Two different calcs for Boros' ship

[Cryo123]

There are two different calcs for the Impact Energy of Boros' ship. Both calcs have been approved by Calc group members.

One is by EnderLord8: right here

And the other is by Zamasu Chan: right here

One thing I would like to note, is that there is a major issue with Zamasu's calculation. It cuts off 23% of the ship's mass because Geryuganshoop tells Boros 23% of the ship has been destroyed, but all of this damage happens inside of the ship, so the that matter is still in the ship, meaning its mass would not be affected.

Edit: EdnerLord8 also uses this calc to find Boros' ship size while Zamasu does not

That's basically it.

 

[LordTracer]

One is by EnderLord8: right here

It also needs to be noted that this calc uses this size for Boros’ ship.

And the other is by Zamasu Chan: right here

While this one does not.

 

[Cryo123]

Ah, I did not notice the distinction. I'll add it to the post.

 

[ImposingTiger]

I don't know how to do calcs but the 23% thing has convinced me that Ender's calc is more accurate.

 

[EnderLord8]

Also 15.024 meters is the ship size value for the anime and not the manga, in which TimmyTurnero's calculation finds the ship size for the manga

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

If Enderlord's does indeed use the manga values, then I'd probably say Enderlord's is better to go by considering our standards.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Yeah, imo Enderlord's calc should be used

 

[Cryo123]

Seems pretty much unanimous... I think we need official calc group members to agree though.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I already contacted some a few hours ago, but they've yet to reply

 

[Arceus0x]

why don't they use the official size of the ship? Or did i miss sth?

 

[ImposingTiger]

There's no official size for the ship in the manga. The 15km one is anime only, and doesn't line up with how the manga portrays it.

 

[EnderLord8]

Anime ship size = 15.024 meters
Manga ship size = 96.280,43 meters

 

[Cryo123]

Should I try to contact other calc members?

 

[NikHelton]

The new ship sizes don't work. Because of the perspective, the bullet seems too big, while on all other pages (and pages where it is drawn well) we get a different result.

Moreover, the sizing calculation uses a width value of 1 pixel, although this is not wiki standards.

 

[EnderLord8]

The new ship sizes don't work. Because of the perspective, the bullet seems too big, while on all other pages (and pages where it is drawn well) we get a different result.

Moreover, the sizing calculation uses a width value of 1 pixel, although this is not wiki standards.

You could develop your position more clearly.

I didn't fully understand what you said.

 

[Cryo123]

The new ship sizes don't work. Because of the perspective, the bullet seems too big, while on all other pages (and pages where it is drawn well) we get a different result.

Moreover, the sizing calculation uses a width value of 1 pixel, although this is not wiki standards.

The calc you are questioning has already been accepted, so I don't really think this discredits Ender's calc.

 

[NikHelton]

You could develop your position more clearly.

I didn't fully understand what you said.

The bullet appears to be large because of the angle at which it is brought. That's how perspective works. Literally on the next page, this bullet has a different size.

Plus, we have a page in the version before redrawing, where the bullet is shown in the compartment from where it flies out and there, again, smaller sizes. My point is that that frame is not enough for bullet size scaling, when we have a number of more reliable and correct frames that are consistent with each other.

Also, we can't use a 1 pixel object for scaling, as this creates size mismatch and confusion.

 

[NikHelton]

The calc you are questioning has already been accepted, so I don't really think this discredits Ender's calc.

Just because a member of the calc group forgot about the pixel-by-pixel scaling rule doesn't mean I can't bring up the subject. For the same reason, I did a small downgrade for ENO, because the members of the calculation group pointed out to me the error.

 

[LordTracer]

The calc you are questioning has already been accepted, so I don't really think this discredits Ender's calc.

Accepted calcs can still be questioned or corrected. Hell, that’s kinda what recalcs (like Ender’s calc) are.

 

[NikHelton]

I'll do my version of the calculation when I get home.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

You should contact Zamasu for this and get other CGMs to check those calcs, for Ender's only I have commented and that's definitely not enough.

 

[NikHelton]

You should contact Zamasu for this and get other CGMs to check those calcs, for Ender's only I have commented and that's definitely not enough.

What do you think about the points I mentioned above?

 

[Dark-Carioca]

What do you think about the points I mentioned above?

Which ones in specific?

 

[Arceus0x]

Which ones in specific?

he made like 3 points bro

 

[Dark-Carioca]

he made like 3 points bro

No need to be sarcastic... But I'll keep that in mind next time you ask for my help on calcs.

It must be very hard for you to process that I asked for a summary because I'm a bit busy at the moment.

 

[Nierre]

 

[NikHelton]

No need to be sarcastic... But I'll keep that in mind next time you ask for my help on calcs.

It must be very hard for you to process that I asked for a summary because I'm a bit busy at the moment.

There was no aggression in his message, friend. And irony is not bad. Lightens up the situation.

About the points:

1) The bullet looks too big due to the angle of view and literally on the next page it is much smaller.
2) We have enough pages, including the version before redrawing, which shows in detail the mechanism of the guns, where we see that the bullets are not as large as in the new calculation.
3) We cannot use a 1 pixel object as a reference and scale objects from it. This gives great results. I myself made this mistake a couple of times until Therefir told me.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

There was no aggression in his message, friend. And irony is not bad. Lightens up the situation.

Sarcasm, not irony. As for the tone, based on past conversations I'd say it was more cheeky than aggressive (still unnecessary)... Of course, I never said it was aggressive, that was an assumption on your end. Also, "lightens up the situation"? It'd be excusable if it was a serious conversation, but given the topic and the series, it's not. There was no need to lighten up the situation because there was nothing to lighten up.

About the points:

1) The bullet looks too big due to the angle of view and literally on the next page it is much smaller.
2) We have enough pages, including the version before redrawing, which shows in detail the mechanism of the guns, where we see that the bullets are not as large as in the new calculation.
3) We cannot use a 1 pixel object as a reference and scale objects from it. This gives great results. I myself made this mistake a couple of times until Therefir told me.

Purely artistic inconsistencies, admittedly. Murata's known for those (most mangaka are), but it's fine to use the first instance of the bullet as reference. And I assume you're referring to them showing the mechanism to the guns here?

What calc uses 1 px object as reference? The one where they calculate the ship's size? I haven't seen that bit in any of the calcs.

 

[NikHelton]

Sarcasm, not irony. As for the tone, based on past conversations I'd say it was more cheeky than aggressive (still unnecessary)... Of course, I never said it was aggressive, that was an assumption on your end. Also, "lightens up the situation"? It'd be excusable if it was a serious conversation, but given the topic and the series, it's not. There was no need to lighten up the situation because there was nothing to lighten up.


Purely artistic inconsistencies, admittedly. Murata's known for those (most mangaka are), but it's fine to use the first instance of the bullet as reference. And I assume you're referring to them showing the mechanism to the guns here?

What calc uses 1 px object as reference? The one where they calculate the ship's size? I haven't seen that bit in any of the calcs.

Yes, this shot of the mechanism, as well as all the other bullet size pages. I think it's better for us to go with the ubiquitous size than with what was shown in one frame from a special angle.

Yes, Timmy's calculation uses a bullet width of 1 pixel to scale the ship. This is the wrong approach. And for some reason I am sure that there is more than 1 pixel.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

There's nothing wrong with using the first appearance of the bullet as reference, that is how most instances with inconsistent sizes go. It's the debut of the weapon's artillery and the most important and well remembered moment, showcasing its size and how it was able to destroy the city so effortlessly.

I have pixel scaled the same image Timmy used and depending on which bullet you pick, you either indeed get 1 pixel, slightly more or no pixels at all.

 

[Arceus0x]

But I'll keep that in mind next time you ask for my help on calcs.

i'll keep in mind that people around these parts can't take a joke

 

[Dark-Carioca]

i'll keep in mind that people around these parts can't take a joke

I mean without an "xD" or a "lol" or something, you can't fault others for thinking you were being unnecessarily cheeky. Nothing in that really indicated it was a joke.

 

[Arceus0x]

I mean without an "xD" or a "lol" or something, you can't fault others for thinking you were being unnecessarily cheeky. Nothing in that really indicated it was a joke.

i think the fact that i unironically used bro is already a decent indicator to the fact that i wasn't intending to say anything serious

 

[Dark-Carioca]

i think the fact that i unironically used bro is already a decent indicator to the fact that i wasn't intending to say anything serious

"Bro" isn't really a neutral or jokey term necessarily though... It can be used aggressively or disrespectfully just as often.

But let's drop this, if you didn't intend to be cheeky that's fine by me.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Thanks for the criticism on my calc ig. Can't wait for the third one lol.

 

[NikHelton]

The standard should be a more stable and clear image, and not what you saw for the first time. Especially when the object is at an angle point-blank to the lens, distorting the actual size.

 

[Therefir]

We can't use this bullet for scaling, we are practically looking at the front of the bullet in that panel, the angle is skewed.

And the panel which Timmy used to find the size of those orbs is bad as well, as we are seeing the bullets from behind and not their sides.

 

[Therefir]

I also got similar results to the anime using the first panel in which the spaceship appears, so I don't see how the ship in the manga is bigger than in the anime when there are no statements of its size and all we have are scaling calcs.

@Zamasu_Chan You need to fix your calc by not subtracting 23% of the ship's mass, because even if Saitama has destroyed 23% of the ship's interior, the mass is still there (Not to mention it only says 23% of the ship was "damaged").

 

[NikHelton]

I also got similar results to the anime using the first panel in which the spaceship appears, so I don't see how the ship in the manga is bigger than in the anime when there are no statements of its size and all we have are scaling calcs.

@Zamasu_Chan You need to fix your calc by not subtracting 23% of the ship's mass, because even if Saitama has destroyed 23% of the ship's interior, the mass is still there (Not to mention it only says 23% of the ship was "damaged").

Links don't work

 

[EnderLord8]

And I also found this other calculation for the size of the ship, maybe it's valid, if Timmy's calculation is not.