- 8,196
- 1,380
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(Bro did I just help vap)
EDIT: ok so do we now just pick which calc to use or we gotta wait again for DT to rework the calc?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(Bro did I just help vap)
Kek KT and I turned around to the lightGrand aunt came thru yesterday so I was barely on. The blog post I was referencing shows images that have already been presented on this thread, however, so kinda moot. That said, WoI and I - when I get some time - will work on a new one using colored images.
Well....there it goes I guess. And this is from a BB right?Ahhh crap.....I was looking for anti-feats for vape and found a feat instead.
This is prolly redundant at this point, but oh well, I guess it can't hurt to have more.
Nah, Gyūki was just belching too hard.Well....there it goes I guess. And this is from a BB right?
Which calc to use.So what else needs to be discussed?
I can “bump” my message to migue and DT later lolArc already has I believe.
With that said, I am a little torn in this decision: the latter does use more steps than the former, but the former does make an assumption whereas the the latter just takes measurements step by step.
Consider me sold on vaporization.Well....there it goes I guess. And this is from a BB right?
You’re assuming the mountain size where as the other is using the maps given to us by the canon material. Why is this a debateThe latter makes a similar assumption.
Both options aren't free from assumptions.
EDIT: You don't have to respond since you appear to be done with this thread, but I needed to point that out.
Why should using maps of the continent make it a more believable calc?You’re assuming the mountain size where as the other is using the maps given to us by the canon material. Why is this a debate
The difference is you’re using the real world to scale while they’re using educated assumptions based off the canon maps that have been given to us while you’re using the standard mountain sizeWhy should using maps of the continent make it a more believable calc?
It uses an assumption for the planet's size, multiple scaling steps to get from the planet shot to the continent to the craters, and I think that using an assumption for the mountain's size and a single scaling shot of mountain to explosion is more reasonable.
Why is this a debate? Because people can have different points of view and opinions.
To my knowledge the only people in favour of the old one is damageSo we got majority votes for the updated calc, are we going with that one or are people still arguing for which one?
Would you want to redo it in the future?Well to be honest my old calc is outdated now and would need re-making if it was going to be viable but I don't feel up to that right now. So I'm fine for conceding on it and potentially revisiting the topic in a far-future date.
I can't rule out the possibility.Would you want to redo it in the future?
Ah alrightI can't rule out the possibility.
So I think we just need to replace the current ratings & links with KingTempest's result?
For now, until the crater depth revisions go through (Which they almost have, just gotta wait for DT's laziness to end). Then, those calcs get a boost. LOL.My calc is fine?
I did the math in my head using rough work and using paraboloid volume formula, big dip from Wrath and M3X's values but definitely a massive upgrade over KingTempest's normal ground-based explosion values that netted 7-A.
New depth formula accepted for craters larger than 10km in diamter: Depth = 2.46223*Radius^.564103
Go save those Juubi Bijuudama calcs fellas.
kekw I'm the one who put those in his sandboxKingTempest's normal ground-based explosion values that netted 7-A.
Ah, so the formula you posted is actually the volume then. My bad.Arc7Kuroi/Redoing Juubidama
vsbattles.fandom.com
Naruto - This deserve a copyright
vsbattles.fandom.com^ these two need to be redone, I've sandboxed two of emJūbi TBB Part ll
vsbattles.fandom.com
kekw I'm the one who put those in his sandbox
No I posted the depth formula, but you must use the parabolic volume formula, it’s somewhere in the depth thread.Ah, so the formula you posted is actually the volume then. My bad.
Wait, then your sandbox is incomplete.No I posted the depth formula, but you must use the parabolic volume formula, it’s somewhere in the depth thread.