SCS General Discussion Thread

User avatar
AlexxxF1
Posts: 555
Joined: 20 Oct 2020 04:50
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9851 Post by AlexxxF1 » 27 Sep 2021 10:21

increasing the scale to 1:10 is the need to create 4 times more unique objects,landscapes. this is an increase in development time by 4 times.
as a result, we would get an outdated map, which would not make sense to remake and update for free.
moreover, we today would be only a small part of Europe as old as UK. there would be no Italy, no France, no Spain, no Balkans, no Baltic, no Russia. no rework.no reskin.

when at 1:20 scale we get a large number of unique countries in a short time, created by hand by a small studio.
even at a scale of 1:20 in ATS, it will take 15 years to create the entire USA. with a 1:10 scale it will take 50-60 years.
that is, very many would not even be able to play already, since their life has already ended, or simply for so many years the graphics standards would have changed more than once. and doing a reskin-rework of old base maps for free would simply not make sense.

at 1:10 at this point we would never get all of the USA. only a couple of states.
to make one state for 4 years .... and these 4 years you have to pay salaries to all devs, all who work in SCS . so what then...
bought only by people who are keen on trucks, which are not so many.
buy once every 4 years? for such a small cost. which many for some reason already blame for the inflated and are waiting for discounts.

it's all stupid and pointless.

unless there is automatic mapping, zooming in is a very bad and pointless idea. it is possible, but only already in ATS2 and ETS3.
when we have new technologies for building maps. only in any case unique objects are created manually. and making the city 1: 1 without unique buildings will be boring and unrealistic. moreover, each of the 100-1000 cities will have to differ from each other, as in life.

all of this it's a waste of time.
I'd rather get all of Eurasia in 20 years than just a couple of countries in Europe, which inside themselves are no different and will quickly get tired of driving around them in 4 years, waiting for the next DLС every time.

There are many map mods in a scale of 1:5 and 1:1, but they are not popular, as they get bored quickly. all the time driving on the same road back and forth, even if it will be on a scale of 1: 1 by 20 times, it will simply be boring and bored. although that took over a couple of years to build it by devs.
SCS was even afraid of the 1:20 scale when creating the entire USA, so they even started with a 1:35 scale. because they understood that it might take at least 10 years to complete the entire USA even at 1:35. but they increased it to 1:20 for many reasons, the main one was the gameplay, since the day passed quickly and the night was constantly, which very much frightened off all potential buyers.
Last edited by AlexxxF1 on 27 Sep 2021 12:18, edited 6 times in total.
VitMax
Posts: 49
Joined: 13 May 2014 20:36

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9852 Post by VitMax » 27 Sep 2021 10:23

Bigger scale for full continents is not really a viable idea. After HoR release we will have routes longer than 5000 km, and that's not even close to having all of Europe covered. 5000 game km is around 270 real life km, which requires 4-5 hours to cover in a truck. That's more than enough space, so 1:19 is a good balance between size and level of detail.

On the other hand, I would certainly like a separate map or game with one single relatively small region, but build in bigger scale, as bigger scale immensely improves immersion. Basically, a 1000x1000 km region build in 1:10 or 500x500 km in 1:5. Something like that
wato
Posts: 256
Joined: 06 Jul 2020 11:24
Location: Switzerland

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9853 Post by wato » 27 Sep 2021 12:07

Well, the size of SCS has also increased significantly over the last years so at some point the development at a larger scale could become feasible. But at the moment, where neither Europe nor the US are fully covered, I wouldn't hold my breath.

A separate map with a different scale and also maybe a more simulation oriented road layout (*cough* width *cough*) is something that I'd like to see. And it could probably be developed mostly independent of the traditional maps. Maybe there are people at SCS who would like to start it as a side project?
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5385
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9854 Post by oldmanclippy » 27 Sep 2021 14:21

Not to beat the dead horse, but a 1:10 scale if implemented in a separate game would not necessarily be double the work. If the emphasis was on increasing the distance between the cities, with the cities being the same size, then the map could be less dense. Or they could keep the same density and the work would be more than doubled. A difference in scale does not mean a linear difference in other priorities like number of cities, road network density, etc. It just means that the priorities need to shift to make it viable. So for Australia to be 1:10, there wouldn't need to be quadruple or even double the number of cities. The number of cities could be the same as in 1:20, just with more distance between them. Hence about double the work. If the number of cities were decreased for 1:10 from 1:20, then the work could be less than doubled. It all depends on what type of game you want to make.

Again, I think 1:15 or 1:20 makes more sense for a completely hypothetical Australia game, but 1:10 is not outside the realm of possibility due to the sparse road network. It just depends on what you want the game to feel like when playing it. Do you prioritize density/number of cities, or the distance between them? I think from a game design perspective you'd want to emphasize Australia's vastness because that's how it feels IRL. So 1:15 would be more appropriate than 1:20 IMO.

I agree with @natvander that a smaller scale would be detrimental for Australia. 1:35 would make Melbourne and Sydney a mere 25 km apart in-game (from center to center, not from edge to edge, meaning it'd probably be more like 15-20km apart in actuality!). 1:20 would be closer to 45km apart which is better, but 1:15 would be almost 60 which is much more pleasant. At 1:35, you'd get so many city misses along the eastern and southeastern coast that would lead to complaint after complaint after complaint. 1:20 is the bare minimum scale IMO.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
Sora
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9855 Post by Sora » 27 Sep 2021 16:26

I disagree that a larger scale would necessarily be bad to play though. While you might have twice the distance between, say, Los Angeles and Fresno... that also gives you space to add more cities, like Modesto or Merced, probably coming out to the same amount of content you'd actually be driving through. The only time it'd really be more work for no reason would be really desolate areas, like between Barstow and Kingman -- even if you add something like Needles. Even still, one might argue that making these areas even more barren than they are would highlight just how unique they are compared to the rest of the map.

However, 1:10 mapping is absolutely not practical from a developer PoV. The difference in how much time and effort it would require is just so enormous that most people on this board would never even live to see the end of a 1:10 America -- never mind a 1:10 Europe. And while you could maybe do some specific parts at 1:10, like -- I dunno, the east coast, or Ireland -- that'd still be a very disorienting change to come across in the middle of a trip. In practice, I don't feel like that's feasible either.

I think the practical limit for what SCS could realistically develop (without incredible automatic mapping capabilities) is 1:15, which is about twice the size of the current scale. ATS would be looking at one DLC a year, while ETS2 could be getting one every two... that might work? But even then it's far too late to rescale the entire map, so that's nothing more than a pipe dream for ETS3/ATS2. It might be an interesting experiment if they decide to work on a third, smaller project (like Australian Truck Simulator), but that's pretty much the only way I can see a bigger scale happening.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5385
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9856 Post by oldmanclippy » 27 Sep 2021 16:49

Sora wrote: 27 Sep 2021 16:26 But even then it's far too late to rescale the entire map, so that's nothing more than a pipe dream for ETS3/ATS2. It might be an interesting experiment if they decide to work on a third, smaller project (like Australian Truck Simulator), but that's pretty much the only way I can see a bigger scale happening.
This sums up the discussion well. No point in unrealistic, unreasonable hopes for ATS/ETS2, but a larger scale on a separate project *that fits well with a larger scale from a design/philosophical point of view* could be interesting and worthwhile.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
plykkegaard
Posts: 7204
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 13:42

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9857 Post by plykkegaard » 27 Sep 2021 17:15

oldmanclippy wrote: 27 Sep 2021 16:49 ... but a larger scale on a separate project *that fits well with a larger scale from a design/philosophical point of view* could be interesting and worthwhile.
.. and the business case?

Costs:

1) Improved engine with multic core support and at least twice the drawing distance if possible at all
2) Much larger map size with more scenery and probably larger cities assuming current number cities is not extended
3 More manpower unless you want to wait 10 - 15 years for a complete map

Vs Income in sold copies

Sorry I don't see a good business case
Maybe in 10 years as SCS need to something to keep a steady income and a healthy company

This signature virus has been spliced with the Fundementalism-B virus to create a new more contagious strain. Please look for it infecting a signature near you.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5385
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9858 Post by oldmanclippy » 27 Sep 2021 18:28

plykkegaard wrote: 27 Sep 2021 17:15 .. and the business case?

Costs:

1) Improved engine with multic core support and at least twice the drawing distance if possible at all
2) Much larger map size with more scenery and probably larger cities assuming current number cities is not extended
3 More manpower unless you want to wait 10 - 15 years for a complete map

Vs Income in sold copies

Sorry I don't see a good business case
Maybe in 10 years as SCS need to something to keep a steady income and a healthy company
There are some projects where a small scale makes sense (like ETS2/ATS) and others where a large scale makes sense. This could be a 1:2 city recreation, a more desolate/sparse road network like Australia, a mission-based anthology game where they recreate standalone routes in 1:1, etc. Sure, SCS could have *gotten away with* making ETS2 and ATS 1:35 games, but I'd argue that they made more money in the long run with the 1:19/1:20 scale because the product is better. If 1:10 would make a certain project a better product to the point of increasing its popularity, then of course they'd do it. The goal should be to fit the scale to the project. 1:19/1:20 is good for ETS2/ATS but wouldn't be good for say a standalone New York City Truck Simulator game.

This is all hypothetical 10 years down the road speculation. But it's something to consider.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
Some newbie driver
Posts: 7198
Joined: 12 Dec 2018 11:37

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9859 Post by Some newbie driver » 27 Sep 2021 18:46

oldmanclippy wrote: 27 Sep 2021 14:21Not to beat the dead horse, but a 1:10 scale if implemented in a separate game would not necessarily be double the work. If the emphasis was on increasing the distance between the cities, with the cities being the same size, then the map could be less dense.
People request bigger scale factors because they want more of everything: more roads, more cities, more companies, more landmarks... Increase the scale to fit the same content and only have things in a far distance would have near 0 interest in most players.

So, we would be at the starting point: near 4 times the amount of work to map the same IRL zones than they map now. Or 4 times the effort in the same amount of time. Whatever, near 4 times the cost for the same DLC. They had to retain 1/4 of the actual players to keep the amount of profit they made now; but having to work 4 times harder. Is enough people willing to pay so? Is SCS desiring to do so? Doubtfully. So all those bigger scales chats we made are just our open eyes dreaming.

A possible alternative, very remote and needing lots of changes into the game, could be to have two interlaced maps (like if they were two parallel dimensions). Main map keeps the same scale as now but when entering some zones (through specific points, for example, when leaving a ring road to enter into a city ); the game would move us to that other map, with a very local scope, made on higher scales; allowing way better city depictions and development of the zone due reducing a lot the world-map size constrain. It's possible to do so, but to do it seamlessly isn't easy at all and impossible on the current game.

Regards
User avatar
plykkegaard
Posts: 7204
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 13:42

Re: SCS General Discussion Thread

#9860 Post by plykkegaard » 27 Sep 2021 21:05

Rabbit holes? Nahh

This signature virus has been spliced with the Fundementalism-B virus to create a new more contagious strain. Please look for it infecting a signature near you.
Post Reply

Return to “Offtopic and other voices”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests