• 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.

The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also the fact that we have some normal users actually wanting this so to wank pretty much everyone who dissipates or makes a storm ever intro Country level or higher is pretty bad. People don't care for accuracy, just for what can make their characters stronger.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Also I find the notions that the clouds would continue moving in a straight line until beyond the horizon rather than bending along with the curvature of the Earth (Which is what the OP is suggesting) utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Where did I suggest it. Just look at the pictude abovr or below. Clouds DO folow the Eanth curvature

Volumeformulae
 
Your saying that to a cloud going up and covering the horizon as far as the human eye can see wouldn't be enough because of the curvature which is frankly just... odd?
 
Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it
 
A cloud doesn't need to go past the horizon ignoring the earth's curvature to make it so that a human can't see its end. Just reaching the horizon and bending with it would make it that humans wouldn't be able to discern its limit.

We as a species aren't exactly very good at discerning detail from such long distances. Hell, a storm could be smaller than the horizon but shaped in such a way that we wouldn't be able to tell where it ended and would think it's larger than it really is.
 
BlackeJan said:
Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it
Click to expand...
People who decided to jump on this waggon for the sake of biggatons should have their calcs disconsidered.
 
Wouldn't the second part of your comment still disvalidate the use of horizon storms?

Not that I disagree with the logic, just saying.
 
Not really, which is why we just go with a simpler assumption.

What the OP is suggesting:

Because the storm goes all the way to the horizon, it could still be going in a straight line and be visible because of Earth's curvature.

What can actually happen:

The storm would simply bend along with the curvature obscuring our view of its limit. No need to make such an assumption that literally doubles the diameter of the storm.
 
That actually does make quite a bit more sense honestly

Mostly because it means I won't have to edit a ton of stuff
 
Of course it makes more sense. It's simple, it's more logical and in line with gravity, and it's naturally intuitive. This new proposed method is something I literally have never seen anywhere on the internet and strikes me as pseudoscience..
 
BlackeJan said:
Well if we were to not suggest this then we have to tell the others who already use this new standard to get rid of it
Click to expand...
On close inspection only two calcs with the new method have been made, neither one is accepted to or even applied.

So disaster can still be averted.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
What the OP is suggesting:

Because the storm goes all the way to the horizon, it could still be going in a straight line and be visible because of Earth's curvature.

What can actually happen:

The storm would simply bend along with the curvature obscuring our view of its limit. No need to make such an assumption that literally doubles the diameter of the storm.
Click to expand...
He is saying the latter, actually.

The thing going in a straight line is the line of sight, not the cloud
 
No? The reason this new method inflates things to much is that he's saying that cloud must go all the way to the line of sight to cover it completely. Making the diameter over two times larger than what we currently use.

A cloud absolutely does not need to follow his formula to cover our field of view to the horizon.
 
To be honest, with that image, the only reason against using that would be the eye's inability to see that far.


The two main problems with that are that we rarely see through the eyes of the characters in fiction, and that "bad eyesight" can still aply to the current metod.
 
Visual Fiction is still depicted in a way akin to the human eye view. If we are watching a movie or tv show, the camera recording the scene won't magically make our eyes able to see that far.

And neither will a drawn scene in an anime or cartoon.
 
And I don't really see what's wrong with that statement?

It's the same thing that makes you able to see a mountain even if it's more than 5 km away
 
Because of its size, yes. Its a static thing rising up.

Clouds which stretch to the horizon can absolutely obscure your field of view by turning along with the curvature. It doesn't need to go in a straight line because of how tall they are in the sky in relation to us.
 
And yet that logic can be aplies to saying how the storm wouldn't need to go as far as the horizon regardless then.

Plus, I doubt that the eye would suddenly see something hundreds of meters above sea level as part of the horizon right above it.
 
Yes, exactly. Which is why the assumptions the OP make for the new method are ridiculous. A cloud doesn't ned to stretch that far to obscure our field of view and make us impossible to discern its end.

The proposed change literally has the cloud going in a straight line as opposed to following the curvature which would obscure the end there.
 
Kaltias said:
They can. But they need to interrupt your line of sight to do that
Click to expand...
So why is the proposed change going with the highest possible assumption as opposed to something more normal and reasonable?
 
The blue line is supposed to be where the storm is. The straight line is what our sight would supposedly show.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
No? The reason this new method inflates things to much is that he's saying that cloud must go all the way to the line of sight to cover it completely. Making the diameter over two times larger than what we currently use.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. And even if this method is wrong we should never use distance to the horizon to determine storm raduis
 
It isn't using the highest possible assumption, It's calculating the minimum distance for a cloud big enough to interrupt line of sight.

If there is a better method, i'm willing to listen, but the OP isn't using assumptions out of nowhere to justify its position. They are using formulas, and the math checks
 
No, they absolutely don't need to for reasons already repeatedly stated.

The supposed "scientific accuracy" of your method is akin to suggesting that every matter creation feat in fiction should be calculated through mass-energy conversion.

Or Vacuum Energy lol, remember that stuff?
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
No, they absolutely don't need to for reasons already repeatedly stated.

The supposed "scientific accuracy" of your method is akin to suggesting that every matter creation feat in fiction should be calculated through mass-energy conversion.

Or Vacuum Energy lol, remember that stuff?
Click to expand...
That's a huge false equivalence
 
It's not the minimum needed distance, I explained why. The cloud simply following along with the horizon would be enough to obscure our line of sight.

Nevermind that humans aren't good at discerning such details from faraway distances.

And yes, the number discrepancy is obviously something to be considered.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
It's not the minimum needed distance, I explained why. The cloud simply following along with the horizon would be enough to obscure our line of sight.
Click to expand...
Can you make a drawing like I did to explain how it works? Because I have no idea
 
But again, that logic also counters saying that it goes up right up to the horizon and then gets blocked.

It can get that far apart, and it can be not even half of it. So why should it being right above the horizon used again?
 
That's not the logic that I'm using. That was a counter to the notion that a storm on a flat plain would have to stretch forever for us to not see its end.
 
Yeah.

But beyond me disagreeing to using the human eye as an average for fictional rapresentations, it could end before the horizon. So why would we assume it goes that far?
 
Yeah but unless you're dealing with a literal flat earth the bottom of the clouds will still need to be much farther away than the distance to the horizon in a normal planet with curvature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Revisiting Storm Calc Issues
Replies
8
Views
808
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
IGunProFan2341
Question about calculating the distance of a cloud
Replies
1
Views
263
IGunProFan2341
IGunProFan2341
CNBA3
Speed to cut clouds?
Replies
5
Views
471
CNBA3
CNBA3
Flashlight237
Storm Calculation Issues
Replies
9
Views
1K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
Vzearr
Problems with Beastar calculations.
Replies
11
Views
849
Metalballrun
Metalballrun
Back
Top