Euro Truck Simulator 3 concept map

[MapMaker]

...(collaboration with the moding comunity is required - ProMods, etc.).

This is a bit dangerous...
Technically, using mods in official, paid content can be very illegal. Depending on the game's Terms of Use regarding user-created content (mods), such content is likely owned by the creator. If the Terms do not specify ownership of such content, it

^ Im pretty sure there's already a high level of collab between some modders, e.g. Promods and SCS, several Promods devs already work for SCS iicr and soon you may not be able to tell the difference between them . Not only that many new DLC cities i.e. Klaipeda used part of the orignal road structures in Promods.


I dont personally think they'll be an "ETS3", I can't think SCS would get rid of the DLC content like they did with the old ETS and rebuild from scratch. Instead they will rebuild some areas and launch a total rescale after they can no longer add any major DLC.
Since SCS' team is getting very large, they will be able to undertake larger and larger projects, you can already see this in ATS where 2 DLCs are under construction at the same time.

[bobgrey1997]

Like I said, to use a mod, they have to either pay or hire the mod authors.
You just agreed with my original statement.

[dahaka]

The work you put into this map is admirable. But this is never going to happen.
The problem with ETS2 is that development of map DLCs is quite slow, and as technology progresses, the older areas, and the older DLCs look more and more dated. Now imagine how many reworks would be required for a game the production of which takes 80+ years... I wager human drivers will be around for 25-30 years more, TOPS. Then the robots are coming. (unless a nuclear war sends us back to the middle ages). So 80+ years is already problematic. Just look at how much graphics progressed in the last 20 years. There would be so many reworks required it would be unprofitable.
We would lose SO MUCH CONTENT.... At least 50% of the trucks would be gone.

Now off to your map. I'll talk about Greece first. You included ancient Olympia, and Sparta, which are practically villages, and ignored Kalamata? You included Kavala, a city on a mountain side largely inaccessible to trucks, while you ignored Xanthi which has a pretty sizeable industrial zone...
Moving to Ukraine, you left a pretty large spot out. And ignored Crimea. I know its a disputed area, but you cant just leave it blank. Plus by the time it would come the dispute would probably be over.
Moving to Turkey, Turkey ignored? A huge market and truckloads of interesting and scenic destinations?
You added Canary islands but totally ignored Morocco? Makes no sense.

Rest of the map is very good though.

[krmarci]

@dahaka Thank you for your praise and your constructive criticism! I will take a look at Greece soon and implement your recommendations.
I limited my map to Europe in a cultural and geographical sense, so I didn't add Asian Turkey and Morocco. I will add the disputed areas (or won't), when we see what SCS does with Kosovo. Until then, I leave them blank.
I haven't thought about self-driving trucks, good idea! And I agree, reworks would be problematic. If we have such differences in the map with only 10 years of difference, imagine what we would have with an 80-year-old map. Imagine playing a game made in the 1940s, originally on punchcards, developed over 80 years into a high-quality 3D game like ETS2.

[dahaka]

Well. There might be a way to make it happen though. All we need to do is convince SCS that a project like this is going to be profitable. Profitable enough for them to hire a map team AT LEAST 4 times the size of their current one. (as the scale you suggest would make the map about 4x times bigger). Even like that it would take like 15 years to complete Europe.
How do we convince them though?

[chris2002]

Profitable enough for them to hire a map team AT LEAST 4 times the size of their current one.

4 times the the team size = 4 times the salaries they have to pay (and also the rent for the office and other charges that grows with the number of employees)

And if the rate of creation of a country is the same because it country is 4 times the size :

4 times the charges = 4 times the price for each country we have to pay or 4 times the number of users they have to find to keep the same prices.
Considering that at the start, except if they propose all ETS2 DLC area as standard map, quite a few persons will stay in ETS2 where a majority of Europe is already covered (by SCS or by mods), I don't think its realistic...


Also, remember that SCS advertise the kilometers of road covered not in the 1:19 scale, but the "equivalent" road length in real life. For example SCS says that Road to the Black Sea as more than 10'000 km of road, which mean around 500-600 km of road created in the map editor with the 1:19 scale.
And in steam (where you buy the game), it's even not written that the game is in 1:19 scale...

Now, if they changes the scale to 1:10, for the majority of the customer, they will be no apparent differences of size when they buy the game. A DLC like Road to the Black Sea would still be "more than 10'000 km of roads", but for the creators the work will be at least doubled, probably quadrupled, and I don't think the customers will understand why a DLC with 10'000 km of roads in ETS3 it 2 to 4 times more expensive than a DLC with 10'000 km of roads in ETS2 when he was released... (or they will have to sell up to 4 times more DLC copies to cover the costs if they keep the same prices).

[terag51]

I’ve said this before — I don’t think ETS3 will ever happen. I’m more than happy with ETS2 and ATS anyway. I would rather SCS constantly improve the existing games, and even add a new continent as a separate game, than add ETS3. If you want a more realistic scale, go drive in real life... there you go... 1:1 scale. (Like tbh I don’t even want to see ETS3 happen)

[EricF]

The only reason for a new "ETS3" under the game's current name and world design would be for marketing. ETS2 as we know it has already changed far beyond its original form. The engine has been upgraded, the graphics system ahs been re-worked, now the core audio system has been replaced. Look how many upgrades have required mods to be overhauled because something in the game has fundamentally changed. ETS2 was made to be extendable/upgradeable from the start; that's why the original ETS was ended as a development path, and ETS2 was launched. ATS has nu such numbering because there's no need to add an edition number since it shares the same core tech as ETS2. From the beginning, ETS2 and ATS were designed to evolve instead of run for a short lifespan instead of being replaced at intervals.

That said, ETS2 and ATS are based on individual custom, scaled maps which are made by hand. There's not an ETS2/ATS "globe" even though moving from map to map seems seamless. The only reason to put aside ETS2/ATS and make an ETS3/ATS2 would be if the mapping technique were changed to something completely incompatible -- like a system that ingests streamed satellite imagery and converts it to game scenery. Asobo Studio is doing this for the next-generation MS Flight Simulator. That would be a 1:1 world, though, which is a completely different concept than SCS's more approachable scaled world. There's a big difference between flying in 1:1 versus driving it at much slower road speeds. Most likely SCS will continue with their successful formula, and there's just no need to change the name or method of gradual improvements.

[Brulikrax]

ETS3 is used as a reference to what has to be done before we move there.

Yes, people will continue to play trucks in 2030, because it is a relaxing experience (much better than a war game).

The map is mostly an "autobahn". Fleels that way, but it should not. ProMods is a bit bigger and yet it is better. Side roads are almost side roads. Bumps are bumps. ETS2 does not have it even in countries where roads are really bad. Please, refrain of complaint about FFBs.

[Prince]

The only reason for a new "ETS3" under the game's current name and world design would be for marketing. ETS2 as we know it has already changed far beyond its original form. The engine has been upgraded, the graphics system ahs been re-worked, now the core audio system has been replaced. Look how many upgrades have required mods to be overhauled because something in the game has fundamentally changed. ETS2 was made to be extendable/upgradeable from the start; that's why the original ETS was ended as a development path, and ETS2 was launched. ATS has nu such numbering because there's no need to add an edition number since it shares the same core tech as ETS2. From the beginning, ETS2 and ATS were designed to evolve instead of run for a short lifespan instead of being replaced at intervals.

That said, ETS2 and ATS are based on individual custom, scaled maps which are made by hand. There's not an ETS2/ATS "globe" even though moving from map to map seems seamless. The only reason to put aside ETS2/ATS and make an ETS3/ATS2 would be if the mapping technique were changed to something completely incompatible -- like a system that ingests streamed satellite imagery and converts it to game scenery. Asobo Studio is doing this for the next-generation MS Flight Simulator. That would be a 1:1 world, though, which is a completely different concept than SCS's more approachable scaled world. There's a big difference between flying in 1:1 versus driving it at much slower road speeds. Most likely SCS will continue with their successful formula, and there's just no need to change the name or method of gradual improvements.

Actually, there is a reason to ditch ETS2 and move on to ETS3. Yes, it does take them some time to build new map expansions, but when Europe is done, what's next? They make some money on map expansions, but I cannot believe they make enough money on paint jobs, truck horns and LED signs. And it will be strange if Euro Truck Simulator went to the middle east (and beyond).

One have to look at what ETS2 lacks, and what is reasonable that it can get by continuous development. It has a lot, but it misses out a lot regarding simulation. Such as: a proper damage model, dirt model, sound modelling and truck physics. I guess I'm not the majority, but the sounds became worse after they added the new sound engine.

If we look at the success stories to other franchises, online gaming is the big thing that provides "unlimited free money". I don't think we are going to see ETS3/ATS2 before both ATS and ETS2 is done (i.e. the maps are completed). But when that happens, I hope they start working on an online experience for ETS3. Why go from the current online mod to ETS3 online? Because the current online mod is a really bad experience and only for the players that want to play around. Not for those who want to simulate.

How about SCS Truck Simulator (ditch the Euro) with iRacing detailed physics, a decent damage/dirt model, all the sounds a real truck make, online companies where you are compared to other companies and can see your own and other company trucks in game, continuous adding new countries where they can expand to anywhere (bacause they ditched Euro), safety ratings such as GT Sport in order to put equal drivers in the same servers and so on. Either as free to play where you pay for additional content (other trucks, trailers, access to other parts of the map etc), or a monthly license fee as iRacing has (not necessarily as expensive).