- 11,413
- 2,548
Do we use the beam's velocity or the velocity of the beam's expansion?
-
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.
Which velocity do we actually use for air dispersion via beam attacks.
- Thread starter Greatsage13th
- Start date
- 9,630
- 8,663
You should link the calc itself so that other calc group members can check it.
vsbattles.fandom.com
It does seems that the Gaster Blaster take some time to fully expand, it's not instantaneous, how did you got the 0.01 seconds timeframe exactly?
Gaster Blasters AP
vsbattles.fandom.com
It does seems that the Gaster Blaster take some time to fully expand, it's not instantaneous, how did you got the 0.01 seconds timeframe exactly?
- 9,630
- 8,663
This is the first frame of Sans' biggest Gaster Blaster.
It's not that I disagree with the use of the beam's velocity, but I think you should be measuring this frame for the method to work.
As of right now, you are measuring the whole beam, after it was fully expanded, but most of that air was already pushed away in the frame I show above.
@Armorchompy @Psychomaster35 What do you think?
It's not that I disagree with the use of the beam's velocity, but I think you should be measuring this frame for the method to work.
As of right now, you are measuring the whole beam, after it was fully expanded, but most of that air was already pushed away in the frame I show above.
@Armorchompy @Psychomaster35 What do you think?
- 16,084
- 12,564
I feel like given the full animation, the implication is that the beam starts even thinner than that and then expands. At least, that's a possibility. So, I would probably prefer the radius method no matter what.
- 9,630
- 8,663
Yeah, I get where are you coming from.
So I made a new calc using Greatsage's scaling, there's a large discrepancy in the volume we got for some reason.
Last edited:
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #7
You forgotten to times the volume by 2 as 2 blasts of equal proportion was shot.
I used the frame by frame website which the initial beam popped up in 0.01 seconds.
Actually now that I think of it. Why not calculate the initial volume of the 2 beams prior to expansion and use the velocity of the fired beams?
- 9,630
- 8,663
The blasts are overlapping each other, and even if I multiplied the volume by two, it's still far away from your volume.
I'm pretty sure it can't be 0.01 seconds even on that website, as the time lapse moves 0.4 seconds with each frame.
Agnaa brings a reasonable point about the blast not being able to push air.
I don't think this can be used.
Timeframes that low cannot exist in Undertale, and I wonder if you changed the frame rate to 30 fps before moving between each frame.
I'm pretty sure it can't be 0.01 seconds even on that website, as the time lapse moves 0.4 seconds with each frame.
Agnaa brings a reasonable point about the blast not being able to push air.
I don't think this can be used.
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #9
yikes. I forgotten to halve the diameter.
I left it on 25 FPS
there's a 0.01 second option there:
Watch YouTube & Vimeo videos frame by frame | Watch Frame by Frame
Watch Frame by Frame allows you to watch YouTube and Vimeo videos frame by frame and in slow motion.
It can't? why not?
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #10
Nevermind about what I said about frame by frame. Turns out even at 0.01s setting it still moves at 0.03 seconds.
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #11
Bump
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #12
Bump
- 9,630
- 8,663
There's just not enough proof that those beams are creating a vacuum or affecting the air in a meaningful way.
- 11,413
- 2,548
- Thread starter
- #14
Don't all energy beams do that tho?
- 2,314
- 2,079
Not necessarily. To disperse air it needs to have an actual tangible volume. Think of light or radiowaves, those transfer energy but don't screw with air at all, and those are just examples that actually exist IRL, let alone in fiction where anything can be handwaved.
Similar threads
