2008-12-16, 09:47 | Link #1761 | |
He Who Smites Shippers
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 36
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-12-16, 11:04 | Link #1762 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I suppose it isn't a whole lot of complexity, but it is an un-necessary complication. And wouldn't the value of a familiar mean that maybe we should be ensuring that their flow is untouched by any limiters - they could easily have equal or even better combat coefficient to their shafted Master? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And aren't you trying to ask for more total combat time? That will make this fraction a lot less significant. They may even have a chance to walk there. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And do you think I'm right to say that, had the example been one where Midchildran materials show their super strength, and I dismiss it for "dramatic" reasons, I will be beaten up by a gang? Quote:
Step 2. The non-combatants are not hiding there, of course. Step 3: If they lose, presumably enemies search (or bombard the pseudobuilding trusting in Vivio's Sankt Kaiser's Armor). It is not there. Step 4: They waste time searching, blasting. Quote:
But we hadn't seen much of Mid construction techniques. So who knows, maybe they already are using pseudomatter. Imagine this. A foundation that's the only real material, with these field generators studded in it. After the foundation is set, it is connected to the citywide magipower net and the field generators assemble mana to form pseudomatter - maybe not as fast as the military generators but it still happens. That will make Mid buildings quite easy to repair from minor damage, but is hardly a panacea - if the foundation is damaged from serious damage the building would find it hard to autorecover, which may explain why RF6 didn't just reconnect power, push a button and restore all functionality. As for your fortress idea, RF6 should have considered doing that to start regardless of whether the field is "more sophisticated forcefields than we've seen" or pseudomatter. That way, while under attack, they can hide and control everything inside (and if they are actively controlling the field inside, it also reduces the chances of a hacker being able to just "turn off" the field. Even if the power gets cut in the end and the forcefields die, or it turns out pseudomatter does collapse rapidly upon power-out, well then they still got the base itself, and a few minutes gained. FieldFieldField FieldRF6Field FieldFieldField Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, if you really look close, you'll notice I analyze a lot of scenes suggested by other people. In my book, they suggest a scene for visual analysis, or bring up elements of observation from the scene, they are agreeing, even asserting, the scene is analyzable. So it is not even me that first proposed analyzing that scene. Given this, I find it a little hypocritical to inverse and start attacking the whole bit about analysis when the test reports come back bad. And frankly, this time's report wasn't even all that bad. It was pretty good. The fact it can't be as laudatory as some clearly wanted it to be is ... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
2008-12-16, 11:33 | Link #1763 | ||||||||
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Besides, the burden of proof is on you in this case. Hey, if you can pick and choose which shows to SoD, I can pick and choose who to go after. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Get this into your head ark: nobody else takes this shit as seriously as you do. I passed on your calcs to an engineer friend of mine. His response to me: "You anime nerds take this shit too seriously." Quote:
Quote:
Okay, that was a bit much, but I'm feeling a sense of whimsy today. Promotion made official, I am now my department's assistant manager... hmmm, i probably pwn most of AS and the Nano boards in terms of job Quote:
Quote:
I posed this question to a couple of my friends in the military. The response was that you'd be an idiot to leave a fixed position that you could easily defend for running across a field in view of the enemy. Do note that despite the damage to the base, Vice and the remaining RF6 grunts had managed to set up a decent defensive position and were stopping the advance. If it weren't for him freezing when he saw Lutecia, he probably could have held out longer. (I consider his defensive position alright due to the improvised nature, though that's not his fault, he was working with what he had. To be an excellent defensive position, it would need to have claymores, mines, barbed wire, sandbags, machine guns, mortars, RPGs, ammo, grenades, more ammo, more machine guns, more ammo (there is no such thing as too much ammo)...a couple of Warthogs with the 3-barreled .50cal gatlings wouldn't hurt either. And a few tanks. And air support. And Cobra gunships. Apache has more firepower but the Cobra has something fierce about it that the Apache lacks. Probably because it's a Marine helo.)
__________________
Last edited by Wild Goose; 2008-12-16 at 13:24. |
||||||||
2008-12-16, 11:33 | Link #1764 |
Σ(。д°(o--(ಠ益ಠ )
Author
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hotsprings Resort
Age: 37
|
You know what?
Forget it. Forget everything I've ever said. I don't even want to look at this gigantic wall of text you call analysis because it doesn't really apply to me, nor do I actually care about the force behind Subaru's punch based on the analysis of a bloody manga page or whatever the hell you're trying to prove. Maybe Jimmy and Keroko have far more patience than I, but it's clear to me when I see no point in continuing to argue with a person obsessed with implementing modern Earth physics and calculations with an anime powered by magic, beamspam, and bits of the Rule of Cool. Really, you've killed the fun in it, Arkh. I don't why I even bothered to post anything regarding this, since obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about. For the longest time I've just stood back and watched you try to prove a ridiculous, flawed, and frankly, silly point, shook my head, then went back to doing things I actually cared about. Then it hit a point where I didn't know what the hell was going on any more. Now, I am going to go back to ignoring this thread. Peace.
__________________
|
2008-12-16, 11:51 | Link #1765 | |
Anime Snark
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 41
|
Quote:
Cheers.
__________________
|
|
2008-12-16, 11:51 | Link #1766 | |
Black Dragon
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the Netherrealm, thinking who to betray next...
|
Quote:
In fact, if you think about it, you'r getting a bit Out off topic
__________________
|
|
2008-12-16, 11:52 | Link #1767 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Remends me of something I was reading on Farnam's Quips: there are two kinds of shooter: the Operator and the Gamesman. The Operator attends training courses and learns to shoot primarily to hone his skills, that when duty calls he will be ready. He does not obsess about shooting; it is just a tool for him to accomplish his job. The Gamesman, on the other hand, obsesses over everything: ammo quality, muzzle velocity, penetration power, etc etc: to him, shooting is how he proves himself, how he shows up everyone else. The Operators attend shooting competitions to hone their skills and learn; score and winning is a nonissue to them. To Gamesmen, score and winning is everything.
And something Spencer Chapman wrote in The Jungle is Neutral on the Communist Chinese guerillas: "...More interested in knowing useless details such as the muzzle velocity of a Lewis gun, rather than how to aim and shoot properly..." At any rate, my piece is done. I go back to worldbuilding and writing my story.
__________________
|
2008-12-16, 12:08 | Link #1768 | |||
The Resurrector
Author
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Came in for a quick reply ...
Quote:
Fine, so Subaru can punch through steel, what does that give us? In most (if not all) fictions, writings are done in relative terms and typically protected by plot control. No authors (at least that I know of) are going to say "Subaru's punch is as strong as a long burst of HMG, grinding through steel like a reckless bulldozer". At most, they're going to say that "she punched through steel easily". Whether it's proven that Subaru can punch through steel through empirical calculations is not going to matter much in the course of story-writing, because that's the plot of the story. Readers can disbelieve it, yes, but that's for them to decide whether to suspend their disbelief. Of course, it'll gladden our heart that we did not do a mistake in our relative comparison, but the proven numbers usually do not matter. Quote:
You know it as well that the results you show are interpretable as "correct" in your point of view (only, and whoever shares your perception). Keroko was not wrong in including other elements for his observation, which is also "correct" in his point of view. The trouble with you two is that you work too hard to convince the other you're absolutely right, which spirals into arguments that destabilize reasoned discussions. And personal attacks. And disgruntled feelings. Really, it'll be so much easier if you just put forth your observations and be done with them and let the readers decide which one they want to believe is correct. Bouncing arguments to and fro is nice and all, but it's costly for the thread if it becomes a war of attrition. Quote:
I raise my glass to the golden truth of your words. Cheers. Last edited by PhoenixFlare; 2008-12-16 at 12:33. |
|||
2008-12-16, 13:05 | Link #1769 |
NERV Personnel
Author
|
This is starting to get a tad out of hand. The earlier debates over the series and tech and stuff was alright. Now you wish to bring in actual scientific equations to try and prove your case? That's going too far. It's not that I mind them being used, but they need to be used correctly. The four equations I was shown are real and do in fact calculate a simple, ideal scenario of an object being thrown into the air. Key words here: simple and ideal. Yes, it involves gravity. But that's it. Those equations are used in basic physics to get an initial understanding on how an object decelerates as it is affected by gravity. If you want to figure out how high an object goes in reality, you need more and bigger equations to factor in air resistance, density, any rotation on the object during its ascent, etc. Doing this on a person makes it even more complex since you then need to worry about a varying center of gravity, constantly changing surface profile, and protrusions on the object that are not fixed relative to the object (i.e. limbs and head). To clarify, by fixed I mean points on the protrusions do not change their spacial coordinates relative to the object/center of gravity. Second, getting measurements off a drawn picture would not fly as a means to draw scientific measurements. Objects, especially objects at distance or seen at angles, are drawn stylized to give the viewer an illusion of distance and perspective. This is similar to optical illusions that use it to trick the human eye. Also camera that are used are commonly positioned facing tangent to the path of travel of the object or normal to the path of travel to avoid having to over-complicate the measurements taken from the images to compensate for the angle of prospective. That's why on actual pictures you will always, always see some type of scale included physically in it or imposed onto it if it is being used for scientific purposes. This way you can know the true scale it is at and convert a measurement taken with, say, a ruler in your hand and then convert it using the scale in the picture to get the (mostly) true measurement. I say mostly because there will always be an estimation of the scaling factor due to not wanting an infinite amount of decimal places. This is why many times you till have a tolerance included in the figures to compensate for this (seen commonly after a +/- ). So basically any so-called 'measurements' taken from an image are invalid without knowing the true scale in which they are drawn (which is why practically every school book has the 'not to scale' disclaimer on images which are not accurate and only drawn as a pictorial representation or example to give a general idea). As an engineer I couldn't let equations be used improperly, especially if they are being used in support of arguments. And the stuff about drawing illusions? Learned that first week of basic drawing class.
|
2008-12-16, 13:31 | Link #1770 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
Quote:
Then, she'll be close but oh so far away. Quote:
Quote:
Nothing wrong with that idea, but that doesn't mean it's right one or the only one. My idea is more like a tank with a fixed flow faucet, it doesn't matter how much water (energy) is in the tank, the faucet releases the same amount to the familiar. Why's that any more difficult? Quote:
If your idea were the case, then the Bureau ought to pick up Arf and assign her someplace. Put that extra energy from Fate to use, as it were. They didn't do that, why? Because they're as dumb as you always claim? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And what kind of "little protection" do you want to add to the field? Do remember, it's several city blocks in size. It looks like they didn't simulate space within the field, there really is that much room to move about. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sometimes I wonder if you think, "the things I go through to enlighten these forumers..." when replying to our responses. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me something, between a forcefield capable of standing up to heavy magic assaults and an illusion which do you think they would choose? Which would probably last much longer? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since they can't be bothered to analyze the scene in as much detail as you, they take it with a grain of salt, wave it off as overanalyzing or decide you're skewing things in your favor. Surely you weren't expecting them to cheer for you for debunking their claims. Especially since you're not even doing it in a fun way like Mythbusters, for example. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2008-12-16, 13:52 | Link #1771 |
Once and Current Subber
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Well, the other problem I have is that you guys have developed the terrible habit of Fisking -every post each other makes-. Tearing apart each other's arguments line by line might have a visceral appeal, but it isn't any good to read.
Anyway, ironically, some of the discussion about Subaru taking on Gadgets hand-to-hand was perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with observing "hey, if a girl can jump on one of them and hold it down, it's probably not too heavy!" That's a good kind of observation. Personally, though, I'd stop at trying to calculate the exact punching strength of a character who we know, through plot device, can punch through essentially anything. Ah, Subaru... <3 If you're talking about history, well, you also have to take a lot of that with a grain of salt. Herodotus was the father of modern history, compiling the first "book of history" that survived to the modern day, actually attempting to compile events as were related to him. But a significant number of the events in his book are, well, complete bull. They'd have to be - unless you believe that BC armies had the trick of logistics to support armies of hundreds of thousands of men, which they didn't. ;p You've got to pick through the material and choose the pieces which are supported elsewhere, the pieces which are supported elsewhere but are obviously bull, the pieces which aren't supported elsewhere but are plausible... you get the idea, right? Examining anime is the same way. While the animators ought to take things like perspective into consideration, and make a world that resembles the real world, they're under no particular obligation to stick close to real-world physics in any particular scene. Hm, another analogy... take Love Hina. (Please!) You could measure Keitaro's ballistic trajectory and come up with a good estimate of Naru's maximum punching strength, sure. And then you could conclude that they're both some kind of mutant superhuman or something (Naru, for being able to launch ronin into low orbit, and Keitaro for not dying from it). But they're not, and if you were measuring it as if it were serious, you'd be missing the point badly; even though the scene is depicted, the viewer isn't intended to take it literally. Nanoha's serious enough that a technology/magic thread isn't totally stupid. But it's not so serious that every scene is to be taken literally. There's a continuum of objective depictions of reality, and Nanoha's somewhere in between Love Hina and actual film. |
2008-12-16, 14:00 | Link #1772 | |
Sword Wielding Penguin
|
Quote:
It's called "Quote Omnislashing." |
|
2008-12-16, 14:24 | Link #1773 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
An interesting tidbit i found out...
Crime scene investigation takes lots of photos, but relies on sketches for accurate measurements, due to how photos throw things off.
__________________
|
2008-12-16, 14:36 | Link #1774 |
NERV Personnel
Author
|
Interesting. Though that makes some sense. Taking a picture or an object on a crime scene, you'll have different distances and varying angles from the photographer which can throw off measurements later in the lab. While with a good sketcher, he'll be taking measurements on scene and translating those onto the sketch to make it as accurate as possible like placing a straight edge and ruler next to it and stuff.
|
2008-12-16, 15:20 | Link #1775 | |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Quote:
I think we can conclusively say that any and all attempts to stadia and pull calculations from anime have been busted, since this isn't even used in the real world. Also note that when Mythbusters use stadia-ing they have marked backdrops behind whatever they're tested.
__________________
|
|
2008-12-16, 15:28 | Link #1776 | |
NERV Personnel
Author
|
Quote:
Also, note that the camera is always grounded to make sure all videos of the various tests are the same and positioned with the line of sight being normal (perpendicular) to the backdrop. |
|
2008-12-16, 15:28 | Link #1777 | |
He Who Smites Shippers
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Hey now, there's an idea. From now on, every time Ark tries to bring up stadia ranging or whatever here or anywhere else in the Nanoha boards, he automatically qualifies for a negative reputation point. We're all sick of hearing him talk about the subject so let's give him a reason to find something else to complain about.
__________________
|
|
2008-12-16, 15:40 | Link #1778 | |
NERV Personnel
Author
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-12-16, 16:12 | Link #1779 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
So going by what you're saying... this means that for all of ark's so-called adherence to the scientific method and all his so-called scientific calculations, he's been doing it all, not just wrong, but in a way the scientific community considers invalid?
Fancy that... Also, something to consider. Ark has frequently stated that magical attacks travel slow based on frames and his calculation. How does he then reconcile that with Sturm Falken, which is stated to be supersonic?
__________________
|
2008-12-16, 16:41 | Link #1780 | |
NERV Personnel
Author
|
Quote:
The same was for motion tests. We had to make sure our observations were from the same point each time and the tests were done several times to make sure the results were somewhat consistent (and of course we calculated error in the end and included that in our reports). Inserting scales after the fact without knowing anything about the environment or the observer's positioning to the test is a big no-no. Changing the camera's angle to follow an object as it flies and then using that same footage to determine speeds? Don't think so. There's a reason why tests have multiple cameras set up to cover the entire length of the experiment all set normal to the field. From talks with my art major friends and documentaries I've seen on Discovery and History channel, you can't trust frames. For one, frames can vary from show to show; even episode to episode. This makes it very erratic and a horrible way to collect data since there is no consistency. Then there's the animation itself. This relates to the frames in a way in that there can be gapes in the animation. It's a shortcut used by animators to reduce the frames per second but not make it look choppy. In fact, that is how animation was made in the first place. It all relies on the fact that the human brain/eyes can only process information so fast. By knowing that rate you only need to include so many frames since any extra would be missed by the viewer. More frames do make it look a lot smoother and add to the quality but those are movies and high-budget projects. Shows on TV tend to cut corners since they don't have as much. The camera angle also varies on a show. This relates back to illusions and measurements. An arrow is being shot at an angle 'into' the screen from a corner. In order to make it seem to go faster, they don't make it proportional as it flies away, but shorten its length even more. Animation is all tricks to create a desired look and feel when viewed. Things like proportion and relative speeds do not matter. You can ask almost anyone who studies animation and they will tell you this. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|