How Long Does It Take To Fall?

[prestidigitator]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Maybe because people who are good at applied physics post raw equations without an explanation of what it means or how to do it. A lot of people aren't good at math and their eyes cross when people do what you just did. They may also feel as though they are being classified as stupid because its been declared simple' date=' but they didn't know the equation and don't know how to decipher it. They usually aren't dumb, but they didn't fill their science requirements with physics, either. Sometimes you need to [u']spell it out[/u]. Once you do they can do it. I'm not sure how exciting it is to sit down and work equations at run time (the middle of play), though.

 

Too true, and I apologize. I WASN'T trying to talk down or make anyone feel stupid. I sort of assumed an understanding that i thought was there, but was teasing a slight bit about the judgement of simplicity. Though Crypt explained it pretty well, I'll recap a bit in the hopes of inspiring a bit rather than turning people away:

 

As explained in an earlier post, if you look at a brief period of time, a (free-)falling body doesn't move at a constant speed throughout that period. That is because the force of gravity continues to act on the object all the time, so its downward velocity (speed in the direction of the ground) continues to increase. That force of gravity is constant (always the same amount and in the same direction--downward), so the rate at which velocity increases is constant. In other words just as it starts to fall, velocity is 0 (assuming it was held over the ground and simply released). If after a period of time the downward velocity increases to 1 meter per second, then in twice that time it will be 2 m/s, and in half the time it was only 0.5 m/s. So here is a simple equation:

 

v = g*t

 

That is, the downward velocity (v) after a period of time (t) is equal to a constant (g) times that time. The constant is called the acceleration of gravity, and turns out to be the same for all objects at or near the Earth's surface. It's value is approximately 9.80 meters per second per second (9.80 m/s^2). That is, each second the velocity will increase by 9.80 meters per second.

 

Now we come to the part explained in an earlier post where we look at a brief period of time. At the beginning of that period, the object is falling at one velocity, and at the end it is falling at another. It turns out that since the velocity is increasing linearly (at a constant rate as explained above), we can average the starting and ending velocities and use that to determine how far the object fell during the period. Like this:

 

v(avg) = (v1+v2)/2

 

And the distance (y) the object falls during the period will be the time multiplied by that average velocity, like this:

 

y = t*v(avg) = t*(v1+v2)/2

 

Now that first equation I gave was the velocity after a period of time from the point when the object was dropped. Let's say we are interested in the period of time it takes the object to drop the whole distance from the place where it was released to the ground. At the start of that period of time, the velocity (v1) was zero, because it was just released. At the end we know the velocity (v2) is g*t where t is the time the object fell:

 

y = t*(v1+v2)/2 = t*(0+g*t)/2 = (1/2)*g*t*t = (1/2)*g*t^2

 

Great. That gives us the distance the object fell if we know the amount of time it took to get there. But since we started with the time instead of the distance, we have to turn that around and solve for the time:

 

y = (1/2)*g*t^2

2*y = g*t^2

2*y/g = t^2

sqrt(2*y/g) = t

t = sqrt(2*y/g)

 

So if you take the distance fallen, multiply by 2, divide by 9.80 m/s^2, and take the square root, you get the time it took the object to fall (in seconds).

 

For example, if the object fell 10 meters (5 hexes):

 

t = sqrt( 2 * (10m) / (9.80 m/s^2) ) ~= 1.43 s

 

Then to get the object's velocity at the end of the fall we go back to that first equation, since we know the amount of time. In the 10m example:

 

v = g*t = (9.80 m/s^2)*(1.43 s) = 14 m/s

 

I'd rather do it with a whiteboard, some pictures, and some Q&A, but I hope that was clear enough for anyone who read through it step by step. And the reason for it being 'simple" is that, now that we have an equation, we can simply plug numbers into it and get an answer, rather than worrying about values that aren't in our chart, or working with a bunch of steps in the middle of our game, or whatever. Yes, I'll admit that if you don't have a calculator handy and can't/don't want to estimate a square root in your head, a chart or table might be handy.

 

P.S. - There are actually some nifty tricks some people have learned for taking a quick square root, or solving a problem like this backwards. For example, if you are only interested in a whole number of "Segments" (seconds) and want to know how many it takes to fall 100m, you can approximate g as 10m/s and try out times. Like this: 3 seconds? Let's see. (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(3s)^2 = 45m. That's too small. 4 seconds? Let's try: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(4s)^2 = 80s. Still too small. 5 seconds? Try it: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(5s)^2 = 125m. Ah! That was too big. So the answer is between 4 and 5 seconds. In a game we'd probably just call that 5 Segments and say the velocity is (10m/s^2)*(5s) = 50m/s.

[Alibear]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

That makes sense as and when I read it. Two minutes later it's like trying to grab smoke with my bare hands. It just seems to slip away from me.

 

thanks for trying and repped if I can.

[Alibear]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

What about just doing a chart with a few numbers in it that I (we maths thickos) could reference when we needed it?

 

5 seconds you've fallen x metres and are doing x speed = x damage on impact

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

I don't know if this is the same for you but i need to have a general look at the various impact equations in order to have a clearer point of view and make some notes.

Note: i put aside the basic versions (the ones using "/phase instead of VF.)

 

All of those equations are variations of kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) converted in Hero's language (MASS+VF.)

 

 

Standard item throwing :

DC= STR (max= DEF+BODY)

If we use the John Kim's house rule:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/herosystem/move/

then it makes sense because

STR - MASS + MASS = STR.

 

(note: STR - MASS is actually (STR-MASS)/5 which is Kim's VF.

(Str-Mass)/5 + (Mass/5) = VF + (Mass/5) = the holy MASS + VF.

 

)

 

 

 

Optional character throwing:

find the VF by using STR-MASS and the resulting distance X12.

DC=STR/2 + VF

 

(IMHO STR/2 should be replaced by the thrown character's MASS.)

 

It's said that item throwing uses the previous DC= STR rule. (note: i really hate all those exceptions.....)

Ok.

But that only makes sense when using the Kim's logarithmic throwing distance rules. If we compute VF from the standard distance throwing chart then it no longer work. (i'd like to give some examples but i don't have the book at hands right now.)

DC=STR and DC=STR/2+VF cannot coexist.

DC=STR and DC=MASS+VF can coexist, but only with Kim's rules. You see what i mean ?

 

I wonder why Steve only took a part of Kim's rules. Throwing distances are a real problem, imho.

 

 

 

Move Through:

DC= STR + VF

 

hallelujah !

 

 

Move By:

DC= STR/2 + VF

 

/2 ? .... let's say it comes from the "linearity applied to logarithms" Hero's philosophy....

 

 

 

Falling :

DC= (MASS + VF )*2

 

no comment... (note: John Kim also double the damage.....arrrggh this is a conspiracy)

 

 

 

EDIT: as it makes me mad i've done a coded version of the John Kim's throwing rules =>

http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/kim.php

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Too true, and I apologize. I WASN'T trying to talk down or make anyone feel stupid. I sort of assumed an understanding that i thought was there, but was teasing a slight bit about the judgement of simplicity. Though Crypt explained it pretty well, I'll recap a bit in the hopes of inspiring a bit rather than turning people away:

 

As explained in an earlier post, if you look at a brief period of time, a (free-)falling body doesn't move at a constant speed throughout that period. That is because the force of gravity continues to act on the object all the time, so its downward velocity (speed in the direction of the ground) continues to increase. That force of gravity is constant (always the same amount and in the same direction--downward), so the rate at which velocity increases is constant. In other words just as it starts to fall, velocity is 0 (assuming it was held over the ground and simply released). If after a period of time the downward velocity increases to 1 meter per second, then in twice that time it will be 2 m/s, and in half the time it was only 0.5 m/s. So here is a simple equation:

 

v = g*t

 

That is, the downward velocity (v) after a period of time (t) is equal to a constant (g) times that time. The constant is called the acceleration of gravity, and turns out to be the same for all objects at or near the Earth's surface. It's value is approximately 9.80 meters per second per second (9.80 m/s^2). That is, each second the velocity will increase by 9.80 meters per second.

 

Now we come to the part explained in an earlier post where we look at a brief period of time. At the beginning of that period, the object is falling at one velocity, and at the end it is falling at another. It turns out that since the velocity is increasing linearly (at a constant rate as explained above), we can average the starting and ending velocities and use that to determine how far the object fell during the period. Like this:

 

v(avg) = (v1+v2)/2

 

And the distance (y) the object falls during the period will be the time multiplied by that average velocity, like this:

 

y = t*v(avg) = t*(v1+v2)/2

 

Now that first equation I gave was the velocity after a period of time from the point when the object was dropped. Let's say we are interested in the period of time it takes the object to drop the whole distance from the place where it was released to the ground. At the start of that period of time, the velocity (v1) was zero, because it was just released. At the end we know the velocity (v2) is g*t where t is the time the object fell:

 

y = t*(v1+v2)/2 = t*(0+g*t)/2 = (1/2)*g*t*t = (1/2)*g*t^2

 

Great. That gives us the distance the object fell if we know the amount of time it took to get there. But since we started with the time instead of the distance, we have to turn that around and solve for the time:

 

y = (1/2)*g*t^2

2*y = g*t^2

2*y/g = t^2

sqrt(2*y/g) = t

t = sqrt(2*y/g)

 

So if you take the distance fallen, multiply by 2, divide by 9.80 m/s^2, and take the square root, you get the time it took the object to fall (in seconds).

 

For example, if the object fell 10 meters (5 hexes):

 

t = sqrt( 2 * (10m) / (9.80 m/s^2) ) ~= 1.43 s

 

Then to get the object's velocity at the end of the fall we go back to that first equation, since we know the amount of time. In the 10m example:

 

v = g*t = (9.80 m/s^2)*(1.43 s) = 14 m/s

 

I'd rather do it with a whiteboard, some pictures, and some Q&A, but I hope that was clear enough for anyone who read through it step by step. And the reason for it being 'simple" is that, now that we have an equation, we can simply plug numbers into it and get an answer, rather than worrying about values that aren't in our chart, or working with a bunch of steps in the middle of our game, or whatever. Yes, I'll admit that if you don't have a calculator handy and can't/don't want to estimate a square root in your head, a chart or table might be handy.

 

P.S. - There are actually some nifty tricks some people have learned for taking a quick square root, or solving a problem like this backwards. For example, if you are only interested in a whole number of "Segments" (seconds) and want to know how many it takes to fall 100m, you can approximate g as 10m/s and try out times. Like this: 3 seconds? Let's see. (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(3s)^2 = 45m. That's too small. 4 seconds? Let's try: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(4s)^2 = 80s. Still too small. 5 seconds? Try it: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(5s)^2 = 125m. Ah! That was too big. So the answer is between 4 and 5 seconds. In a game we'd probably just call that 5 Segments and say the velocity is (10m/s^2)*(5s) = 50m/s.

 

I can understand this equation once explained. I could even do the math accurately without a calculator as long as I had a pencil and paper. I won't however remember the equation in half an hour and there's no way in hell I'd sit there and calculate that in the middle of a game.

 

P.S. A chart may be more complicated to make, but is not more complicated to use. Should anyone be able to do that equation? Sure. Should everyone be able to do that equation "on the fly" and go on to figure out damage, in the middle of a game, without interrupting play? Simply put, no.

[Sean Waters]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

I don't mind feeling stupid so long as she's really pretty.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Also, I took Algebra I and II. I passed. This:

y = (1/2) g t^2

t = sqrt(2 g y)

still means jack snot to me.

Well, if you remember Algebra I and II, it shouldn't be too difficult at all, except for the obstacle of the limitations of the text in these boards. We have to write "sqrt(X)" to mean "the square root of X," since we don't have an easy way to make the square root symbol. And likewise, we don't have an easy way to represent exponents using superscript, the normal way, so we have to write "a^b" to mean "a raised to the power of b". Once you can understand that, the rest is pretty simple algebra.

 

Then the rest of it is physics/science stuff, which even if you don't know, you might be able to figure it out with a little common sense, and given the context of the discussion. Try to convince yourself that you can do this, and that it isn't too hard for you. Use common sense. You might figure out that "t" means "time (in seconds)"; "g" means "accelleration due to gravity (in meters per second squared)"; and that "y" represents vertical distance (in meters), if you remember graphing, the y-axis is the vertical component.

 

And as has been pointed out, the real value of g, for earth, is 9.8 m/s^2, or 9.8 m/s/s, read as "meters per second squared" or "meters per second per second". And for the purposes of the game, you can easily just round it to 10 m/s/s, which keeps the math nice and simple.

 

Thus, for earth, we get:

y = (1/2) 10 t^2

t = sqrt(2 10 y)

 

simplifying to:

y = 5 t^2

t = sqrt(20 y)

 

So how long does it take to fall 40 meters? (y = 40)

 

t = sqrt(800) = 28.28 seconds, which is clearly wrong. Going back, I see that the second equation: t = sqrt(2 g y)

is wrong, and it should be

t = sqrt(2 y/g), that is 2y should be divided by gravity, not multiplied. Thus

 

t = sqrt(2y/10) = sqrt(y/5)

 

so to fall 40 meters takes

 

t = sqrt(40/5) = sqrt(8) = 2.8 seconds

 

Another example, using the first equation: How far will an object fall in 10 seconds?

 

y = (1/2) 10 t^2 = (1/2) 10 10^2 = 1/2 times 10 times 10 squared

y = 1/2 x 10 x 100 = 500 meters

 

Of course, that ignores complications like air resistance and terminal velocity.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

The whole point of the post was to say how simple it was. You consider that simple? Having to guess/figure out what each part of the equation even means and then apply 12 year old skills (to me anyway, I’m a writer, not a mathematician) is simple? I didn't say that it was "too difficult," I said it didn't mean anything to me without explaination or context. I reiterate that I can easily figure out the equation once explained. I could probably figure it out on my own if I wanted to waste that much time. That doesn’t make it “simple”.

 

I agree that the level of math we accept in our country is horrible. I’ve met people who literally could not give change without using a calculator. To me that’s kind of like not being able to read. Not being able to do an equation like the one above is like not being able to read Shakespeare. “I mean, you had that in high school, right? Anyone should be able to understand the Tempest.”

[Alibear]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Do you know what - I'm going just stick to punching people.

 

Karate is my 'thing' not maths or physics. Thanks for playing though.

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

We have to write "sqrt(X)" to mean "the square root of X," since we don't have an easy way to make the square root symbol

 

this one √ ? (i've copied-pasted it from Word's special characters)

 

⁵√2

 

I could probably figure it out on my own if I wanted to waste that much time.

 

IMHO trying to understand some of the basic rules of reality is not a waste of time.

I would not say the same about posting on a forum...(i'm not sure the gain is proportional to the spent time.)

 

 

I agree that the level of math we accept in our country is horrible. I’ve met people who literally could not give change without using a calculator.

 

That's probably the same everywhere.

 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html

 

 

 

there is an applet to compute terminal velocity here :

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html

[Alibear]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

All that table needs is number of dice as they go splat and it'd be good to go.

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

All that table needs is number of dice as they go splat and it'd be good to go.

 

Simply add a VF line :

 

velocity:9.8 m/s ====> VF 4

velocity:19.6 m/s ====> VF 6

velocity:29.4 m/s ====> VF 7

velocity:39.2 m/s ====> VF 8

velocity:49 m/s ====> VF 8

velocity:58.8 m/s ====> VF 9

velocity:68.6 m/s ====> VF 9 (terminal velocity)

velocity:78.4 m/s ====> VF 10

 

Add your mass/5 to the VF = you get the number of D6 you roll for damage.

 

eg. a fat 200kg = STR 15 = 3d ====>

falling 20m = VF 6 ========= 3+6 = 9D

 

If you agree with the official X2 rule so the number of dices is 9X2 = 18D

 

 

PS: this table is already in the H5R book.....

 

if you want to know VF of some other speeds you may have a look here:

http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/kim.php

and check the table on the left. It lists VF from -4 to 54 (0.67 m/s to 119% of Light Speed (which is between VF 53 and 54) )

For instance VF 34 = 1258291 km/h = 349525 m/s = 174762 inches/s

[Vondy]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Too true, and I apologize. I WASN'T trying to talk down or make anyone feel stupid. I sort of assumed an understanding that i thought was there, but was teasing a slight bit about the judgement of simplicity. Though Crypt explained it pretty well, I'll recap a bit in the hopes of inspiring a bit rather than turning people away:

 

As explained in an earlier post, if you look at a brief period of time, a (free-)falling body doesn't move at a constant speed throughout that period. That is because the force of gravity continues to act on the object all the time, so its downward velocity (speed in the direction of the ground) continues to increase. That force of gravity is constant (always the same amount and in the same direction--downward), so the rate at which velocity increases is constant. In other words just as it starts to fall, velocity is 0 (assuming it was held over the ground and simply released). If after a period of time the downward velocity increases to 1 meter per second, then in twice that time it will be 2 m/s, and in half the time it was only 0.5 m/s. So here is a simple equation:

 

v = g*t

 

That is, the downward velocity (v) after a period of time (t) is equal to a constant (g) times that time. The constant is called the acceleration of gravity, and turns out to be the same for all objects at or near the Earth's surface. It's value is approximately 9.80 meters per second per second (9.80 m/s^2). That is, each second the velocity will increase by 9.80 meters per second.

 

Now we come to the part explained in an earlier post where we look at a brief period of time. At the beginning of that period, the object is falling at one velocity, and at the end it is falling at another. It turns out that since the velocity is increasing linearly (at a constant rate as explained above), we can average the starting and ending velocities and use that to determine how far the object fell during the period. Like this:

 

v(avg) = (v1+v2)/2

 

And the distance (y) the object falls during the period will be the time multiplied by that average velocity, like this:

 

y = t*v(avg) = t*(v1+v2)/2

 

Now that first equation I gave was the velocity after a period of time from the point when the object was dropped. Let's say we are interested in the period of time it takes the object to drop the whole distance from the place where it was released to the ground. At the start of that period of time, the velocity (v1) was zero, because it was just released. At the end we know the velocity (v2) is g*t where t is the time the object fell:

 

y = t*(v1+v2)/2 = t*(0+g*t)/2 = (1/2)*g*t*t = (1/2)*g*t^2

 

Great. That gives us the distance the object fell if we know the amount of time it took to get there. But since we started with the time instead of the distance, we have to turn that around and solve for the time:

 

y = (1/2)*g*t^2

2*y = g*t^2

2*y/g = t^2

sqrt(2*y/g) = t

t = sqrt(2*y/g)

 

So if you take the distance fallen, multiply by 2, divide by 9.80 m/s^2, and take the square root, you get the time it took the object to fall (in seconds).

 

For example, if the object fell 10 meters (5 hexes):

 

t = sqrt( 2 * (10m) / (9.80 m/s^2) ) ~= 1.43 s

 

Then to get the object's velocity at the end of the fall we go back to that first equation, since we know the amount of time. In the 10m example:

 

v = g*t = (9.80 m/s^2)*(1.43 s) = 14 m/s

 

I'd rather do it with a whiteboard, some pictures, and some Q&A, but I hope that was clear enough for anyone who read through it step by step. And the reason for it being 'simple" is that, now that we have an equation, we can simply plug numbers into it and get an answer, rather than worrying about values that aren't in our chart, or working with a bunch of steps in the middle of our game, or whatever. Yes, I'll admit that if you don't have a calculator handy and can't/don't want to estimate a square root in your head, a chart or table might be handy.

 

P.S. - There are actually some nifty tricks some people have learned for taking a quick square root, or solving a problem like this backwards. For example, if you are only interested in a whole number of "Segments" (seconds) and want to know how many it takes to fall 100m, you can approximate g as 10m/s and try out times. Like this: 3 seconds? Let's see. (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(3s)^2 = 45m. That's too small. 4 seconds? Let's try: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(4s)^2 = 80s. Still too small. 5 seconds? Try it: (1/2)*(10m/s^2)*(5s)^2 = 125m. Ah! That was too big. So the answer is between 4 and 5 seconds. In a game we'd probably just call that 5 Segments and say the velocity is (10m/s^2)*(5s) = 50m/s.

 

Nice of you to provide an explanation. Its something I can do (I've taught myself a lot of math for games), but I think when the game is in session a simplified reference chart or applet (for the laptop crown) would be more useful.

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

but I think when the game is in session a simplified reference chart or applet (for the laptop crown) would be more useful.

 

see posts #60 and #62 as well as the small chart in H5R (the page about optional falling rules.)

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

So the solution is not to do the "simply" equation during the game, but to make a chart? Like the one we already use?

 

Now you're just arguing about how they chose to allot the amount of damage that you take when falling, not how easy or hard it is to figure out, because you just resorted to a chart, the method we already use to determine damage in play.

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

So the solution is not to do the "simply" equation during the game, but to make a chart? Like the one we already use?

 

Now you're just arguing about how they chose to allot the amount of damage that you take when falling, not how easy or hard it is to figure out, because you just resorted to a chart, the method we already use to determine damage in play.

 

Arguing ?

May you quote where i'm arguing ?

 

Alibear asked for a chart.

 

On the other hand nobody seems to know the official reason why falling damages are doubled and S.Long don't want to give the answer so, nevermind, i will live without it.

But please, don't say i'm arguing. This is very different when i'm actually arguing.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

I'm sorry, not arguing. Let me rephrase. "Now you're just presenting an entirely new system to be used for determining falling damage and disregarding the current one, though in the end it comes back down to using a chart, not how “simple” or “hard” it is to do the math to get there.

 

I hope you feel this statement is less confrontational as I certainly didn’t mean to accuse you of anything. It should also be noted that my initial statements were not to you, but someone else on the first page who presented an equation with no explanation, who didn’t even say what the equation did, and didn’t present anyway to transform the results of the equation into Hero terms damage. You just happened pick up where he left off, and so you are who I’ve been responding to.

[Crypt]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

I'm sorry' date=' not arguing. Let me rephrase. "Now you're just presenting an entirely new system to be used for determining falling damage and disregarding the current one, though in the end it comes back down to using a chart, not how “simple” or “hard” it is to do the math to get there. [/quote']

 

If you're speaking about post #62, this rule is the same as the optional one H5Revised page 436-437. It comes from Kim's house rule (i guess it was not in the first release of H5.)

So it's not new, it's very official (but optional.)

But to be accurate = not all the house rules were taken, only the VF part as far as i see. The throwing distance rule were not included in H5R.

 

The php link i gave was just expanded tables based on Kim's equations.

 

 

PS:

[Sean Waters]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Simply add a VF line :

 

velocity:9.8 m/s ====> VF 4

velocity:19.6 m/s ====> VF 6

velocity:29.4 m/s ====> VF 7

velocity:39.2 m/s ====> VF 8

velocity:49 m/s ====> VF 8

velocity:58.8 m/s ====> VF 9

velocity:68.6 m/s ====> VF 9 (terminal velocity)

velocity:78.4 m/s ====> VF 10

 

Add your mass/5 to the VF = you get the number of D6 you roll for damage.

 

eg. a fat 200kg = STR 15 = 3d ====>

falling 20m = VF 6 ========= 3+6 = 9D

 

If you agree with the official X2 rule so the number of dices is 9X2 = 18D

 

 

PS: this table is already in the H5R book.....

 

if you want to know VF of some other speeds you may have a look here:

http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/kim.php

and check the table on the left. It lists VF from -4 to 54 (0.67 m/s to 119% of Light Speed (which is between VF 53 and 54) )

For instance VF 34 = 1258291 km/h = 349525 m/s = 174762 inches/s

 

Sorry, got distracted.

 

I like this approach in that it has an exponential aspect to the damage increase. OTOH the reason the doubling thing was there was because a terminal velocity fall in instantly fatal almost all of the time for any normal human.

 

If VF9 is terminal velocity and you add 2d6 for a 'normal' mass human, the total damage is 11d6. A normal human takes 9 Body after their 2PD.

 

Even if you assume that falling damage is killing, that is 3 1/2d6, you'll get a significant number of survivors of a terminal velocity fall.

 

Like I say, I like the VF system, and I think that the current system does too much damage (and of the wrong sort - for the reasons I stated earlier int he thread - massive sudden deceleration of internal organs) I think that falling damage should be NND (Does Body) or at least armour piercing (of course that can then make short falls much too dangerous). However, the VF system probably doesn't do enough damage if you don't double.

 

There's a solution out there...I know it*

 

 

 

 

 

*and it might well be to have normal humans built with much less Body. 5 sounds about right.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

The whole point of the post was to say how simple it was. You consider that simple?

Yes, I do. What part(s) of it do you consider "not simple"? The idea that "t" stands for "time"? The concept that "g" stands for "gravity"? Having to find the square root of a number? Having to multiply or divide two numbers? All of it is simple. It isn't necessarily "obvious," but it is simple.

 

To me that’s kind of like not being able to read. Not being able to do an equation like the one above is like not being able to read Shakespeare. “I mean, you had that in high school, right? Anyone should be able to understand the Tempest.”

Yes, any native English speaker with a high school diploma should be able to understand Shakespeare. It's not that hard, unless you convince yourself that it is.

 

There are many things that everyone with a high school diploma should know. Some of them differ based on culture (for example an American high school graduate should be able to identify all 50 states on a blank map, but one from some other country might not). Math is not one of them, it's the same regardless of culture.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Yes' date=' I do. What part(s) of it do you consider "not simple"? The idea that "t" stands for "time"? The concept that "g" stands for "gravity"? Having to find the square root of a number? Having to multiply or divide two numbers? All of it is simple. It isn't necessarily "obvious," but it is simple.[/quote']

 

You don’t need to talk down to me to make your point. Of course when you phrase it like: “What's so hard to understand about ‘t’ standing for ‘time’?” you’re going to make the other person sound like an idiot. You might notice that at least 2 people instantly agreed that it’s not simple. G stands for gravity is a simple concept. Assuming that everyone will instantly understand that that is what it means is just ridiculous and implies that everyone knows the equation for the force of gravity off the top of their head as well.

 

I’ll quote Vondy who probably said it more elegantly than I can:

Maybe because people who are good at applied physics post raw equations without an explanation of what it means or how to do it. A lot of people aren't good at math and their eyes cross when people do what you just did. They may also feel as though they are being classified as stupid because its been declared simple' date=' but they didn't know the equation[/b'] and don't know how to decipher it. They usually aren't dumb, but they didn't fill their science requirements with physics, either. Sometimes you need to spell it out. Once you do they can do it. I'm not sure how exciting it is to sit down and work equations at run time (the middle of play), though.

(Emphasis added by me)

 

After prestidigitator explained himself and gave a thorough explanation and example (thanks by the way) the first response was:

That makes sense as and when I read it. Two minutes later it's like trying to grab smoke with my bare hands. It just seems to slip away from me.

 

thanks for trying and repped if I can.

 

This will be many, many people’s response to an equation like that, and no amount of saying “it’s really simple if you just think about it” is going to change that. In fact, it’s bordering on patronizing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

I'm sorry to keep banging on about falling, but how much damage does a terminal velocity fall have to do to be fatal almost always to almost all humans?

 

In a heroic game, with diabling rules, a 10 Body character has to take 5 Body to the head or vitals to die instantly.

 

Let's work from there...

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

You don’t need to talk down to me to make your point.

I'm not talking down. I'm explaining why it's simple. You can say that you disagree, but I ask you again: What about it isn't simple? You haven't yet answered this question.

 

Assuming that everyone will instantly understand that that is what it means is just ridiculous and implies that everyone knows the equation for the force of gravity off the top of their head as well.

I never said that you have to memorize those equations, just that they are simple to understand and use once you have them.

 

This will be many, many people’s response to an equation like that, and no amount of saying “it’s really simple if you just think about it” is going to change that. In fact, it’s bordering on patronizing.

I don't see how it's patronizing. It's just a fact. If I'm wrong, tell me where.

 

And just to be clear, I'm not categorizing anyone as stupid.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

“Simple” is obviously very subjective. "It's simple if you think about it" is NOT a fact. Insisting that something is simple despite multiple people expressing opinions to the opposite, could easily be seen as implying there is a deficiency on the side of those who "simply can’t see how simple it really is."

“Try to convince yourself that you can do this, and that it isn't too hard for you. Use common sense,” could very easily be seen as patronizing, and implies that any lack of understanding is due to either a lack of common sense or due to some psychological block and that I/they have “convinced myself/themself it’s too hard.”

You keep asking me to explain why it’s not simple. You haven’t explained, to my satisfaction, why it is “simple.” “Simple” as I already said above, is subjective. But in an attempt to quantify “simplicity”:

From Dictionary.com:

1. easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.: a simple matter; simple tools.

2. not elaborate or artificial; plain: a simple style.

3. not ornate or luxurious; unadorned: a simple gown.

4. unaffected; unassuming; modest: a simple manner.

5. not complicated: a simple design.

6. not complex or compound; single.

7. occurring or considered alone; mere; bare: the simple truth; a simple fact.

8. free of deceit or guile; sincere; unconditional: a frank, simple answer.

9. common or ordinary: a simple soldier.

10. not grand or sophisticated; unpretentious: a simple way of life.

Bold text added by me.

1. “Easy to understand”. The equation is arguably “easy to understand” but obviously that is completely a matter of opinion. “Easy to use?” Hmm… I don’t think it is easy to use in the context we are talking about, which is on the fly, during game play. Sure, you can make a chart, but then it’s the chart that is easy to use, not the equation.

5. “Not complicated”. Is the equation “complicated”? Several people think it is, several think it isn’t. Who’s right? The person that insists the most?

6. “Not complex or Compound” Is the equation “complex”? Maybe, maybe not.

Is it “compound”? I’d say yes. Once you start replacing numbers with

multiple variables, in a multiple step equation I would say “not compound”

does not apply anymore.

 

You yourself even said: “And for the purposes of the game, you can easily just round it to 10 m/s/s, which keeps the math nice and simple.” You are rounding something in the equation to simplify it. Rounding may be a minor thing, it’s done in math all the time, but if everything else about the equation is so simple and self evident, then why do you feel the need to simplify any of it? I mean, once you have the numbers plugged in the math is the easy part (imo), why simplify it?

 

EDIT: I intend this to be my last post on the subject unless something is stated that I fell, very strongly, needs to be addressed.

[Manic Typist]

Re: How Long Does It Take To Fall?

 

Yes, any native English speaker with a high school diploma should be able to understand Shakespeare. It's not that hard, unless you convince yourself that it is.

 

False. While any such person should probably be able to fall along with the gist of what´s happening... the language used is archaic, complicated, incredibly nunanced, and founded within a complex historical and literary tradition.

 

That aside registered, please continue with the math debate that makes my eyes feel all sleepy...