- 34,583
- 35,018
It could just be the angle that makes it looks weird. As a rough approximation it is better than nothing, unless there's some alternative I'm not aware of.
-
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.
My Hero Academia: Deku's Final Smash Calculation
- Thread starter Therefir
- Start date
- Status
- 12,034
- 15,551
It's not a rough approximation Damage. It's wrong by a massive degree if that's true.
Are you seeing the scan? If the ground is directly beneath Izuku's feet, that's a major problem because it doesn't match the scaling being used.
If it's not directly beneath Izuku's feet, that's a major problem, because that means the scaling is wrong, period.
Therefir is getting the storm size by measuring the bottom of the storm cloud to sea level. Which means the angle is very important.
- 34,583
- 35,018
I don't think we should take Deku's presence in the scene as being literal; he shouldn't be visible at all in that shot otherwise the hole would only be a few hundreds of meters across scaling off him. He's visible there just for the sake of being shown to the audience otherwise he'd be a nigh-invisible speck considering the true scale of the scene.
- 12,034
- 15,551
That's because the camera is low to the ground. Are you not paying attention to what I said? It sounds like you're not reading my comment.
Izuku is closer to the ground, meaning he's closer to the camera. He is not kilometers in the air.
However, there's no denying that he's in the center of the dispersal.
The camera is low to the ground, practically on the floor, which means it's looking upward. I don't know how else to explain it. That should be enough.
If you're laying on the floor and looking upward, how would it look?
The ground is 100%, not lined up with the center of the storm. We should be able to see the ground to the mountains in the background if that is the case. The fact we can shows how the appears to be curving up due to the angle of the scan. You don't even need Izuku there to tell that it's wrong.
- 34,583
- 35,018
I am reading what you're saying; but the camera is positioned outside of the dispersal circle; we can see the edge of the clouds at the top of the screenshot. That means that viewpoint is outside of the dispersal radius and regardless of how close Izuku is to the ground, if he's as visible as he is there in that screenshot then that would means he's only hundreds of meters away at best from the POV; not kilometers.
And if Deku, who is, as you said, as the center of the dispersal, is only hundreds of meters away from the edge of the dispersal zone... then that makes the hole hundreds of meters across as I said.
But anyway; what alternative is there? Scaling from the mountains to the clouds?
And if Deku, who is, as you said, as the center of the dispersal, is only hundreds of meters away from the edge of the dispersal zone... then that makes the hole hundreds of meters across as I said.
But anyway; what alternative is there? Scaling from the mountains to the clouds?
- 12,034
- 15,551
I have no idea what an alternative is, I just know that the current pixel scaling is wrong.
I don't know what an alternative would be. Maybe we can just drop this feat in general. Accept it's impossible to calc due to a lack of information.
I'm done. I'm dropping my agreement for Therefir's calc and you can just pretend mine doesn't exist. I still disagree with that strong winds version.
If I can't convince anyone that the scan being used is clearly wrong for those measurements, I'll accept I'm utterly stupid and move on.
I'm not in the mood to debate with anyone.
- 468
- 67
Dekus presence in the shot is being ignored for the sake of not making any actual sense. If you going by that route deku is in the center of the dispersion yet very cleary visible to the viewer from outside of the dispersion radius which is imppssible if it was even remotely close to 100km. By that logic the dispersion would be a few dozen meters across. The 90km value used by therefir right now is already decently above the standart viewing distance for clouds which is 20km.
PhantomØ4
Username Only- 2,248
- 1,485
PhantomØ4
Username Only- 2,248
- 1,485
Kinda odd how the idea of the camera being close to the ground and distorting perspective with foreground elements did not really get picked up... Rusty clearly expressed how Izuku appeared that large in comparison due to being many orders of magnitude closer than the clouds (which is true) so idk how that is brought up as a "but the clouds would be hundreds of meters across then!"
By the way, are we really trying to argue the "anime camera" is subject to atmospheric visibility limitations? lol.
By the way, are we really trying to argue the "anime camera" is subject to atmospheric visibility limitations? lol.
- 1,034
- 1,098
We can assume angle of camera and apply angular sizing I think.
Ghostimuscrime
He/Him- 3,678
- 3,958
let's not comment if we don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion, as it's about the most important feat of the verse it's important to not clutter up the thread as it can push staff away evaluating, someone should delete all the comments below KLOL's last post
- 34,583
- 35,018
I've taken care of them. Best to keep the thread focused.
anyways nice calcs and thread. I agree with what damage and drite agree with (the top method)
- 10,201
- 9,957
- Thread starter
- #96
Don't worry, it's the same calc that you evaluated before, I just added two other calcs to the thread.
- 10,201
- 9,957
- Thread starter
- #97
That's correct.
Last edited:
- 21,529
- 36,120
Yeah this shot is definitely more foreground and much lower that what should be used for measuring the height, I think it should just go by the cloud thickness without trying to scale from the actual ground since its not consistent to the scale of the rest of the shot and is directly below izuku, the 16km height can still be used in the calc just not in the px scaling
- 10,201
- 9,957
- Thread starter
- #99
What cloud thickness and ground to base of cloud would you suggest? While keeping the whole thing under 16 kilometers.
- 21,529
- 36,120
I see no real reason why the 8km value on the cloud calc page wouldn't work for both the thickness and lower edge height since we can the very least say the bottom the clouds was much higher than the mountain range where Mt. Fuji sits which should be about 3.7km
Gives us still basically a perfect fit being within the 16ish km max height range while staying consistent to the visuals of the clouds sitting much higher up than the mountains at their lower edge
Last edited:
- 10,201
- 9,957
- Thread starter
- #101
Here's the calc using only the width of the storm as the reference.
- 21,529
- 36,120
This should work
- 34,583
- 35,018
That new version is fine with me too.
- 11,443
- 10,294
You say this like this wasn’t the 6th recalc
- 3,191
- 3,266
It says the average height of storm clouds but uses the maximum one
- 21,529
- 36,120
Look at the average height and thickness for cumulobimbus clouds on the cloud calc page
- 468
- 67
The pov is already much further away from the point of reference than then the 16km height itself. The difference in distance is almost negligable and I cant see a way you look at the scans and NOT see that the clouds altitude is a good bit greater than the cloud width. But whatever keeps the upgrades coming ig as long as big number go up
- 21,529
- 36,120
The ground is directly below deku on the same plane as him in the scan while the dispersal isn't at all on the same plane as him so its most certainly not a negligible distance
Mfw when actually going for accurate measurements is wanking
- 468
- 67
The pov is already over 50km away from that point in therefirs calc. And the it would be sqrt(16^2 + 50^2) = 52.5km away from the highest point
And by that logic the edge of the dispersion is a much greatee distance away from the shot. Wouldnt it be smaller and inflate the feat then? Its not just going for accurate measurement, as you are entirely disregarding measurements to make an assumption that you can clearly see in the scan itself just blatantly isnt true for the whole sake of getting a higher result.
PhantomØ4
Username Only- 2,248
- 1,485
I'm confused, what is it that you want? It's a bit hard to follow with the wording.
The shot is clearly inconsistent in sizes between objects... the foreground is literally a few meters distorted floor with the camera at an angle and would result in skewed results, just because your method yields lower results does not mean it's more accurate. I think the safest thing one can do here is rely on the object being consistent in depicting its own relative dimensions rather than compare it with other known measurements that we know are drawn badly, skewed and are not reliable in the shot.
Last edited:
- 12,034
- 15,551
That looks better to me.
Unless someone finds a better method, this one has my vote. You can put me down for accepting it.
- 21,529
- 36,120
- 10,201
- 9,957
- Thread starter
- #116
Just in case, @Drite77 and @KLOL506, this is the new (and hopefully) final version of the calc, does it look good to you?
- 9,538
- 1,493
It works for me and, like you said, hopefully nothing else happens to change it any further
- 34,583
- 35,018
We tried that. The current view of it that we have doesn't give a good angle for measuring that distance.
- 21,529
- 36,120
- Status
Similar threads
