Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

[Gary]

Just got TUB and the "realistic" throwing table looks very wrong. I don't understand how +5 Str would lead to a quadrupling of throwing distance. It should be a doubling for every +5 Str.

 

Just as an example, at 40 Str, a character can throw a 100kg object 20,480". If you follow the example to its logical conclusion, you get:

 

Str	Distance
40	20480
35	5120
30	1280
25	320
20	80
15	20
10	5

 

According to the "realistic" throwing table, Arnold Schwartenegger in his prime could throw a 220 pound object about 520 feet. And a normal athletic man with 15 Str could throw the same object 130 feet. And a man who can barely lift the 220 pound object could throw it 32 feet.

 

Does that make sense to anyone?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Just got TUB and the "realistic" throwing table looks very wrong. I don't understand how +5 Str would lead to a quadrupling of throwing distance. It should be a doubling for every +5 Str.

 

Just as an example, at 40 Str, a character can throw a 100kg object 20,480". If you follow the example to its logical conclusion, you get:

 

Str	Distance
40	20480
35	5120
30	1280
25	320
20	80
15	20
10	5

 

According to the "realistic" throwing table, Arnold Schwartenegger in his prime could throw a 220 pound object about 520 feet. And a normal athletic man with 15 Str could throw the same object 130 feet. And a man who can barely lift the 220 pound object could throw it 32 feet.

 

Does that make sense to anyone?

 

Not me. The Ultimate Brick is in a dead heat with the Ultimate Mystic for least useful Ultimate book in my opinion. The Expanded STR section, the Environment section, the Hoist Skill, and the simplified Absorption as a defense parts are about the only things in it of use to me.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

I'll have to look at the book tonight but I thought the quoted distances were only for extra STR above what was necessary to lift an object.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Just got TUB and the "realistic" throwing table looks very wrong. I don't understand how +5 Str would lead to a quadrupling of throwing distance. It should be a doubling for every +5 Str.

 

It's intended for high STR characters, is why the table starts at 40STR. And it is "realistic" not Realistic.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

It's intended for high STR characters' date=' is why the table starts at 40STR. And it is "realistic" not Realistic.[/quote']

 

It's not even "realistic". Doubling distance per +5 Str would be. And the starting point should be if you're lifting your maximum capacity, you can drop the object in hex or maybe a 1" throw.

 

As it stands, according to the charts, a 40 Str character lifting 1/5 of his maximum lift capacity could throw the object 1000 feet.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

It's not even "realistic". Doubling distance per +5 Str would be. And the starting point should be if you're lifting your maximum capacity, you can drop the object in hex or maybe a 1" throw.

 

As it stands, according to the charts, a 40 Str character lifting 1/5 of his maximum lift capacity could throw the object 1000 feet.

 

I'm curious why you think Doubling would be more "realistic."

 

I don't know how Steve came about the formula used in TUB, but the text states it is supposed to be "realistic" in the sense of very strong characters throwing objects a very long distance.

[Armitage]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

I don't know how Steve came about the formula used in TUB, but the text states it is supposed to be "realistic" in the sense of very strong characters throwing objects a very long distance.

 

[Nitpick] It was actually Dean Shomshak who originated the equations and tables in "How Far Did Grond Throw You?" in Adventurerer's Club #20.[/Nitpick]

 

I won't reproduce the meat of the article here; legal reasons, or whatever.

Horizontal distance was calculated as (Initial Velocity x cos45) x Travel Time

Doubling the force (+5 STR) doubles the initial velocity and doubles the travel time as well (the equation used was T = (V x sin 45)/5).

Since both factors in the distance are doubled, the range is quadrupled. The thrown object is thrown at a greater velocity and it gets higher before gravity slows it down and brings it back to Earth so it stays airborne longer.

Personally, I've never been good at ballistic trajectory equations.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

[Nitpick] It was actually Dean Shomshak who originated the equations and tables in "How Far Did Grond Throw You?" in Adventurerer's Club #20.[/Nitpick]

 

I won't reproduce the meat of the article here; legal reasons, or whatever.

Horizontal distance was calculated as (Initial Velocity x cos45) x Travel Time

Doubling the force (+5 STR) doubles the initial velocity and doubles the travel time as well (the equation used was T = (V x sin 45)/5).

Since both factors in the distance are doubled, the range is quadrupled. The thrown object is thrown at a greater velocity and it gets higher before gravity slows it down and brings it back to Earth so it stays airborne longer.

Personally, I've never been good at ballistic trajectory equations.

 

That formula would be wrong. Doubling Str would double kinetic energy, not velocity.

 

To simplify the equation, you can simply assume the character throws the object straight up into the air. The total energy imparted into the object is mgh where m = mass, g = 9.8 meters/sec^2, and h = height. So as you can see, kinetic energy is linear with height (or distance). Thus doubling kinetic energy means doubling distance, not quadrupling distance.

[GamePhil]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

The idea is that doubling the strength (that is, +5 STR) of the character is doubling the force he can apply to an object. Using this definition of STR, it does indeed turn out that, if throwing an object at an optimal angle and neglecting wind resistance, it travels 4x the distance for every +5 STR.

 

force = mass * acceleration = mass * velocity/time

 

So,

velocity = force * time/mass

 

So, double the force, double the initial velocity (that is, the velocity of the object after the force is removed), all else remaining equal.

 

For example, if you apply a 1 N (1 kg m/s^2) force to an object of 1 kg for 1 second, you get an object traveling at 1 m/s. If you double that, you get an object traveling at 2m/s, double again for 4m/s, and so on.

 

The formula for the distance an object travels if thrown (or otherwise propelled) at a 45 degree angle with negligeble air resistance is:

 

v^2/g

 

Where v is the initial velocity and g is acceleration due to gravity.

 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory)

 

So, if v = 1, the distance travelled is 1/g, but if v=2, the distance is 4/g, and if it is 4, the distance is 16/g.

 

So, with a +5 STR doubling the force, and therefore the velocity (assuming force is applied for the same duration to an object of the same mass) an object thrown at a 45 degree angle to the plane of the Earth will, in fact, travel four times as far for every +5 STR.

 

Mind you, there are all kinds of other consideration, including other angles and wind resistance, but I doubt that these are major issues in most games. There are also balance issues with allowing that chart, as is mentioned in TUB. But the math is sound given the base assumptions.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

No, the math is NOT sound.

 

If initial velocity was really doubled, then kinetic energy would be quadrupled not doubled, which is obviously not the case.

 

If kinetic energy were quadrupled, then someone with 15 Str would be able to lift 4 times what a 10 Str person could lift, if they were the same height. But the rules say 2 times Lift for +5 Str, ergo kinetic energy is only being doubled, not quadrupled. And if kinetic energy was only doubled, then velocity will only be increased by square root of 2 or about 1.4 times.

 

Also, it obviously fails the real world test as shown by the examples in the first post of this thread.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

No, the math is NOT sound.

 

If initial velocity was really doubled, then kinetic energy would be quadrupled not doubled, which is obviously not the case.

 

If kinetic energy were quadrupled, then someone with 15 Str would be able to lift 4 times what a 10 Str person could lift, if they were the same height. But the rules say 2 times Lift for +5 Str, ergo kinetic energy is only being doubled, not quadrupled. And if kinetic energy was only doubled, then velocity will only be increased by square root of 2 or about 1.4 times.

 

Also, it obviously fails the real world test as shown by the examples in the first post of this thread.

 

I'm going with the guy who posted formula. Post some to prove he's wrong.

 

and remember in the "real world" we can rarely throw an object as a perfect 45 degree angel and we have wind resistance to work against.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

I'm going with the guy who posted formula. Post some to prove he's wrong.

 

and remember in the "real world" we can rarely throw an object as a perfect 45 degree angel and we have wind resistance to work against.

 

10 Str person throwing an object imparts X kinetic energy.

 

If 15 Str person throwing the same object really does impart double the initial velocity, then he would impart 4X kinetic energy. 1/2mv^2.

 

10 Str person can lift 100 kg to a height of 1 meter. Energy is mgh or 100*9.8*1=980 joules of energy.

 

15 Str person can lift 200 kg to a height of 1 meter. Energy is mgh or 200*9.8*1=1960 joules of energy. Or double the energy.

 

If 15 Str person could really impart twice the velocity or 4 times the kinetic energy to an object when throwing, then he would have to be able to lift 400 kg to a height of 1 meter. Which is clearly not the case.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

You keep using Lifting - as in bringing strait up and holding? That creates Potential Energy.

 

KE comes when released. If simply dropped then the V is the same in both cases: Gravity. Kinetic Energy exists only in a moving object. You need to talk about what Velocity a Given Mass can be thrown at in order to talk KE.

 

If thrown the idea is that 2x STR can impart 2x Velocity of thrown object - which with the KE formula then starts to quadruple things:

 

say;

10STR can throw a 100kg object 1m/s: KE = 1/2 * 100 * 1^2 = 50 joules

15STR can throw a 100kg object 2m/s: KE = 1/2 * 100 * 2^2 = 200 joules

 

And note the table2 (I don't have my book on me, I'm pretty sure Table 2 is distance by weight) uses constant mass/weight with increasing STR.

 

Table 1 is Same Weight, Increasing STR to find distance thrown, again the assumption made is 2x STR can impart 2x Velocity as well as lift 2x Mass -

 

10STR can throw a 100kg object 1m/s: KE = 1/2 * 100 * 1^2 = 50 joules

15STR can throw a 200kg object 2m/s: KE = 1/2 * 200 * 2^2 = 400 joules

 

That's 8 times the KE; but KE does not equal Distance Throwable; GamePhil provided that formula.

 

Now, it's been about a decade since I studied Physics and am a bit rusty so, I'm not claiming to be an expert anymore.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

You keep using Lifting - as in bringing strait up and holding? That creates Potential Energy.

 

Which is equal to the kinetic energy imparted into the object.

 

KE comes when released. If simply dropped then the V is the same in both cases: Gravity. Kinetic Energy exists only in a moving object. You need to talk about what Velocity a Given Mass can be thrown at in order to talk KE.

 

And Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy. And Potential Energy is linear to height (distance).

 

If thrown the idea is that 2x STR can impart 2x Velocity of thrown object - which with the KE formula then starts to quadruple things:

 

That's the error, the idea that 2X Str can impart 2X Velocity or 4 times kinetic energy. If that were the case, then a 15 Str person could throw an object 4 times as heavy at the same velocity as a 10 Str person.

 

Why don't you get a bodybuilder friend and have each of you throw the same bowling ball or baseball. I betcha your buddy won't be able to throw it 4 times as far as you can.

[GamePhil]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

No, the math is NOT sound.

 

If initial velocity was really doubled, then kinetic energy would be quadrupled not doubled, which is obviously not the case.

 

If kinetic energy were quadrupled, then someone with 15 Str would be able to lift 4 times what a 10 Str person could lift, if they were the same height. But the rules say 2 times Lift for +5 Str, ergo kinetic energy is only being doubled, not quadrupled. And if kinetic energy was only doubled, then velocity will only be increased by square root of 2 or about 1.4 times.

 

Also, it obviously fails the real world test as shown by the examples in the first post of this thread.

 

As you wish. I simply provided the thinking, which I am more than happy with, this not being a physics manual. If the doubling of force quadrupels the kinetic energy imparted, or even octuples it, I am also happy with that.

 

And what I said was that the math is valid given the assumptions. The assumptions are that doubling STR doubles force, that the object is thrown at a 45 degree angle, and that wind resistance is negligible. Argue that the basis should be kinetic energy rather than force all you like, you may even be technically correct, I have no time or interest to argue that point, but my statement is true.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

What Phil said.

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Going back to basic physics:

 

Assume constant acceleration and assuming the wingspan of the thrower is 2 meters.

 

a = acceleration

s = distance

t = time

 

The formula is s = 1/2at^2. S is the wingspan of the thrower (the distance that the object actually gets accelerated).

 

So:

2 = 1/2at^2

4 = at^2

t = Sqrt (4/a)

 

The fundamental flaw of the throwing charts in TUB is that a High Str character and the Low Str character both have the same amount of time to accelerate the object. In reality, the character imparting double the force has only about sqrt(2) or 71% of the time to accelerate the object.

 

v=at

 

If acceleration doubles while time is reduced to 71%, then v = 2*.71 or 1.4 times the lower Str character's throw.

 

To actually double the velocity, the stronger character would need longer arms so that the Force has longer to act.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Going back to basic physics:

 

Assume constant acceleration and assuming the wingspan of the thrower is 2 meters.

 

a = acceleration

s = distance

t = time

 

The formula is s = 1/2at^2. S is the wingspan of the thrower (the distance that the object actually gets accelerated).

 

So:

2 = 1/2at^2

4 = at^2

t = Sqrt (4/a)

 

The fundamental flaw of the throwing charts in TUB is that a High Str character and the Low Str character both have the same amount of time to accelerate the object. In reality, the character imparting double the force has only about sqrt(2) or 71% of the time to accelerate the object.

 

v=at

 

If acceleration doubles while time is reduced to 71%, then v = 2*.71 or 1.4 times the lower Str character's throw.

 

To actually double the velocity, the stronger character would need longer arms so that the Force has longer to act.

 

Do those calculations take into account spin techniques like those used in Hammer Throw (Track & Field) events?

[Gary]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Do those calculations take into account spin techniques like those used in Hammer Throw (Track & Field) events?

 

No, but presumably all Str characters have access to the same techniques.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

No' date=' but presumably all Str characters have access to the same techniques.[/quote']

 

I'm no physics expert but...

 

It seems like the spinning would only serve to lengthen the amount of time used to accelerate an object before throwing. This would then counter (at least some of) the % loss of velocity due to increases in force used.

[GamePhil]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

I'm no physics expert but...

 

It seems like the spinning would only serve to lengthen the amount of time used to accelerate an object before throwing. This would then counter (at least some of) the % loss of velocity due to increases in force used.

 

Gary is basically assuming there that you exert force on the object over the same distance, such as two very different STR characters in an overhand throw. If there is a way to extend the distance, and therefore the time you can apply the force (to 1 sec), then the assumption in the chart is perfectly reasonable. If not, then it is flawed, sure, from a pure physics standpoint. I have serious doubts that spinning around more often can be done infinitely to impart more velocity as you get stronger.

 

However, please note that arm length, running distance, and other things that might increase your throwing range are not taken into account in HERO. Because, as I mentioned, it is not a physics manual. If the idea is that you can exert force longer over a longer distance was used in the game, then they would be, and Stretching (for instance) would allow you to throw farther. So, it stands to reason that the distance/time you exert force on the object is not taken into account, or is always considered the same (1 s by the chart). Within this framework, already established, the "Realistic Throwing Tables" are, in fact, as realistic as possible while being inconsistent with the rest of the rules.

 

And so on and like that. In general, though, I'll just use the normal throwing table and if someone wants something like this, they can buy Advantages on their STR, possibly based on that chart.

[Kenn]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Okay, so how far can I throw a postage stamp?

 

I mean really. Whether the base assumtions are right or not (our curved planet has a plane?) who really cares. In a discussion of how far a 200 lb. person can throw an object that weighs more than four times his body weight, why is anyone worried about realism?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

The tables also explicitely state they are intended for High STR (that's why they start at 40STR) Characters to begin with - already leaving The Real World in the dust.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Okay' date=' so how far can I throw a postage stamp?[/quote']

Ignoring air resistance, pretty darn far, I would think.

[GamePhil]

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

 

Okay, so how far can I throw a postage stamp?

 

Depends on whether you fold it up into a tiny paper airplane, ball it into a wad, and what the air resistance is.

 

I mean really. Whether the base assumtions are right or not (our curved planet has a plane?)

 

Much work in physics that ordinary folk are going to go into are approximations. The curvature of the world can be neglected, like many other things, for simplicity. Hence, plane, because it effectively is over short distances.

 

who really cares.

 

Not I. But by trying to figure out Gary's formulas I did refresh some old nerves in my brain about the subject, and the subject is of interest to me. As for whether or not I'd apply it to a game, hmmmm, no. I also don't criticise the chart, as it's "realistic" enough.

 

In a discussion of how far a 200 lb. person can throw an object that weighs more than four times his body weight, why is anyone worried about realism?

 

Rather my point, really. The rules start off ignoring certain things that a rocket scientist would take into account. So it's "realistic" enough.