Dressrosa Size Calc

[KingTempest]

Regular members can speak, but please don't just fill this up with "I agrees" unless you're a CGM. Constructive criticism is the only thing wanted.
Agreeing is appreciated, but redundant.

Alright so yeah.

I wasn't gonna post this since it was a lot of work and I'm lazy (ha), but since we're recalcing everything, I might as well. Should just get it over with beforehand so we don't have to revise everything from here.

Main Topic​

There are 2 calcs for Dressrosa's size.

Currently accepted one that we've had for over 2 years

Alternate Dressrosa Scaling

vsbattles.fandom.com

Mine

Dressrosa Recalc (My Version)

vsbattles.fandom.com

Benefits From The Accepted One​

It uses official heights for characters.
1 less assumption.

Benefits From Mine​

Uses a stated timeframe
Less pixelscaling (His uses 4 panels, mine uses 2).

Let's Discuss!

 

[Eminiteable]

Idk if this is calc group only or not, if it is I'm sorry but I'll give my thoughts.

Official heights in the manga have been inconsistent before and with more pixel scaling it can become even more inaccurate.

So considering yours uses a timeframe which has no such issues and less pixel scaling overall I think I'm more inclined to choose yours.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Well, I'm not a calc expert by any means, but recently everyone seems to be in agreement about less scaling steps being the way to go.
With that in mind, this should be a simple matter, unless one of the versions has some fatal flaw or error of some kind, no?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Idk if this is calc group only or not, if it is I'm sorry but I'll give my thoughts.

Official heights in the manga have been inconsistent before and with more pixel scaling it can become even more inaccurate.

So considering yours uses a timeframe which has no such issues and less pixel scaling overall I think I'm more inclined to choose yours.

To bring an example from Bleach,

There's two scenes you can scale the size of the Sokyoku execution stand from character heights, which ends up with a 3x size discrepancy between the two.

Given that authors can't be expected to perfectly pixel scale the same environment over multiple panels, I believe that less panels used for massive structures = more accurate, and statements that don't rely on scaling heights over many panels for size > pixel scales over many panels for size.

Additionally, we have precedence for using stated timeframes with travel speeds to get distances and sizes for structures anyhow.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I am not a CGM (yet) but seriously while i am neutral with the method (Not exactly neutral just that my vote here does not matter totally agree with your own method), it need some fixing,
They were not carried there at the speed of wind, Caesar became a balloon that travelled at an unknown speed (Not the speed of wind) maybe we can use the speed at which normal hot air balloon travel which is 8km-16km per hr, you can use the average 13km per hr. which will make the size of the broken bridge 6.5km, this is more accurate than assuming he travels at the speed of wind while he himself stated it is hard to even stay afloat with three people

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I'm neutral here, both methods work

I'll need to hear more arguments as to why which one is better than the other

 

[KingTempest]

I am not a CGM (yet) but seriously while i am neutral with the method (Not exactly neutral just that my vote here does not matter totally agree with your own method), it need some fixing,
They were not carried there at the speed of wind, Caesar became a balloon that travelled at an unknown speed (Not the speed of wind) maybe we can use the speed at which normal hot air balloon travel which is 8km-16km per hr, you can use the average 13km per hr. which will make the size of the broken bridge 6.5km, this is more accurate than assuming he travels at the speed of wind while he himself stated it is hard to even stay afloat with three people

Thanks, I'll add that at the end of the calculation

 

[KingTempest]

I am not a CGM (yet) but seriously while i am neutral with the method (Not exactly neutral just that my vote here does not matter totally agree with your own method), it need some fixing,
They were not carried there at the speed of wind, Caesar became a balloon that travelled at an unknown speed (Not the speed of wind) maybe we can use the speed at which normal hot air balloon travel which is 8km-16km per hr, you can use the average 13km per hr. which will make the size of the broken bridge 6.5km, this is more accurate than assuming he travels at the speed of wind while he himself stated it is hard to even stay afloat with three people

Revised

 

[Damage3245]

I'll be sure to comment on this soon.

EDIT: It's late for me now so I'll finish my response for the morning, but a TL;DR ahead of time: I think I've found a method that should be better than either of the ones in the OP.

 

[Stefano4444]

Personally speaking, i do think that statements in the series related to distances should take priority over mere pixerscaling, unless there are major contradictions.

 

[Stefano4444]

Thanks, I'll add that at the end of the calculation

I have also updated all the Dressrosa recalcs with the new value.

 

[Blahblah9755]

Revised

Average for 8 and 16 should be 12, also, you divided by 14 instead of the original 14.5

 

[KingTempest]

Average for 8 and 16 should be 12, also, you divided by 14 instead of the original 14.5

I can't math

So 12/14.5?

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Tempest's looks good here because the sizes of character although have been inconsistent before, it is using less pixel scaling and has an actual timeframe, im not a calcer at all but thats just how i see it

 

[Damage3245]

1) This is not a “Stated timeframe” for the journey; the thirty minutes is from page 4 of chapter 710 to page 15 of chapter 710. Caesar Clown carrying them across to the end of the bridge is only a part of that sequence of events which includes the characters conversing with each other, fighting the Fighting Fish, stopping to observe the dwarves taking down a Fighting Fish and dragging it away, a time skip to Caesar Clown carrying them across and then a time skip to them having arrived at the island and them conversing some more.

2) With the full 30 minutes being clearly invalid you would need to assume a new time for this part of the journey; so the basis of this scaling for the island is a calculation where you have to assume speed and time.

3) Substituting a pixelscaling step with a calc doesn’t actually reduce the number of steps involved to two. A more accurate comparison of the two methods would be:

• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2
• Pixelscaling Step 3
• Pixelscaling Step 4

And

• Calculation 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2

If we add in the needed assumptions to make this method work, then it becomes:

• Assumption 1
• Assumption 2
• Calculation 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2

If four pixelscaling steps seems too much, I have an alternative method that can find the size in three steps:

4. This method doesn’t involve scaling to the characters themselves and can find Dressrosa’s size in three steps, so I'd like to substitute this one in place of the one based on Fujitora.

5) Has there been any checks by the way to check the figure found for the length of the bridge against any other visuals of the bridge? Such as visuals of the length of the destroyed part, or the width of the bridge compared to the calculated figure? Calculating any random variable is cool and all, but how do we know it is reliable?

Well, I'm not a calc expert by any means, but recently everyone seems to be in agreement about less scaling steps being the way to go.

This principle of this is correct to me; but it's not solely limited to pixelscaling steps. As I've demonstrated above, other assumptions and calculations are part of the steps of the scaling so from that perspective it looks like to me that KingTempest's method has five steps over my new method which uses three steps.

 

[KingTempest]

1) This is not a “Stated timeframe” for the journey; the thirty minutes is from page 4 of chapter 710 to page 15 of chapter 710. Caesar Clown carrying them across to the end of the bridge is only a part of that sequence of events which includes the characters conversing with each other, fighting the Fighting Fish, stopping to observe the dwarves taking down a Fighting Fish and dragging it away, a time skip to Caesar Clown carrying them across and then a time skip to them having arrived at the island and them conversing some more.

Everything you stated were a bunch of super quick events outside of the travel speed.

It was actually 31 minutes in total and I took out 1 minute for the quick events that took place.

Fighting (one shotting) the Fighting Fish probably took 20 seconds at most, especially if you factor in the ridiculous speed these characters can fight (Usopp quick sniping several marines miles away and Robin blitzing the strawhats), easily not a lot of time. The dwarves destroying the fighting fish probably took a few seconds, since we see them easily dispatch it in the manga ridiculously quick. Them talking won't take that much time.

Heck, we even see with Oda during Alabasta take 2 chapters to go through 15 seconds.

And it took 100 chapters for this arc to go through for a single day... like?

2) With the full 30 minutes being clearly invalid you would need to assume a new time for this part of the journey; so the basis of this scaling for the island is a calculation where you have to assume speed and time.

Assuming speed based on a provided travel method and using a timeframe.

It was actually 31 minutes, I just threw off 1 minute.

3) Substituting a pixelscaling step with a calc doesn’t actually reduce the number of steps involved to two. A more accurate comparison of the two methods would be:

• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2
• Pixelscaling Step 3
• Pixelscaling Step 4

And

• Calculation 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2

If we add in the needed assumptions to make this method work, then it becomes:

• Assumption 1
• Assumption 2
• Calculation 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Pixelscaling Step 2

Trying to add on Assumption 1 and 2 and saying those are completely new steps is just invalid.
More calculations does not make it less valid.
With your logic, here's how it looks.

Ok so we have a stated timeframe and we need to assume a speed. Then we multiply that speed by 5 because we measured 1/5th of the building's height and we multiply that speed by the timeframe to find distance, then we measure that distance with

• Assumption 1
• Calculation 1
• Calculation 2
• Pixelscaling Step 1

More steps is not the issue. More pixelscaling steps is the issue, because you can measure something back and forth with only 2 pictures and its result can get dramatically different. Even on our calculations page it talks about how pixel scaling is risky.

Drawbacks of a calculation​

Of course, not everything is that simple. Even calculations have their own drawbacks. For one, calculations generally involve pixel scaling (more of that later on) which is hard to measure and utilize. Calculations also make presumptions beforehand which are subject to much debate (and are hence not argument-proof). Last of all, calculations are tough. To not only calculate a stat, but to also convey the procedure step by step is tricky and often leaves people confused if done incorrectly.

And my assumptions are actually based on something.
A man turned into a hot air balloon and carries people a distance. Using the logical assumption that he moves at the average speed of a hot air balloon with the timeframe we are given minus a minute for the quick events we have, we get distance.

Or else I can add on the assumptions that Oda is consistent in his drawing after every step of your way, making it like this

• Assumption 1 - Assuming Oda is consistent with his drawing
• Pixelscaling Step 1 - Issho to Platform
• Assumption 2 - Assuming Oda is consistent with his drawing
• Pixelscaling Step 2 - Platform to Crater
• Assumption 3 - Assuming Oda is consistent with his drawing
• Pixelscaling Step 3 - Crater to Island
• Assumption 4 - Assuming Oda is consistent with his drawing
• Pixelscaling Step 4 - Island to Island

If four pixelscaling steps seems too much, I have an alternative method that can find the size in three steps:

4. This method doesn’t involve scaling to the characters themselves and can find Dressrosa’s size in three steps, so I'd like to substitute this one in place of the one based on Fujitora.

• Pixelscaling Step 1 - Scaling the Height of the Sunny to The White part of the marine ships
• Assumption 1 - Assuming that what you calculated is the width of the entire island when the far left of the island is chopped off by a huge text bubble
• Pixelscaling Step 2 - Scaling the ship to the island
• Assumption 2 - Assuming that the diameter of the island in the cropped off text bubble panel is the same diameter as when we see the island after Viz crops half the island off, even though when we see the island that Viz didn't crop off, it has an irregular shape where the portion that you scaled in the last picture is actually larger than the actual diameter of the island
• Pixelscaling Step 3 - Scaling the island to the other island

It's just unintentionally lowballed, since we lack needed visuals.

The same amount of steps as mine with the same amount of assumptions and even more pixelscaling.

5) Has there been any checks by the way to check the figure found for the length of the bridge against any other visuals of the bridge? Such as visuals of the length of the destroyed part, or the width of the bridge compared to the calculated figure? Calculating any random variable is cool and all, but how do we know it is reliable?

Visuals of the length and width of the bridge are inconsistent as heck.

A given timeframe from the author and using a speed based on the method of transportation is more accurate than a bunch of pixelscaling

This principle of this is correct to me; but it's not solely limited to pixelscaling steps. As I've demonstrated above, other assumptions and calculations are part of the steps of the scaling so from that perspective it looks like to me that KingTempest's method has five steps over my new method which uses three steps.

More steps ≠ more inaccurate.
More risky steps based on weird assumptions = more inaccurate

 

[Damage3245]

It was actually 31 minutes in total and I took out 1 minute for the quick events that took place.
It was actually 31 minutes, I just threw off 1 minute.

You're mistaken. That extra minute is a time-jump from after they arrive on the island to Robin and Usopp here. See how they say 15 minutes left to go, then 14 minutes left to go in the next panel?

That's the 1 minute.

Trying to add on Assumption 1 and 2 and saying those are completely new steps is just invalid.

I don't agree.

Or else I can add on the assumptions that Oda is consistent in his drawing after every step of your way, making it like this

You can do that if you wish. We do that for every case of pixelscaling.

It's just unintentionally lowballed, since we lack needed visuals.

I don't think it's much of a lowball, although on the other hand if you look at it that way, yours is an unnecessary highball for trying to calculate the distance involved using assumptions instead of relying on figures directly provided for us.

Visuals of the length and width of the bridge are inconsistent as heck.

So why are you using the visual of the length of the bridge then? How does your method have reliably to it?

More steps ≠ more inaccurate.
More risky steps based on weird assumptions = more inaccurate

I think your steps are definitely riskier in this case.

 

[WrongIdea21]

I found something wrong with the Damage calc so I did a calculation by adding a few steps and changing it a bit. here

 

[KingTempest]

You're mistaken. That extra minute is a time-jump from after they arrive on the island to Robin and Usopp here. See how they say 15 minutes left to go, then 14 minutes left to go in the next panel?

That's the 1 minute.

Alright so I can make a reasonable estimate on the timeframe they spent running and talking and remove it from the 30 minutes.

I don't agree.

You're trying to make it so that an assumption and pixelscaling are the same level of unreliability, which is blatantly untrue.

If someone says they fight for 3000 seconds and I assume that seconds in their verse is the same as seconds in the real world then saying it's 60 minutes, is that as bad as an assumption that the author uses a ruler and measuring tape for all his panels?

You can do that if you wish. We do that for every case of pixelscaling.

So basically your calcs each have 3-4 extra steps because they use pixelscaling correct?

I don't think it's much of a lowball, although on the other hand if you look at it that way, yours is an unnecessary highball for trying to calculate the distance involved using assumptions instead of relying on figures directly provided for us.

The figures provided to us are a timeframe and a method of travel.
You're tryna tell me that using
A. An island scan where a quarter of the island isn't accounted for.
B. An island comparison where the onomatopoeia of the meteor deletes like 90% of the island.

Is more reliable then
A. Using the timeframe we're given.
B. Using a speed based on the method of travel we're given.

It's not an unnecessary highball, it's just a method you don't like. That doesn't make it wrong.

I'm not saying you're lowballing it, I'm saying that because of the lack of scans we are given, it is unintentionally lowballed.

I found something wrong with the Damage calc so I did a calculation by adding a few steps and changing it a bit. here

He/She/They took 1 step further to measure the length of the island and got 20km over.
You see how bad pure pixelscaling is?

So why are you using the visual of the length of the bridge then? How does your method have reliably to it?

How is a timeframe and a hypothesized speed not reliable?

I think your steps are definitely riskier in this case.

Using a timeframe and a speed is riskier than using a bunch of pixelscaling with cropped out values?
What?

 

[USklaverei]

I found something wrong with the Damage calc so I did a calculation by adding a few steps and changing it a bit. here

I also had this problem, we can't see the entire island in the scan he used.

 

[Damage3245]

You're trying to make it so that an assumption and pixelscaling are the same level of unreliability, which is blatantly untrue.
If someone says they fight for 3000 seconds and I assume that seconds in their verse is the same as seconds in the real world then saying it's 60 minutes, is that as bad as an assumption that the author uses a ruler and measuring tape for all his panels?

Different levels of assumptions there. If an author states that a building is 5 meters tall, I wouldn't say that "we have to assume that their meters are the same as ours" unless there was some plausible reason not to.

So basically your calcs each have 3-4 extra steps because they use pixelscaling correct?

If we add those for your pixelscaling as well, sure.

A. An island scan where a quarter of the island isn't accounted for.

The island scan isn't as bad as that, but I'm open to exploring other options.

B. An island comparison where the onomatopoeia of the meteor deletes like 90% of the island.

That isn't the case.

You see how bad pure pixelscaling is?

How does that justify calcing a distance and using that to detirmine the size of everything else? Your 74 kilometer to 90 kilometer size of Dressrosa is far larger than other methods I've seen for it.

How do we know that the 7.5 km figure for the end of the bridge is accurate? How do we know that the 74+ km figure for Dressrosa is accurate?

How is a timeframe and a hypothesized speed not reliable?

Because the two variables aren't solid; they can change.

 

[WrongIdea21]

I also had this problem, we can't see the entire island in the scan he used.

The problem is he uses a scan where the island is cut off, he instantly determines the width of the island without even thinking about the angle of the panel, that's very unfair in my opinion.

 

[USklaverei]

The problem is he uses a scan where the island is cut off, he instantly determines the width of the island without even thinking about the angle of the panel, that's very unfair in my opinion.

Yes, you solved it, it must be good.

 

[Damage3245]

I have limited time today, so I'll probably get back to this thread tomorrow.

 

[KingTempest]

I just noticed (someone else noticed) via WrongIdea21's calc.

The assumption that you made that that's the entire island is just wrong.

In the overhead shot, the bridge is in the middle of the island, but in the picture you used, the bridge now apparently is on the far right?

So using what WI21 calced and assuming that it's half the island is valid, plus the fact that it's not the full island half since we can't see the rest and they got 40km on a lowball.

Different levels of assumptions there. If an author states that a building is 5 meters tall, I wouldn't say that "we have to assume that their meters are the same as ours" unless there was some plausible reason not to.

Notice the first 5 words.

"Different levels of assumptions".

My assumptions aren't even bad. You just don't like them.

If we add those for your pixelscaling as well, sure.

Yours.

• Assumption 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Assumption 2
• Pixelscaling Step 2
• Assumption 3
• Pixelscaling Step 3
• Assumption 4
• Pixelscaling Step 4

Mine

• Assumption 1
• Assumption 2
• Calculation 1
• Pixelscaling Step 1
• Assumption 3
• Pixelscaling Step 2
• Assumption 4

Yours > mine with steps.

The island scan isn't as bad as that, but I'm open to exploring other options.

No, it's even worse

That isn't the case.

That is most definitely the case.
All I see are the ends of the island, I can't even see the island in your panel.

How does that justify calcing a distance and using that to detirmine the size of everything else? Your 74 kilometer to 90 kilometer size of Dressrosa is far larger than other methods I've seen for it.

Don't bring up the 90 over and over so everybody can say "He used 90??? I can't agree with that". The 90 was using wind speed, which changed.

The original accepted size of Dressrosa was 43.8037 km.
This lowballed method of Dressrosa via WrongIdea21 (since we can't see the full size of the island) brought 41.821 km.
Kobster's calc of the currently accepted one from over 2 years ago brought us 27.48592 km.
Cin's recalc using the same exact method as the one above and the currently accepted one got 50.4856075061 km.
Rin recalced it using the same exact method as the one above and the currently accepted one got 31.234 km.

Literally every single calculation you've done for Dressrosa has gotten relative, if not lower than, 20km. You are the only person who has calced Dressrosa to under 20km on this wiki, and the moment we use a different method with lowballed assumptions and half of the island not accounted for, you get 20km exactly.

The one you just did is a lowball and if we fully account for everything like WrongIdea21 did (which they couldn't even do since we still have an unknown portion we can't account for) gets 41 km.

If I use 25 minutes for the speed I get 60 km. I'm planning on changing it to around that time since 5 minutes for those events is ridiculous.

The highest one outside of both of ours is 50km. The lowest is 27 km.
Mine w/ 25 minutes is 10 over.
Yours is almost 10 under.

Don't act like yours is flawless.

How do we know that the 7.5 km figure for the end of the bridge is accurate? How do we know that the 74+ km figure for Dressrosa is accurate?

You and 3 other people calculated the same size with the same exact panels and got results ranging from 17 km to 50 km.
I used math and a few panels to account for the maximum size we can actually visibly see and got 60-74 km.

Because the two variables aren't solid; they can change.

Ok?
Same can island size if you find another picture, just like yours and all the others with the 16.5 km error margin.

 

[WrongIdea21]

Bump

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Tempests one looks better overall atm

 

[Damage3245]

This is something that we're going to need to hear from more CGM's about. I'm currently rereading the Dressrosa arc at the moment to refresh myself on it for this topic (and it is the second-longest arc in One Piece) so I don't want this thread to be over soon.

All I know is that KT's calc in its present state is inaccurate. I will respond more once I've finished the arc and seen if there's anything else that points to a more concrete size either way.

 

[LordGinSama]

Preferably explain why his is wrong, so far you haven't yet.

 

[Damage3245]

@StrawHatArslan; your comment is seriously uncalled for and useless for this thread. Leave this topic to the Calc Group Members and kindly get out of here.

@LordGinSama; if you're not even going to read the thread, you can kindly get lost too.

 

[KingTempest]

Regular members can speak, but please don't just fill this up with "I agrees" unless you're a CGM. Constructive criticism is the only thing wanted.
Agreeing is appreciated, but redundant.

I'll change the timeframe to 25 instead of 30

 

[StrawHatArslan]

@StrawHatArslan; your comment is seriously uncalled for and useless for this thread. Leave this topic to the Calc Group Members and kindly get out of here.

@LordGinSama; if you're not even going to read the thread, you can kindly get lost too.

Okay then..

 

[Damage3245]

Okay then..

Next time you comment like what you've done up above, I'm reporting you. Seriously you're the reason I hate these threads.

You're one of the reasons I'm starting to hate this site actually.

 

[USklaverei]

One Piece: Dressrosa Size + Calc AP

vsbattles.fandom.com

Most already know, but I'll post here too, I did my own calculation for Dresrossa (I took advantage and put all the calculations involving since the current accepted ones are a complete mess)

 

[KingTempest]

One Piece: Dressrosa Size + Calc AP

vsbattles.fandom.com

Most already know, but I'll post here too, I did my own calculation for Dresrossa (I took advantage and put all the calculations involving since the current accepted ones are a complete mess)

Wouldn't you just do left side to the bridge, then multiply it by 2 to get the full island instead of measuring the right with the horrendous angle it shows?

 

[USklaverei]

So, I thought about it, but in this scan I used, you can see the entire diameter of the island, but from another angle, or so, it would be something like this:

 

[KingTempest]

So, I thought about it, but in this scan I used, you can see the entire diameter of the island, but from another angle, or so, it would be something like this:

Oh, that's weird though.

The shape of the island makes it to where weird angles like that make it show the seemingly full island. It's not a circle, so it wouldn't be good when the angle is rotated.

I feel like that red line is accurate for what you calculated. Gimme a minute

 

[USklaverei]

So, I thought about that, too, in this case, I would just have to measure from the bridge to the other half, and then use that to find the diameter, it should work too.

 

[USklaverei]

25 px = 8755.65 m

29 px = 10156.554 m

 

[KingTempest]

25 px = 8755.65 m

29 px = 10156.554 m

Via your calc
Green Bit Diameter: 41 px
Dressrosa Diameter: 239 px
Dressrosa Diameter: 59205.278195122 m

Not too far off from my revised value