After months without playing Planet Zoo (mostly because I didn't have the time) and finally getting to summer, I could go back to play it and enjoy the many little but substantial changes Frontier has made to improve the experience of the game over the months, and I'm loving it. However, I'm quite surprised to see that one thing hasn't changed at all, that is, some animals are still inaccurately sized. I'm not referring to the crocodilians, because despite what people say, females in real life are quite smaller than males, so I'm completely fine with that. However, there are two animals whose size is definitely off: the American bison and the bactrian camel. These two mammals are famous for being quite large, yet in the game 100% gene size individuals barely reach the average size of the animal in real life (specially the camel, the bison not as much but still noticeable), meanwhile individuals with a lesser % are just too small, I hope you consider upsizing them because I would love to see a camel like as big as this in the game. Greetings!
Bison and camel are too small
- Thread starter Narwhaler
- Start date
I have been gathering data myself for such a thread. However, I still couldn't find the time from my irl schedule to compose the original post. I have been noticing some oddities with sizes since launch, and hopefully make a detailed inquiry soon.
Even though the data I'm collecting is still incomplete, even now I can tell you that there are several factors/issues contributing to such discrepancies:
1) Wrong average, minimum and maximum sizes for different species - which is the most apparent one obviously.
2) Sizes in the world and info boxes not matching - oddly some animals have this issue. They can be larger or smaller than the listed value (can be compared to building pieces).
3) Use of different methodology when gathering/researching size data for different animals. For some animals they used average minimum and average maximum sizes, while for others absolute maximum or minimum records.
4) Correct data used for wrong method of measurement - stuff like "while standing" values used for "between pegs" measurements resulting in oversized/undersized animals.
All these discrepancies contribute to some animals looking larger or smaller than they should. Hopefully I will make a comprehensive thread about it soon.
Even though the data I'm collecting is still incomplete, even now I can tell you that there are several factors/issues contributing to such discrepancies:
1) Wrong average, minimum and maximum sizes for different species - which is the most apparent one obviously.
2) Sizes in the world and info boxes not matching - oddly some animals have this issue. They can be larger or smaller than the listed value (can be compared to building pieces).
3) Use of different methodology when gathering/researching size data for different animals. For some animals they used average minimum and average maximum sizes, while for others absolute maximum or minimum records.
4) Correct data used for wrong method of measurement - stuff like "while standing" values used for "between pegs" measurements resulting in oversized/undersized animals.
All these discrepancies contribute to some animals looking larger or smaller than they should. Hopefully I will make a comprehensive thread about it soon.
Last edited:
Yes! And I think snow leopards are too small too, sometimes they're like cats
Yes I was wondering that about snow leopards too. I’ve seen them next to people in zoos and they aren’t huge but in game they sometimes seem tiny.
In the game they're waay smaller than this, even the ones with good size rateSnow leopards are actually pretty small (definitely not leopard sized lol), the ingame size is definitely accurate.
View attachment 180275
Ok, so I figured out the deal with the tiny camels.
Firstly, the game uses the "at the shoulder" measurement type for the camels, yet for the actual models this translates to "at the hump" instead, which is the main cause of every single camel being extremely undersized for its stated size.
2.02 m tall camel against 2m construction pieces
Highlight turned off
Another thing that grabbed my attention is the difference between old records and current maximum sizes. Looks like the camels shrunk sometime after launch, which confirms my suspicions about camels being larger in the past.
Because I don't remember camels being this small after release, or in any stream/video:
So all they gotta do is revert the change they've made somewhere down the line. At first, probably, a different developer set accurate sizes for the camels "at the hump" using proper "at the shoulders" data (using the shoulder/hump ratio in the link here), but later, a different developer doing consistency screening/quality control noticed the figures did not match the actual (at the shoulders) figures in the source they were using and changed it.
There are several other animals with this very problem of using the highest or lowest point on the animal for "at the shoulder" figures. I will be compiling all this data in a future post of mine. Another common mistake is using "when standing/long" figures for "between pegs" measurement type on the actual model.
All these examples fall under the fourth category in my previous reply:
Firstly, the game uses the "at the shoulder" measurement type for the camels, yet for the actual models this translates to "at the hump" instead, which is the main cause of every single camel being extremely undersized for its stated size.
2.02 m tall camel against 2m construction pieces
Highlight turned off
Another thing that grabbed my attention is the difference between old records and current maximum sizes. Looks like the camels shrunk sometime after launch, which confirms my suspicions about camels being larger in the past.
Because I don't remember camels being this small after release, or in any stream/video:
So all they gotta do is revert the change they've made somewhere down the line. At first, probably, a different developer set accurate sizes for the camels "at the hump" using proper "at the shoulders" data (using the shoulder/hump ratio in the link here), but later, a different developer doing consistency screening/quality control noticed the figures did not match the actual (at the shoulders) figures in the source they were using and changed it.
There are several other animals with this very problem of using the highest or lowest point on the animal for "at the shoulder" figures. I will be compiling all this data in a future post of mine. Another common mistake is using "when standing/long" figures for "between pegs" measurement type on the actual model.
All these examples fall under the fourth category in my previous reply:
I have also noticed the inconsistency in sizes of different animals. Some are too small, others too big. Camels are obviously the ones suffering from it the most, but the entire roster needs a revision in my opinion.
Yes, they are way to small. Funny enough, those tiny camels still have one of the hugest hitboxes in game and won't even fit through the large arch-pieces in game.
They probably still have their old hitbox from when they were big.
No, not really. They were already small but fittet through the arches in the past. It is since two or three updates that hitboxes got bigger with every animal. Unfortunately, they won't fix it.
Do you know why they won't fix it? I tried building a stable for my camels, but they just won't fit through anything
This is what Chantè wrote about it.
Sure, I know the whole story about the hitboxes getting bigger, but I think this might be why camels have it so extreme.
It should be fixed. There is no fun in playing game with Cartoonish or Dwarf size animals which do not match with reality.
There needs to be more consistency in all information for animals in the game. Let it be animal distribution maps, biome, temperature suitability or sizes, there are a lot of categories where this problem exists. My recommendation to Frontier would be to set up a quality control team just for these scientific errors and keep everything accurate.