Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

fra_ba
Posts: 860
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3181 Post by fra_ba » 27 Sep 2022 07:52

The game files section on wiki page is related to company files not prefab files which have different names. Regarding Coastline Mining or NAMIQ companies, actually both of these use the same prefab file. Here are some related shots from game files:
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
Meaning that the game doesn't have CM Mining prefab or NAMIQ prefab. It has a d_qry prefab which can be tied to any company in theory
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3182 Post by Tristman » 27 Sep 2022 08:11

Picture below is as seen in the map editor.
It's clearly the same prefab but with two variants. Depending on the variant, it has a different company look.

Not sure fra_ba why this confirms to you that you can't put two of the same depot in one city? I don't think there's any in-game example of the same prefab twice in one city, but wouldn't SCS try to avoid this on purpose so players don't encounter the same building twice in one city?

Other picture below shows (for a newer prefab) that there is a default version (without any company logos) and a version tagged to a specific company. This makes it easier I think to add new companies for the same prefab in the future.
Attachments
quarry.JPG
var1.jpg
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3183 Post by Tristman » 27 Sep 2022 08:42

flight50 wrote: 27 Sep 2022 04:37
What I wish for example, take Sunshine Crops. Make 2 other crop type prefabs. Old prefabs or new doesn't matter.
Along CA-99 in lets say
Fresno - we can get Sunshine Crops doing oranges, Farm B doing tomatoes and Farm C doing cucumbers.
Stockton - we can get Sunshine Crops doing apples, Farm B doing lettuce and Farm C doing peppers.
Modesto (if they make it marked) - we can get Sunshine Crops doing almonds, Farm B doing onions and Farm C doing broccoli.

If copying and rebrand the same prefab does not work, a new company and new prefab must come. Still, more companies in the same city no matter what is the solution to bring more prefab types where they should be. The example above with Fresno, Stockton and Modesto is the reason why more companies for certain industries work. Bushnell is another. Sometimes there might be 2 dairy farms in the same city. Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska should be loaded with multiple companies in the same city. There can be 2 meat processing plants in the same city like Dodge City, KS. 2 corn and wheat companies in the same marked city. Not sure why the debate that more companies, whether its new prefab + new company vs rebranded to new name + existing prefabs is even argued here. No matter what, we need new companies to expand industries. There is more than one company per industry in the US just like there is in Europe. That's the bottom line. Only way to bring more diversity and variety is to add more diversity and variety.
I would love this, but I think it's difficult in practice with how companies work.

In the map editor, every company prefab has a certain name attached to it (as seen in image below for Glasgow location). This name connects the prefab to a certain company and pool of accepted and provided cargo. Currently all Sunshine Crops farms (not the garage prefab), regardless of location or which of the three prefabs it uses, has "sc_frm" as its name. As a result, whether the Sunshine Crops farm is in Washington or in New Mexico, it will provide sugar beet, potatoes, fruits, hay, trees, nuts, etc.

If they would make every farm yield a certain type of crop, SCS would need to make a "sc_frm1" for potatoes, "sc_frm2" for carrots, "sc_frm3" for oranges, and so on. Each of these would need its own list of accepted and provided cargoes, which is a lot of copy and paste while also making sure that they don't put two different crops in one list. They would of course also need to make a def file for every new crop, and add these to the provided list of every company that is supposed to accept them as a delivered cargo. I like your suggestion "have multiple companies for the same industry", but it would add another level of complexity.
For example:
Sunshine Crops: sc_frm1 for potatoes, sc_frm2 for carrots
Blessed Farms: bf_frm1 for oranges, bf_frm2 for strawberries
Happy Trees: ht_frm1 for trees, ht_frm2 for nuts
And so on.

The way the game currently regulates all the cargo is honestly very simple. If we want this ideal situation of farm x produces crop y, SCS is going to need to have a team of people or at least some very motivated individuals who turn the entire cargo market upside down.
Attachments
sc_farm.JPG
sc_farm.JPG (11.05 KiB) Viewed 640 times
fra_ba
Posts: 860
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3184 Post by fra_ba » 27 Sep 2022 09:52

Tristman wrote: 27 Sep 2022 08:11 It's clearly the same prefab but with two variants. Depending on the variant, it has a different company look.
Prefab variants are just for appearance of prefabs like props, hookups and logos shown on different parts and as far as I know it is done through modelling outside of the game like in Blender. I have imported many ETS2 prefabs to ATS that have 4-5 variants and tied them to ATS companies. Company definitions however are done via def files. It is possible to tie a NAMIQ variant of a prefab to CM company via appropriate def files.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30159
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3185 Post by flight50 » 27 Sep 2022 11:47

@Tristman Yesss, that is what I want to see....frm1, frm2, etc. That is what I was portraying in this post in the North American Agricultural link in my signature. viewtopic.php?p=1728040#p1728040. If SCS is not going to give us more farm companies....like they should, add a few more crops to the prefab. The list of potential products on page one of that North American Agricultural links show more than 50 cargoes for agriculture. But regardless, I think more companies, new prefabs is the best solution. ETS2 has 17 total farms. 17! ATS has 2. I don't know how each prefab looks in ETS2 nor the game files but I seriously don't understand why ATS lacks soooo much. The rule of thumb, whatever you do in ETS2, you can do in ATS is how I see it.

@fra_ba @Tristman and @JoeAlex23. Thank you all for trying to set me straight and explain how it work. I'll admit, the game files and how the game isn't my strong point. I don't do the map editor or much tinkering work with game files but I know when something ain't right, lol. My fight is figure out why ATS can't come up with just as much as ETS2. Why is the ATS team not giving us a lot more. My fight is getting more ICCs into ATS. Glad to know you all have the knowledge of how prefabs works. But no matter what, it does appear that throwing more companies.........however SCS does it, is the solution I want to see but with multiple farms in the same city. In real life, it can be like that in the Great Plains and/or in other parts of the country like Florida, Texas, Washington, etc.

The link to the North American Agriculture is really something I thought about for a long time way back in like 2019-2020 when there was a blog mentioning SCS is targeting trying to do complex prefabs. My idea of complex and SCS's idea isn't the same, that's for sure. The link is what I call complex. The cheat for now seems to be make more farm companies but SCS isn't even doing that for ATS but they are for ETS2. The biggest problem is more and more map is coming so this exploits ATS's biggest issue........lack of ICCs.

[ external image ]



I honestly see the same happening with oil/gas and logging. A tad simpler though. But for oil/gas, 2-3 different gas companies could be in the same city. One doing gasoline/diesel another doing jet fuel/ethanol perhaps. Refineries are huge and takes up a ton of space but there are times when multiple refineries exist. This is mostly in Texas but iirc, there are other instances. For logging, its more or less the mills. We can have one city that has 2 of these. Out in the woods, you pretty much only get one type of wood to harvest per city. So with the mills, there are a ton of different products that can be split up to kick out multiple cargoes. There is no plywood (sanded, cdx, osb), there are no fence pickets, there is no pressure treated, there is no molding, 1x lumber variants and more options for 2x variants.

So far the types of wood are not even specific as to white pine, southern yellow pine, oak, birch, maple, premium select, popular. As an ex Home Depot employee that worked in lumber/building materials, I know SCS can offer more for logging. Also as an ex Home Depot employee, I'm aware of a ton of other products that could be implemented into ATS. From building materials, to lumber, to milworks (doors/windows), to appliances, to kitchens, to Plumbing products, Flooring products, Electrical Products and Garden products, there is a lot of manufacturing that can happen in ATS that can work for Home Store, Wallbert, Lowes if they make it, Sam's if they make it, Menards if they make it, Target if they make it, Costco's if they make it, Ikea if they make it....There are others I'm sure but off the top of my head, each of these share a certain group of products that are interchangeable. A larger pool of cargoes, warrants a larger diverse list of new companies/new prefabs to deliver to.

This is the flexibility, innovation, creativity and complexity that I wish to see in ATS. Imho, doesn't seem impossible. Not when ETS2 is pulling it all off. The focus seems to be more on visuals. This looks good that looks good. I want what ETS2 if modeled like. The rebuild efforts is the base for ATS right? That is what newcomers see first. When playing the demo, the base map is what you play. Why isn't the base map targeting this diversity and variety? Between California, Nevada and Arizona, there is a lottt of national stores that can populate all the current states in the game and well beyond that. The effort for the current rebuild is still focusing on visuals...why? The standard is set with Idaho..move on. Tackle the need need. Same problem we had with Idaho. Jakub is focused on making his projects look good. What about the main point of the game? Where's the ICC's. Idaho had zero new companies and so far the rebuild parts of California only added one brand new company. That's still square one....limiting ATS ICCs. This is the perfect time to get more new national companies in the game. Its starts with the base map. If you can't start there what's the point even talking about the Great Lakes, Florida or the East coast. Flesh out the existing states while also developing new states.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3186 Post by Trakaplex » 27 Sep 2022 15:47

fra_ba wrote: 27 Sep 2022 07:52 The game files section on wiki page is related to company files not prefab files which have different names. Regarding Coastline Mining or NAMIQ companies, actually both of these use the same prefab file. Here are some related shots from game files:

Meaning that the game doesn't have CM Mining prefab or NAMIQ prefab. It has a d_qry prefab which can be tied to any company in theory
Does this mean they are redoing the Barstow area now? It seems sensual now that the redo has been going on for nearly three years.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3187 Post by Tristman » 27 Sep 2022 16:06

How did you come to that conclusion?
Hell_Raiser
Posts: 259
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 00:54
Location: South Texas

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3188 Post by Hell_Raiser » 27 Sep 2022 17:19

flight50 wrote: 26 Sep 2022 16:01 Honestly, I think Southern Sacramento gets a redo to incorporate CA-99 into US-50. That is why I'd move Stockton East if I was a dev. SCS could be a step ahead of us already and already figured it out.
It doesn't make much sense to redo an area during phase two and changing it again in phase three. You would think they would plan out the connecting road network before they went through the effort of detailing the area in game. As it stands, the CA-99 interchange is not present and will not fit between I-5 and US-50 EXIT 9 in game. So if the plan was to add that connection, the interchange would already be there. Now, they could change their mind and go back and change it, but it doesn't appear that is currently the plan.
User avatar
Bedavd
Posts: 1651
Joined: 31 May 2018 15:09
Location: Michigan -> Washington

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3189 Post by Bedavd » 27 Sep 2022 18:06

They’ve already stated they have to do exactly that in the edge areas. In the original Phase 1 included Sacramento’s airport north of the city. Then phase 2 came and redid Sacramento and the airport is now gone. It just depends on how their plans work out in practice so it could very well happen. I’m hoping that Phase 3 sees some redetailing on that barren industrial park SE of Sacramento.
Check out my Michigan research map!
Check out my ATS IRL map! -> Leave any feedback in my thread!
Kansas added! Up-to-date blog photo locations for upcoming states also included.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30159
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#3190 Post by flight50 » 27 Sep 2022 18:17

@Bedavd I already explained that to him. I let him know he has to go listen to the stream Jakub did for 1.44 when phase 2 came. Jakub explained everything there. Going back and forth here isn't going to do much if one doesn't take the time to go listen to what Jakub said.

In theory planning ahead works. Easily said I suppose but apparently it doesn't work for what SCS needed so they didn't. We don't have to do the work so its really a non factor. It shouldn't matter how they do it for us. Whatever they do, is what they do as long as it get reworked. The work is on them, not us. We just play with the results.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Madkine and 14 guests