Confo horse search
Confo horse search 1 |
|
#55279 Posted on 2016-07-22 04:35:48
I know that this would be useful to me, and hopefully many others so: what if on the horse search you could filter it to confo above or below a certain number! If you breed for confo then it would definitely help! Tell me what you think, and if you disagree, please say why! :)
1 members like this post.
|
Posted By Ruby Redfort #94505 Member is Offline 576 forum posts Send A Message |
#55291 Posted on 2016-07-22 06:29:06
I believe this is already a suggestion, but support nonetheless.
1 members like this post.
|
Posted By Sonoma #66116 Member is Offline 565 forum posts Send A Message |
#55298 Posted on 2016-07-22 07:08:24
Yep, suggested here!=)
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Wisteria #94743 Member is Offline 705 forum posts Send A Message |
#55323 Posted on 2016-07-22 09:03:14
I don't know... It would be a lot of coding. What if a horse had 59.40 for example? A LOT of numbers to code. If it was just 59, then it wouldn't be so hard, I guess. Get what i'm saying? I'm kinda bad at explaining.
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By ยซ๐๐๐๐ยป #99805 Member is Offline 1747 forum posts Send A Message |
#55324 Posted on 2016-07-22 09:03:58
I don't know... It would be a lot of coding. What if a horse had 59.40 for example? A LOT of numbers to code. If it was just 59, then it wouldn't be so hard, I guess. Get what i'm saying? I'm kinda bad at explaining. I actually suggested the suggestion that Wisteria mentioned, but I meant next to their names. This would be good too, as long as it isn't too hard to code. I support :D
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By ยซ๐๐๐๐ยป #99805 Member is Offline 1747 forum posts Send A Message |
#55351 Posted on 2016-07-22 10:16:33
Thanks guys! I mean like say above 57 and horses with 57.48 might come up, it would be a little vague, but it would take A LOT of work to do it in decimals!
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Ruby Redfort #94505 Member is Offline 576 forum posts Send A Message |
#55352 Posted on 2016-07-22 10:18:01
Oh, great then! :D
1 members like this post.
|
Posted By ยซ๐๐๐๐ยป #99805 Member is Offline 1747 forum posts Send A Message |
#56135 Posted on 2016-07-25 11:30:27
Thanks for all the support guys! :D
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Ruby Redfort #94505 Member is Offline 576 forum posts Send A Message |
#56391 Posted on 2016-07-26 10:24:21
I would love this!
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Western Outback Stables #100340 Member is Offline 433 forum posts Send A Message |
#56402 Posted on 2016-07-26 11:14:31
Thanks! :D
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Ruby Redfort #94505 Member is Offline 576 forum posts Send A Message |
#57771 Posted on 2016-07-31 02:08:54
I support!
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By รยต Pegasusdreamer รยต #93994 Member is Offline 1323 forum posts Send A Message |
#57785 Posted on 2016-07-31 04:13:10
Regarding the coding concerns some people have raised, code doesn't work like that. It's not a case of separate code for every possible number (which would be a lot), but instead a simple equation, where if the conditions are met it does one thing, and if they aren't it does another. This would involve very little code, much of which could be recycled from pre-existing code, so the suggestion is a very simple one from that perspective.
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By UlyssesBlue (spare) #75110 Member is Offline 559 forum posts Send A Message |
#57790 Posted on 2016-07-31 05:48:18
So you support?
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By Ruby Redfort #94505 Member is Offline 576 forum posts Send A Message |
#57795 Posted on 2016-07-31 06:06:34
Yes, although I believe I cast my vote on one of the earlier topics in which this was suggested. I just wanted to address people's concerns about the code.
0 members like this post.
|
Posted By UlyssesBlue #60734 Member is Offline 922 forum posts Send A Message |
1 |