Qualification for vfrag is confusing

[Kilgorethecouch]

I'll use this calc as an example, specifically the comment made by DarkDragonMedeus and the thread of comments that came after it.
These are the specific statement made by DarkDragon that confuse me.

"VF is for fragments so small they're indistinguishable."

"VF is for is everything is just pebbles and they're not distinguishable."

"They all have to be nothing but pebbles, like no bigger than milliliters individually or something like that to be VF"

However as Bring up by other comments in the calc, parts of these statements are contradictory to the on-site explanation of vfrag

“Violent Fragmentation: Applied when the matter that was destroyed was turned into small but still distinguishable pieces.”

In other words, I just want to know if DarkDragons statements are true, because if they are then the on-site explanation definitely needs to be changed.

The current explanation would not only be far to ambiguous in regards to the size of debris for something that’s apparently supposed to be so specific, but straight up contradictory to the way we actually treat this kind of frag value in regards to distinguishability. It also seems that it spreads miss information to users who are now to making calcs.

 

[Kilgorethecouch]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

Not sure how that's contradictory tho, those are all equally-correct ways of interpreting the description of v. frag that is given on the page, aside from DDM messing up the "indistinguishable" part, he should've prolly said distinguishable. If there are no fragments to be seen anywhere outright and/or a dust cloud is all that remains, that's grounds for pulverization.

But the main point is, the fragments should be miniscule in size compared to the actual volume to qualify for v. frag in more accurate terms. So saying they should be pebble-like in size or very small compared to the original volume doesn't really contradict the notion of "small but still somewhat distinguishable". The mm part seems a bit too strict to use as a starting point for v. frag IMHO.

I believe @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan and @DontTalkDT can explain it better than I can.

Maybe adding a "compared to the original volume" after the "distinguishable pieces" part would help solve confusion?

 

[Kilgorethecouch]

Hmm, I had heard that you weren’t supposed to compare the size of debris to the initial volume, instead purely go off the of the size of the debris themselves. Although if the opposite is actually true than yes your recommendation would probably be good. Also just to correct you a bit, I didn’t think the size of debris part was contradictory, just ambiguous.

 

[Kilgorethecouch]

Although yeah now that I think about it, Going for a specific size wouldn’t make a whole Lotta sense for small objects.

 

[KLOL506]

Hmm, I had heard that you weren’t supposed to compare the size of debris to the initial volume, instead purely go off the of the size of the debris themselves. Although if the opposite is actually true than yes your recommendation would probably be good. Also just to correct you a bit, I didn’t think the size of debris part was contradictory, just ambiguous.

It's not that you have to actually calculate the volume of the debris by calculating it via pixel-scaling or some stuff to then compare it to the original-sized object, just note if the debris appear small in any way compared to the original object that was destroyed.

I mean, frag is pretty obvious, large fragments flying about. V. frag is sorta meant to be the middle ground between frag and pulv., too small to be classified as frag but too big to be classified as pulv. Pulv. is literally what it means: Ground to dust or compressed to shit to the point where fragments are non-existent.

 

[Kilgorethecouch]

Well anyway my confusion has been mostly cured. and as i said, i agree with the "compared to the original volume" idea.