• 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.

New Materials on the Line

Flashlight237

VS Battles
Calculation Group
4,927
2,848
Well, I brought eleven new materials on the table. I managed to get two calc group members to give their thumbs-up and here I am posting here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Flashlight237/Some_Calc_Value_Fixes_+_A_New_Material_or_Two

The post contains fixes for the following materials:

Concrete: Changes in frag, v-frag, and pulverization values based on a compromise made with a calc group member.
Iron: I just wanted to emphasize how dumb that Reference for Common Feats section was when it went on about the vaporization of iron.
Aluminum: More accurate values based on pure aluminum are used
Carbon: Provides frag, v-frag, and pulverization values and gives an actual vaporization value based on graphite (the most common pure carbon allotrope). Also adds a more reliable vaporization value for diamond.
Calcium: No idea why the flip the wiki thought a metal that doesn't want to exist in its pure form would be a good thing to index, but I literally made frag, v-frag, and pulverization values just to pacify people.

There's also this, which calc group members seemed cool with.: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Flashlight237/Vaporizing_Wood

Wood: Gives vaporization value generalization based on Douglas Fir study.

After that, there are the new materials:

Brass: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values
Sulfur: Usable as a reference for feats taking place entirely in hell as brimstone is really sulfur. Gives frag, v. frag, pulverization, and vaporization values
Chromium: Gives frag, v. frag, pulverization, and vaporization values. Honestly, does the wiki even know how to do atomization and subatomic values?
Stainless Steel: Gives actual distinction between stainless steel and steel. Adds frag, v. frag, and pulverization values for 304 stainless steel (the most common type of steel, or at least Therefir thinks so.)
Asphalt: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values for asphalt. How can a liquid be a rock, anyway?
Andesite: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values for andesite. Useful for mountains.
Gneiss: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values for gneiss. Useful for mountains.
Sand: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values. If we have soil, we can have sand, okay?
Silica/Quartz: Gives frag, v. frag, pulverization, and vaporization values. Our first and likely only crystal to be indexed unless the wiki really wants me to do more crystals, in which case, why?
Osmium: Gives frag, v. frag, and pulverization values. I did not feel like doing vaporization values, btw. Gives a base for materials claimed to be the densest.

Part of me wonders if, if these are accepted, we should split the table of destruction values into separate tables (my ideas is metals, non-rocky materials (ex. bone and carbon) and rocky materials (ex. brick and asphalt)), but that's another can of worms for now. For now, I'm putting these on the table. Feel free to discuss or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Since the fragging value for concrete went from 6 j/cm3 to 2 - 6 j/cm3, hypothetically speaking it'd be fine if I kept all my fragging concrete calcs the way they were since they fall in the range right?
 
Last edited:
@AgnaaYour input here would be appreciated.
I currently have 27 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.
 
So uhh... How long is this gonna take to get through? Asking because it's a little awkward to cite my own blog when doing calcs.
 
Well all of this appears fine to me as I said in the blog itself.

Based on what I'm seeing the sources appear to be legitimate and the math holds up.
 
Back
Top