-
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.
Naruto Calcs (Calc Group members only)
- Thread starter Damage3245
- Start date
- 2,519
- 1,364
No, because that's not the height, because of the angle we're looking at that's the diameter of the stack, we have an almost birds eye view of the trees which means it's nigh-impossible to determine the heightDamage3245 said:
And in terms of diameter we have no idea how many trees there are there since it's impossible to discern them individually from that angle and due to a lack of detail
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #83
@TataHakai; what do you think of the colour version of the page I posted up above? If you look at the left side of the crater there is a clear boundary between the trees and the ground.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #85
I am myself You are you has asked me to mention that he has a made an alternate version of Sasuke's Fireball calc.
His version can be found here and the result is 220.13 Tons.
For reference my version of it is here, and comes out to be 18.58 Tons.
I believe my own version of the scaling to be better and uses more exact pixelscaling, but I want to know what calc group members think.
His version can be found here and the result is 220.13 Tons.
For reference my version of it is here, and comes out to be 18.58 Tons.
I believe my own version of the scaling to be better and uses more exact pixelscaling, but I want to know what calc group members think.
- 1,563
- 119
The other calculation pixeled from his right arm is wrong, his right arm is unusually long, which is a mistake found in drawing.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #88
What makes you think the arm is unusually long?
Scaling from his full height doesn't work on that panel because it is practically an overhead shot.
Scaling from his full height doesn't work on that panel because it is practically an overhead shot.
- 1,563
- 119
You should compare between the left arm and his right arm.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #90
That would be down to perspective. You're not going to see the full length of his left arm because his left arm isn't fully extended.
- 1,563
- 119
Also, I have already made a pixel version of the left arm.
The result is still 8-A.
Sasuke 2880.86 px
Left arm 1015.06 px = 0.531338031 meters
Crater Diameter 300 px = 6.8707504 meters
Crater Depth 38.55 px = 0.882891427 meters
Hemisphere Volume = (2/3)*PI*r1^2*r2
r1 = Crater Diameter/2
r2 = Crater Depth
(2/3)*¤Ç*3.4353752^2*0.882891427
= 21.8229906064 m^2
21.8229906064 * 1000000 = '21822990.6064' cc
Vaporization = 21822990.6064 * 25700 = '560850858584' joules
Result = 134.05 Tons
8-A
- 1,563
- 119
It can be seen clearly that it is unusually long, and not just his left arm. You can also compare his other body proportions.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #93
Look at the difference in Sasuke between the first image and second image. In the second one you're viewing him from above and his left arm isn't fully extended.
If Sasuke was lying flat on the ground, then using his full height would be more appropriate.
If Sasuke was lying flat on the ground, then using his full height would be more appropriate.
- 1,563
- 119
Yes, I saw it. In addition, do you see that both his arms have the same distance? His left arm is stretched almost as much as his right arm , but when compared, the right arm is long than the left arm, that is what is called an unusual length,
I looked at him from the top, yes, but it still had pixels as well because it didn't come straight.
I looked at him from the top, yes, but it still had pixels as well because it didn't come straight.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #95
I'm not sure I get your argument. The right arm is drawn wrong because the left arm can't possibly be drawn wrong?
The far simpler explanation is that due to the perspective of the panel, and the way that Sasuke's arm is angled is that the arm just appears shorter.
The far simpler explanation is that due to the perspective of the panel, and the way that Sasuke's arm is angled is that the arm just appears shorter.
- 1,563
- 119
Whether it is the left arm or right arm, both can draw wrong, just the right arm clearly shows that there is an unusual length, we can pixel that will see the right arm is very longer than the left arm, It's not about making angles.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #97
Which basically brings me back to my point about perspective; the right arm is fully extended and not an angle for the viewer.
The left arm is at an angle where it appears to be shorter, but this is simply caused by the angle of the arm from the perspective of the viewer.
I don't know how better to explain this; hopefully a calc group member can jump in.
Look at it like this; on the right arm you can see that his arm extends a bit beyond his sleeve before the elbow starts. On the left arm it looks like the elbow joins directly to the sleeve.
The left arm is at an angle where it appears to be shorter, but this is simply caused by the angle of the arm from the perspective of the viewer.
I don't know how better to explain this; hopefully a calc group member can jump in.
Look at it like this; on the right arm you can see that his arm extends a bit beyond his sleeve before the elbow starts. On the left arm it looks like the elbow joins directly to the sleeve.
- 1,563
- 119
Yes, the calculation members should be decide
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #99
@I am myself; I updated my post above but just in case you missed it:
Look at it like this; on the right arm you can see that his arm extends a bit beyond his sleeve before the elbow starts. On the left arm it looks like the elbow joins directly to the sleeve.
Either Sasuke's left sleeve is a lot longer on that arm, or we don't see the full length of his arm because of the way it is positioned.
Look at it like this; on the right arm you can see that his arm extends a bit beyond his sleeve before the elbow starts. On the left arm it looks like the elbow joins directly to the sleeve.
Either Sasuke's left sleeve is a lot longer on that arm, or we don't see the full length of his arm because of the way it is positioned.
- 1,563
- 119
got it
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #102
@Antvasima; apologies but I wanted to make sure that I am myself You are you understood what was happening.
It took more posts than I thought was necessary.
Current topic should on be for deciding the Chibaku Tensei calc.
I've provided a colour page up above showing how the trees can be used for rough scaling, but so far Tata disagrees.
It took more posts than I thought was necessary.
Current topic should on be for deciding the Chibaku Tensei calc.
I've provided a colour page up above showing how the trees can be used for rough scaling, but so far Tata disagrees.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #104
From what I can tell right now, there are at least three pieces of evidence showing that the Chibaku Tensei crater (and by extension the Chibaku Tensei itself) are not as large as they are suggested to be by scaling only from Nagato's hideout.
1) The trees lining the crater which can be scaled using the colour version of the page (since we can see both the ground and the tops of the trees).
2) Naruto being able to see the ruins of Konoha near the crater.
3) The Chibaku Tensei being at about equal height with the clouds. Standard height assumption for those types of clouds is about 2,000 m if I recall correctly.
1) The trees lining the crater which can be scaled using the colour version of the page (since we can see both the ground and the tops of the trees).
2) Naruto being able to see the ruins of Konoha near the crater.
3) The Chibaku Tensei being at about equal height with the clouds. Standard height assumption for those types of clouds is about 2,000 m if I recall correctly.
- 6,014
- 2,122
I don't think i need to answer to the two last pieces of evidence since Kep already answered you above
for the 1) from my point of view, it's a drawing inconsistency, it's common with large structure scan, the trees can literally be scaled by Mountain, which is something pretty weird and the scaling of small thing instead of large structure isn't recommended, it is still a problem when you have shot of the mountains that can be scaled anyway.
for the 1) from my point of view, it's a drawing inconsistency, it's common with large structure scan, the trees can literally be scaled by Mountain, which is something pretty weird and the scaling of small thing instead of large structure isn't recommended, it is still a problem when you have shot of the mountains that can be scaled anyway.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #107
Kep's response to them was just to dismiss them as inconsistencies.
When we have three things suggesting that the crater is small, and one thing suggesting that it is big, then the more consistent version is that the crater is likely small.
When we have three things suggesting that the crater is small, and one thing suggesting that it is big, then the more consistent version is that the crater is likely small.
- 6,014
- 2,122
When you have a scan with small things and large things like Mountains as this scan suggest, it's pretty easy to know that the comparison is toward the large structure like mountains and not the "background things" like the treen
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #110
DT just said that clouds are likely a bad idea, and Kep just said that historically cloud scaling was rejected in the past (without a known reason it seems).M3X said:
If you reject everything that disagrees with your interpretation of a scene, the only evidence you'll have left is just what satisfies you.
Dismissing the trees as a drawing inconsistency is another example of that. You think that the crater can't possibly be small, so you reject scaling from the trees drawn around the crater because the result would end up in the crater being smaller than expected.
- 6,014
- 2,122
Said that something is an Inconsistency doesn't mean that you don't want to the result became small, that's more the way of the scaling used which seem pretty false to me, so yes, i reject the trees drawn around the crater but because it make no real sense to the scan used with the CT.Damage3245 said:
Anyway, I'll just recalc this with the color version.
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #113
> The end. Don't use the cloud as a basis and don't bring it up again. It was rejected
"Because one user said something may be a bad idea, it should never be discussed again."
No.
> Said that something is an Inconsistency doesn't mean that you don't want to the result became small, that's more the way of the scaling used which seem pretty false to me, so yes, i reject the trees drawn around the crater but because it make no real sense to the scan used with the CT.
In what way does it make no sense? The only reason it could be incomprehensible is if you already believe the crater to be huge by some other means of scaling.
Taken by itself, there is nothing nonsensical about using what is near the crater to estimate the size of the crater.
"Because one user said something may be a bad idea, it should never be discussed again."
No.
> Said that something is an Inconsistency doesn't mean that you don't want to the result became small, that's more the way of the scaling used which seem pretty false to me, so yes, i reject the trees drawn around the crater but because it make no real sense to the scan used with the CT.
In what way does it make no sense? The only reason it could be incomprehensible is if you already believe the crater to be huge by some other means of scaling.
Taken by itself, there is nothing nonsensical about using what is near the crater to estimate the size of the crater.
- 6,014
- 2,122
No. my view to this is already as objective as possible, it isn't really about the calc itself but the way of the calc which i'm more agree with the other way.Damage3245 said:
Like the Mountains which is clearly represented here to be compared to the crater instead of the small tree's structure which is more a kind of filling that something to compare?
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #115
I can see how that interpretation would make you prefer one form of scaling over the other, but I wouldn't say that makes the other form of scaling make no sense.
To help simplify this, I'll try to calc the size of the crater using all the possible methods (even the so-called 'rejected' ones) and then we'll be able to find out which produces the most consistent results.
To help simplify this, I'll try to calc the size of the crater using all the possible methods (even the so-called 'rejected' ones) and then we'll be able to find out which produces the most consistent results.
- 6,014
- 2,122
"Prefer" is a big word, maybe "make more sense to me" is betterDamage3245 said:
This method can be as good as bad in fact, if the method used are falses, those calc will probably mean not much.
Anyway, i'am busy to calc myself the CT, so i'll just said that i disagree with the Current and the proposed methods.
- 11,908
- 11,526
First of all, Tata allowed me to screenshot his messages.
He said Damage's calc is wrong because of the perspective he used to scale the Hokage's building to the ground (To find the height of that big wall). He accepted my calc.
He can't comment until tomorrow. I think he is busy. We should wait until his comment here too. Just to say that he accepted my calc
He said Damage's calc is wrong because of the perspective he used to scale the Hokage's building to the ground (To find the height of that big wall). He accepted my calc.
He can't comment until tomorrow. I think he is busy. We should wait until his comment here too. Just to say that he accepted my calc
- 31,256
- 27,479
- Thread starter
- #118
I'm guessing you mean the Six-Tails calc? TataHakai also commented on my version saying that it looks fine, so he would appear to be contradicting himself.
EDIT: let's also stick to one topic at a time please. I ask you to drop this for now.
EDIT: let's also stick to one topic at a time please. I ask you to drop this for now.
Similar threads
