Large Size (type 3): "Type Venus is an Aristoteles that can be described as a gigantic carnivorous plant estimated to be a thousand meters long."
possible Corruption: "It is an invasion type environmental cultivation forest bed that roots itself into the ground and spreads hundreds of millions of spores as it eats away at the planet."
limited Adaptation: "It is a parasite type being, so its mind "ingests" the concepts of Liners after its death. It takes in their concepts of a mind and thought processes, which had never existed to it before then. The idea of forming a shape out of knowledge is something new, so it uses everyone as a model to form a shape out of the knowledge it has never used. Taking the form of the closest image of its former shape and everyone's fantasy, it becomes able to communicate with others by creating the same thought circuit and become self-aware in the human sense." (adaptation in the sense that it can absorb, comprehend and put into practice completely alien concepts)
Illusion Creation: "The form it creates a long range "Stand" type of phantasm in the form of an angel. She refers to the projection as an illusion that is just reflecting the hopes, dreams, and fantasies of the inhabitants of the city by connecting to their thought circuits. Taking the form of an imaginary angel allowed her to become herself and detach herself from the being called an Aristoteles by becoming an illusion."
Sorry if it was presumptuous but I didn't feel like a CRT was necessary for such easily accessed and clearly-presented information.
That argument also works for all the impact profiles and even things like bullets fired from guns.
This hypervelocity star is not synonymous to the sun's KE due to orbiting the Milky Way. The hypervelocity star is escaping from the Milky Way at 723 kilometers per second. If it impacts another star in intergalactic space or another galaxy, the impact should release about as much energy as listed in the profile.
To be honest, if nobody wants the profile I don't mind if it gets deleted, I just felt like adding it because a hypervelocity star seemed interesting.
Impact profiles move from whatever their speed is to zero, and the AP is of that change. If there was a collision event involving that star it would be fine to add, in my opinion. Bullets fired from guns seem fine since I think of it as a method of delivering AP, like throwing a javelin, where the gun's exerting the energy (or triggering a mechanism that exerts energy) and the javelin's delivering it.
Earth is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at 200-250km per second, but we don't give every human 8-B due to kinetic energy from that. If that lone human were to be teleported off of Earth and smashed into a stationary object they would deal 8-B destruction, but that's not something we'd include in a profile.
It certainly is interesting but I'm not sure if it's the right way to go about making profiles for the site.
True enough. It doesn't bother me much that it got deleted, because I only added it because it sounded interesting, and it took me next to no work to make that profile anyways.
I'll keep this in mind for future Real World profiles, so I should actually thank you. You've likely saved me frustration in the future if I ever made something like this but with a lot more work put into it.
I noticed that you made profiles for military ships, so there is a underrated game that shows many of them . I was wondering which type these ships [also based of their tourets and missiles] are most similar with, through the game states that these are from Japan.
I don't know about the aircraft carrier (the most I can tell you is that it isn't a supercarrier), but the missile-carrying ship after that looks like it's probably a guided missile destroyer or guided missile cruiser. It's hard to tell with the camera moving around like it is.
Simple, actually. I believe I linked to the information sources in all of the articles, but I can provide additional data if you want.
In the case of the 8"/55 caliber Mark 15, I used the data on this page and calculated the minimum and maximum possible kinetic energy of the shells at the muzzle. I then added to that the "bursting charge" data; if the explosive filler wasn't listed, I assumed it to be TNT, since that is the measurement standard—but in this case the shells are filled with "Explosive D", also known as "dunnite", which is similar to TNT, which made using the standard value for TNT appropriate for a relatively accurate order of magnitude estimate of the shell's firepower.
The missiles were a bit harder, but mostly lifted from this website, and when information about the specific explosive used as filler could not be found I assumed it to be Composition B, a very common replacement for TNT in munitions post-WWII that is 33% more effective, due to missiles being more recent in manufacture than the shells.
I appologize for not posting calcs for these figures, but to be honest I felt they were such straightforward conclusions to reach that it wasn't truthfully necessary, since all of the relevant data is concrete and available online, unlike the feats of fictional subjects we mostly deal with on this site. If you would like me to provide calcs, I can, but... I'll need some time to redo them, because I don't think I saved them anywhere.
Be forewarned, I think I may have used additional information from other sources in some places (for example, looking up the RE factors of various explosives, or maybe looking for what explosives a shell or missile warhead was filled with), but in general I just used the sources I provided, which are pretty comprehensive.
For Harpoon missiles, I seem to get a different result from your's (1 megajoule) when I convert the TNT equivalent in kg to Megajoules using this calculator.
For the WDU-18/B warheads, assuming the 221 kg is Composition B, I multiply that by 1.33 to get the TNT equivalent (293.93 kg), and convert that to MJ and I get 1355 MJ, Building level if I'm not mistaken.
I don't recall the exact method I used for the Harpoons (I wish I had saved my calculations!), but if I had to guess... I probably lowballed the result since I didn't know what the explosives where in the warhead, and used a TNT-approximant instead of Comp B, which would make it close to 1 megajoule.
The results are pretty close to each other, and either conclusion I'm fine with.
Please don't copy-paste descriptions from Wikipedia or other Wikis. It's lazy, against the rules, and just makes this wiki look worse overall. Try to paraphrase as best you can unless it's an official description.
That's understandable, although I do have somewhat of an issue with the fact that you deleted the part of the description about the modern L/70 version, which is different enough in performance from the WWII version that it required a split in the profile. In that light, the information you deleted was kinda important.