Felarya

Felarya forum
 
HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 New Size Scale Discussion

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
AuthorMessage
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:35 pm

Continuing from the Q&A, I already voice why I am against such a change. We are already used to ~70 ft being the average size, which may be inaccurate. I could take moving to something a little bit more realistic, but the big problem is that pretty much everything was measured with this scale in mind. This means that we will have to scale Giant Squids, Leviathan Mermaids, Ice Wyrms, etc. up too, so they can still prey on the normal giants, and keep the same level of breath-taking size. This may even include objects and landmarks like the Bach. And in the off-chance you mentioned your giantess' height in your stories, you will have to change all that. This is really going to boil down to an editting nightmare.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:18 pm

I think that humans are on average supposed the be a bit taller than a middle finger to a predator. Is this right?
(Just laying some relative basics here)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:22 pm

I of course didn't mean that humans shouldn't be scaled up.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:49 pm

Yeah that's not what I'm talking about.

Anyway, the issue here is this predators are the right height, but their reported size is incorrect.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:16 pm

And having to change all the reported sizes is only going to be a massive chore and will take a while to get used to. Normally, I'd say that, "Just because you need to get used to it doesn't mean it's bad". However, because it's going to be a massive chore, I would say that it's not worth it, unless you elevate them just a few dozen feet more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:20 pm

Well, using an image by Petite Emi *the art trade comic of Vyvian and the safari dressed woman*, the woman is roughly a size between the index/middle finger. The image drawn by Chuck with Mac dancing on whatshernames tail, he's the size of an index or middle finger. In Autu's drawing of Cordula, the guy she eats is around the size of her thumb. In Karbo's comic where Anna is eaten by Crisis, while it isn't specifically clear Anna is about the size of Crisis' index finger, based on perspective/scale/ratio dropping. In the fairy hunter pictures by Karbo the fairy hunter is generally the size of the index finger. In the image with Rin bathing, her human friend is about a segment taller than Rin's middle finger.


So I'd say index/middle finger is probably a good judgment call for an adult human and an adult pred, with both of 'average' size. Of course, hand size is different with different people so it's not a perfect measurement for basis of a ratio, but I guess it'll do. Of course, statistically women also have longer index fingers than men (in terms of ratio - the 2d4d thing, men usually have a shorter index than ring whereas women have an equal sized index/ring or slightly longer index). Average male index finger length is ~ 4 inches. So, assuming a human being 6' tall, if the human is equivalent to a pred at 4" in height, the pred would be 108 feet tall.


Edit 1,2: It should be noted that based on my original mouth-depth measurements, the pred would need to be around 123-125 feet tall to have a human of 6 ft lay on their tongue as demonstrated in most of the vore comics. This also doesn't allow for a lot of wiggle room, probably better for them to be around 130-134 ft tall to allow the pred to comfortably hold a human in their mouth and move them around for tasting. Granted, I have no idea what an average mouth size or 'depth' is, so... yeah. Can only use the info I have.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jętte_Troll
Friend of the Jotun
Friend of the Jotun
avatar

Posts : 2769
Join date : 2009-02-02
Age : 26
Location : Over There

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:52 pm

It would take some editing... but it would help a lot in the future.

I'm really bad at judging height, so when I created my giant character, I looked at existing characters and thought "okay she's... a little shorter than so-and-so." Having accurately listed heights would really help newcomers. And the finger-height seems about right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://jaettetroll.deviantart.com/
TheLightLost
Survivor
Survivor
avatar

Posts : 957
Join date : 2010-10-18
Location : Who cares anymore

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:28 pm

I just so happened to come across this thread on relative heights.

Features a large chart as well as a small chart.

There's also a giantess converter in there.

Dropping it in just for pertinence's sake.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the burning question that I've had in mind for so long...

In relation to humans, am I to understand that everything in Felarya is scaled up, including things like ants and rain drops? Or is it just a few cases of gigantism in a world of similar scale to ours? If so, how do I know what in Felarya should be giant and what should not be? Hopefully it's uniform, with everything scaled up, that would make life simpler for me.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:23 pm

Don't think of it as scaled up, I think of it as this:

Normal earth size ranges + giant size ranges, rather than upscaling. There are still trees of the size that you find on earth in the Felaryan jungles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:33 pm

gt500x wrote:
I just so happened to come across this thread on relative heights.

Features a large chart as well as a small chart.

There's also a giantess converter in there.

Dropping it in just for pertinence's sake.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the burning question that I've had in mind for so long...

In relation to humans, am I to understand that everything in Felarya is scaled up, including things like ants and rain drops? Or is it just a few cases of gigantism in a world of similar scale to ours? If so, how do I know what in Felarya should be giant and what should not be? Hopefully it's uniform, with everything scaled up, that would make life simpler for me.


Not really. Felarya is a wierd mix of different scales. You have impossibly huge trees, as well as smaller, more realistically-sized trees. Rain, and such would be noirmal sized. It isn't like Its a giant world with humans in it. it is a world that contains normal-sized and giant things. There are birds, horses, squirrels, jungle-cats, Druikers (which are about the size of an antelope) and more normal creatures...and also giant wildlife like Kenshas, Tonorions and Glouteoxes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
AisuKaiko
Keeper of Flat Chests
avatar

Posts : 2078
Join date : 2009-12-21
Age : 26
Location : In Ruby's cave in the Imoreith Tundra

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:05 pm

Like has been said, it would be very difficult to convince everyone to go back and edit every reference to size, and that's assuming writers are even available to make said change. I'd be all for it if it were possible, but I'm quite skeptical. I vote we just chalk it up to Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale (of the Size and Mass variety, of course) and call it a day.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aisukaiko.deviantart.com
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:00 pm

Yeah, but that's lazy.
This is something that should have been addressed long ago. We didn't though, so now we have to deal with bigger job than we would have had to if we had dealt with it earlier.


Last edited by Anime-Junkie on Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:02 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Making things clear.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:26 am

That Giantess converter you posted looks to actually be a really great find. While it is not an empirical data source and it is not shown how it does its growing thing, it does confirm what I've been saying. Granted, my 1:1 upscale method is a really simple method for doing things but - it does have it's uses. I'm not entirely certain how this system works, but based on a few checks and balances with a calculator it seems to use something similar to a 1:1 upscale. Comparing the data I calculated of a 6 ft tall person to the data outputted by the GTS Converter shows a really close similarity.


All of the following numbers were generated by using the defaults, so a woman 5' 6" tall and not 6' tall.

According to the converter, a 200 foot tall woman has a mouth 6 ft, 5.6 in tall, 7 ft, 7.7 in wide, and a tongue 11 ft, 5.6 in deep. A 100 ft woman according to the converter has a mouth that is 3 ft, 2.8 in tall, 3 ft, 9.8 in wide, and a tongue 5 ft, 8.8 in deep. These numbers are relatively close to what I was coming up with.

It even has a 'what size a human would be compared to them in weight and height'. These numbers seem lower than what I was developing, but then gain 1:1 upscales compared to a formula are going to be like that. According to this converter, we are shown the following: To a 200 ft tall woman, a 6 ft tall man would be 1.97 in in height. To a 100 ft tall woman, a 6 ft tall man would be 3.95 in in height. To a 75 ft tall woman, the human is 5.28 in in height. To a 35 ft tall woman, the human is 11.31 in tall.

If you started at 6' instead of the default 5'6", the human would be 4.31 in tall to a 100 ft woman. Mouth size remains unchanged, which seems to confirm once again the math they are using. The method I used to determine how tall a 6' human would be to a 100' giant was to take 6/100 = 0.06 => 72*0.06 = 4.32. Mouth size wouldn't change, just your perception of how tall a person of a static height of 6' would be if you started at a certain size and grew into a giantess.

It should be noted that according to the calculator using default values, a human being of 6' height drops to a perception lower than 1" for a giantess 400 ft tall. If you want them to be able to interact with humans, I would put this as the upper limit. Something smaller than one inch to me is not something I would consider interacting with, and even if you wanted to, I'm not so sure you could without harming them. At 364 ft tall, a 180 lb person weighs nothing at all to the giantess according to the calculator (and the human perceived height would be 1.08").


So, it would seem that if the average were indeed 100~200 ft, things would relatively fit as appropriate. At 100 ft in height you approach the low end of what we typically see in the vore drawings, with 150~200 ft being closer to what we know and expect on the drawing basis. So if Crisis were closer to something between 115-125 ft head to ground, I think we could use that as our basis for how large other giant creatures should be. Anyone could easily use this calculator thing and come up with something without needing to know the maths behind it - just need to think about how large the mouth should appear to a person in it and move from there.


Last edited by aethernavale on Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Adding stuff.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:39 am

Fair enough, but what do we do with the other creatures? Things like the Ice Wyrm are going to be a lot less impressive now and should be scaled up. Something else: some people like Blazbaros don't check the wiki or come here, so he won't edit his bios at all. Also, what should be the scale of the smaller predators like Aurora now? How tall should be the average newborn giant predator too? What about writers like WOWandWAS who are barely active?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:15 am

Sean Okotami wrote:
Fair enough, but what do we do with the other creatures? Things like the Ice Wyrm are going to be a lot less impressive now and should be scaled up. Something else: some people like Blazbaros don't check the wiki or come here, so he won't edit his bios at all. Also, what should be the scale of the smaller predators like Aurora now? How tall should be the average newborn giant predator too? What about writers like WOWandWAS who are barely active?


I'm not sure what the problem here is - they would also need to be changed. If you change the size of their prey and intend on them keeping said prey items, you would have to alter their size as well. As to the size of the predator that is up to the author. They have to decide what they want their characters to be able to do, that is not for us to decide. As for other authors that are either not active or not attentive to the forums, what do you want? As stated previously, that argument is just a presentation at attempting to derail - we cannot force people to change no matter what we do, whether it be canon or not. Just because we cannot do so, however, is not reason for us to stop doing it altogether.



Aurora is a naga, so she has an out of sorts. Let us avoid taking that out however and focus on the measurements. She's taller than Nikita by 10 feet, so a Seliky in comparison to her (who is 4' 6") would seem to be 7.2" tall to a human 6' tall. In the wiki picture, Seliky is roughly the length of one of Aurora's fingers - now, given how Seliky is drawn in that picture she's probably not to a real scale, but for amusement sake lets use it. If Seliky is the length of one of Aurora's fingers, that would put Aurora's head to ground height at 80 ft instead of 45 ft. With Crisis originally listed at 75 ft to Aurora's 45 ft, that would mean Crisis was 1.67x as tall as Aurora. With Aurora now at 80 ft, that means Crisis should be 133.3 ft tall - those numbers seem to mesh well with what I suggested earlier. A bit on the higher end, but well within the realm of calculative error.



As for newborn giants this is something I was already thinking about. One of my other issues was that for all these female preds, generally speaking the egg size is way too small for them to breastfeed. And if they don't breastfeed, what's the evolutionary point of giantesses maintaining mammaries? The median size for a 'healthy' human baby born in a developed country is around 14~20 inches in length. That puts the baby at roughly 0.194~0.277 times the size of a human at 6 feet. Which means that an equivalent human/elf giantess' child when the mother is 130 ft tall should be about 25.3~36.1 ft long.

Now, a lot of preds birth eggs that later hatch (harpies, dridders, nagas, etc), which means you could reduce the size of the egg as much as you liked within reason for the mother to still be able to handle it with care. The egg should grow to be able to hatch a child around the above size for proper nurturing by the parent, however.

This of course makes it near impossible for a child pred to be consumed by an adult pred whole and alive - things such as kensha beasts and tonorions still obviously present a clear danger (Crisis' past). So you could reduce the size of the child down to make it more likely for them to be consumed whole and alive (such as how Jissy eats smaller nagas), which would thereby make it difficult to establish a reason for the purpose of mammaries except fanservice. Personally, I'd maintain the size as discussed above. It just makes more sense to do so - and additionally, it establishes a basis for how the sapient giant preds act. Other than fairies who can change size, there are very few creatures that could eat a giant child whole and alive even after just being born when we view this presentation, so it garners support for the age old argument of why the giants choose their diets as they do. Moreover, there are other subspecies of the giants that are not giant, which rarely if ever receive a spotlight that would be made moreso by treating them thus. Jissy is not so much eating the children of giant nagas as she is eating the smaller variety of naga that exists.

I would say then that the majority of 'giant' predators that don't make it to adulthood are killed either by sapient congregations (like a human merc outfit), are eaten while still in the egg and thus easy to eat whole, are eaten by something like a hydra tree or other super-sized pred, or are killed by the other wildlife of Felarya that doesn't necessarily eat things whole and alive. Nagas could technically still manage it by dislocating their jaw, but they are probably the only ones that could. Dridders can eat young as well, but not whole.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:31 am

I'm really sorry, but I'm a believer of consistency, and if we must change the size of the giants, then all giants must abide to that to maintain consistency. We would have characters who used to be taller than the average, and now they're suddenly shorter due to a change in convention. That doesn't work for me. I also don't get half of your latter posts since it's so abominably crowded. Do you rather prefer we scale the children up so they're more proportionate to their parent, or do we keep them much smaller? I just editted my work, and I don't feel any satisfaction, as in no way is it going to impact anything such as quality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:09 am

I prefer children be upscaled, that's what I entailed in my post. Imagining a human carrying around a hatched giant naga child in their arms is rather preposterous to me - how in the world is the mother supposed to feed it? That isn't to say a human couldn't carry around a naga child - just not one with a mother that is 100~200 feet high.

Also, as to changing the heights, Karbo hasn't said anything on this yet so I don't know why you'd be jumping the gun. Additionally, I don't know what you're going to get out of it from either viewpoint - if you change them as I have elaborated on not everyone will follow suit for a variety of reasons, but if you leave things as they are you're admitting to a known incongruity between the pictures as drawn and the sizes as listed. Seeing as the latter hasn't bothered to precipitate the question before, why would it bother you now?

At this point it is merely a personal preference thing - if you agree to the preference then why would you be dissatisfied with changing the size, even if not everyone follows suit with you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:15 am

Because so far more people agree with you? It's obvious at this point that I'm losing this argument. And you also pretty much said that you didn't bother about sizes until now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:21 am

Since when has a dissident opinion stopped you before?

It has however been something that has been bugging me since I attempted to introduce Reya. I let it go at the time, more interested in fitting into the community. Since someone else brought it up now though I came forth with my thoughts on the subject.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pendragon
Grand Mecha Enthusiast
Grand Mecha Enthusiast
avatar

Posts : 3223
Join date : 2007-12-09

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:26 am

I was under the assumption that every giant was just 100 feet tall.

I didn't know there were so many height differences.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:30 am

Since I try to keep myself in check. I have no other argument I can present, save for the cop-out: maybe they're good at deep-throating, which I know would be shot down since you are smart, and you would have thought about such a possibility right away. I did change my work because there is a good chance that we will have to go through a massive editting spree.

While on the subject of kids, I recall a picture (not made by Karbo), that depicted a giant harpy with her daughter, and the daughter in question was barely more than half the size of her mom. And there's also Ravana's kid giantess, so I guess you have a point there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
Jętte_Troll
Friend of the Jotun
Friend of the Jotun
avatar

Posts : 2769
Join date : 2009-02-02
Age : 26
Location : Over There

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:32 am

As for mass editing, it would be painful, but have to be done. Not everyone would have to go through individually - I'm sure a wiki-wide change would be more feasible, with messages to people just to give them a heads up.

If not, this problem will just get more and more confusing - we should go with what most canon says - and in the manga, humans are much smaller comparatively than heights would suggest now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://jaettetroll.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:04 pm

Honestly, it wouldn't be all that bad.

Most of us were treating the preds according to their manga heights (where Lea has been depicted as slightly shorter than Crisis' middle finger) for a while. its been obvious for some time that the wiki heights were off, and just there for some kind of sense of scale.

Really, it would be a three-step process, and it wouldn't be so bad.

1: Edit the character heights in the wiki: This would probably be the most tedious part. There are about 4 or 5 people with rights to edit the wiki right now...so if each of them just started going down the list, it wouldn't be so bad. Really, its just going to be tacking on 20-30 feet onto the heights of most of the wiki characters.Average sized characters (70ft range) would bump up to around 90ft tall. Short characters (60ft range) would now be 70-80ft tall, which is still shoulder height to the average sized ones. Tall preds (80-90ft range) would now be over 100ft tall. There are some oddities like Aurora and Nikita, but even they are not a huge issue. Aurora is originally from another world, I believe...so, she wouldn't need to be scaled up at all. Nikita is a jumping dridder, a species who's creator designed to be a "race of living chibis", so they could just be a small race to begin with. Honestly, this does open up a new size of preds to mess around with, 40-50ft hybrids that kind of bridge the gap between humans and the giant hybrids. Now they would be their own group, instead of just unusually short versions of other pred species.

2: Upscale some of the other entries: You wouldn't really need to do as much as you'd think. The only creatures that need to be scaled up are some of the ones meant to be dangerous to the giant hybrids. Tack on an extra 10-15ft to the Kensha's height, and I think it would be fine. Marsh Vipers may need to get a little bigger too. Giant Flying Squids are fine, since they were already excessively large. Tonorions are fine, since they were never meant to be a threat to full-grown preds unless they were the Abyssal kind. It would just mean poking through the flora and fauna and looking for potential conflicts. For this, Karbo could employ the aid of the forum. Just create a "Pred-size retcon flora/fauna conflict thread" and encourage people to browse through the wiki and propose corrections. The entry can be linked to, looked at, and altered accordingly. This is all just changing a couple numbers here and there. It isn't like we're re-writing entire entries.

3: Spread the word to DA: Karbo would just need to make a journal explaining what exactly got changed, and the reasoning behind it. Maybe make a blog in the group too, just to be sure. People can go back and edit bios accordingly, and remember the info for future writings. Not everyone is going to pay attention, but that's already happening. Look at some of the writing that somehow manages to get into the Felarya group these days. Them getting the heights wrong should be the least of our DA issues.

Anyway, it just seems like there is a bunch of freaking out over nothing. Will it take a little while to get used to? Probably, but it won't be that bad of a retcon, and it will be better for the setting. it gives us consistancy between the recorded heights of the predators, and the heights they are actually depicted at. It also makes the preds a good 20-30% larger, more dangerous and more intimidating, which I think works nicely for them. For the vore-fans among us, it also makes the physical act of vore much more believable.

Just calm down everyone, and don't go freaking out. Its going to be fine, and it will make the setting better. ^^
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:10 pm

What about those like Lamina Harpies (around 40 ft tall) and Dryads (usually quite taller than the average predator)? How much taller should they be? Oh, should we also upscale newborns too? If so, how big should they big compared to their mother? About only a third of their size?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
aethernavale
Great warrior
Great warrior


Posts : 501
Join date : 2010-03-07

PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:50 pm

rcs619 wrote:
Really, its just going to be tacking on 20-30 feet onto the heights of most of the wiki characters.Average sized characters (70ft range) would bump up to around 90ft tall. Short characters (60ft range) would now be 70-80ft tall, which is still shoulder height to the average sized ones. Tall preds (80-90ft range) would now be over 100ft tall. There are some oddities like Aurora and Nikita, but even they are not a huge issue. Aurora is originally from another world, I believe...so, she wouldn't need to be scaled up at all. Nikita is a jumping dridder, a species who's creator designed to be a "race of living chibis", so they could just be a small race to begin with. Honestly, this does open up a new size of preds to mess around with, 40-50ft hybrids that kind of bridge the gap between humans and the giant hybrids. Now they would be their own group, instead of just unusually short versions of other pred species.


Hm, Cliff, that's not a big enough change. A 90 ft pred would view a human 6 ft tall like a 6 ft human would view an object in height of 4.8 inches. The mouth would only be 5ft 2in deep, meaning that only a shorter human could be placed fully on the tongue without a bit of them sticking out or traveling into the throat. If you moved the new median from 75 ft to 135 ft, that would fit the best.


Then applying this to dryads, we see Cypress' current height listed as 175 ft tall. This is actually a fairly accurate measurement based on these changes, as a 175 ft tall giantess would view a human at 2.46 inches tall, which is smaller than the typical index finger. If you multiplied the same conversion factor I used with Aurora and Crisis on Cypress' old height, you see her new height would be 291 ft, 8 in tall. At this new height, a human being would appear 1.48 inches tall - so around the size of 1.5~2 finger segments. I don't honestly remember the scale by WowandWas for Cypress, though I do seem to recall her holding humans in her hands. Up to the authors really.


Edit: And no to that much of a size increase on the newborns Sean. I already listed earlier how big they should be in comparison to the mother, and the numbers are closer to 19~27% of the mother's size. The median is actually closer to 23-26%, 19~27% is just the overall range the child could be given the overall ranges of healthy human children at birth in a developed country. 1/3 is a bit too much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: New Size Scale Discussion   

Back to top Go down
 
New Size Scale Discussion
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 6Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» RAF/RCAF Battle Dress type Blouse size 36 or 38 chest, belt, gaiters
» Header Size Problem
» How to set max size allowed for user avatars?
» Canadian Battle dress size chart.
» How to change font and size font on Css forumotion?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Felarya :: General forums :: General discussion-
Jump to: