- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #161
If you mean revise the method that all cloud calcs in general use, I can't think of an ideal solution to that currently so we're stuck with what we've got.
-
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.
My Hero Academia: Star and Stripe Calc Issue
- Thread starter Damage3245
- Start date
- Status
- 13,119
- 20,830
AW HELL NAH I HAD TO REFRESH THE PAGE AND IT JUST ANNIHILATED MY ENTIRE RESPONSE, GODDAMMIT
Welp, time to start all over again
Welp, time to start all over again
- 17,148
- 26,857
- 13,119
- 20,830
Alright, take two fellas, I hate it here
Plus, even if it doesn't exactly mimic what the cloud split appears to have become in chapter 332, the fact remains that any amount of time passing between the split happening and those panels makes them less accurate for the simple fact that clouds would have filled up the hole to some (even a small) degree. It's why we calculate cloud splits from the moment they happen: because any later instance immediately becomes less accurate the more time passes.
As for Shigaraki, the very fact that there's a downward facing shockwave (along with where he ends up compared to where he was before) is enough proof that he was launched with such a force, as shockwaves of this nature carry a force to them.
I must also stress that just because it's more assumptions, that doesn't make it inherently worse, especially if the version that requires less assumptions is inherently less accurate for other reasons.
Wouldn't the clouds at the edges also be a part of this? They're not within the vacuum, so they're not as affected, and they're right next to the vacuum. In addition, the air would not be blocking the movement of the clouds, as the clouds are much denser (being both air and condensed water compared to just air). If anything, the air would start to get pushed by the clouds.I've been doing some more thinking regarding this point and I realized that the argument you're trying to use here actually goes against your position, not in favor of it.
To explain what I mean, this is how the clouds would be modelled as using the measurements of the calc, prior to the cloud split taking place:
Both the cloud thickness, diameter and distance above the ocean below it are to scale with the calc (except obviously it'd be a disc, not a line).
And here is what it would look like after the cloud split with the white section denoting the vacuum that is created and the grey at the edges being the cloud that was pushed outward:
Do you see an issue with this?
The air would start flowing inward from the closest and least affected volumes of air, in other words above and below the cloud split. The clouds are on the edges of the split; even though some air would be flowing back inwards from the edges, that isn't going to cause the cloud split above to look like this in a matter of seconds or this in a matter of a minute at most.
The air flowing back in from everywhere else that isn't the sides would occupy the space and prevent the clouds from rushing back in that far.
So this argument cannot be used against the later visuals of the clouds, because even with that rationale the clouds will not be in the position that they're shown to be.
Plus, even if it doesn't exactly mimic what the cloud split appears to have become in chapter 332, the fact remains that any amount of time passing between the split happening and those panels makes them less accurate for the simple fact that clouds would have filled up the hole to some (even a small) degree. It's why we calculate cloud splits from the moment they happen: because any later instance immediately becomes less accurate the more time passes.
How is it purely conjectural? Take Chapter 330 for instance. She launches herself at Shigaraki from a fighter jet, punches him, then lands on another that didn't appear to already be there. Also, to further highlight my previously sent scans on this matter. She jumps while also telling the jets to evade, so all of them are moving, yet they catch her landing just fine afterwards (again, Chapter 330). This shows comparability between Star's speed and the speed of the jets, which makes it very possible for them to be constantly catching her and moving her and all that.
As for Shigaraki, the very fact that there's a downward facing shockwave (along with where he ends up compared to where he was before) is enough proof that he was launched with such a force, as shockwaves of this nature carry a force to them.
I must also stress that just because it's more assumptions, that doesn't make it inherently worse, especially if the version that requires less assumptions is inherently less accurate for other reasons.
I don't find this to be entirely addressed, nor does the objection hold any less weight. There is no denying the fact that any shot after the immediate split will be inherently less accurate because clouds will be receding back into place, even if it's not the most accurately reflected in the art (and I don't really consider it fair to expect mangakas to get stuff like this perfectly, 100% correct when they're on a deadline and such).
- 13,119
- 20,830
No I will continue to do things the way I've been doing them and will continue to be punished for itGoogle docs is a wonderful thing my friend
Save it there next time
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #166
Thanks for responding. I'll be on holiday until the 28th so will make my response after then.
Last edited:
- 13,119
- 20,830
Aight. Works for me because by the end of this coming week I should be done with the majority of my finals
- 1,270
- 443
Good Luck
- 17,148
- 26,857
Bumpity
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #170
Thanks. My holiday kinda knocked all the plans I had around. I'll make some time for this between arguing about One Piece and One-Punch Man, haha.
- 17,148
- 26,857
Its all good fam, ik there's a lot of revisions going on with both of those verses
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #172
What clouds on the edges? The clouds on the edges are taken into account on the diagram. I don't understand what you mean by the air being pushed by the clouds here. It's not like all clouds currently are pushing all air around them out of the way.
What time passing exactly? A matter of seconds by my estimate between the cloud split and the next shot of the clouds in Chapter 331.
On the other hand though, the jets are clearly much slower than Shigaraki himself since he can jump between them as stepping stones without them being able to evade them, which would also make them much slower than Star and Stripe.
The jets aren't demonstrably consistent enough to be reliable here as support for the outlier calc.
Consisting of more assumptions is inherently worse in terms of reliability.
I don't think there has been sufficient proof given that the clouds have started receding back into place in the first place to be honest. You're assuming that on the panel where the cloud split took place, that the clouds have already stopped moving at that point and are on the verge of reversing direction and flowing back inwards. I don't think by visuals of a still image alone that assumption can be conclusively proven.
I think Clover that if you look at the diagram of the clouds I've given you, based on the values of the calc that you're in favor of, you can see that the depiction of the clouds according to the calc does not line up with any visual in the manga. The calc is just wrong because it is relyong on conflicting visuals simultaneously in order to work.
- 13,119
- 20,830
Will look through this and respond once I get the chance
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #174
There's no rush. Really I should have posted this a few days ago but I got hung up on other things.
- 13,119
- 20,830
Let me break down what my thought process is:
- You said that air would begin to fill the vacuum from the closest and least affected volume, which you said would be above and below the vacuum. However, this would also be from the clouds present on the left and right of the vacuum. Hence, the clouds would begin to recede back into place.
- Air is less dense than clouds. Air is just... air, whereas cloud is also composed from water droplets, with water being significantly denser than air. So both the air from above and below, and the clouds from the left and right are filling this vacuum. As such, they'll collide due to trying to occupy the same space. When two objects collide, one will overpower the other unless the forces are equal. As such, it's very reasonable to say that the force of the clouds will overpower the force of the air due to the significantly higher density, which would push the air away in favor of the clouds. The air would then spread to somewhere else.
What you need to understand that even if it's seconds, any amount of time passing makes anything besides the shot of the feat happening less accurate by default.
That's time in which the clouds have begun to recede back into place. And with each second that passes, the split becomes less and less accurate compared to the moment the split occurred.
Yeah no, this isn't as "clear" as you're say it is. The fighter jets are also able to shake Shigaraki off of them with a barrel roll maneuver before he could react. And to address this potential counter before it comes, he didn't jump off. Him saying "close one" after landing on the High-End indicates that he was actually shaken off.
I'd have to disagree. It depends on the veracity of each assumption being made. I'd say five logical assumptions can be more reliable combined than one illogical one.
In this case, your assumption uses an inherently less accurate shot of the split due to the clouds receding. To me, that's a worse assumption to make, even if it's using less assumptions.
There's leeway here because the still image is also showing the shockwave that caused the split to begin with. Speaking of assumptions as well, it's presumptuous to assume they haven't started moving at all given the number of events that happen between the clap and Keraunos. Clouds move very fast, as we've established. In addition, clouds move due to the wind, so once the wind of the clap has stopped, the wind of the surroundings would begin to push it.
This is another case of an assumption you're making that I find to be faulty.
I thought we'd gone over this whole "not lining up with any other visual in the manga" thing. The shot that focuses on the feat as it happens, to me, should take precedence over other shots where it's not the focus and/or needs to account for other things being present. Not to mention that any shot of the split after it occurs, as I mentioned before, becomes less and less accurate the more pages it is after the feat itself due to that just being more time for the clouds to recede.
I've looked at the diagram you've given me. I'm still convinced of my stance on this matter.
- 17,148
- 26,857
Guys can we get a final tally and wrap this thing up?
Everyone has given their arguments it'll just be circular if neither side will be convinced
Everyone has given their arguments it'll just be circular if neither side will be convinced
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #177
I'll get a response up to Clover tonight or tomorrow. I think there's been a misunderstanding of one of my points.
- 13,119
- 20,830
That’s my biggest concern here. Nothing’s actually changed tally-wise so we’d just be going in circles
- 17,148
- 26,857
Yup like its been far too long at this point for most people to still be in agreeance with the first version of the calc granted I'm not really particular here on a specifc version at this point I'm just ready for this to be wrapped up
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #180
As far as I'm aware the first version of the calc is no longer being proposed and Clover had been arguing in favour of a different version of the calc.
- 17,148
- 26,857
Ah right I forgot there was a recalc that people agreed with, apologies its been too long
- 13,119
- 20,830
As far as using the shot in which the feat itself happens goes, there’s been agreement on using that from me, Mitch, TheRustyOne, Therefir, and I believe Dalesean and M3X
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #183
There's a lot more to the calc than just that, but I'll cover it when I do my full response to your above post.
- 13,119
- 20,830
That’s fine. In the meantime, I’ll look through the thread to see who agrees with what
- 13,119
- 20,830
Okay so looking through the thread, the High 6-C calc that I'm currently arguing for is made by Therefir and is supported by TheRustyOne, Dalesean, and myself. Mitch and M3X have expressed their support for using the panel in which the feat happens, but haven't commented on the calc itself (M3X commented on it when it was 7-A+ but hasn't responded after it was changed to High 6-C following an error in the calc)
@DemonGodMitchAubin @M3X_2.0 Since you two have contributed to the thread earlier, do you think you could check out this calc?
@DemonGodMitchAubin @M3X_2.0 Since you two have contributed to the thread earlier, do you think you could check out this calc?
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #186
@Dalesean027 Can you re-confirm whether that version of the calc mentioned above is the one that you think is most correct?
Because I'm trying to work on a summary as part of my response and I want to ensure that there's just the one version of the calc that I have to disprove here.
Because I'm trying to work on a summary as part of my response and I want to ensure that there's just the one version of the calc that I have to disprove here.
- 17,148
- 26,857
These are the ones I favor I suppose
My Hero Academia: Fist Bump To The Earth
vsbattles.fandom.com
Therefir/Fist Bump To The Earth (High-End)
vsbattles.fandom.com
And the low end
Im not torn between either tho
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #188
Okay, thanks. I'll focus my post just on the 50+ km radius one.
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #189
My earlier estimate of yesterday for my response post was a bit generous. I'm still fairly busy IRL to try and put together a comprehensive response & final breakdown of the calc so we can wrap up the discussion, but I promise it won't take as long as some of my previous responses on the thread.
Since this will be part of wrapping everything up, I hope that you'll allow me a bit more time to get things in order.
Since this will be part of wrapping everything up, I hope that you'll allow me a bit more time to get things in order.
- 13,119
- 20,830
That's fine. Especially since this is a part of wrapping things up, it's only fair.
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #191
I have a longer response prepared to address specific poitns in Clover's post but I'm going to start off by recapping the issue with this specific version of the calc specifically as simply as possible to make sure that we're on the same page (and because I abhor posting Walls of Text if I don't need to).
The root of the calc is that it is using two contradicting visuals of the aftermath of the feat and it is inflating the feat to an unreasonable degree.
One the width of Star and Stripe's combined laser is found to be 78.84 m, it is being used to find the thickness of the cloud (267.19 m) and the distance to the ocean (1483.66 m) in Scan 2 of the calc.
The issue is that although we can plainly get the diameter of the cloud split from that scan as well, instead what the calc does is that it uses the distance to the ocean and applies that to Scan 3, getting the diameter of the cloud split to be 109374.8 m. A value that plainly does not align with what is visible in Scan 2.
The rationale as far as I can tell being that if the clouds were contracting over time due to a vacuum being created by the cloud split, then at the earlier possible showing of the feat, the split in the clouds would be wider than the split in the clouds later. So the "most accurate" value to use will be when the clouds are shown to be split.
Ignoring this assumed explanation for the moment however, we can see there is another issue which is that some of the values here are assumed to be constant while others are demonstrably not constant between the two fo them.
The diameter of the cloud split is self-explanatory, but the cloud thickness doesn't line up either. It's 267.19 m in Scan 2.
Using the distance to the ocean found in Scan 2, and comparing that to the thickness of the clouds, we get a cloud thickness of 5971 m in Scan 3.
So how does it make sense to try and use a size scaling variable from one visual and use it for another visual, when every other variable is different?
Bear in mind that on the Calc Stacking page, we have this guideline:
There is also a secondary issue in that this scaling is trying to use two objects that aren't in the same plane. This is what is used for Scan 3:
The diameter of the hole in the clouds and the section of clouds that are above the water are extremely far apart from each other. If we go by the values being used here, that "height above the ocean" in the background is about 50 kilometers further away from the viewer of the panel than the diameter of the clouds. How is it reasonable to use that for scaling?
What do you you think of this? @CloverDragon03 @Dalesean027
The root of the calc is that it is using two contradicting visuals of the aftermath of the feat and it is inflating the feat to an unreasonable degree.
One the width of Star and Stripe's combined laser is found to be 78.84 m, it is being used to find the thickness of the cloud (267.19 m) and the distance to the ocean (1483.66 m) in Scan 2 of the calc.
The issue is that although we can plainly get the diameter of the cloud split from that scan as well, instead what the calc does is that it uses the distance to the ocean and applies that to Scan 3, getting the diameter of the cloud split to be 109374.8 m. A value that plainly does not align with what is visible in Scan 2.
The rationale as far as I can tell being that if the clouds were contracting over time due to a vacuum being created by the cloud split, then at the earlier possible showing of the feat, the split in the clouds would be wider than the split in the clouds later. So the "most accurate" value to use will be when the clouds are shown to be split.
Ignoring this assumed explanation for the moment however, we can see there is another issue which is that some of the values here are assumed to be constant while others are demonstrably not constant between the two fo them.
The diameter of the cloud split is self-explanatory, but the cloud thickness doesn't line up either. It's 267.19 m in Scan 2.
Using the distance to the ocean found in Scan 2, and comparing that to the thickness of the clouds, we get a cloud thickness of 5971 m in Scan 3.
So how does it make sense to try and use a size scaling variable from one visual and use it for another visual, when every other variable is different?
Bear in mind that on the Calc Stacking page, we have this guideline:
- Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.
There is also a secondary issue in that this scaling is trying to use two objects that aren't in the same plane. This is what is used for Scan 3:
The diameter of the hole in the clouds and the section of clouds that are above the water are extremely far apart from each other. If we go by the values being used here, that "height above the ocean" in the background is about 50 kilometers further away from the viewer of the panel than the diameter of the clouds. How is it reasonable to use that for scaling?
What do you you think of this? @CloverDragon03 @Dalesean027
- 17,148
- 26,857
This problem would be solved just using original corrected version of the calc in the op which still yields lower results than this than this but even this this is all a non issue if you don't hold the panel you're using as the end all be all of this consistency argument you're giving.
The primary issue here was literally the topic of another thread we all know earlier, your issue is using the panel the feat happens in cause its too large but even taking from the other shots and panels the view of the dispersion is wildly different in each of the smaller panels as well I know we've been over a couple of these already but lets just take a look
these are from chapter 331:
These are from chapters 332:
Now taking a closer look at these shots used the for your justification of the smaller panels being more consistent from the image set I sent from chapter 331 we have on the second and third images two shots that support the smaller dispersal you're in agreeance to using the first image from chapter 332 we see in the second image set HOWEVER that would be if the image you weren't so dead set on using wasn't directly contradicted by the other two images in that set from chapter 332 which are from literally just a couple pages over. As we see in those images the dispersed clouds behind and to the side of the giant star in each respect page shows the clouds being a hell of a lot more than just a couple of hundred of even just about 1-2k kilometers away from star who is also almost 2k tall.
Now lets take a look again:
These two shots, the first especially which we see in are actively just the same contiued shot from the first tiamut missle shot you've bee dead set on using directly contradicts that same panel (again obviously stars avatar isn't visible in that shot because its literal air so its invisble otherwise) but even with that we see from both shots images that drastically support the much much wider cloud dispersal and if anything invalidating the shot before.
But that's all I've really got to say I don't have time to argue like that but if you're ginna be so dead set on using that shot then at least take note that there are panels that directly contradict that exact same shot and further support the wider cloud dispersal and that again if you stopped even using that shot at all there would be none of these consistency problems to begin with and we'd have more panels supporting the other side as we have two panels that show the dispersed cloud are at least 10-20k away from star in each perspective shot.
Those aren't just randomly brand new clouds or further back clouds, like we're dealing with some extremely thick ass clouds over a huge amount of distance so we aren't seeing any new cloud ranges in between or anything cause that'd if anything still support a further range of dispersal or clouds so small that we can see so far behind to the point its outliery to the size of the clouds before. I think the safest assumption is in fact the one everyone is going with already
I'll also @ the others as well to get their thoughts
@Therefir @TheRustyOne @M3X_2.0
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #193
My issue with the calc I was responding to specifically is not that it focuses on one particular panel over the other but that it picks and chooses variables between two contradictory panels.
Those other pages you mentioned from Chapter 332 haven't really been relevant because there is no way of safely scaling them unlike the other visuals we've been discussing.
And did you see the second issue I raised at the bottom of my post? About the objects being too far away from each other for scaling between them?
- 17,148
- 26,857
Agreed you can't scale them to anything
but that doesn't negate the point that the clouds are actively being shown being a shit ton further away than not
So then just go with the panel the feat happens in, my point still stands that doing otherwise would only create contradictions that would still be contradicted by the two panels I've shown that support the much wider dispersal again even if they can't be scaled to anything that doesn't mean they aren't relevant to this discussion.
I honestly don't have time to reread I'm trying to rush to get ready for work rn
Those are just my thoughts on all of this
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #195
The other issue with that is that I think there is sufficient evidence that goes against "the panel where the feat happens in".
Out of a set of different values (a few of them noticeably closer together than others), we don't necessarily go with the highest and biggest outlier just because it's closer to when the feat took place.
No problem, take your time.
- 11,906
- 11,520
I’ll comment in a few hours. Feeling very tired right now.
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #197
Thanks. No rush. (Lord knows I took long enough to find the time for this)
- 17,148
- 26,857
The problems that you could potentially have with this stem from going off that smaller scale panels that are shown to be inconsistent with the other panels instead of using the panel the actual feat happens in and as said before even the other panels in the same chapter disprove the use of the tiamut shot with that being the primary cause for any of the inconsistencies. That's just my final thoughts on the matter tbh. So ig I'm in favor of the high 6-C one now
- 31,209
- 27,406
- Thread starter
- #199
Which High 6-C one?
- 17,148
- 26,857
I suppose the original one
- Status
