One-Punch Man: Flashy Flash Speed Upgrade

[Kachon123]

I calculated this feat a few days ago, and both ends of the calculation have been accepted.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss which version should be used.

End 1 uses the baseline timeframe for subsonic reactions, while End 2 uses the high timeframe for subsonic reactions.

One-Punch Man: Flashy Flash, Garou, and Platinum Sperm Create a Constellation Above Z-City

vsbattles.fandom.com

Bold = Staff Opinion

Agrees with End 1:

Agrees with End 2: @Coomandar, @KingTempest

 

[Coomandar]

I calculated this feat a few days ago, and both ends of the calculation have been accepted.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss which version should be used.

End 1 uses the baseline timeframe for subsonic reactions, while End 2 uses the high timeframe for subsonic reactions.

One-Punch Man: Flashy Flash, Garou, and Platinum Sperm Create a Constellation Above Z-City

vsbattles.fandom.com

Agrees with End 1:

Agrees with End 2:

rel+ flash again, good.

 

[Kachon123]

rel+ flash again, good.

Is this you agreeing with End 2?

 

[Damage3245]

End 1 uses the baseline timeframe for subsonic reactions, while End 2 uses the high timeframe for subsonic reactions.

Comment on the calc for that, but I don't see the justification for either of those timeframes here.

 

[Kachon123]

Comment on the calc for that, but I don't see the justification for either of those timeframes here.

Making afterimages qualifies for Subsonic speeds and timeframes.

 

[Coomandar]

Is this you agreeing with End 2?

yep.
it's good for me

 

[KingTempest]

Flashy Flash has this on his profile

possibly Relativistic+ (Saitama was mildly impressed by his speed, stating that Flashy was "kinda fast", while he considered Geryuganshoop's near lightspeed pitches to be nothing but a bad joke)

Which means that this is heavy support for Flashy Flash being flat out Rel+., especially when his Sub-Rel feat

End 2 looks good

 

[KLOL506]

Which means that this is heavy support for Flashy Flash being flat out Rel+., especially when his Sub-Rel feat

Seems like you forgot to finish the sentence.

 

[Damage3245]

Making afterimages qualifies for Subsonic speeds and timeframes.

Subsonic speed is what is needed to generate afterimages, sure, but I don't see how that applies to timeframes here. Just because somebody creates an afterimage doesn't mean that the movement they performed always has to take place over 0.00583 seconds.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Wrong thread again
this is a crt

 

[Kachon123]

Wrong thread again
this is a crt

This is meant to be a CRT.

 

[Coomandar]

Flashy Flash has this on his profile


Which means that this is heavy support for Flashy Flash being flat out Rel+., especially when his Sub-Rel feat

End 2 looks good

and, actual saitama is vastly superior to that saitama who fought gery due his evolution.
in other words, flashy impressed a much faster saitama.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

This is meant to be a CRT.

Coom deleted said post but I wasn’t referring to the crt

 

[Coomandar]

Wrong thread again
this is a crt

yeah, i just saw it..

 

[KLOL506]

Subsonic speed is what is needed to generate afterimages, sure, but I don't see how that applies to timeframes here. Just because somebody creates an afterimage doesn't mean that the movement they performed always has to take place over 0.00583 seconds.

The 0.00583 seconds end is the extreme end. Usually we stick with the baseline of 0.0291 seconds.

 

[KingTempest]

Seems like you forgot to finish the sentence.

especially when his sub-rel feat is done by his held back self*
Thanks KLOL

 

[Recon1511]

Rel+ Flashy, nice

 

[Qawsedf234]

Both ends for the speed aren't justified in the calc itself and has no justification other than them generating afterimages. But for the calc I wouldn't use some randomly selected timeframe. If there is a useable timeframe the most I'd suggest is 0.1 seconds since we know that's a previously used timeframe for Garou's in-universe reaction speed. Its also how we treated Saitama's Io jump in terms of useable timeframe.

 

[KLOL506]

Both ends for the speed aren't justified in the calc itself and has no justification other than them generating afterimages. But for the calc I wouldn't use some randomly selected timeframe. If there is a useable timeframe the most I'd suggest is 0.1 seconds since we know that's a previously used timeframe for Garou's in-universe reaction speed. Its also how we treated Saitama's Io jump in terms of useable timeframe.

Isn't Garou's feat 1.3 milliseconds?

EDIT: YEP, it's 0.0013 seconds. Says so in the manga scan for his feat.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Isn't Garou's feat 1.3 milliseconds?

No, that's Garou's feat after Flashy Flash is defeated and speeds up canonically. I'm talking about his original stopwatch feat.

 

[KLOL506]

No, that's Garou's feat after Flashy Flash is defeated and speeds up canonically. I'm talking about his original stopwatch feat.

Ah. Didn't know there were other stopwatch feats.

 

[KLOL506]

Anyway, Kachon found a new size for the crater, may massively upgrade this feat and Garou vs Platinum Sperm's feat.

 

[Qawsedf234]

a new size for the crater

No he didn't, he used the same sized crater as with the currently accepted Garou vs PS calc. Is just that more distance was covered in the first showing compared to the second showing.

 

[Kachon123]

Anyway, Kachon found a new size for the crater, may massively upgrade this feat and Garou vs Platinum Sperm's feat.

Yeah. Big Upgrade. I edited the blog.

 

[Kachon123]

No he didn't, he used the same sized crater as with the currently accepted Garou vs PS calc. Is just that more distance was covered in the first showing compared to the second showing.

Check again

 

[KLOL506]

No he didn't, he used the same sized crater as with the currently accepted Garou vs PS calc. Is just that more distance was covered in the first showing compared to the second showing.

You might wanna check the blog again, he edited it in with the new diameter for the crater.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Check again

You used scans from two different manga chapters to get a crater size. That's calc stacking.

he edited it in with the new diameter for the crater.

He got a size by taking images from different chapters and getting a size that way. That breaks our calc stacking rules.

 

[KLOL506]

You used scans from two different manga chapters to get a crater size. That's calc stacking.

He got a size by taking images from different chapters and getting a size that way. That breaks our calc stacking rules.

Pretty sure our calc stacking rules say pixel-scaling over multiple scans is accepted as long as the size of the objects remain consistent.

 

[Kachon123]

You used scans from two different manga chapters to get a crater size. That's calc stacking.

He got a size by taking images from different chapters and getting a size that way. That breaks our calc stacking rules.

Looking at the calc stacking page, it doesn't break any rules.

 

[KLOL506]

Looking at the calc stacking page, it doesn't break any rules.

It says the following:

• Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.

 

[Kachon123]

Pretty sure our calc stacking rules say pixel-scaling over multiple scans is accepted as long as the size of the objects remain consistent.

I made sure that the cracks are at the same area too. In the first scan, I pixel scaled a crack that was right next to the tower (which became the hole after Tatsumaki pulled it up). In the second scan, I did the same.

 

[KLOL506]

If we were to ignore that, majority of all the calcs on the wiki would be axed since a lot of them use different shots of objects to find various different dimensions shown at different points in the series or so, like with movies which usually show multiple angles of destruction, or with many anime regarding finding the size of various mecha, etc. That's practically why the rule was made by DontTalkDT to begin with.

 

[Qawsedf234]

the size of the objects remain consistent.

It doesn't. He's also using a undefined crack to scale to the hole. Its just gets radically different results depending on which crack you assume it represents.

Not to mention by changing it every previously option about the calc is no voided.

Overall I say just use the current accepted figure which uses a single scan to get a diameter and then use the known canon timeframe. The speed is still fine and superior to what he's currently scaled to afaik.

If we were to ignore that, majority of all the calcs on the wiki would be axed

Then they should be axed. What you're saying is that we're wrong, its to hard to fix so lets ignore the issue. The calc uses a random crack to get a size, the hole will change sized and crack position based on the panel and the OP is uses images drawn years apart from each other. There's nothing warranting it being more valid than a single page scale that uses the diameter of the spear.

 

[KingTempest]

Was called back here
If both ends are fully accepted then the higher one can be used

 

[Kachon123]

He's also using a undefined crack to scale to the hole.

It's the clearest crack shown. Every other one is at a weird angle.

 

[Qawsedf234]

It's the clearest crack shown. Every other one is at a weird angle.

So like I said, you're choosing a random crack from an object that changes size and crack positions. Its just inconsistent art that leads to an inflated result. The original is using a single page and one panel to get everything.

 

[KLOL506]

Then they should be axed. What you're saying is that we're wrong, its to hard to fix so lets ignore the issue. The calc uses a random crack to get a size, the hole will change sized and crack position based on the panel and the OP is uses images drawn years apart from each other. There's nothing warranting it being more valid than a single page scale that uses the diameter of the spear.

When I made the comment I didn't make the assumption that this would be a random crack, nor was I talking about using random parts. I was talking about using the length of one part of the machinery compared to a character (Like say, arm of a robot), then using that part of the machinery (The arm) in another shot where the full machine is visible to find the size of the entire machine (The entire robot), and we know for a fact that that specific part of the machinery could not have and cannot change size randomly. This has nothing to do with "Too hard to fix" but rather "the parts here are all consistent in size and could not have possibly changed size so radically and thus should be fine for use to find the full size of the object". I wasn't specifically talking about the crack.

 

[Kachon123]

So like I said, you're choosing a random crack from an object that changes size and crack positions. Its just inconsistent art that leads to an inflated result. The original is using a single page and one panel to get everything.

I made sure that the cracks are at the same area too. In the first scan, I pixel scaled a crack that was right next to the tower (which became the hole after Tatsumaki pulled it up). In the second scan, I did the same.

They are both in the same area. I see no issue in using that crack.

 

[Qawsedf234]

They are both in the same area. I see no issue in using that crack.

They're not in the same area or at least they're not consistently drawn the same in terms of thickness and in length.

When I made the comment I didn't make the assumption that this would be a random crack

But it is. The OP just admitted they used a crack that looked the best on an object they admitted has issues with crack consistency. It breaks the rule

 

[Kachon123]

They're not in the same area

They literally are. Read the chapters.

they're not consistently drawn the same in terms of thickness and in length.

What are you talking about?