SCS Software

How did Spintires acquire all of those licenses is what I wanna know. Must have one hell of a smooth talker on their side of negotiations.

Bigger company with deeper pockets.

I am also willing to pay for the classic trucks and modern trucks I like. If the scs software turns the truck DLC into a paid DLC in the future, I can also pay

Speaking of Mudrunner, I want to know why Snowrunner can allow lots of licensed trucks AND have damage models while ATS can't.. I mean it's not much an issue apparently to some companies about damaged stuff Just seems Paccar is the one with that issue? No clue.. just minor details i suppose

Part of the reason is probably the different focus for the games. Mudrunner and Snowrunner focus on off-road working in harsh conditions, where trucks probably get damages in real life as well. Highway travel like in ATS and ETS2 is unlikely to damage a truck much. Furthermore, it costs effort to implement it for each truck (damage models for all the parts and accesories that can get damaged). SCS spends a lot of resources to get a model that is as close to real life as possible and with lots of configuration. I never played Snowrunner, but I know that in Mudrunner the detail on the interior is pretty much non-existant and there is no costumisation for the outside. This makes damage models a lot easier to make.

You also have to consider that if they were to implement damage models in ETS2 or ATS, all the tuck manufacturers have to agree. It would be weird for only some trucks, like the 49X, to have damage models while other don't. I think for vocational trucks this won't be much of an issue, since it is more likely they will get damages in real life as well due to the harsher working condition, but I doubt something like a Cascadia is going to see much of this, making the manufactorer possibly more resistant to allowing damage models.

Lastly of course is the cost. We don't know of course, but it is possible that manufactorers want to see more money from SCS to allow damage models (or at least they might be swayed when offered a lot more). This is something that purchased trucks might fix, but that creates an unbalance in the game where some trucks cost money and have this feature, while others don't. There are of course ways to overcome this but I am not sure if they are to everybody's satisfaction.

^Thanks exactly the different. Totally different focus. Its really not that big of an issue to get damage or not. I've been playing since Summer of 2016. Others longer than that. I don't even think about cosmetic damage. Once I learned it didn't, I never thought of it again. If there was damage in the game, you'd see a ton more youtube videos of wrecked trucks and that is not what the industry wants to portray. That is not at all the image truck manufacturers want. Its not a Paccar thing, its all the other 12 manufacturers SCS has under contract as well. If it was just Paccar, if one doesn't allow it, none get it.

We can presume a lot but we know nothing. However, while games like Snowrunner might have a lot of wear and tear, games like ETS and ATS will have high speed crashes. And, if I was working for a truck manufacturer, I would ask to see how damage looks like because we spend tens or hundreds of millions in safety features and I have no intention to approve a damage model that would make my trucks to look like they are made from cardboard. So, yeah, rigid and soft bodies, realistic crumple zones and other thigs like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah then just imagine how Duisburg - Calais road in TMP would be

Damages can be subtle though, something simple like the scraping of paint would do in addition to what we have in the game already (scraping as seen in Midtown Madness 2).

If the 'damage' manufacturers don't want to see is purely visual in nature still would like to increase immersion, then I think it would be a good idea to not show any visual damage but devise a method to calculate the amount of collision received and calculate maintenance costs accordingly. Wait ... isn't that how it works now? Expanding it a little would be nice.

For example, if the player had a major collision on the left mirror and a minor crack in the bumper (say), then the player has to immediately replace both the components. So the repair costs would be New unit cost + Service charges - Coinsurance. The player should be given the freedom to or not repair/replace the bumper (repair if the damage is less, replace if more). In this case, the player has to replace the entire mirror unit but has the option to either fix the bumper or leave it for more damage so that they can replace it with a new unit later. Also, the replacement can be with any other similar unit e.g., A damaged painted bumper can be even replaced with a new plastic bumper. Similar models apply to the tires as well, can give them an invisible blow-out and severely affect the fuel economy, and force the player to replace it with a new one. If they didn't, the chassis should start getting more damage.

Most of the components required for this are already in place (the resale value of a certain component in the truck upgrader depends on the damage data). Just integrating both the repair center and the upgrade sections would do this. Keeping the damage data detailed, keeping the economy a bit harder and allowing the player to make more decisions will go hand-in-hand.

Mic_2 wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021 10:04 I never played Snowrunner, but I know that in Mudrunner the detail on the interior is pretty much non-existant and there is no costumisation for the outside.

Off topic here but the interior details and vehicle customisation in snowrunner is much better then it is on mudrunner and with each new phase that comes out improves the customisation options for all models in the game. The game itself is way better in overall gameplay to mudrunner and i actually play it as an alternative to ATS & ETS 2 from time to time.

harishw8r wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021 12:52 Damages can be subtle though, something simple like the scraping of paint would do in addition to what we have in the game already (scraping as seen in Midtown Madness 2).

That's a game I haven't heard of in nearly 20yrs well the original midtown madness. Remember trying to launch the yellow VW beetle the Mustang and the Freightliner Century Class with a trailer on the back on the drawbridges on the Chicago map and see how far I could get. Also use to put cars on a flatbed trailer behind the Century Class and watch them getting sling shotted into oblivion when jumping the drawbridge man that was along time ago now.

pigbrother wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021 12:29 We can presume a lot but we know nothing. However, while games like Snowrunner might have a lot of wear and tear, games like ETS and ATS will have high speed crashes. And, if I was working for a truck manufacturer, I would ask to see how damage looks like because we spend tens or hundreds of millions in safety features and I have no intention to approve a damage model that would make my trucks to look like they are made from cardboard. So, yeah, rigid and soft bodies, realistic crumple zones and other thigs like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose right there but i wouldn't want to fool anyone into thinking crashing would do zero damage invincible of course that's insane for anyone to believe it's sadly possible as all things.. but yes agreed to all above Snowrunner is a far different game in terms of game play, I play and enjoy both I can sit back and mudrun rough in a 49X or Freightliner happily or I can drive a 389 Pete comfy and complete on a Highway.. best of both worlds though the physics and bouncing spring ride in Snowrun is way more satisfying but the driving and such is better in ATS

Either way I just wanted to poke and see the responses because I've seen the question before and the response was possibly due to the manufactures not wanting damaged models only to see a month ago Snowrunner had no fault in such.

Now back to the main topic.. I've said before and I shall mention again I wanna see the Pete 567 or W990! Or a 379.. nothing like some oldies..