The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations

[DMUA]

Well

Yeah I'm gonna have to figure out how all this math translates to in English and update all my stuff

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean... if High 7-A went to Low 6-B, then RWBY will probably be back to 7-B methinks

No, it is unafected.

And if we aolied the horizon stuff it would lead to an absolute outlier (it already is but lets ignore that)

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Okay, got it

Tbh I think Raven's storm is an outlier too

 

[Kaltias]

Drop the RWBY discussion bois. This isn't the place for that

 

[DMUA]

okay but how is someone having a 5th of the power of an ancient and powerful wizard an outlier when the only time said maidens get hurt their powers aren't enabled

legit out of left field

Also yes Kal

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

RIP Nero vs Selvy though...

But alright, I agree. Let's drop this

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yeah.

Though I feel that somewhat of a multiplier for each cloud could be made to not remake all calcs.

But I'm not following the math anymore than DMUA.

 

[DMUA]

It's not a multiplicative matter

It's a need for completely recalculating everything so it lines up with the new horizon determining methods

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yes, but as far as I understand the difference mostly stays the same between each. How high the cloud is, which leads to how much more mass it has.

 

[Kaltias]

It's more complex than that.

If you refer to the image I posted above, we used to calculate BH, now we will calculate AB.

It can't really use a single multiplier because both the observer's height and the cloud height affect the result

 

[BlackeJan]

Oh boy....yur telling me now that 90% of the storm Calcs we have will have to be changed?!

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

And 90% of that will be outlier.

 

[BlackeJan]

And 90% of that will be outlier.

Oh dear Neptune....May the lords guides our soul...

 

[Kaltias]

Guys stay on topic

 

[BlackeJan]

Well anyways....would we need to send u the storm Calcs now?

 

[Kaltias]

No. The calcs will be redone separately, we need to update the pages first

 

[BlackeJan]

Ok

 

[BlackeJan]

Does that mean everything is done here?

 

[Kaltias]

No.

We need to rewrite the calc page and add values for cloud height, be patient

 

[BlackeJan]

^^^^

Yes yes I am patient I just wanted to know lol sorry if it seemed like I wasn't

 

[BlackeJan]

I do want to ask but would this also affect meteors? U know that entered earth and affected the clouds?

 

[Kaltias]

No

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Well, I hope I learn how to do the new method, Fairy Tail has a Horizon Storm Calc, so I'll be happy when the new method comes out

 

[George_Hatziantoni]

Which is the final formula settled here out of everyone's?

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Bumping in case there's something else to discuss

 

[Ecstasy_Amphetamine]

No no no man
There's also

Ninjago

RWBY (Which probably won't change honestly)

Mortal Kombat

And even Jack of All Tra-

.... Why do I keep bringing up my own works all the time

omg

 

[DMUA]

I mean

I've never really played any games other then X but my bro Ed is into them apparently so by association I kinda know stuff

 

[Andytrenom]

I mean

I've never really played any games other then X but my bro Ed is into them apparently so by association I kinda know stuff

That's actually pretty much how I know Prototype.

 

[Ecstasy_Amphetamine]

I read through the thread, does that mean some of the results of storm calcs will increase here?

 

[Andytrenom]

Yes. Because we will no longer use distance to horizon as radius of storm but something much bigger than it.

 

[Ecstasy_Amphetamine]

I guess this might take a week or more, judging by the many storm calcs that verses rely on.

 

[AguilaR101]

Just to know, Is the method for scaling the volume of clouds changing as well? As far as I am aware, Cylinder Volume with radius of storm + cloud height is the standard to measure it.

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't think they are.

 

[Jobbo]

It's changing if we go with DontTalk's method.

 

[Ugarik]

It's changing if we go with DontTalk's method.

This is not gonna be much diffirent because the curvature is not that significant even at that distance. In fast this may leed to even a greater inaccuracy

 

[AguilaR101]

I heavily disagree with measuring volume of clouds as a spherical cap because:

1. The method was clearly only suggested to make the results lower than they would be, in order to avoid characters being rated too high or have their feat regarded as an outlier.

2. Spherical cap only works with a straight line as a base, clouds extend far enough to where earth's curvature is noticeable and as such you will end up not including the full volume of the clouds or vastly inflating it depending on which altitude you pick to draw the line of the base

3. It overcomplicates a simple and intuitive process that requires only the radius and the average height of a cloud to figure out.

 

[Ugarik]

Actually volume as a spherical cap supposed to get a higher results but I can agree with you overall

 

[Jobbo]

Except it isn't actually a spherical cap, it's just taking two spherical sectors and using the difference as the volume which is more accurate than using a cylinder.

 

[Kaltias]

Tbf almost nothing changes.

It looks like a notable difference looking at something like this, but that's only because the observer and the clouds are several hundreds of kilometres above the ground.

If it was drawn according to the actual proportions, it would be more clear that the difference between the cylinder and the spherical cap is almost null.

 

[Jobbo]

There are some calcs that would have their cloud distance bumped up to the hundreds of kilometers, perhaps more. At that point not accounting for the curvature results in a difference of several percent.

Or rather, why not just use whatever formula you want?