Possibly Overwatch upgrade due to something no one discussed

[Oleggator]

Ok, I have seen some overwatch downgrades. I found the downgrades as ok, but at this moment never was discussed Hammond's feat where he was fallen from space.
The calculation of this already was made by @WeeklyBattles , but I haven't seen someone talked about it. As WeeklyBattles stated, Hammond upgraded the capsule from which he fall. And as Hammond now technically scales to everyone in Overwatch I think, nothing would be wrong when everyone would be scaled to Hammond. Probably this was previously discussed, but I didn't found this.

 

[ThisThingisReallyBroken]

High 8-C overwatch

pog

 

[Oleggator]

Tbh I found more ironic, the character I main is exactly a character who probably will upgrade a verse.

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

To makes things more ironic or something I agree with this CRT

 

[Schwxnz]

The feat has been recalc'd at 9-A

 

[Oleggator]

Hmmmmm, any debates on which calc is most right? Cause I actually found a problem here.
@Drite77 stated the problem is( I'll quote) "The problem with the feat is that Hammond's pod is falling from orbit, as the video shows, he likely had negligible to zero vertical momentum, since the thing that was carrying Hammond was kinda that orbiting the planet?". However pod wasn't orbiting the planet. In video (), he was falling directly in Australia and official lore of overwatch claimed that Hammond fall in Australia.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Most falling from outer space feats are often inflated because some people just assume they fall at escape velocity speeds without any real evidence. Plus, terminal velocity is an important concept for all freefalling feats, as otherwise falls that give Tier 8 impressions can be reduced all the way to Wall level.

 

[Oleggator]

So, that must mean, most of that kind of feats, must be or properly calculated including concepts or just be considered as 9B?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It needs to be calculated first and foremost, but falls that happen off screen need to take terminal velocity in mind in order to find proper results.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

It needs to be calculated first and foremost, but falls that happen off screen need to take terminal velocity in mind in order to find proper results.

It happened on screen tho

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Even if it happens on screen, you also don't just assume they fall at Hypersonic speeds; in atmospheric heights, the air so thin that even Subsonic motions can cause fires. But you calc to things; the potential energy; Height * Gravity * Mass, then you calc terminal velocity and plug the terminal velocity into a KE calculator. Then you take the lower of the two results.

 

[Oleggator]

So...
That means recalc with considering to other forces?

 

[Oleggator]

Bump

 

[Oleggator]

Ok, I relooked at both @WeeklyBattles and @Drite77 calc. And as I can see formula they're use is pretty much same, but the only difference they're mostly have is speed of falling pod. So we must decide which speed was more correct. Drite77's 1715 m/s vs WeeklyBattles's 7823.2 m/s.
Drite77 speed of fall was based on burning pod. So a question for Weeklybattles, why speed of Hammond pod was 7823.2(As I understand because of space shuttles (when they were used) entered the atmosphere at around 7,500 m/s (which is lower than escape velocity))?
And a little bonus, probably Echo can get mid-low reg but not combat applicable, due to one of her dialogues, it's very unlikely but I just want also to note this.

 

[Oleggator]

Bump

 

[Oleggator]

Bump

 

[Oleggator]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus

Is there anything left to do here, or should this thread be closed?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think I already addressed the main thing in the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you. I will close this then.