Large Size Calculation???

[Noneless21]

Okay let's cut to the chase here.

there's two entity here, there's entity A and entity B

Entity A is a baby sized (about 3 to 4 meters) bear-like quadrupedal beast like this




Entity B is an adult version of entity A (about 100 meters tall)

now entity A capable of beating entity B since entity A is a special kind from its species and I want to calculate how much AP does this entity B can yield

Yes I know there's a large size calculation page, but me smol brain can't even put 1+1 there so any help is appreciated

 

[Imaginym]

3 to 4 meters in which dimension?

In any case, if we only know the size, then we need mass. Things we can do involve finding the volume, or finding a real world creature that's analogous to the big fictional thing. Use square cube law & the difference between the fictional & real creature's size to determine multiplier to real world creature's mass (Per square cube law.), assume result as mass of fictional creature.

Now that you have mass, for kinetic energy, you would need velocity. How fast does this thing run or such? If it's not winning its fights by literally tackling its foe constantly, however, this may be irrelevant, IIRC, unless there's a demonstrated, canon instance of it doing a tackle to damage something or such.

If it isn't doing tackling/ramming, then it's probably via piercing/slashing, etc. which kinda makes measuring AP via size go out the window.

 

[Noneless21]

Thanks for replying, now onto the answer

3 to 4 meters in which dimension?

It's in length, but when the MC first saw the adult version of it, it was said to be as tall as the skyscraper in four legs so it's not exactly 100 meters tall

In any case, if we only know the size, then we need mass. Things we can do involve finding the volume, or finding a real world creature that's analogous to the big fictional thing. Use square cube law & the difference between the fictional & real creature's size to determine multiplier to real world creature's mass (Per square cube law.), assume result as mass of fictional creature.

Now that you have mass, for kinetic energy, you would need velocity. How fast does this thing run or such? If it's not winning its fights by literally tackling its foe constantly, however, this may be irrelevant, IIRC, unless there's a demonstrated, canon instance of it doing a tackle to damage something or such.

If it isn't doing tackling/ramming, then it's probably via piercing/slashing, etc. which kinda makes measuring AP via size go out the window.

now this, the beast's strongest attack is its breath, but it can tackle too but there's no further mention of its speed

 

[Imaginym]

Thanks for replying, now onto the answer

It's in length, but when the MC first saw the adult version of it, it was said to be as tall as the skyscraper in four legs so it's not exactly 100 meters tall

So, its height isn't known?

now this, the beast's strongest attack is its breath, but it can tackle too but there's no further mention of its speed

It can tackle, or it does tackle?

In theory, a speed (Like the average walking speed of a human or a bear or something, maybe.) COULD be assumed & AP via size could be gotten... but you'd still need mass, which, in this case, means getting a statement of mass, a basis for an assumption of its height, or a clear indicator of a real world species its analogous to to base its mass on using Square Cube Law.

I'm not Calc Group or such, so I'm not 100% sure what methods are valid & such, so hopefully some folks more knowledgeable can give their expertise on what means would be the most valid here.

 

[Noneless21]

So, its height isn't known?

The height is unknown, maybe the height when the MC saw it is skyscraper tall because this beast primarely walks on four limbs

It can tackle, or it does tackle?

it can tackle, it just that there's no further mention of its speed as the only appearance entity B it has, it immediately go with the breath

So, its height isn't known?

It can tackle, or it does tackle?

In theory, a speed (Like the average walking speed of a human or a bear or something, maybe.) COULD be assumed & AP via size could be gotten... but you'd still need mass, which, in this case, means getting a statement of mass, a basis for an assumption of its height, or a clear indicator of a real world species its analogous to to base its mass on using Square Cube Law.

I'm not Calc Group or such, so I'm not 100% sure what methods are valid & such, so hopefully some folks more knowledgeable can give their expertise on what means would be the most valid here.

Well this beast is more equivalent to a bear so can we use that as a comparison?

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

For large size characters is mostly used GPE as the own large size calculation page say, KE is only considered if we know the speed of the thing.

Find the real world animal more similar to that thing (based in the descriptions and image I guess), use that as base to get the mass/kg of the normal sized animal and use square cube law to get the mass/kg of the 100 meters sized version, then use that mass, along with center of gravity of the animal, to calc the GPE.

 

[Noneless21]

For large size characters is mostly used GPE as the own large size calculation page say, KE is only considered if we know the speed of the thing.

Find the real world animal more similar to that thing (based in the descriptions and image I guess), use that as base to get the mass/kg of the normal sized animal and use square cube law to get the mass/kg of the 100 meters sized version, then use that mass, along with center of gravity of the animal, to calc the GPE.

soooo, I guess this beast is similar to a bear then I guess i can use the weight of a bear as base? And since Polar Bear's length is 3 meters like this beast's lowball length, imma go with that. The Polar Bear weight will be around 350-700 kg according to Wikipedia, so 350 kg lowball and 700 kg highball, 525 midball

here is the pixel scaling by yours truly (It's a bit messy sorry)



so we have two different calculation for its height, on is for the front leg and the other one is for the back leg so...

Height with front leg: 342/650 * 3 meters = 1,578 meters
Height with back leg: 288/650 * 3 meters = 1,329 meters

not that far off in terms of height so I might go try both of these height

now, the surface area imma go based off this link (Imma use the metric one):

Based of front leg:
With lowball weight: SQRT([1578 * 350]/3600) = 12,3861 m^2
With midball weight: SQRT([1578 * 525]/3600) = 15,1699 m^2
With highball weight: SQRT([1578 * 700]/3600) = 17,5167 m^2

Based of back leg:
With lowball weight: SQRT([1329 * 350]/3600) = 11,3670 m^2
With midball weight: SQRT([1329 * 525]/3600) = 13,9217 m^2
With highball weight: SQRT([1329 * 700]/3600) = 16,0753 m^2

sooooo.... now what? how can I square cube law and find the mass/kg? Also, can this be used as basis of center of gravity?

 

[Rikimarox2]

Has said beast ever stood on its hind legs?

 

[Noneless21]

Has said beast ever stood on its hind legs?

Uhh... never..

I mean it should capable of that, but there's no instance of it actually happen

 

[Rikimarox2]

Well, that's gonna be a bit tricky since I'm not that knowledgeable on our standards.

But, assuming it can stand on its hind legs, and that it looks like a bear, then here's a low effort calc:

Average grizzly bear height is 2.7 meters according to Google, and it's weight can reach up to 315 kg, but 270 kg is seemingly the average, so we will use that.

Since the beast is 100 meters in length, it should be at the very least 100 meters as well if it stood on its hind legs (you can go higher but eh)

So, (100/2.7)^3 * 270 = 13717421.1248 kg for its weight.

GPE = 9.81 * 13717421.1248 * 50 = 6728395061.71 joules, or 1.6~ tons of tnt (8-C+).

 

[Noneless21]

Well, that's gonna be a bit tricky since I'm not that knowledgeable on our standards.

But, assuming it can stand on its hind legs, and that it looks like a bear, then here's a low effort calc:

Average grizzly bear height is 2.7 meters according to Google, and it's weight can reach up to 315 kg, but 270 kg is seemingly the average, so we will use that.

Since the beast is 100 meters in length, it should be at the very least 100 meters as well if it stood on its hind legs (you can go higher but eh)

So, (100/2.7)^3 * 270 = 13717421.1248 kg for its weight.

GPE = 9.81 * 13717421.1248 * 50 = 6728395061.71 joules, or 1.6~ tons of tnt (8-C+).

that's much simpler than I thought it would need to be but thanks!

it is said that it was as tall as a skyscraper so 100 meters is about right as a lowball I presume

 

[Rikimarox2]

Wait so, we aren't given an actual height, just that it was as tall as a skyscraper on its hind legs? Because skyscraper according to Google can be 100 or 150 meters, so you can get two ends here.

 

[Noneless21]

Wait so, we aren't given an actual height, just that it was as tall as a skyscraper on its hind legs? Because skyscraper according to Google can be 100 or 150 meters, so you can get two ends here.

the first time entity B show up it was described to be as tall as a skyscraper and I don't remember if there's any actual value given so maybe

so given the high end borrowing your calculation:

(150/2.7)^3 * 270 = 46296296.3 kg

GPE = 9.81 * 46296296.3 * 50 = 22708333335.15 joule (about 5.43 tons of tnt) or High 8-C

that's a pretty big jump

 

[Rikimarox2]

Should actually be:

9.81 * 46296296.3 * 75 since the 50 I got from halving the height of the creature. So half of 150 is 75.

So, the result will be 8.14 tons of tnt (High 8-C+)

 

[Noneless21]

Should actually be:

9.81 * 46296296.3 * 75 since the 50 I got from halving the height of the creature. So half of 150 is 75.

So, the result will be 8.14 tons of tnt (High 8-C+)

Ah, even better then what i got, very noice

 

[Noneless21]

scratch that, I finally found the exact value but not really, and it was indeed 100 meters, but they can go over that ofc so maybe the best bet is using the first calc

 

[Rikimarox2]

Yknow the more I think about it, the more I'm iffy about the calc. Like, you stated that it was as tall as a skyscraper on its four legs? That means it's length is probably way higher.

 

[Noneless21]

Yknow the more I think about it, the more I'm iffy about the calc. Like, you stated that it was as tall as a skyscraper on its four legs? That means it's length is probably way higher.

it's a bit iffy, especially when this beast primarily walk on its four legs, though they do capable of using their front paws efficiently like a bear

 

[Rikimarox2]

Can you send the statement?

 

[Noneless21]

It's less of a statement and more of a showcase their usage

It's from this showcase

Well if this is not enough then we pretty much go back to square one

 

[Rikimarox2]

No I meant, the statement of this creature being skyscraper size.

 

[Noneless21]

No I meant, the statement of this creature being skyscraper size.

Oh... well,

Screenshot-20221023-060434 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-20221023-060434 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

This link is a scan to over 100 meters in growth

Screenshot-20221023-060331 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-20221023-060331 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

While this link is a scan to skyscraper statement

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

soooo, I guess this beast is similar to a bear then

... How? Likem seriously, how are they remotely similar? Because pretty sure bears don't have horns or tails that long. If I'm forced to say an animal similar the more close thing I can thing would be a bison.

Also, since the 100 meters statement is refering about length then you only need to calc with the length of the similar animal.

So: (Weight of smaller object) * (Length of larger object/length of smaller object)^3 = Weight of larger object

Using the value of a European bison (since I think the creature is sightly more similar to a European bison than an american one, on top of the European bison having lower numbers than the american one so it can work as a low ball)

(1,000kg) * (100m/2.9m)^3 = 41,002,091.1066kg

Potential energy = mass*9.81*height of center of gravity

Based on the skyscraper statement and wikipedia definition of 100 to 150 meters, going with the 100 meters end would be:

Potential energy = 41,002,091.1066kg * 9.81m/s2 * 100m = 40,223,051,375.62 Joules or 9.61 tons (High 8-C+)

However if you find an real animal more similar to the thing then use that as reference.

 

[Noneless21]

... How? Likem seriously, how are they remotely similar? Because pretty sure bears don't have horns or tails that long. If I'm forced to say an animal similar the more close thing I can thing would be a bison.

Also, since the 100 meters statement is refering about length then you only need to calc with the length of the similar animal.

So: (Weight of smaller object) * (Length of larger object/length of smaller object)^3 = Weight of larger object

Using the value of a European bison (since I think the creature is sightly more similar to a European bison than an american one, on top of the European bison having lower numbers than the american one so it can work as a low ball)

(1,000kg) * (100m/2.9m)^3 = 41,002,091.1066kg

Potential energy = mass*9.81*height of center of gravity

Based on the skyscraper statement and wikipedia definition of 100 to 150 meters, going with the 100 meters end would be:

Potential energy = 41,002,091.1066kg * 9.81m/s2 * 100m = 40,223,051,375.62 Joules or 9.61 tons (High 8-C+)

However if you find an real animal more similar to the thing then use that as reference.

i thought it was closer to a dog bear hybrid tbh so i was gonna use that as a reference

 

[Noneless21]

Bump...

It'll be great if there's CGM responds...

 

[Noneless21]

Bump

 

[Noneless21]

bump

 

[Noneless21]

bump