons.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #146
Honestly not sure about that method for finding the AP of the Katons. What was the exact reasoning for that against?
- 10,901
- 14,206
It was accepted in this thread. In any case, this really isn't the thread for it.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #148
Agreed.
Both of my versions of the calc have been accepted by Mitch. I'll prepare a response to the sizes topic.
- 17,025
- 22,860
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #150
@Arc7Kuroi; you of all people know that people are allowed to change their minds on here.
- 17,025
- 22,860
- 17,025
- 22,860
Having looked at both calcs, I’ll give my opinion on which I think is more accurate and why.
Personally, I believe the second version is best as it keeps the pixel scaling to a single panel, eliminating as much panel to panel art inconsistency as possible. Additionally, it makes use of the accepted Kirin cloud height that comes from an ang size based on the canon distance statement from Hinata.
On the other hand, the first calc has more margin for error as it pixel scales across multiple panels. But more importantly the image used to find the wall height uses a super tiny image of Sasuke, which I find particularly meh because that undetailed Sasuke is more likely to have proportion inconsistencies than a closer up counter part. This issue solely exists within the first calc and isn’t present at all in the second calc.
Otherwise the methods for finding AP are the exact same. So, since the second calc offers far less opportunities for errors from inconsistencies with pixel scaling than the first calc does, I believe the second calc is objectively superior.
Personally, I believe the second version is best as it keeps the pixel scaling to a single panel, eliminating as much panel to panel art inconsistency as possible. Additionally, it makes use of the accepted Kirin cloud height that comes from an ang size based on the canon distance statement from Hinata.
On the other hand, the first calc has more margin for error as it pixel scales across multiple panels. But more importantly the image used to find the wall height uses a super tiny image of Sasuke, which I find particularly meh because that undetailed Sasuke is more likely to have proportion inconsistencies than a closer up counter part. This issue solely exists within the first calc and isn’t present at all in the second calc.
Otherwise the methods for finding AP are the exact same. So, since the second calc offers far less opportunities for errors from inconsistencies with pixel scaling than the first calc does, I believe the second calc is objectively superior.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #153
@Arc7Kuroi; just want to quickly interject to say that the 2nd method technically uses two panels for pixelscaling. The first one to find the height of the clouds above the ground which is linked to at the beginning of the calc, and then the second one for finding the dimensions of the mountain.
Not disagreeing with your conclusion necessarily; just that the initial assessment is a little misleading.
Not disagreeing with your conclusion necessarily; just that the initial assessment is a little misleading.
speedster352
He/Him- 17,228
- 1,745
What is the ap of the two calcs?
- 17,025
- 22,860
Yeah I see what you mean I missed that link, my primary issue tho is with using midget Sasuke.
@speedster352 you can find and click the calc links in this thread or visit damages blog to find out the AP values.
- 5,418
- 1,768
To add onto arcs issues about consistency, I'd like to quote my previous issues I had as I don't think they were properly addressed. For the first point, the pillar has an inconsistent height between both of the scans used to px scale.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #157
I addressed this part up above. The front of the pillar appears smaller due to the rising of the roof. We can see this from the other angles too.
There are portions of the mountain that aren't accounted for in the volume anyway due to the stepped-nature of the mountain; this ought to balance out any missing bits with the pixelscaling that are cut off like with the text bubble to the side.
- 5,418
- 1,768
That doesn't work as we see they are the same size in the first image where Sasuke is standing on it.
- 29,762
- 24,784
- Thread starter
- #159
The front and the sides are not the same size.
- 5,418
- 1,768
I just px scaled both of them and got 311 for the back one and 313 for the front one.
- Status
