- 7,981
- 1,315
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
EDIT: ok so do we now just pick which calc to use or we gotta wait again for DT to rework the calc?
-
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 Calculation Discussion: Biju Dama Requiem
- Thread starter M3X_2.0
- Start date
- Status
EDIT: ok so do we now just pick which calc to use or we gotta wait again for DT to rework the calc?
- 17,038
- 22,904
Kek KT and I turned around to the light
- 29,881
- 25,030
The water showing signs of vaporization doesn't answer why the rest of the destroyed landscape isn't showing signs of vaporization from the Eight-Tails example given above.
- 10,901
- 14,209
- 10,901
- 14,209
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.
This is prolly redundant at this point, but oh well, I guess it can't hurt to have more.
- 7,981
- 1,315
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.
- 10,901
- 14,209
Nah, Gyūki was just belching too hard.
- 5,418
- 1,768
So what else needs to be discussed?
- 10,901
- 14,209
Which calc to use.
- 5,418
- 1,768
Can someone call calc members to choose which calc to use?
- 10,901
- 14,209
Arc already has I believe.
- 17,038
- 22,904
I can “bump” my message to migue and DT later lol
- 2,538
- 2,124
Okay... I was asked to comment about the calcs of these feats. Again.
So, taking a glance at these calcs and hoping I'm not misunderstanding, it basically boils down to using a random mountain close to the explosion vs. using globe scaling from the Anime. Given that this is considered being used for a calc, I am going to assume that the landscapes & maps in both Anime & Manga of Naruto are essentially the same. I am also assuming that it has been concluded that vaporization for the Bijuu Bombs should be used judging by the discussion above. I agree with using vaporization anyway.
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.
Personally, I like to use the calc that makes lesser assumptions given that calc would depend on less variables that are outside of our control/can't determine. And... I believe KT's version makes lesser assumptions here. So... I might side that calc here.
ALRIGHT, I GAVE MY INPUT. NOW STOP CALCULATING THIS GODDAMN FEAT AND LET IT REST FFS.
So, taking a glance at these calcs and hoping I'm not misunderstanding, it basically boils down to using a random mountain close to the explosion vs. using globe scaling from the Anime. Given that this is considered being used for a calc, I am going to assume that the landscapes & maps in both Anime & Manga of Naruto are essentially the same. I am also assuming that it has been concluded that vaporization for the Bijuu Bombs should be used judging by the discussion above. I agree with using vaporization anyway.
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.
Personally, I like to use the calc that makes lesser assumptions given that calc would depend on less variables that are outside of our control/can't determine. And... I believe KT's version makes lesser assumptions here. So... I might side that calc here.
- 29,881
- 25,030
The 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.
- 32,811
- 38,005
Consider me sold on vaporization.
- 15,342
- 15,024
I am still 100% for vaporization
- 2,691
- 952
I agree with vaporization
- 711
- 250
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
- 29,881
- 25,030
Why 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.
- 711
- 250
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 size
- 711
- 250
To my knowledge the only people in favour of the old one is damage
- 29,881
- 25,030
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.
- 7,981
- 1,315
Would you want to redo it in the future?
- 29,881
- 25,030
I can't rule out the possibility.
So I think we just need to replace the current ratings & links with KingTempest's result?
- 7,981
- 1,315
Ah alright
- 21,143
- 30,099
My calc is fine?
- 32,811
- 38,005
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.
- 17,038
- 22,904
New depth formula accepted for craters larger than 10km in diamter: Depth = 1.43493*Radius^.564103
Go save those Juubi Bijuudama calcs fellas.
Last edited:
- 32,811
- 38,005
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.
The 16.3 km radius big boom nets us Low 6-B (1.5-ish teratons) while the 62.05 km radius big boom nets us 6-B (43-ish teratons), and yes, this is vaporization, obviously.
- 17,038
- 22,904
Arc7Kuroi/Redoing Juubidama
vsbattles.fandom.com
Naruto - This deserve a copyright
vsbattles.fandom.com
Jūbi TBB Part ll
vsbattles.fandom.com
kekw I'm the one who put those in his sandbox
- 32,811
- 38,005
Ah, so the formula you posted is actually the volume then. My bad.Arc7Kuroi/Redoing Juubidama
Naruto - This deserve a copyright
^ these two need to be redone, I've sandboxed two of emJūbi TBB Part ll
kekw I'm the one who put those in his sandbox
- 17,038
- 22,904
No I posted the depth formula, but you must use the parabolic volume formula, it’s somewhere in the depth thread.
- 32,811
- 38,005
Wait, then your sandbox is incomplete.
So Depth formula is 2.46223*Radius^2.564103
Once you solve that you must once again use this formula for Paraboloids= 0.5 * pi * radius^2 * depth that you just calculated.
- Status
