• 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.
Was the High 6-A/5-C calculation accepted? I didn't see DMUA's commenting on it.
He asked why the clouds would be split in tandem with the sword swing. The reason why is stated in the OP. He said the calc itself was fine.
 
The OP proposals look good.
Phantom updated the calc, but has a calc member relooked at it? Doesn't look like that to me.

Excluding that the scaling is fine, and specifically i support the 7-B, High 6-C by using all his Mana at once, option for Puck.
I also support 7-B, High 6-C by using all his Mana at once for Puck as the better option; the rest seem fine.
He asked why the clouds would be split in tandem with the sword swing. The reason why is stated in the OP. He said the calc itself was fine.
Apparently, the calculation was not accepted.

Captura-de-tela-2023-12-01-171038.png
 
No, I didn't, I approved the first and realized that the .35 second assumption was just a strange point to use at all given the context
Is the 0.35s timeframe not appropriate then, even with the reasoning given in the OP?
 
It was done by a sword slash, that doesn't mean the clouds crossed the entire distance within .35 seconds.

If you have an anime clip, I'd be perfectly fine with you just going off of that dunno why you didn't just do that immediately but eh
 
Reinforces my statement that it wouldn't have been entirely within the timeframe of a single sword slash, but on the other hand that's like, a single second rather than 5 so it'd still be under my estimate
 
Anime is 54 frames at 24fps, 2.416666s (unless it was counted wrong in the anime ver. of the calc)
 
It was done by a sword slash, that doesn't mean the clouds crossed the entire distance within .35 seconds.
Not "done by," I mean "done within."

As in, he slashed, the clouds parted, and then his slash came to an end. That's how it's described in the novel. That's the series of events.
 
That's just not what I'm seeing from the original context, and the visual representation seems to support that.
Anime is 54 frames at 24fps, 2.416666s (unless it was counted wrong in the anime ver. of the calc)
Just use this value.
 
(Admittedly I'm now realizing that my proposition just results in the original calc that the new one sourced from and I just blanked on them not actually calculating the volume in favor of my eyes scrolling over it and going "wait .35 seconds seems off")
 
Napkin maths, using the actual cloud calculator to find the cloud mass (52,870,659,645,134,820kg), then using the anime timeframe (2.41666666666s), gives a result of around 4.8010981e27J.

Gonna get it in the blog if that's right, thanks for responding tho 🙏
 
@PhantomØ4 Can you update the calc?
I did. I was supposed to update it like a month ago but Zabazab got me to read chainsawman instead and then JJK.

However, I also went in and adjusted for whatever the distance to Van Astrea lands which was the main thing that I wanted to fix last time. Zabazab more-less told me the Van Astrea should be 4.5+ days away from the mansion since Reinhard could not make it back in time even in Subaru contacted him with the emergency to get help. Since this is in-verse stuff I just wanted to confirm with you and ask you if you think we should use 24 hours travel time due to Reinhard needing no rest for 7 days or if I should lower it to a Rem-like 12 hours traveling a day.

PD: If you do need something done/edited or whatever its probably better to tell Zabazab to tell me on discord.
 
So, this turned into an upgrade 🤯

I think the assumptions are fine.

Essentially Base Puck with all his magic becomes High 6-C, Beast of the End Puck becomes 6-A, and Reinhard becomes 5-B.
 
So, this turned into an upgrade 🤯

I think the assumptions are fine.

Essentially Base Puck with all his magic becomes High 6-C, Beast of the End Puck becomes 6-A, and Reinhard becomes 5-B
I am sorryyyy I added an extra zero on the distance that I only noticed RIGHT after I posted this 😭😭😭

Fixed the fix. It's still Moon level Reinhard and Country Level puck.
 
I did. I was supposed to update it like a month ago but Zabazab got me to read chainsawman instead and then JJK.
You should really put down that you're using the average cloud height of a cumulonimbus in your blog.

It took me quite a bit if time to find out where you were getting any kind of height to use in the calculator.

However, where are you getting the 3000 m thickness for the clouds in your calculation? I don't see anything like that on our page for a cumulonimbus cloud.

It'd be great to source as much information as you can.

Lastly, spreading clouds from a center point like Reinhard does in the video requires this formula. Kinetic Energy = 1/12*cloud mass*(Speed of cloud movement)^2

You can't use the standard KE formula.
 
However, where are you getting the 3000 m thickness for the clouds in your calculation? I don't see anything like that on our page for a cumulonimbus cloud.
I believe the nimbostratus values are being used, 3000m thickness & 1828.8m height.

Would cumulonimbus be a more appropriate cloud type for a blizzard?
 
Shouldn't be using different types of cloud values for the same storm.

I said cumulonimbus cloud since that's the height they're using in the calculation, which took me way too long to find.

But I'm going wait for the calc creator to respond, since they might have a different reason.
 
You should really put down that you're using the average cloud height of a cumulonimbus in your blog.

It took me quite a bit if time to find out where you were getting any kind of height to use in the calculator.

However, where are you getting the 3000 m thickness for the clouds in your calculation? I don't see anything like that on our page for a cumulonimbus cloud.

It'd be great to source as much information as you can.

Lastly, spreading clouds from a center point like Reinhard does in the video requires this formula. Kinetic Energy = 1/12*cloud mass*(Speed of cloud movement)^2

You can't use the standard KE formula.
@PhantomØ4
 
You should really put down that you're using the average cloud height of a cumulonimbus in your blog.

It took me quite a bit if time to find out where you were getting any kind of height to use in the calculator.

However, where are you getting the 3000 m thickness for the clouds in your calculation? I don't see anything like that on our page for a cumulonimbus cloud.

It'd be great to source as much information as you can.

Lastly, spreading clouds from a center point like Reinhard does in the video requires this formula. Kinetic Energy = 1/12*cloud mass*(Speed of cloud movement)^2

You can't use the standard KE formula.
Calc has been updated.
 
(Admittedly I'm now realizing that my proposition just results in the original calc that the new one sourced from and I just blanked on them not actually calculating the volume in favor of my eyes scrolling over it and going "wait .35 seconds seems off")
Shouldn't be using different types of cloud values for the same storm.

I said cumulonimbus cloud since that's the height they're using in the calculation, which took me way too long to find.

But I'm going wait for the calc creator to respond, since they might have a different reason.
.
 
@PhantomØ4

Okay, this time it's not entirely my fault 80% on this Zab's Re:Zero knowledge and napkin math. SMH. The other 20% is my fault for not double checking what I was told to copy paste into my calc to "fix it". On the bright side Small Planet level Reinhard. (Psst make him planet level already via statements and close supporting feat ong)

Shouldn't be using different types of cloud values for the same storm.

I said cumulonimbus cloud since that's the height they're using in the calculation, which took me way too long to find.

But I'm going wait for the calc creator to respond, since they might have a different reason.

Yeah, Zabazab was rushing me and sent over his mathz for me to just put in my blog, the elevation was wrong. I corrected I used 1828.8 elevation for the clouds which aligns with with the correct cloud type. I apologize for not double checking what I was given properly.
 
Back
Top