Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3191 Post by Travismods » 17 May 2022 20:17

@Shiva It doesn't have to be slingering spaghetti to have proper mountains around it, so what point are you trying to make? Are you saying mountain ranges can only appear around slingering spaghetti roads? The proper backdrop is missing is all.

Now back to Texas, I'm...kind of worried people are fine with SCS making complete misses on Texas vegetation because the community will apparently always save the day and provide SCS with the corrections. Is that the reason? I mean can anyone make a good coherent argument as to why SCS should not themselves already pre blog posts have location specific knowledge on vegetation, available freely on the internet, before making blog pictures on such a highly anticipated DLC as Texas? Why should we not expect them to know this stuff instead of using placeholders or making a blog looking completely off to being with? Why are we praising unimpressive blogs. Loyality?

One has to ask if SCS would have even corrected that, if that comment on the blog would not have been made? People, you have to expect more of SCS. This is way too little, and yes it smells excuses. With proper research, they are absolutely able to know stuff like location specific vegetation without people pointing it out on blogs, its not obscure information hidden somewhere. They need new hires that knows this stuff, come on now. Whats worrying is one could even suspect they took the lazy route and reused old assets, and if nobody would have said anything, they would have just left Texas with PNW vegetation. Why don't we expect them to have the dedication and knowledge to get this right from the start?
User avatar
SuchManor
Posts: 1054
Joined: 21 Apr 2017 00:04
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3192 Post by SuchManor » 17 May 2022 20:23

I know Texas is still quite far away, but I’m getting extremely worried about bad habits that may pop up. Texas is very unique with its scenery, roads, and signage. If SCS continues with the way they have been making past states, there will not be that true Texas feel. I would love to see a blog of western Texas and some unique signage to be proven wrong.

Also, I know it’s a small thing but in Texas the majority of signs have cylindrical poles instead of square poles. That would be huge for being unique to Texas. Other states also do the same so it could be used for those as well.
What good is a world without good detail?
Check out my screenshots
User avatar
SenseFM
Posts: 399
Joined: 24 Apr 2021 17:00
Location: Spain

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3193 Post by SenseFM » 17 May 2022 21:20

seriousmods wrote: 17 May 2022 19:31
But that's not the biggest issue: it's the complete omission of several mountain passes along the route. I can understand limitations of game clip distance: I cannot understand how you miss several mountain passes.
I'd also like for I-5 to have proper mountain passes, but do you think that at the current scale there is enough space to depict even only one of the passes with realistic elevation changes? In the ingame map there's almost no space between Weed and Redding. I doubt that the passes were missed due to a lack of research, I'd say it was the lack of space what made mappers decide to depict the stretch around Shasta Lake instead. And that section if the highway is already pretty curved in the game, I imagine you'd get from Redding to Weed in a minute of gameplay if the road wasn't bent like that.

I suppose Texas won't have these kind of problems since the only high mountains are in the westernmost part of the state. Some central areas seem quite hilly though, so I hope we can feel those elevation changes. And I like to see that the inaccurate trees in eastern Texas may be corrected.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3292
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3194 Post by angrybirdseller » 17 May 2022 21:33

I am know when Texas releases the same cynics will find some tiny thing to complain about. These same people should find another game to play. Toxicity is disgusting here how you think developers those feel.
If map gets delayed because couple mappers quit as they figure no point trying to do something best to your abilities get bashed for it.

Resreach section give information there about which trees and vegetation belong in which region of the same.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3195 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 21:41

angrybirdseller wrote: 17 May 2022 21:33 I am know when Texas releases the same cynics will find some tiny thing to complain about. These same people should find another game to play. Toxicity is disgusting here how you think developers those feel.
If map gets delayed because couple mappers quit as they figure no point trying to do something best to your abilities get bashed for it.

Resreach section give information there about which trees and vegetation belong in which region of the same.
And there is it again: "if you don't like it, don't play". It's incredible how many people repeat this moniker who clearly are not playing the game themselves lol. If they were, and it was as great as they claim, they would have no time to argue for hours on the forum.

@SenseFM Scale is a big problem all over the map mainly because SCS makes cities larger than they should be. Sacramento is almost 1:1, meaning any rural areas around it are actually less than 1:20 to make room.

But that is beside the point. How they could have included one pass (the main one through the Siskyous) would have been to start a slight hill slightly after Medford, increase that past the weigh station then have a curve east, and a sweeping curve to the west, ending with a descent to the ag inspection station. There might even be room for two sweeping curves (which is realistic based on the area). And then after the ag station, a downhill, then an uphill, and then a drop back into Redding.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be something. The irl inspection station has a runaway lane because they are afraid trucks with no brakes will take out the whole building. SCS's remake has no hills at all. It's as flat as the plains.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5101
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3196 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 17 May 2022 21:48

You would expect from SCS after creating / recreating the base map and also several map DLCs, that they in the meantime should have learned the importance of giving a particular area a distinct look and feel; not only by using the proper buildings, roads, signs, etc. But also by using the proper vegetation. And I know: nobody is perfect, me neither, but I don't expect SCS to make this kind of error by using the wrong vegetation. They are way past beyond that point.

SCS wants to sell the Texas DLC to as many people as possible? Well, then don't use placeholders and don't make this kind of mistakes. ATS has its pros, but certainly also its cons. We don't need more cons. We need ATS to become better. Because it already is a seven year old game. If SCS wants to create the whole of United States, and maybe even Canada and Mexico, it will take several years from now: ATS might be a 15 year old game by the time the United States is finished. Does SCS still wants us to play their game by then? Then you have to keep us happy. And SCS is ofcourse doing that by releasing trucks for free. By rebuilding the base map. By adding new roads in DLCs. By adding new gameplay features. But not by showing us an incorrect depiction of Texas by using the wrong vegetation. I'd rather SCS not to show pictures at all than showing incorrect pictures. Because then I don't feel taken seriously.
User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3197 Post by Travismods » 17 May 2022 22:20

Vinnie Terranova wrote: 17 May 2022 21:48 You would expect from SCS after creating / recreating the base map and also several map DLCs, that they in the meantime should have learned the importance of giving a particular area a distinct look and feel; not only by using the proper buildings, roads, signs, etc. But also by using the proper vegetation. And I know: nobody is perfect, me neither, but I don't expect SCS to make this kind of error by using the wrong vegetation. They are way past beyond that point.

SCS wants to sell the Texas DLC to as many people as possible? Well, then don't use placeholders and don't make this kind of mistakes. ATS has its pros, but certainly also its cons. We don't need more cons. We need ATS to become better. Because it already is a seven year old game. If SCS wants to create the whole of United States, and maybe even Canada and Mexico, it will take several years from now: ATS might be a 15 year old game by the time the United States is finished. Does SCS still wants us to play their game by then? Then you have to keep us happy. And SCS is ofcourse doing that by releasing trucks for free. By rebuilding the base map. By adding new roads in DLCs. By adding new gameplay features. But not by showing us an incorrect depiction of Texas by using the wrong vegetation. I'd rather SCS not to show pictures at all than showing incorrect pictures. Because then I don't feel taken seriously.
100% agreed. Why not do the proper research before you show something on a blog? You need to bring your A game to a Texas DLC blog. At this point, SCS shouldn't need the community to hold their hand when it comes to basic stuff like vegetation. If they do, we should be worried for Texas. Because it kind of suggests that if the community does not continuously correct SCS in their work that they will deliver something completely off. Is that how it should be? Should we not expect SCS to be able to get the basic stuff to their map right? If they can't without correction comments on their blog, it kind of suggests they are lacking knowledge. This is not the first time the community has to correct them on things you'd think they could figure out themselves. I mean lol, you don't need to be a botanist to know that a logging site in Texas looks different from one in the PNW.
User avatar
Marcello Julio
Posts: 5658
Joined: 12 Nov 2016 19:27
Location: Ceará, Brazil

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3198 Post by Marcello Julio » 18 May 2022 01:17

koolizz wrote: 17 May 2022 20:17 One has to ask if SCS would have even corrected that, if that comment on the blog would not have been made?
It wasn't for the blog comment. They are always reading the forum and users' opinions here. Just look when the Yellowstone issue in Wyoming happened. When the community complained about the absence of Yellowstone, they didn't come to the forum saying that Yellowstone would be added, but a while later, Davido showed a screenshot confirming Yellowstone.
User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3199 Post by TheAmir259 » 18 May 2022 05:07

^

Regarding seriousmods, while i'm not that well-versed, i do agree with the point he's pushing for, and that they should revisit Shasta once again. But then again, we are in Texas discussion so i don't believe its a matter i should be diving deeper into.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3200 Post by Optional Features » 18 May 2022 07:34

TheAmir259 wrote: 18 May 2022 05:07 ^

Regarding seriousmods, while i'm not that well-versed, i do agree with the point he's pushing for, and that they should revisit Shasta once again. But then again, we are in Texas discussion so i don't believe its a matter i should be diving deeper into.
Agreed: I got us off topic with that. But I believe the same problems could resurface in Texas or any upcoming rural state.

If there are 100 miles between two cities irl, and SCS represents them at scale, there are five miles between those cities. If SCS makes both cities twice as large a scale (1:10), there are now about 2 miles left between those cities. If SCS makes those cities 1:1, those cities now essentially touch on the map.

This is the issue with almost all rural areas on the existing map, and will continue in the future. To make cities properly sized, SCS typically has to go larger than 1:20, which means we lose valuable rural landscapes, industries, and driving experiences.

Unless something is different about Texas, there will be few spots on the map that are not urbanized or decorated with some kind of structure or deco business, and I don't believe that is an accurate portrayal of this great state.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests