Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30164
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5611 Post by flight50 » 02 Oct 2022 14:41

^Yes this is true. The trailer that seriousmods posted with the blade is the tube trailer I'm referring to that needs to come with the rear steers that ETS2 has. Its already in the ATS game files but not used. Getting that tube trailer can bring another 6-8 types of long cargoes. Several possible options can be seen in the last 4-5 pages of the Special Transport thread. Getting the tube trailer can bring a very very nice challenge for the Great Plain states and I think a lot of people will love that. Out of the mountains and the Great Plains can bring a new set of challenges and cargo on a tube trailer would be a big boost for the Great Plains as well.

What this mod does is shows that its possible to create such cargo. SCS implemented multi pivot trailers way back in 2017 when articulated trailers came. Time for new challenges imo. ST for ATS came out in late 2018 iirc. Late 2017 for ETS2. I'd like to see SCS release more challenges. Make it paid for all I care but give people options and challenges. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, etc.

For the GP's, some see these states as fly over states. Give them a reason to not think so much to get them buying these dlc's that are consider as flyover. SCS can make some very good flyover states if they make them worth buying. Bring things to the GP than can bring excitement. More focus on Agriculture, Oil/Gas and energy would be nice but to reach the max potential. What's there to loose? SCS should consider creating this extended tube trailer for sure imho. The cargo itself for them is very very very simple models. No licensing issues, no patents. The hardest part is the challenge for drivers turing corners. If they are ST cargoes, SCS sets those routes anyways. If not ST, then the driver carves his/her own path thru the terrain. That is not a SCS issue, its a driver skill issue but drivers can't test it out if SCS doesn't make it. Mods is not the answer......SCS creating such options is.

In my honest opinion, if SCS sets the course for blades and properly sized tower sections, I don't see how GP roads would be difficult to pull off. So many open roads of just grass fields and pretty much flatter terrain. The GPs can be a good separation to bring blands and longer tower parts to regionalize the South/Midwest from the West. Colorado and Wyoming may not be suitable in ATS to do blades and longer towers section but Texas and all the states North of it can be. SCS doesn't have to worry about the same type of roads. Texas has the space and the roads to pull this off. All the states above it are similar. I think its a good opportunity for a new wow factor that I'd love to see SCS show mods that they are capable. Apparently the tools are there but is the desire from SCS there? Worse case, go paid so that the efforts can reap the benefits. If you want the cargo that the tube trailer can bring, pay for it. If you don't want the challenge.......don't buy it. Arguing that is cost money is non sense. Either you pay or you don't. Either you want the challenge or you don't.

If you don't have the skill to complete the job, that's not on SCS if you pay for it. Buy at your own risk but don't block the blessings of people who want this type of challenge. I might suck at trying to make these deliveries but I'd never gripe at SCS because at what I can't do. It just means I need to practice and get better. Such a dlc could be a HUGE lift for convoy. Imagine a convoy of blades. You know how much of a boost this can give ATS if people can haul challenging stuff. Give people a reason to come back to ATS. Its not just focusing on ICCs in general, its the type of ICCs that make the biggest impact. Like I keep saying, Texas can offer a ton to ATS. Whether on release day for Texas or not. Its a huge playground from day one and for the life time of the game. There should be a ton of space to play with in Texas. Turbine blades, longer towers, bridge supports (metal and concrete), more realistic mobile homes (single and double wide), long telephone poles both wood and metal, long house truss/rafters, T-slabs, til walls, pipes for water/drainage systems (metal and plastic), etc. An extend tube trailer and an extended flatbed trailer would be a great paid dlc featuring 2 trailers with several extend cargoes. We could easily get 10-12 cargoes for $3.99/4.99 USD/EU with that. Both games could easily share such cargo as well.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5111
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5612 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 02 Oct 2022 15:44

And if SCS decides to create more special transport cargoes, please let it not be a boring cargo like the massive tech part; it doesn't look like a tech part, it just looks like a big boring box. So, I really like blades or tubes as special cargo, or the other stuff @flight50 mentioned. I can't wait for the Texas-sized transport blog! I hope it's not a blog that shows some ST routes with the same special transport cargo we already have for the past few years. Let it be new cargo!
User avatar
halbtollekreatur
Posts: 832
Joined: 16 Mar 2020 19:23
Location: Petria

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5613 Post by halbtollekreatur » 02 Oct 2022 18:26

Btw: someone identified the new bus as 2003 Prevost H3-45. I don't know how reliable that is.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30164
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5614 Post by flight50 » 02 Oct 2022 19:32

Vinnie Terranova wrote: 02 Oct 2022 15:44 I can't wait for the Texas-sized transport blog! I hope it's not a blog that shows some ST routes with the same special transport cargo we already have for the past few years. Let it be new cargo!
I know right. That blog could be one of the more disappointing blogs imho. We keep getting new routes. Cool. Time to add some new cargo to it or make Heavy Haul II or Special Transport II. I'd rather paid so that they add more cargo. If they just add to the existing dlc's, we get 0 new cargo or we get 1-2. If fans are begging for cargo, why limit options when there are tons of great ideas and examples on this forum.

Its another big opportunity for Texas to take advantage of.......if SCS creates it. Why buy just Texas when you can buy Texas+ a new cargo pack. Oil/gas, construction, wind turbine, farming, building materials........pic one. Pick 2, lol. If nothing was created for Texas many months ago, we won't be getting one on release. What you don't make for Texas, push it for another dlc then. There's cargo for many industries that can be additional content for sure. I'd rather SCS become a money cow on cargo at this point. Let people choose if they want addition cargo but not creating it is missing out on sales. I'd rather not use mods. I stopped using cargo mods years ago. I want to pay SCS for cargo. I don't want to worry about updates nor quality consistency. For a game hurting for cargo, I'd like to see a lot more done. Texas will obviously add some but it won't be enough still.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5615 Post by Optional Features » 02 Oct 2022 20:06

Vinnie Terranova wrote: 02 Oct 2022 15:44 And if SCS decides to create more special transport cargoes, please let it not be a boring cargo like the massive tech part; it doesn't look like a tech part, it just looks like a big boring box. So, I really like blades or tubes as special cargo, or the other stuff @flight50 mentioned. I can't wait for the Texas-sized transport blog! I hope it's not a blog that shows some ST routes with the same special transport cargo we already have for the past few years. Let it be new cargo!
If they really wanted to, they could make like half a dozen versions of that load and call it different things. Make a flatbed version, a stepdeck version, etc.

A number of loads come wrapped like that (generators, ac units, modular buildings) but rarely do they require the biggest lowboy possible.

I wish they would stop limiting stuff so much.
User avatar
Mooner_37
Posts: 209
Joined: 19 Apr 2017 17:47
Location: Kortessem, Limburg, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5616 Post by Mooner_37 » 02 Oct 2022 23:08

I was looking up info about Texas exit signs on the MUTC and SHSM. I was a little confused. Maybe anyone of you can help me out. There happen to be 2 exit sign types used in Texas. Type 1: "Narrow Gore E5-1c" like you can see on the blogs SCS shows us. And type 2: "Exit Gore E5-1 with E5-1bP (number on top of the exit)" above.

Which one of these is the most common one used in Texas and why are there 2 types anyway? Finally which one (or both) would you like to see in the upcoming DLC?
Current Headquarters: Liège, Berlin, L.A. Luxemburg, Seattle
Current Trucks: ETS2: 15 ATS: 2
Driving Truck: ETS2: DAF XF ATS: Peterbilt 579
Current Mileage: ETS2: 462,317 km (287,270 miles) - ATS: 384,392 km (238,850 miles)
Level: ETS2: 65 - ATS: 55
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30164
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5617 Post by flight50 » 03 Oct 2022 00:21

Personally, I couldn't tell you which one is the most common. I honestly don't pay attention to such details. You can always do some spot checks on Google Street view all around Texas to check them out to see what's used where. I'd imagine natvander might try to keep accuracy up and put what actually exist in real life. But I won't hold him against anything if he used one font for the entire state. Some people will care, some won't. Me, I don't care.
User avatar
supersobes
Global moderator
Posts: 13712
Joined: 07 Dec 2016 21:53
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5618 Post by supersobes » 03 Oct 2022 03:36

Based on what I've seen browsing Google Maps, E5-1 with E5-1bP appears to be an older design that slowly being replaced by E5-1c. (You can check historical imagery on Google street view to see this.) If SCS was only going to use one exit gore sign for the entirety of Texas, E5-1c seems to be the better option since it seems to be the new standard. But really, it would make sense for SCS to use both. They should use the design that used a particular location at this current time IRL. And if a sign gets updated or changed IRL, SCS can always update or change it in-game like they often do in the states the game currently has.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5111
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5619 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 03 Oct 2022 06:41

But changing signs can be a lot of work, especially with a big state like Texas. So, if the E5-1c is the new standard, why not use that now for the whole state of Texas? Then SCS doesn't have to change the older signs later; they can spend their time on something else.
User avatar
SCS_Annie
SCS Software
Posts: 72
Joined: 09 Dec 2020 14:39
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#5620 Post by SCS_Annie » 03 Oct 2022 08:24

explosion65 wrote: 30 Sep 2022 23:13 I’m trying to figure out if it’s Suntetico or Syntetico. It looks more like a “u” on the signs in the screenshots, but then again it could also be a heavily stylized “y” with the bottom part cut off. Also since it’s a chemical company, Syntetico would make more sense, because (I’m assuming) it’s a play on the word “synthetic”, as in synthetic (man made) chemicals. And if that’s the case then wouldn’t Synthetico make even more sense? Or maybe I’m just overthinking the whole thing :geek:

I’m absolutely psyched for Texas either way lol
Syntetico is correct
2D artist (Concept art & branding) for American Truck Simulator.
Working at SCS Software since 2020.

Instagram
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jho9203 and 9 guests