Planet Zoo | Zookeepers Animal Pack - OUT NOW!

DrBurrito

DrBurrito
Cooper_yang said:
Thank you for such a detailed reply, which is the community status I appreciate.
I read your reply carefully, and the following is my personal understanding of your reply:
1. With the help of various rigorous measurement tools, the size of the takin is not a problem, and relatively speaking, smaller individuals are excluded from the game. The shoulder height of the takin in the game is 1.05-1.4 meters. If we refer to the data in Wikipedia, that is, the shoulder height of the takin is 0.94-1.4 meters, we can even find that the takin in the game is relatively "large" overall.
2. The key to the problem lies in the size of the markhor. As you said, it uses the model of the ibex as the basis, and then their body size is locked at a value (PS: I did not participate in the discussion about the size of the ibex, so I don’t know if this point caused any objections at the time). That is, the male shoulder height is 1.05 meters and the female shoulder height is 0.8 meters. That is to say, if we refer to the data in Wikipedia, the shoulder height of the markhor ranges from 0.65 to 1.1 meters, which means that all the markhors in the game, regardless of whether their size data in the game is 0% or 100%, are still the largest markhors in the real world.
3. If we quantify the size data of the two, we set the takin with a shoulder height of 1.05 meters as 0% size and the takin with a shoulder height of 1.4 meters as 100% size, that is, when the shoulder height increases by 3.5 centimeters, the size data of the takin in the game will increase by 10%. The problem with the markhor is that regardless of whether its size data in the game is 0% or 100%, its shoulder height is 1.05 meters. If we introduce real data, we can find that if we also use 35 cm as the difference between body size data 0 and 100, that is, the shoulder height of the markhor with 100% body size data is 1.05 meters, while the shoulder height of the markhor with 0% body size data should be 0.7 meters, but this is not seen in the game. In other words, if we refer to reality, the size difference between the takin with 0% body size data and the markhor should be similar to that of the 100% body size data. But in the game, if they are compared together, it becomes a 100% body size markhor and a 0% body size takin, that is, it should be 0.75 meters vs. 1.05 meters, but what we see is 1.05 meters vs. 1.05 meters.
4. Based on the above, can I think that the body data of the takin and the appearance presented in the game are actually relatively accurate, but because the body data of the markhor does not match their size in the game, when we compare the takin with smaller body data with the markhor, the size difference between the two is inaccurate compared to the real world. We thought it was 40% to 40%, but it was actually 40% to 100%. So the key to the problem is that the size of the markhor in the game does not change with its size value, but always remains at a large level, so when the two with smaller size data are compared together, it is inconsistent with the actual situation, which is very obvious visually. The comparison is relatively accurate only when the individuals with larger body size data, or even more than 90% of the two, are put together.
5. In summary, the problem lies with the markhor, not the takin.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply and the detailed analysis. One thing you are missing is that the shoulder height range of the markhor, specified as 0.65–1.15 m on Wikipedia, applies to both sexes, not just males. The individuals at 0.65 m would be the smallest adult females, while those at 1.15 m would be the largest males. Based on this, the 0.80 m tall females in the game deviate only 15 cm from the lower bound, and the 1.05 m tall males deviate 10 cm from the upper bound, so I would say they are quite average.

To make a more accurate assessment, we would need separate data for males and females, which we currently don't have. However, this information can be found with some research, and I'm fairly confident it will fall somewhere within the range of 0.65–0.90 m for females and 0.90–1.15 m for males. Considering that the markhor is the tallest of the goats, the average height of the Alpine ibex should be slightly lower.

Additionally, I did quote Wikipedia since the size information was properly sourced; otherwise, Wiki is not a reliable source to cite. Here is the actual source referenced in the Wikipedia article:


This website is usually credible and well-sourced, and the morphometric data presented is likely to be accurate unless there are any typos. They have also cited Mammals of the World below; if anyone has a copy, we can double-check this information and perhaps even obtain a breakdown for males and females.
 
Last edited:

Cooper_yang

Cooper_yang
DrBurrito said:
Thank you for your reply and the detailed analysis. One thing you are missing is that the shoulder height range of the markhor, specified as 0.65–1.15 m on Wikipedia, applies to both sexes, not just males. The individuals at 0.65 m would be the smallest adult females, while those at 1.15 m would be the largest males. Based on this, the 0.80 m tall females in the game deviate only 15 cm from the lower bound, and the 1.05 m tall males deviate 10 cm from the upper bound, so I would say they are quite average.

To make a more accurate assessment, we would need separate data for males and females, which we currently don't have. However, this information can be found with some research, and I'm fairly confident it will fall somewhere within the range of 0.65–0.90 m for females and 0.90–1.15 m for males. Considering that the markhor is the tallest of the goats, the average height of the Alpine ibex should be slightly lower.

Additionally, I did quote Wikipedia since the size information was properly sourced; otherwise, Wiki is not a reliable source to cite. Here is the actual source referenced in the Wikipedia article:


This website is usually credible and well-sourced, and the morphometric data presented is likely to be accurate unless there are any typos. They have also cited Mammals of the World below; if anyone has a copy, we can double-check this information and perhaps even obtain a breakdown for males and females.
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way, the body size data of the takin on Wikipedia does not seem to distinguish between females and males. Regarding the specific data, I will continue to look up relevant information when I have time, but I want to point out here that from a rigorous point of view, before getting real data, my "0.75-1.05" is a personal guess, and your 0.9-1.15 is also a guess. The difference is that the difference in shoulder height between my guess is 35 cm, while yours is only 25 cm.
But I want to emphasize that if the markhor is modeled with the assumed average value and there is no body size change, then to be fair, the animals compared with it, if you want to be "fair", should also take the assumed average value for modeling, and the visual expression in the game will be OK.
And this is the most critical point I have drawn based on your observation and analysis, that is, when the takin has a complete body size change in the game, the markhor does not, so this is the key to the problem.
If we use your 0.9-1.15 data range speculation, then I assume that 0.9 is 0, 1.15 is 100, then we can conclude that 0.025 is 10%, that is, a male with a height of 1.05, if we look at it according to this range, his body size value should be 60%. In other words, when we put the takin with a body size data less than 60% in the game and compare them with them, there will be problems visually.
And this is the problem I am most concerned about. Simply put, when using an average value to compare the complete data, there will inevitably be problems.
 

DrBurrito

DrBurrito
Cooper_yang said:
Let's put it this way, the body size data of the takin on Wikipedia does not seem to distinguish between females and males. Regarding the specific data, I will continue to look up relevant information when I have time, but I want to point out here that from a rigorous point of view, before getting real data, my "0.75-1.05" is a personal guess, and your 0.9-1.15 is also a guess. The difference is that the difference in shoulder height between my guess is 35 cm, while yours is only 25 cm.
Click to expand...
The reason I said I'm pretty confident that the size range will fall somewhere in the bounds I provided lies in the combination of the following facts:*
  • We know that the largest male markhors stand 1.15 m tall at the shoulder.
  • The species ranges from 0.65 to 1.15 m at the shoulder.
  • Male markhors are larger than females, which is the usual pattern among goats, with the size ranges typically not overlapping.
  • Male markhors stand taller than Alpine ibexes, which typically average 0.95-0.98 m and range from 0.90 to 1.01 m tall at the shoulder, based on measurements taken from several colonies in the linked study. This is also consistent with the in-game ibex.
When you take all these parameters into consideration, you can make a reasonably educated guess about the breakdown, which I roughly split into two halves for the two sexes. This is not an estimate of average height, but rather a wider range within which each sex’s measurements are likely to fall. The average is likely to be even narrower. If I were to make a guess, the mean height at the shoulder for male markhors should be a little over a meter (i.e., 1.00-1.05 m).

*The bounds I provided were not an estimate of the size range itself, but rather a plausible range within which the actual sex-specific size range is expected to fall, as I intended in my wording.

Cooper_yang said:
And this is the most critical point I have drawn based on your observation and analysis, that is, when the takin has a complete body size change in the game, the markhor does not, so this is the key to the problem.
Click to expand...
The lack of size variation indeed skews size perception, as I tried to explain in my analysis, even if we assume the average height used is correct. However, due to the limitations of the goat mountain, not much can be done about that.

Cooper_yang said:
If we use your 0.9-1.15 data range speculation, then I assume that 0.9 is 0, 1.15 is 100, then we can conclude that 0.025 is 10%, that is, a male with a height of 1.05, if we look at it according to this range, his body size value should be 60%. In other words, when we put the takin with a body size data less than 60% in the game and compare them with them, there will be problems visually.
And this is the problem I am most concerned about. Simply put, when using an average value to compare the complete data, there will inevitably be problems.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, the 0.65-0.90 m and 0.90-1.15 m breakdowns are a rough half-and-half split of the species-level size range; in reality, it could be different (e.g., 0.95-1.15 m). I tried to be as generous as possible with the size range breakdown, but the spectrum is likely to be narrower due to a lack of overlapping sizes for males and females, which would be consistent with most other species in the genus Capra. If it is narrower (e.g., 0.95-1.15 m), then the in-game average of 1.05 m is exactly at 50%. If we take the more generous approach (0.90-1.15 m), then it is around 60%, which again isn’t that far off from the average. This is why I described the sizes of the markhors in the game, for both males and females, as seemingly pretty average.

If you would like to continue discussing this topic, I suggest doing so in a separate thread to avoid cluttering this one with such a specific subject any longer. Feel free to tag me.

SalamAnders said:
I did post some separate data for male and female Markhors some pages ago.
Click to expand...
I must have missed that one; the only post I saw didn't distinguish between the shoulder heights of males and females for the markhor.
 
Last edited:

Cooper_yang

Cooper_yang
DrBurrito said:
The reason I said I'm pretty confident that the size range will fall somewhere in the bounds I provided lies in the combination of the following facts:*
  • We know that the largest male markhors stand 1.15 m tall at the shoulder.
  • The species ranges from 0.65 to 1.15 m at the shoulder.
  • Male markhors are larger than females, which is the usual pattern among goats, with the size ranges typically not overlapping.
  • Male markhors stand taller than Alpine ibexes, which typically average 0.95-0.98 m and range from 0.90 to 1.01 m tall at the shoulder, based on measurements taken from several colonies in the linked study. This is also consistent with the in-game ibex.
When you take all these parameters into consideration, you can make a reasonably educated guess about the breakdown, which I roughly split into two halves for the two sexes. This is not an estimate of average height, but rather a wider range within which each sex’s measurements are likely to fall. The average is likely to be even narrower. If I were to make a guess, the mean height at the shoulder for male markhors should be a little over a meter (i.e., 1.00-1.05 m).

*The bounds I provided were not an estimate of the size range itself, but rather a plausible range within which the actual sex-specific size range is expected to fall, as I intended in my wording.


The lack of size variation indeed skews size perception, as I tried to explain in my analysis, even if we assume the average height used is correct. However, due to the limitations of the goat mountain, not much can be done about that.


As I mentioned, the 0.65-0.90 m and 0.90-1.15 m breakdowns are a rough half-and-half split of the species-level size range; in reality, it could be different (e.g., 0.95-1.15 m). I tried to be as generous as possible with the size range breakdown, but the spectrum is likely to be narrower due to a lack of overlapping sizes for males and females, which would be consistent with most other species in the genus Capra. If it is narrower (e.g., 0.95-1.15 m), then the in-game average of 1.05 m is exactly at 50%. If we take the more generous approach (0.90-1.15 m), then it is around 60%, which again isn’t that far off from the average. This is why I described the sizes of the markhors in the game, for both males and females, as seemingly pretty average.

If you would like to continue discussing this topic, I suggest doing so in a separate thread to avoid cluttering this one with such a specific subject any longer. Feel free to tag me.


I must have missed that one; the only post I saw didn't distinguish between the shoulder heights of males and females for the markhor.
Click to expand...
Since you don't want to expand on this, I will reply to you and express my views on this topic for the last time in your reply to these questions.
1. Any speculation based on some data is always speculation. For a long time, they are relatively accurate, not absolutely accurate. The speculations and estimates made by human science and technology in many fields can only be said to be relatively accurate. Once there are more accurate data, the previous ones can be overturned and broken. Just like the various methods we use to predict the number of wild animals, we can only say that we have made a "speculation" based on the method we choose. It can only be said that it is a speculation based on this method.
2. The markhor in the game does not seem to distinguish subspecies. As far as I know, Suleiman markhor is smaller than the model subspecies. But this is a problem that has always existed in the game. For example, we got Sichuan takin, but the animal introduction called them takin. For example, the jackals we got are Indian dhole in appearance, but the animal introduction did not say so, just saying that they are dhole. When the DLC was released, they seemed to be called Ussuri dhole. In the game, they actually sound an alarm when they encounter cold weather. This is one of the most obvious mistakes, and I have already pointed this out in another topic. But as I said before, this is an old problem, but it seems that there is no possibility of change at present.
3. Speculations and estimates are always speculations and estimates, just like the official agencies in the world previously speculated that the number of wild Sumatran tigers was around 400, but the data from a recent infrared camera survey was not so optimistic. Wildlife biologists collected data from 61 infrared cameras in Aceh’s Ulu Masen, Indonesia, from 2020 to 2022. Although it is one of the eight tiger origins in Sumatra, only 11 tiger individuals were recorded in total, but there were 8 male tigers, only 1 female tiger, and the other two were of unknown gender. The gender ratio was seriously unbalanced and there were no cubs, and there was no sign of reproduction. One of the tigers also lost a forelimb due to poaching. Although many agencies believe that there are about 400 wild Sumatran tigers, I personally express my concerns about this latest survey data. Of course, as I said before, speculation and estimation are always speculation and estimation, which are only based on certain data and certain methods.
4. My most important point is that if an animal model does not change in size in the game, but other species do, then at some point, especially when they are kept together, there will definitely be problems. Of course, if these models are based on some temporarily unsolvable programming problem and can only be limited to one body size, I can accept it. After all, I have been accepting that birds cannot fly for many years. But this is only based on our current "cannot change", not saying "this is not a problem".
 

leehonglocal

L
Designers and creators of Planet Zoo, even after the last DLC packs will be planned whenever, will there still be Anniversary animal (one for every November)?
 

Swjosdotschka

Swjosdotschka
Aramar said:
When an anniversay comes and we don't get an anniversary animal that time, then we wil know that it's over.
Click to expand...
This. And basically at the same time when we know there will not be any more DLCs, because it has been quiet for months or because they said so.
At the end of the day the anniversary animals aren't here to do us a favour, they are an advertisement gift. You don't advertise a product that has been retired and does not bring anymore (new) income apart from that few players that hop on late on the train after development stops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom