• 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.

One-Punch Man: Beefcake's AP Calcs

Therefir said:
There's practically no debris on the crater itself, no doubt a large portion of it was actually pulverized.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That's why I went for 50% pulv and 50% violent fragmentation in my version. And the debris is actually piled up around the crater, quite highly too.
 
Damage3245 said:
Yeah. That's why I went for 50% pulv and 50% violent fragmentation in my version. And the debris is actually piled up around the crater, quite highly too.
Click to expand...
You could calculate the volume of the pile and see if there really is 50% of the crater mass.

Just by eyeballing, 50% seems too much.
 
I did that assuming the size was the height of the tallest building and using a generous radius and still got less that 10% the total value

AQ0xKbi.jpg

keisan.casio.com

Volume of a hollow cylinder Calculator

Calculates the volume, lateral and surface areas of a hollow cylinder given two radii and height.
keisan.casio.com keisan.casio.com

786268936000000/836464133822762 = 0.9399912133
 
There's a lot of dust, I'm not against using 20% violent fragmentation and 80% pulverization, the pile around the crater would be much bigger if it was a 50% split.
 
Recon1511 said:
Once that's done I can get back to my CRT then
Click to expand...
Aye. I'll be tagging staff members too, once I'm able to post it. I think this topic will be open for 1 more day, 2 more at tops so that people have the opportunity to respond.

EDIT; I apologize for the delay it's taken to get it up and to wrap up this thread, but things have been unusually busy for me.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm just glad this going to be over soon

The AP revision is just the start too, I have to revamp the speed scaling and then organize so that all the relevant profiles have references and scans...
 
We've settled on the method used to calculate the destruction of the ground which formed the crater, using a mixture of 20% violent fragmentation to account for the large amount of debris left around the crater and scattered further out, and 80% pulverization for the majority of the destruction.

The issue now is to decide what the best option is for scaling the size of the crater.

At present there are four options;

1) The original calc by Kachon123.

This method takes a 1 storey building in the background of the panel which is apparently 1 pixel tall, and assuming an average storey height of 4.3 m, the diameter of the crater is scaled to be 1802.13 meters.

2) This version of the calc by Shmeatywerbenmanjenson.

This method takes one of the tallest buildings in the panel, which is 15 pixels tall, and assumes it to be as tall as a 13 storey building as there was another 13 storey building present in the area that Beefcake destroyed. Assuming an average storey height of 4.3 m, the building is assumed to be 55.9 m tall and the diameter of the crater is scaled to be 1432 meters.

3) This version of the calc by myself.

This method takes a road in the foreground of the panel which is 5 pixels wide, and has two ends with the road assumed to be either a single-lane road or a double-lane road. Assuming an average lane width of 3.7 m, the diameter of the crater is scaled to be 263.44 meters or 556.48 meters.

4) This other version of the calc by myself.

This method takes the height of Beefcake in the same panel as the crater, and using the official height given to us in the databook for him which is 270 m, the diameter of the crater is scaled to be 282.78 meters.

I'm going to go through my thoughts on each of them because none of these calcs are objectively wrong but some are better than others.

Option 1

The first option, which we use currently, is definitely the weakest option. In principle it is sound because it is comparing the size of something we can reasonably assume (a single storey) to the crater, but in practice this one is not reliable. A single pixel is too small a reference object to scale from, and I don't know what resolution image is being used exactly but I can see plenty of buildings in the foreground and background that look bigger than a single pixel tall.

I think this calc was retracted on the previous page, but I'm not entirely sure so I just wanted to cover it here again for why I think we shouldn't use it compared to the other ones.

Option 2

Option 2 is somewhat better. It takes the largest visible building (so a clearer object for using as reference object), but the height value used for it is not based on anything concrete. It is being reasoned that because there is already a 13 storey building in this city/town that Beefcake is destroying that this building too can reasonably be assumed to be 13 storeys tall.

There is no ironclad reason for this given other than both objects are buildings in the same area; nothing linking them to being the same. The building in question could just as easily be 12 storeys, or less. Assuming the building is as high as it could theoretically be is not a safe end for the calc. It's definitely better than assuming the building in question is a skyscraper arbtirarily, but this option still requires us to make a generous assumption.

Option 3

Option 3 is one I picked out mostly as a response to the other two which were picked out random features in the background of the panel. So I picked out a road instead.

The road assumption works similarly to the building above but in the opposite direction. Instead of thinking "What is the highest value this building/road could be", the safer end interpretation is to think "What is the lowest value this could be before it is no longer a road?" This can be considered a "low end" value but the fact is also that this road can't be any smaller than a single lane road which means it is at least 3.7 meters wide, and shots of the city at other parts of the chapter show that there are single-lane and double-lane roads throughout the city, so it is not an unreasonable assumption.

Whether we settle on a single lane or double lane being the most likely, this calculation works in principle slightly better than the above examples as it isn't overly generous.

Option 4

Option 4 is what I believe to be the most straightforward approach. In terms of assumptions it depends on the least as it the information for Beefcake's height is supplied to us in the databook in two parts where his height is outright stated to be "270 m" and he is stated to boast a physique "at least 100 times larger than that of a normal person" which lines up with that.

The calc is then a simple one to one comparison with the crater that Beefcake is standing next to. Of all the reference objects Beefcake is the one drawn most clearly and in focus.

Our recently added guideline on pixelscaling says this:

As a general guideline, it's preferable to use a scaling where the measuring stick used is of similar size to the object being scaled, rather than a scaling where the measuring stick and object are of very different sizes. However, this guideline should not take priority over other criteria that may cause similar or greater uncertainty in the scaling.
Click to expand...

Of all the possible options, Beefcake is the most similar in size to the crater.

Not only that, but our guideline also says:

The general consistency of the sizes obtained by various methods should also be taken into account.
Click to expand...

In terms of being consistent, the single-lane method from Option 3 produces an extremely consistent result with using Beefcake's official height - being just around twenty meters shorter for the diameter of the crater.

The main contradiction I've heard against this method is just that "Beefcake is too inconsistent to use", which I would question.

The only way this objection really makes sense is if we were using multiple panels in order to find multiple seemingly equally valid heights for Beefcake and therefore we wouldn't be able to use Beefcake's height for scaling as there are too many values to use. However we do not have multiple values for Beefcake's height; we have a single official value given to us by a databook. We should not be using any other visuals to find Beefcake's height here as the canon information (which we even use on his page to give him a figure for Large Size) takes priority. If we accept that Beefcake is 270 m, then it should be valid to use 270 m for pixelscaling. The other panels are irrelevant unless you're contesting the 270 m figure on Beefcake's page. Canon information > inconsistent visuals. This is the rule of thumb taken on VSBW as far as I can tell.

Not to mention that we have Beefcake drawn next to the crater on two occasions (here and here) and as we can see the crater is not several times wider than him. If it had been Murata's intention for the crater to vastly dwarf Beefcake in size, he could have done so.

No character in a manga is ever going to be drawn perfectly consistent; does this mean we should never use a character's official height for pixelscaling them? I strongly doubt that being a reasonable solution as we do pixelscaling that involves scaling to characters quite a lot.

Lastly, I'll just reiterate the most important point which is that this method requires us to make the least amount of assumptions and the least amount of steps.



In conclusion, my order of preferences for the calcs is Option 4 > Option 3 > Option 2 > Option 1.

@Agnaa @M3X_2.0 @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @Therefir @KLOL506 @Psychomaster35 @Dalesean027 @Migue79

Apologies on calling on you lot if you'd rather not be involved, but if you're interested I would appreciate some input so we can decide which calc to use going forwards. I've given my thoughts up above on it, but if you have any other reasoning or opinions regarding the calcs, I'd like to hear them.
 
Damage3245 said:
Option 4

Option 4 is what I believe to be the most straightforward approach. In terms of assumptions it depends on the least as it the information for Beefcake's height is supplied to us in the databook in two parts where his height is outright stated to be "270 m" and he is stated to boast a physique "at least 100 times larger than that of a normal person" which lines up with that.

The calc is then a simple one to one comparison with the crater that Beefcake is standing next to. Of all the reference objects Beefcake is the one drawn most clearly and in focus.

Our recently added guideline on pixelscaling says this:


Of all the possible options, Beefcake is the most similar in size to the crater.

Not only that, but our guideline also says:


In terms of being consistent, the single-lane method from Option 3 produces an extremely consistent result with using Beefcake's official height - being just around twenty meters shorter for the diameter of the crater.

The main contradiction I've heard against this method is just that "Beefcake is too inconsistent to use", which I would question.

The only way this objection really makes sense is if we were using multiple panels in order to find multiple seemingly equally valid heights for Beefcake and therefore we wouldn't be able to use Beefcake's height for scaling as there are too many values to use. However we do not have multiple values for Beefcake's height; we have a single official value given to us by a databook. We should not be using any other visuals to find Beefcake's height here as the canon information (which we even use on his page to give him a figure for Large Size) takes priority. If we accept that Beefcake is 270 m, then it should be valid to use 270 m for pixelscaling. The other panels are irrelevant unless you're contesting the 270 m figure on Beefcake's page. Canon information > inconsistent visuals. This is the rule of thumb taken on VSBW as far as I can tell.

Not to mention that we have Beefcake drawn next to the crater on two occasions (here and here) and as we can see the crater is not several times wider than him. If it had been Murata's intention for the crater to vastly dwarf Beefcake in size, he could have done so.

No character in a manga is ever going to be drawn perfectly consistent; does this mean we should never use a character's official height for pixelscaling them? I strongly doubt that being a reasonable solution as we do pixelscaling that involves scaling to characters quite a lot.

Lastly, I'll just reiterate the most important point which is that this method requires us to make the least amount of assumptions and the least amount of steps.
Click to expand...
 
Damage3245 said:
The main contradiction I've heard against this method is just that "Beefcake is too inconsistent to use", which I would question.

The only way this objection really makes sense is if we were using multiple panels in order to find multiple seemingly equally valid heights for Beefcake and therefore we wouldn't be able to use Beefcake's height for scaling as there are too many values to use. However we do not have multiple values for Beefcake's height; we have a single official value given to us by a databook. We should not be using any other visuals to find Beefcake's height here as the canon information (which we even use on his page to give him a figure for Large Size) takes priority. If we accept that Beefcake is 270 m, then it should be valid to use 270 m for pixelscaling. The other panels are irrelevant unless you're contesting the 270 m figure on Beefcake's page. Canon information > inconsistent visuals. This is the rule of thumb taken on VSBW as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

The argument isn't so much "Beefcake's size is to inconsistent so we shouldn't use it"

It's more "Beefcake's size is inconsistent but he is still shown to consistently dwarf multi-story buildings to the point that 270 meters doesn't make sense"


And this is a databook entry that states this which would fall under Secondary Canon which means it is preceded by the Primary Canon (AKA the manga) if contradictions arise

Which tall multistory buildings not even being the size of Beefcake's foot in this particular panel is a pretty big contradiction to the stated size

The thing we are scaling here is the crater itself so I believe the best scaling method would be the one that produce results constant with what we see on panel

Using the scaling you have provided results in even the tallest multi-story buildings shown on panel (Which have been shown in previous panels to range from 5 -15 stories) not even being 20 meters in height seems ridiculous
 
@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson No artwork is perfect. The multiple visuals you've presented would still take less priority than a stated size for Beefcake, in my opinion.

That's all I've got to say on the matter.

Otherwise this site will have become ridiculously hypocritical in how we treat stated sizes. Plus one of the other methods presented above actually aligns with using Beefcake's stated height for the scaling.

Let's see what anyone else has to say on the matter.
 
Damage3245 said:
Option 3

Option 3 is one I picked out mostly as a response to the other two which were picked out random features in the background of the panel. So I picked out a road instead.

The road assumption works similarly to the building above but in the opposite direction. Instead of thinking "What is the highest value this building/road could be", the safer end interpretation is to think "What is the lowest value this could be before it is no longer a road?" This can be considered a "low end" value but the fact is also that this road can't be any smaller than a single lane road which means it is at least 3.7 meters wide, and shots of the city at other parts of the chapter show that there are single-lane and double-lane roads throughout the city, so it is not an unreasonable assumption.

Whether we settle on a single lane or double lane being the most likely, this calculation works in principle slightly better than the above examples as it isn't overly generous.
Click to expand...
As for this I'll just point out what you said earlier
Damage3245 said:
I guess I'll also make my own version using roads, just for fun. If only to point out how repeatedly arbitrary this is.
Click to expand...

The road in panel vary immensely in size and depending on what you scale and how many lanes you decide it has you can find result reaching over 4 km for the crater to smaller than his own official stated size
And I'm sure if we used the road in the very back we can make the crater not even 100 meters in diameter
See here for what I'm talking about:
HWPsRM6.png


Meanwhile the method I used while flawed (I'm well aware that the building vary in size as well) varies less than the roads and produces somewhat consistent results with what we see (Multi story skyscraper being dwarfed in size by the crater)

And it is founded by the fact that we see multiple 10+ story building in the panels before we see the crater

So assuming that the tallest building on panel at least reaches the sizes we've seen in previous panels seems to be the most founded assumption out of all the cals we have so far

It's not perfect that's for sure but it results in a more consistently sized crater based on what we see on panel which in my opinion is what we should be going for
 
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
The road in panel vary immensely in size and depending on what you scale and how many lanes you decide it has you can find result reaching over 4 km for the crater
Click to expand...
This one isn't valid as it isn't even a highway that was picked for scaling.

Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
to smaller than his own official stated size
Click to expand...
How does that make it smaller than the official stated size? The crater diameter on that version is 263.44 m when comparing to a single lane road.

EDIT: I think I see what you mean now.

Will you acknowledge at least that the result is pretty close actually the to result we'd get for the crater if we scaled off Beefcake's height?
 
Damage3245 said:
This one isn't valid as it isn't even a highway that was picked for scaling.


How does that make it smaller than the official stated size? The crater diameter on that version is 263.44 m when comparing to a single lane road.

EDIT: I think I see what you mean now.

Will you acknowledge at least that the result is pretty close actually the to result we'd get for the crater if we scaled off Beefcake's height?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is close to what we would get if we used Beefcake's height I will admit that

But since the size of the roads vary so much it's pretty easy to get a result consistent with the official height

You can see with Kachon's calc that it's just as easy to get WAY higher than the official height as well

I am aware that the building vary to some degree as well however the intent behind the shot was to show how this massive chasm dwarfed building in scale
The roads are kinda an afterthought (Or Murata is shit at drawing roads to scale)

And this is not just me speaking out my ass as in the previous panels we see that the roads can reach dozens of meter even just being two lanes if we compare them to the buildings themselves
Here's an example: (And I was generous with the floor pixelscaling)
IYcxJW9.jpg


I'm not gonna respond for a bit so keep it civel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kachon123
One-Punch Man: Nichirin Calc
Replies
26
Views
2K
SunDaGamer
SunDaGamer
Damage3245
  • Locked
Issues with Nichirin's Calculation (One-Punch Man)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnmmmmm
  • Locked
problems with the calculations of one punch man
2 3
Replies
115
Views
3K
Maverick_Zero_X
Maverick_Zero_X
Kachon123
One-Punch Man: AP Revisions
5 6 7
Replies
249
Views
11K
Raiden38
Raiden38
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
One-Punch Man - Damn fast ninjas
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
Golden_Void
Golden_Void
Back
Top