• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm... if I may suggest a little reformulation: Instead of "bomb" we should probably use something like "explosion source", since explosions in fictions could also be caused by spells and stuff.
 
Hmmm... if I may suggest a little reformulation: Instead of "bomb" we should probably use something like "explosion source", since explosions in fictions could also be caused by spells and stuff.
I could do that.
 
How would one go about calculating for our previous description of "point-blank"?
 
I could do that.
I did some more minor edits. I hope you don't mind them.

How would one go about calculating for our previous description of "point-blank"?
If it's point-blank by our current definition, then still that way. If it isn't then in the way the page specifies for not point-blank explosions.
 
How would one go about calculating for our previous description of "point-blank"?
Basically if the explosion happens inside of you, or you cover it with your body fully, or you just so manage to end up having it explode in your face, right under your feet or where you are sitting/crouching and the bomb isn't the size of a big nuke (As in, smaller than your body, like say, the size of a small gunpowder barrel or a grenade or somesuch, if it's like, as big as IRL nukes then the shelling might put the real explosive a bit farther than your body), then you scale to the full yield. You'd need to be at least 0.23-ish meters away from the bomb to scale to its full yield.
 
Last edited:
I did some more minor edits. I hope you don't mind them.
Thank you.

BTW, I once read in an article regarding point-blank (Related to gun shots but still) and it said that 1 meter is the minimum distance to achieve "point-blank". Forgot the article link tho.
 
By previous definition I mean "character is like, 20 cm away from the explosion"
 
By previous definition I mean "character is like, 20 cm away from the explosion"
That'd prolly break the inverse square law formula assuming you go with 0.68 m^2 average human cross-sectional area. Max limit for the formula to work is 23.26232201 cm (That's the distance I found where one would scale to the full yield using average human Cross-sectional area assuming that's how far they were from the bomb/explosion source). If your cross-section is bigger (And it definitely will be for a lot of characters that weigh more than 62 kg and measure well above 5ft 9in), then the explosion would need to be a tiny bit farther away from the explosion for it to remain valid before the math completely breaks down.

So if a character is 20 cm away from the explosion, assuming he/she uses the average cross-sectional area, then yeah, he scales to the full yield. And yeah, it'd fit the definition of point-blank here, assuming it was even a thing in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, since that's now been taken care of, we can finally focus on the Simpsons.

BTW, I made a boo boo on the Grimes explosion, I used a frame that happens way too late and isn't the true diameter of the explosion (I took a frame much later than the explosion's full size, I took it when it had already shrunk down), fixing it now. Actual diameter is a lot bigger.

EDIT: DONE, actual result is 0.682212195 tons of TNT.
 
Last edited:
Well I know nothing about the Simpsons so I'm gonna unfollow this, however yall don't forget to check the abilities, Butters was very generous with handing them out.
 
Well I know nothing about the Simpsons so I'm gonna unfollow this, however yall don't forget to check the abilities, Butters was very generous with handing them out.
Sure, no problem, I'll ask some experts around the neighborhood.
 
anyway I feel like speed is something that should be fixed supersonic should really be in reactions and we need some calcs for homer and that random thug dodging bullets
For abilities, I think regen, broadway force, duplication, and maybe light manipulation should be removed since these are one time things used for a gag that also regen is probably the biggest stretch for him since it only happened once and we don't know the actual damage done to homer it's really just getting squished something common for cartoons and I think it's more body control than regen
 
something I also want to talk about is speed supersonic should really be in reactions and subsonic + in traveling speed I'm gonna make some calcs for some of these feats
 
something I also want to talk about is speed supersonic should really be in reactions and subsonic + in traveling speed I'm gonna make some calcs for some of these feats
Yeah, Subsonic+ travel speed with Supersonic Combat Speed and Reactions should be fine.
 
Yeah, Subsonic+ travel speed with Supersonic Combat Speed and Reactions should be fine.
This statement just reminds me of another thing about our current Simpsons profiles

Just the fact we're talking about a comedy show with well over 20 years of runtime as if these ratings are actually consistent across it

To quote what I believe was Jaften

"Remember the episode where Lisa broke the sound barrier and oneshot a tank?"

Of course that's going to take a bit more research than I'm willing to put in my far but, I'm just saying it's more than a matter of bad calcs.
 
This statement just reminds me of another thing about our current Simpsons profiles

Just the fact we're talking about a comedy show with well over 20 years of runtime as if these ratings are actually consistent across it

To quote what I believe was Jaften

"Remember the episode where Lisa broke the sound barrier and oneshot a tank?"

Of course that's going to take a bit more research than I'm willing to put in my far but, I'm just saying it's more than a matter of bad calcs.
Lisa broke the sound barrier and one-shot a tank

At least I feel better with Hellbeast reminding me that in the older days these feats used to be consistent.
 
Eh, if it is, perhaps it is, I'm just throwing that out there
 
That's kinda the fun with talking about the Simpsons power scaling with all those years you can see some pretty wacky feats with just more to find as you dig more into it
 
Also how did you take the screenshot of that feat? I can't get it to be afterimage-y like you did.
 
I used something called pixlr on my browser and screwed with the second layer image layer and found what I wanted I forgot what it was on there
 
Honestly even if you found 9-A and higher feats, aren't they just outliers? They're consistently approx. 9-B at best.
 
Honestly even if you found 9-A and higher feats, aren't they just outliers? They're consistently approx. 9-B at best.
Maybe the newer Simpsons, but older-gen Simpsons had decent 9-A feats to 8-C feats for sure.

Heck, even Homer's faster-than-sound freefall is incredibly high into 9-B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top