I believe it would just make the result higher, when you look something like that from that POV it looks smaller, also Pixel scaling can't be 100% accurate, there is no feat where Pixel scaling can be applied perfectly, I don't see much issues in 11 cm honestly.
11 cm makes no sense, why would it make sense, a safes thickness is like 5cm at most
based on the pixel scaling it does and as I said from that POV it looks even smaller, I don't know if they are 5cm at most, maybe they are I don't know, but if you are right I believe the problem is in the safe's model he showed as base of the pixel scaling since it is clearly different, if you can find a similar one I can agree to change with the new one
Can I pixel scale IRL images ? If so it should be easy
Well I believe is more reliable, but finding one with correct measures would be better but is hard I know
Yeah, I still think the feat should be removed though and recalced, I think we can both agree that its wrong, whether it be a low or high ball, the feat is still wrong and should be removed
I never really said it's wrong because I have no idea if 11 cm is reliable like your 5 cm but based on pixel scaling it is valid, maybe I will do some research later
Its a POV problem, 11cm for the thickness of a safe doesn't sound right
this happens a lot
So can we remove it since or at least figure out something to do with it ? Also thanks for the reply
I guess u can find a money safe thickess reference or just recalculate the size with ur own version
https://www.premiumsafes.com/pages/...comes to body,more steel equals more security.
Jichangs hand, give me a little and I will find the chapter
I personally don't think the 11 cm is the problem. Without any POV problem, it should be more and not less. That's what's the main thing.
How would it be more? It measures the other dimensions from a side that's angled toward the POV, notably making it look shorter, thereby making all the other dimensions bigger than they should be.
You think a safe's thickness is more then 11cm ?!
If it's thickness, then no. I thought it was about the hole size or something. Using a standard thickness is better then.
That safe got you acting up huh?
nah but for real though it's sus. Like i get the gist but it's preferable if we see the actual feat or at least any additional context since for all we know he could have fragmented and and the chunks were cleaned out or fell outside of the safe from the impact, or inside out of our view. If someone is said to have destroyed a mountain and we don't see many remains, i doubt we'd instantly assume it was pulverized. Pulverization of steel is even less common so it indeed feels sus.Another proof that the safe basically vaporizes because it was so hot.
Of course, feats involving turning into vapor typically require clear context or a specific type of destruction, which is not the case here since it's merely hand chopping. The occurrence of smoke doesn't necessarily mean vaporization, and we can see some remnants of dust. Therefore, using Pulverization as the value is safer.
wait they were arguing for vaporization? Bruh.
vaporization arguments are extremely tight on the wiki and you'd need like a lot of supporting evidence for that.
I already applied the changes why are we arguing this, DMUA agreed
