• 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.

Slight changes into ISL

Floxy178

He/Him
VS Battles
Calculation Group
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
1,092
Currently, when a spherical celestial body is destroyed via omnidirectional explosion, its cross sectional area (pi * r^2) is taken. Then we find surface area with radius of distance from epicenter to planet and by their ratio we'll know how much part of explosion hit the planet. While it might be a good simplification when center of explosion is fairly far, we can still accurately account for energy being emanated from one point, which CA won't do.

Proposal

The core idea is to look at sphere sector to see how much part of explosion actually reaches target.

Firstly, let's assume that we simply know distance to the planet's surface, or use direct pixelscaling. Knowing planet's radius:

We can visualize like this, where r is planet's radius, d is distance from center of explosion to surface of planet, x is cap height and h is cap radius.

Total yield / tanked yield = 4*pi*R^2 / (2*pi*R*x) = 2R/x

Knowing that x = R - sqrt(R^2 - h^2) and h = r * R / (r + d) we get:
x = R - R^2/(r+d)

So after some simplifying 2R/x becomes:
2 * (r + d) * (r + d + sqrt(d*(d + 2*r))) / r^2

Let's also assume we're finding distance via angular sizing from POV to planet. It'll look like this, we'll need to account for planet curvature, and after finding corrected size (s), we use angular sizing to find distance (d).

So we have R = sqrt(d^2 + (s/2)^2)

Since height of cap here is R-d, total yield / tanked yield is 2R/(R-d). So formula is:

2 * sqrt(d^2 + (s/2)^2) / (sqrt(d^2 + (s/2)^2) - d)

This only affects cases when object is spherical and will be useful when explosion is fairly close to planet.

Additionally, it should also be noted to be careful when dealing with feats where center of explosion is very close to characer, as by our method people will assume all body parts of character tanks same intensity (and they just use closest distance), which sometimes can result in equal or even more yield than total yield while it logically can't exceed half of it in most cases.

Agree: DontTalkDT M3X Dalesean
Disagree:
Neutral:
 
Last edited:
In principle yes, however, the surface area of that cap is IMO not the area you are searching for. The area you are searching for would be that of all parts of the shockwave which would intersect the planet if it went through it unhindered.



For angular sizing it should be like laid out on the planet curvature page.
 
In principle yes, however, the surface area of that cap is IMO not the area you are searching for. The area you are searching for would be that of all parts of the shockwave which would intersect the planet if it went through it unhindered.
I mean, doesn't it literally calculate that? Since what we essentially need is angle of sector to see how much part of the shockwave intersects the planet, I just take areas at certain radius but it doesn't affect ratio anyway.
 
I mean, doesn't it literally calculate that? Since what we essentially need is angle of sector to see how much part of the shockwave intersects the planet, I just take areas at certain radius but it doesn't affect ratio anyway.
Ah, yeah. I think I just confused explosion and planet in your drawing. That's why I should not check on things quickly during lunch break lol

Now just tell me where the formula for h comes from so that I don't have to think about how horizons work again and we're Gucci on that part. (Always source your formulas. Gotta be a role model to regular users)

For the rest I will check later, when I have my PC available.
 
Ah, yeah. I think I just confused explosion and planet in your drawing. That's why I should not check on things quickly during lunch break lol
Yeah I should've explained which is which at least😭
Now just tell me where the formula for h comes from so that I don't have to think about how horizons work again and we're Gucci on that part. (Always source your formulas. Gotta be a role model to regular users)
Sure. h there is height of right triangle since r and R should have 90 degrees between them.

Edit: a little lower here
 
since r and R should have 90 degrees between them.
I could ask you to also source this, but since it's obvious to anyone that the line from observer to horizon is a tangent to the sphere, and the theorem that a line tangent to a sphere is perpendicular to the radius drawn to the point of contact is known to everyone, I can approve of that without need for further explanation.

So yeah, seems ok.
 
Is the OP in general math-wise ok or just sources?
 
Okay, thanks for evaluation! (I'm assuming you're also fine with last note in the OP?)

Now I'll wait for additional 2-3 votes. 👌
 
Oh, you are waiting for votes? I thought DT’s approval was enough. I agree
 
I believe I still needed at least 2. (DT said it in another thread before too)
 
Thanks for contribution y'all, I'll try to implement this whenever I get enough free time.

Affected pages seem to be inverse square law page, explosion yield calculations page (we can say that we do exception for spheres where CA is explained), celestial body feats page(linked blog) and likely some calcs on references for common feats. For baseline of our tiers result differs less than 1% so idk if there's anything to change in that regard. If I'm missing any, someone can correct me.
 
Back
Top