• 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.

Official Calculations Discussion Thread

8UuW3o3.png


stay losing
Pfft! I just did what everyone sensible did and did a little...

 
So true!

but with GIMP I do not have to push people to black-flag software in order to do one (1) calculation. It's not like it's hard to do this on GIMP, if you know how to do it. In this instance there's literally no reason to recommend Adobe.
 
So true!

but with GIMP I do not have to push people to black-flag software in order to do one (1) calculation. It's not like it's hard to do this on GIMP, if you know how to do it. In this instance there's literally no reason to recommend Adobe.
I mean, true, but for some reason, people aren't able to grasp the Pen Tool even though all you do is just click-and-drag. I'm saying that because the Pen Tool is the closest thing to a "magnetic lasso tool" on GIMP.
 
Okay, so the Bernard the Bear glacier feat... Here's how you'd wanna do it, as Bernard pulled with enough force to break the glacier from its foundation.

1. Determine the radius of the glacier from Bernard's size. Not the summit; just whatever the best measurable point of the midsection would be. The closer to the foundation, the better.
2. Calculate the cross-sectional area of the glacier using the measurement you got. The glacier is mostly cylindrical, so calculate the area of a circle.
3. Multiply the area by the shear strength of ice. I prefer you use an academic source because the Wiki may not have the most reliable references. 1 pascal is 1 newton per square meter, by the way.
4. Divide the result you got by 9.80665 and you'll get the force exerted in kilograms of force.
 
Okay, so the Bernard the Bear glacier feat... Here's how you'd wanna do it, as Bernard pulled with enough force to break the glacier from its foundation.

1. Determine the radius of the glacier from Bernard's size. Not the summit; just whatever the best measurable point of the midsection would be. The closer to the foundation, the better.
2. Calculate the cross-sectional area of the glacier using the measurement you got. The glacier is mostly cylindrical, so calculate the area of a circle.
3. Multiply the area by the shear strength of ice. I prefer you use an academic source because the Wiki may not have the most reliable references. 1 pascal is 1 newton per square meter, by the way.
4. Divide the result you got by 9.80665 and you'll get the force exerted in kilograms of force.
Alright thanks I will try it
 
Okay, so the Bernard the Bear glacier feat... Here's how you'd wanna do it, as Bernard pulled with enough force to break the glacier from its foundation.

1. Determine the radius of the glacier from Bernard's size. Not the summit; just whatever the best measurable point of the midsection would be. The closer to the foundation, the better.
2. Calculate the cross-sectional area of the glacier using the measurement you got. The glacier is mostly cylindrical, so calculate the area of a circle.
3. Multiply the area by the shear strength of ice. I prefer you use an academic source because the Wiki may not have the most reliable references. 1 pascal is 1 newton per square meter, by the way.
4. Divide the result you got by 9.80665 and you'll get the force exerted in kilograms of force.
So I tried it but I cannot find the result and I think I made a mistake.
 
I posted a thread, but I thought to bring my query here too. Kagura's feat considering the original quote only says "an astounding amount of heat is released, causing the elimination of the the entire area", gives varying results depending upon the method of calculation:

Using specific heat equations gets 6-C to High 6-B results (5.36 Gigaton of TNT to 171.53 Teratons of TNT )

Using nuclear fireball calculator gets 6-C results (8.54 Gigatons of TNT to 8.6 Gigatons of TNT)

Using radiation equations gets High 7-C to 5-A results (637.88 Kilotons of TNT to 4.208 Yottatons of TNT)

I just wish to know, which is viable?
bump
 
It was an extended application of force (i.e push/pull over a good amount of time vs a quick strike), so no.
He couldnt move it in the first half of the feat and only did the actual feat when he pushed himseif and accidently farted
 
He couldnt move it in the first half of the feat and only did the actual feat when he pushed himseif and accidently farted
...which only serves to further reinforce the fact that it was an extended push rather than a single strike viable for AP calculations. If you saw someone in the gym really struggle to push a weight up but they barely did it, for example, you wouldn't be able to use that for AP. If they launched it into the air, then sure.
 
...which only serves to further reinforce the fact that it was an extended push rather than a single strike viable for AP calculations. If you saw someone in the gym really struggle to push a weight up but they barely did it, for example, you wouldn't be able to use that for AP. If they launched it into the air, then sure.
No what I mean is imagine someone pushing a weight and not moving it at all then they suddenly get more serious and lift it. Thats how Bernards case worked
 
I posted a thread, but I thought to bring my query here too. Kagura's feat considering the original quote only says "an astounding amount of heat is released, causing the elimination of the the entire area", gives varying results depending upon the method of calculation:

Using specific heat equations gets 6-C+ to 6-A results (3.87 Gigaton of TNT to 1.513 Petatons of TNT )

Using nuclear fireball calculator gets 6-C results (8.54 Gigatons of TNT to 8.6 Gigatons of TNT)

Using radiation equations gets 9-C+ to High 6-A results (14277.5075 Joules of TNT to 11.97828 Petatons of TNT)

I just wish to know, which is viable?
Had to update the calc due to technical errors such as the buildings not really covering the entire area of the Kyoto prefecture
 
Probably. You have people you can scale to the size of the foot, scale the foot to the size of the robot, then do standard explosion calc.
How much bigger is body compared to the foot? By foot you mean only the feet part? no legs?
 
How much bigger is body compared to the foot? By foot you mean only the feet part? no legs?
You can measure that in the first shot. Hell, you wouldn't even need to measure the foot, just use the people there, assume an average height and pixel scale to the size of the explosions.
 
You can measure that in the first shot. Hell, you wouldn't even need to measure the foot, just use the people there, assume an average height and pixel scale to the size of the explosions.
Since theres 2 explosions which one should I use? The second one is bigger
 
Since theres 2 explosions which one should I use? The second one is bigger
I'd calc both but the first did the major damage so the second wouldn't really be able to be applied. It'd be like saying "well character A beat character B to near-death and C oneshot B after that, thereforce C > B". It doesn't work.
 
I'd calc both but the first did the major damage so the second wouldn't really be able to be applied. It'd be like saying "well character A beat character B to near-death and C oneshot B after that, thereforce C > B". It doesn't work.
Why did I get like 5 meters from pixel scaling for the second explosin tf
 
I just used the standard ground-based explosion formula, AND I took the frame right before the final flash that filled the screen. It seemed like mostly light to me so I chose to ignore it, but yeah. I'd recommend using air-based explosion [((x/0.28)^3)/1000 where x is radius in km and the result is in megatons], honestly. Gave me 1.13028067052 tons, so 8-C+.
 
I just used the standard ground-based explosion formula, AND I took the frame right before the final flash that filled the screen. It seemed like mostly light to me so I chose to ignore it, but yeah. I'd recommend using air-based explosion [((x/0.28)^3)/1000 where x is radius in km and the result is in megatons], honestly. Gave me 1.13028067052 tons, so 8-C+.
I will just add yours since you seem to know alot more
 
I just used the standard ground-based explosion formula, AND I took the frame right before the final flash that filled the screen. It seemed like mostly light to me so I chose to ignore it, but yeah. I'd recommend using air-based explosion [((x/0.28)^3)/1000 where x is radius in km and the result is in megatons], honestly. Gave me 1.13028067052 tons, so 8-C+.
Can you upload your pixel scale to fandom? So I can use it on the blog
 
Stabby stab:
Is there a way to calculate the 'increase in power' of an attack from its concentration over a surface?
To give an example, Krillin's Kienzan/Destructo disc. Or a more real one, if I used a pocket-knife to stab somebody, I wouldn't really be exerting more energy, just concentrating the same amount into a smaller area.
Is there a consistent formula for this?

Similarly, what about the increase in density? For example, if I use brass knuckles, the mass barely changes; it's the strength of the material, and the fact that the impacting object is more rigid than my fist, that really increases the damage (since my fist/arm would deform somewhat on impact, softening the blow). Is there a mathematical way to account for that?
 
Stabby stab:
Is there a way to calculate the 'increase in power' of an attack from its concentration over a surface?
To give an example, Krillin's Kienzan/Destructo disc. Or a more real one, if I used a pocket-knife to stab somebody, I wouldn't really be exerting more energy, just concentrating the same amount into a smaller area.
Is there a consistent formula for this?

Similarly, what about the increase in density? For example, if I use brass knuckles, the mass barely changes; it's the strength of the material, and the fact that the impacting object is more rigid than my fist, that really increases the damage (since my fist/arm would deform somewhat on impact, softening the blow). Is there a mathematical way to account for that?
As for your first question, no I don't think so. Swords and other sharp objects are just noted to be sharp, AP doesn't change. For example, two identical people with equal AP. One has a sword. Obviously the one wielding the sword would win due to the fact that it's sharp and thus it can kind of """bypass durability""", but that's it.
 
As for your first question, no I don't think so. Swords and other sharp objects are just noted to be sharp, AP doesn't change. For example, two identical people with equal AP. One has a sword. Obviously the one wielding the sword would win due to the fact that it's sharp and thus it can kind of """bypass durability""", but that's it.
Piercing damage
 
Back
Top