Is map exploration to 100% no longer possible after this update? I am capped at 99.92%

[Steve Pitts]

Indeed. I won't know for sure for another couple of days, just making my way into Turkey to pick up the Tekirdag weigh station items and then need a load to or past Sofia to pick up the roads near Kolico, but it looks to me like with v1.47 there are 22 undiscoverable pieces - 7 invisible road pieces in Iberia, 13 roundabout centre prefabs (six of which I need to investigate further to see if they can be added to the discovered_items array by driving across them) and the two fuel station roof prefabs in Zaragoza.

Above was edited 18 May to correct brain fart in location of garage roofs.

Having got back to 100.00% on the in game map, with an actual discovery percentage of 99.995166% and a single (albeit long) road prefab still to be discovered:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 2977262369

I can confirm that there are seven road items (all with variant blke40) that are impossible to discover in Iberia, plus 15 prefabs of which 13 are roundabout centres (3 ibe196 in Spain, 1 dlc_blke_33 in Romania and 9 mod_ger_62 spread around Germany and Austria) plus two dlc_blke_255 in a scenery fuel station in Zaragoza.

[Tomsun]

@Steve Pitts the problem is not the built in map failures, the problem it takes aeons for them to fix them. Most of the map errors survive at least more than a major upgrade instead of being fixed with the dozens of intermediate upgrades.

Sometimes i have the strong feeling the people at SCS didn't understand what we are talking about (i mention our similar thread at ATS).
Shortened "it can't be, what not has to be" Did you allready get an answer from @Max regarding the provided profiles from ATS? Could he reconstruct the issue, does he taking further steps.

@Madkine (i hope you are the right recipient) How does SCS handle map issues coming from the community? If i compare it to other mapmods, if you report an issue you get an answer a) no this is not an issue, b) yes thats issue, issue is fixed, will be solved in new release. At SCS NOTHING, thats how we all customer service always wanted to be. Are the reported errors here in the official forum recognized at all? If yes some kind of a feedback would be great, IF NOT get rid of this section, if you don't take it serious.

[Madkine]

I have no idea, I don't work for SCS I'm just a volunteer moderator on the forum (and my knowledge comes from reading many many posts here).

[Tomsun]

@madkine o.k. got it, but the forum is the official forum by SCS, or is it just a free forum? My understanding so far that is the official forum of SCS, or at least the forum nearest to SCS with a lot of SCS employees reading here.

[Madkine]

It is the official forum and SCS members do read posts here (and sometimes respond)

[Some newbie driver]

@Tomsun the bugs on the bug section are read, entered their internal bug report system and dealt with on the order they consider. This very discussion is proof of that; the person who opened the topic can't reach 100% exploration because he was missing road sectors that were changed (due bug fixes) in several other places around the map that had nothing to do about the content changes of the update (Austria and those German cities). What you shouldn't expect is devs answering specific bug reports, specially on map issues; unless there's something really weird that would require further detail input for the devs and they would ask for it.

Also, and that's MY personal opinion, I think SCS lacks a lot regarding all the bug information process. Lot of times the topics in the forum aren't updated as the bug has been fixed and no detailed log with bug fixes is ever to be found when they do updates. Also the exact procedure to inform about bugs is also clumsy what for sure makes some people to just pass to help about it. Everything combined probably causes lot of people believe SCS just do little to nothing regarding bugs; while I'm sure the real bug fix list for every major update would be pretty long.

Regards

[Tomsun]

Also, and that's MY personal opinion, I think SCS lacks a lot regarding all the bug information process. Lot of times the topics in the forum aren't updated as the bug has been fixed and no detailed log with bug fixes is ever to be found when they do updates. Also the exact procedure to inform about bugs is also clumsy what for sure makes some people to just pass to help about it. Everything combined probably causes lot of people believe SCS just do little to nothing regarding bugs; while I'm sure the real bug fix list for every major update would be pretty long.

Regards

i sign this by 200%.

A lot of updates happen without any notifying what happens, you just recognize, your current tour you started yesterday ist aborted if you want to resume today, just an info box while loading Mapd data are updated (Bad if you just before finish of a very long haule)

If i compare this How some mapmodders are dealing with reported bugs its a difference like night and day. Nearly to all reported Bugs there is prompt reaction from already reported/already fixed, thanks for the report will be fixed soon, its not a bug its a feature or whatever.

If you see changelogs from Bioses, there is every irrelevant (for 99,9% of the users) tiny change listed, if you see changelogs from Opensource software nearly every tinybit is documented. The changelog by by SCS usually is "We changed SOMETHING period" To be honest if this is the SCS-Level, why a changelog anyhow?

@Voijta he does annoncements for some updates, but to be honest only for a few (i recognize much more updates than reported) and the content of the information is not really informative. The last post was 1.47.2.1 were currently at 1.47.2.6 (there wouldn't be a 1.47.2.2, 1.47.2.3, 1.47.2.4 and 1.47.2.6if they hadn't changed anything, probably bugs) i assume not every iteration was published, but i think at least 2 to 4 published updates were not commented. And as Voijta is directly at the source he should be able to give the information what is fixed (i can't believe that the bugfixing is NOT documented, i don't think the devs can just do what the want, but they have to work accordingly the backlog). Not every bug is fixed immediately due to the relevance and criticality.

[Some newbie driver]

The last post was 1.47.2.1 were currently at 1.47.2.6 (there wouldn't be a 1.47.2.2, 1.47.2.3, 1.47.2.4 and 1.47.2.6if they hadn't changed anything, probably bugs) i assume not every iteration was published, but i think at least 2 to 4 published updates were not commented.

Every different number in version is a new final compilation of the game, but lots of them aren't published because they are "alfas" or "closed betas" used for internal testing and sent back to the developers queue to fix all they find in internal tests.

And as Voijta is directly at the source he should be able to give the information what is fixed (i can't believe that the bugfixing is NOT documented, i don't think the devs can just do what the want, but they have to work accordingly the backlog).

I don't know the role that has Voijta beyond he's tasked with the changelogs here in forum. But for sure they DO have all bugfixes documented; they had a system to track them all (I don't remember now its name, sometimes had been mentioned in this forums). And It's not that they need to publish the whole changelog; but at least the internal KB assigned to every bug fixed on every update. If they could manage an extraction of such list made automatically and one bot that could crawl this forums and answer+update subject of the topics in bug subforums it would be a big step forward to a better information for people. The sensation I have so far is that the process is too manual. So, it consumes too much time thus the lack of info we have; because they have no more spare time to dedicate to it.

Regards

[Tomsun]

@Some newbie driver i think you got it absolutely right. We have several types of user with that sim, and much more use-cases. A lot of the users stuck with this sim since the early days and started in DX9-days, on the other hand there is new generation of users (mostly coming accidently to this genre) there is then often the comparison to modern AAA-titles of closed world type, just rushing for highest possible framerates. All the early-bird users appreciate the long service they got from SCS maintaining this sim for such a long period, but thy are fully aware that there is again the need for substantial changes, and as lomgtime supporters they wnat to know the way to go, in what direction it is heading (i remember all the AMD vs. Intel/Nvidia discussions that were just trying to deal with symptoms instead to focus on the root cause) The way to go was obvious since 4C/8T CPUs, of course it was not obvious that the sim will last for that long time and also without any clear rival. This sim IMHO lives from its great engaged group of longtime users buying nearly every DLC as it is published. alittle bit more of open communication would be somtimes great. Especially the longtime users would understand unforeseen problems in the evolvement of the sim. Its sad to read from some users that they are going to quitt due to the perfomance "problems", because they are tired of waiting for solutions (beside the worst solution to lower settings to the minimum). The current DLCs lead to the impression SCS does not take the complasints serious as they are really hitting the performance even on well speced Rigs. This wouldn't be an issue if the "Solution" is near, but we don't know if the solution will be there in a year in five years or never. I would highly appreciate a kind of status report of Pavel or another person in charge to get an idea what the situation is.

[Some newbie driver]

The current DLCs lead to the impression SCS does not take the complasints serious as they are really hitting the performance even on well speced Rigs.

First thing first, and telling that as an IT professional in systems since too long: I never, absolutely NEVER pay any attention to simple "performance complains" from normal users. Its an absolutely WASTE of time trying to catch smoke. I could lie to users on an office telling them that I've touched "something" and several of them would then say "now that you say it, I noticed that...(fill here whatever complain you want)". I've done that SEVERAL times to identify the "usual suspects" I would have to deal with in a new client.

What I mean with this is: It's hard enough to pintpoint a performance issue on the game to a certain change in the code; considering ALL the different stacks of soft and hard that have to work at the same time plus the infinitely wide variety of computers the users will have. To add more to this, there's the absolutely unreliable perception that users have about performance. Users can't be trusted in those topics unless they demonstrate the opposite. So no, SCS not any other dev isn't going to pay attention to simple performance complains. If they are done by somebody who demonstrate have done some tests and providing details, info, comparisons... Or if the complains pile up all hinting to specific scenarios... Then devs could start to really pay attention because they will have something tangible where to start to work. That's what happened with the owned trailers issue.

So, in normal circumstances, devs will continue to push the game whatever the way they consider right. In the case of SCS games, for example, making more detailed and complex scenery for maps at every DLC it passes. And yes, they are more than aware that this makes the same computer than past year will perform worse on the DLC this new year. But complain about that is to be short-sighted; something users can afford to be but independent developers don't. ETS2 has more than 10 years and for sure they will want to reach 20. The DLC that they will release NOW have to be able to withstand the pass of time. Also, if they know that in a "short" period of time they will have improvements in graphics; they will do new maps considering those future changes; even if now they perform worse for 1-2 years; they will shine for the next 8.

Lots of RttBS assets were made in a way that they needed DX11 to work; but those assets had start to be modeled more that 1 year before DX11 update was public. So they will had to be made partially based on a plan and partially tested with "alfas" of the DX11 version. I can sure you they didn't perform nice on those initial tests and probably neither at first launch compared as how they can perform now after several updates they made polishing and expanding DX11 capabilities for the game. No user plays now both versions (current and the one at RttBS launch date) to check how things had changed just for the sake of knowing. People plays whatever version they want and their performance comparisons are purely memory based; as unreliable they could be. And even if they would remember right; they can't be sure if the difference comes from the game or from the infinite amount of things that can had changed in their computers in that gap of time.

This wouldn't be an issue if the "Solution" is near, but we don't know if the solution will be there in a year in five years or never. I would highly appreciate a kind of status report of Pavel or another person in charge to get an idea what the situation is.

And here Pavel can just do general and vague statements about what they want to achieve. Exactly what he does in Christmas; for desperation of so many people. Why? Because there's no F plan that survives contact with reality. That's all. With maps or trucks they can do pretty good estimations because it's a process that they had perfected for lots of times but also because is a finite process. Code new features doesn't work that way; there's tons of things that could make completely useless whatever good idea they could try to bring to the game no matter how much time they spend on it.

We know about details the same moment they are confident that the feature isn't only finished but also that it will perform well enough. Otherwise to talk about it and find later they had to cancel the project would cause only backlash from people that have no idea of how things work. And if Pavel had any intention to change his mind, the "New MAN when?" plague proved him his actual behavior is the right one. We knew that they tried dirt on trucks (on DX9 era) and had to discard it because results were bad. In those more than 10 years for sure they had to discard or shelve TONS of ideas for changes just because the result wasn't the expected one or could not perform. It's not an exception the dirt on trucks was cancelled; it's an exception they talked about it.

Regards