[ADDED] Horses Having Height

Adding height is a good idea in my opinion, but still it shouldn't affect show results. I'd really love to see this in game in the future!

I don't support because if there was a height difference, new art would Have to be made to show the difference and to know the height was "added".

That's not true. The art doesn't show conformation. It does not need to show height differences. I personally would love this :)
Clubs could maybe only accept horses within a given height range like a real registry, and it would give something more to breed for. I'd love to expirament and do projects like giant clydes and petite miniatures. I'd also try to breed my QHs within the accepte AQHA range. The game could benefit from additions like this. The more things to breed for, the more reasons to buy horses!

I never knew AQHA had height limits/requirements, nor APHA, or AMHA (american morgan) if they did we wouldnt have 17.2 hand QH's/Paints or 16+ hand morgans in real life that are registered and showing.

The only ones I can think of are Minis in class A/B Shetlands and Welsh Ponies that have height specifics...

Wait do they? I was under the impression that they did because I've read about how taller QHs aren't really QHs? Maybe it was just people trash talking. I do know that cutters are usually kept short so either way I'd like to breed for that because that's what I pretend my horses do since we just have general "western" lol

AQHA does not have a requirement for height. they base their registrations on parentage.

i do suppose this idea, even if it's "window dressing", because it makes them more individual and gives me something else to incorporate into my breeding programs, just like conformation.

I don't like this idea.. I like the horses how they are.. and

New art would probably have to be made so you would notice the different in the height. o.o Imagine all of the art that would have to be made and money spent just to show height.

I don't like this idea.. I like the horses how they are.. and

New art would probably have to be made so you would notice the different in the height. o.o Imagine all of the art that would have to be made and money spent just to show height.

There's no way new art would be made just for the height differences. I see no reason why it would need to be, anyway. The art doesn't change for conformation differences. It's just a tidbit of extra information.

Also, I don't quite get what you mean by "liking the horses how they are." Adding height wouldn't change anything about them that's already there.

Last edited on 2016-08-01 at 16:35:55 by Syrien 🐇 ☽

Just saying, but even if we did end up with the art matching the height, it could easily be achieved by just changing the picture size, i.e. it could be achieved with code, not new art.

I made a mock up, just to see how this would work out. This is a screenshot of what I coded up. Art has not been modified at all, and the code is only slightly different to what we currently have on our horses. The middle (black and white) horse is normal sized, while the other two are small and large versions respectively.
Click for full size.


I actually really like this idea if it affects the art. It would give you the option of breeding anything from a gargantuan to a mini version of your chosen breed, and would be a really fun trait to breed for, but could also be ignored entirely if you wished. I don't think show results should be affected.

Ulysses, I had no idea it would be so simple to change the height of the horses with coding! That would be amazing!

It's actually not so simple to change the heights without the images potentially going a bit screwy and being positioned all wrong on the background (as it would need to be done automatically to correspond with the height).

I'd be willing to add height in as another trait to breed for, but I would need to consider the image scaling.

^I actually considered this automation issue when I was putting together my mock-up, so I'll share my solution in case it could be integrated into the existing code:

First, start by defining a variable equal to the average height for the breed, which will correspond to an unscaled image. I'll use Gypsy Vanners for my example, which average 15 hands. Then you have the individual horse's actual height, which is any reasonable number (max and min limits may be wise, otherwise images could potentially get too big or small, and therefore look weird). Use these to calculate a scaling factor, then use this to calculate the image heights and corresponding horizontal offsets needed to centralise the images. Then define a CSS class for the horse images that use these calculated values.

Example pseudo-code, for a horse that's 14.3 hands:

gv_height = 15.0
horseID_12345_height = 14.3

scaling_factor = horseID_12345_height / gv_height ........ (=0.953)
image_height = 450 * scaling_factor ........ (=429px)
image_width = 600 * scaling_factor ........ (=572px)
image_offset = (600 - image_width) / 2 ........ (=14px)

CSS:
.horseimages {position:absolute; bottom:0px; left:[=image_offset]px; height:[=image_height]px; }

The resulting image code could end up being equivalent to something like this:
click for full size


This will display as a smaller than average gypsy with the horse image correctly centralised horizontally. Scaling it to above average heights will produce similar results, just with a negative offset. Offsetting things 0px from the bottom of the div box vertically positions things correctly for all image sizes unless they are utterly massive or tiny, which don't look realistic to begin with, so won't occur if you have height limits. The overflow:hidden property will trim things appropriately so image dimensions don't get too big.

I don't know what your back end code looks like, so I don't know how realistic this solution is, but I hope it at least gives you some ideas. Let me know if you have any questions, or if things need clarifying.

Last edited on 2016-08-03 at 07:32:48 by UlyssesBlue (spare)

I just don't see the point in this. It would be a shame if this negated from the value of a horse that is otherwise awesome just because its height isn't desirable.

I think they should utilize conformation somehow first before adding any more details to the horse. If this is added, maybe just add it to the Confo table...but I wouldn't want it to affect anything.

Just my opinion.

I like the idea of height, it gives a horse individuality... But then when the idea of effecting shows came along, and then the idea of not accepting a breed because of height restrictions...

I hate that idea, dislike it a lot. Could you imagine working on this horse so much, great conformation, lovely stats, beautiful colour. Then as you go to register your horse... you can't get in because of height! It may be realistic, but it would dishearten some of us.

Plus, even though you say that's just an idea, and we don't need restrictions in clubs. Then that's fine, now what else could height be used for other then cluttering pages and being all-round useless? I know some may say it would be great to work on the height of ponies or larger breeds, such as Clydesdale. But as some said, it's just another thing breeders have to look out for. Because not only would they have to work on conformation, but colour and stats, and then height. And not only that, but some said it would be good to sell horses more expensive if at a "good" height. Same with club height restrictions idea, would be disheartening if I couldn't sell a horse as much as it should be worth.

I understand it sounds like a fun idea, but I think Equiverse has a lot of fun features right now, and height is rather pointless. Because we have showwing, and riding schools, clubs and breeding colours and conformation, we just don't really need height. In my opinion anyways. Sorry for being so negative, I guess height just isn't on my supporting list right now. XD

Last edited on 2016-08-05 at 07:38:23 by Western Outback Stables