In GTA, at least in Vice City, if you shoot the moon with the sniper rifle, the moon changes size π
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
528 points (97.1% liked)
Humor
7329 readers
266 users here now
"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"
Rules
Read Full Rules Here!
Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so letβs keep the tone light and positive.
Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!
Rule 3: No spamming!
Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.
Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.
Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.
Please report any violation of rules!
Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This works in real-life, too. Try it tonight!
To the idiots that will try this, don't. There is a small chance your bullet will kill someone. It has to end up somewhere. No, it can not make it passed the Stratosphere... I mean.. bullet always come back down.
It's a valid point. My only counter-point: come on, do it, pussy.
What are you, fuckin' chicken?
Only libtards don't shoot at the moon!
Doesn't that depend on how much accelerant you use?
Nah, bullets don't go anywhere near escape velocity. Escape velocity is ~11.2km/s and the fastest bullets (FAR faster than most) only go ~4000f/s, which is barely over~1.2km/s.
Any bullet that is shot up will come back down, and not terribly far away, either. Even the biggest artillery systems only have barely over 100km range.
What if my gun is a multi kilometre long railgun?
You're compensating for something.
The US government tried that a long while back... The company Spinlaunch is currently working on yeeting stuff into orbit with a centrifuge... So yes, some unusual methods can work.
The moon isn't at escape velocity either (source: It's still there).
Doesn't really change the numbers probably, but you'd need a little less than 11.2 km/s to reach the moon.
Wrong, that is not how orbital mechanics work. The moon IS below escape velocity, but it's orthogonal to the force of gravity. It also has a 240000 mile head start on getting away, yet it's STILL not escaping while traveling over 1km/s.
Shooting a bullet straight up, you would have to shoot faster than escape velocity for it to even reach the moon when using simple ballistic calculations.
There is A LOT of energy in those thousands upon thousands of miles.
That's what Elon Musk truly try to accomplish with starlink.
It's the same way irl.
You just need a gun about 10 meters wide
You can also use a low gravity cheat, get into a rhino tank, turn the gun backwards and continuously shoot so the tank starts floating.
In gta3, that was my favorite way to get between the islands after picking up misty. Then my older brother showed me where the banshee spawned and I never needed the tank again. Game sometimes got wonky and left the low gravity on for NPCs. Made cop chases a lot of fun
I know right?! Haha, fun times!
I'm honestly curious why the moon looks bigger to the naked eye than my phone camera.
Your eyes have a huge field of vision, but a very small field of true observation. As you read this comment, you can acknowledge there's a whole paragraph of text, but can only read 3-6 letters at a time. So while you can notice things in a ~180 degree field of view, you're only analyzing 1/2 degree at a time. Coincidentally, the moon is about 1/2 degree in apparent size. Your thumb nail is also about the same size at arm's length.
A camera, on the other hand, is taking a snapshot of an entire field of view. As you look through a photo, you're only analyzing the same 1/2 degree circle. If the photo is shrunk to fit, the moon is now much, much smaller than the original. If you zoom in on the pic to see the moon at the proper apparent size, you lose the other 99% of the picture - not unlike your actual useful view. Consider holding the phone up at arms length next to the moon as it shows the moon pic at life-scale. Your phone is effectively acting as a see through window - 6" wide and at arms length. See how little of the landscape is visible when actually scaled correctly? And even then, your phone is still about 15x wider than what your eyes can actually study at once. Hold your thumb out at arms length. Such a tiny amount of your field of view is obscured, yet it's probably slightly larger than whay you can observe.
So ultimately, it's not about special effects, lens compression, wide angle distortion, or anything like that. It's all about having 2 very different formats for viewing the world without realizing the fundamental differences.
PS: you may see people claim a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera is "what the human eye sees" regarding field of view. That's why it's used for portraits and favorable for some other close up photography. Yet, it's an awful combo for moon photography. It's field of view is about what people use to comfortably take in a whole object or scene. It will frame a portrait to about conversation distance and other objects to about where we would normally stand from an object of interest. Still, to observe it in detail, it needs to be displayed fairly large, like a whole computer screen. A 1080 phone at normal distance will look nice but won't quite match.
the real reason people say a 50 is "what your eye sees" is because of you put a 50mm lens on and look through the viewfinder on the camera there will be roughly no change in perspective. but yeah, this IS telephone compression, it's just that telephoto compression is also just about changing perspective. you can get the same effect by walking closer or further and cropping. though, you can't exactly walk any meaningful closer to the moon π . i really like the way you phrased the whole active focus vs whole field of view thing. I'm just being mildly pedantic.
Iβve definitely felt the same effect looking at landscapes in person, versus reviewing the same photo on my phone later. Basically an obvious comparison to be made between watching a cinematic movie in a giant theater, versus on that small screen.
thank you kind stragnger
Different lenses in your eye and your camera change the focal length
The moon will look different to different cameras of different focal lengths, even
Funny how lens compression gets magnified when the object is so far away itβs off planet π
If you look at the moon upside down like stand on your head or look through your legs it will look smaller
Everything looks smaller when I look between my legs.
I've never seen the moon so big!
If you take a VR photo/video and watch it back in VR, the moon looks the same size as it was in real life.