Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3881 Post by flight50 » 28 Jun 2022 18:59

Tristman wrote: 28 Jun 2022 11:39 In Cody, there's a scenery building using the Lumber Jill logo. I think it would be nice if they would actually put some actual deliverable Lumber Jill depots in Texas, and maybe sprinkle some around the existing map, replacing Deepgrove here and there.
Lumber Jill would be the perfect replacement for Deepgrove that what in East Texas. Lumber Jill has lingered around in the game files forever. I agree it would be nice to finally see it debut.
Vinnie Terranova wrote: 28 Jun 2022 14:50
flight50 wrote: 27 Jun 2022 21:45Replace these fictional Walmart locations that don't even exist. That would get rid of more than half all these Wallberts. 150 and counting is too much for the few states we have. I'd rather fictional or made up buildings instead of fictional Walmart locations. When you use the caliber of a Walmart, the location should be pretty accurate imho. Same with any NA company that is being parodied. If no parody is being represented make that fictional, but not Walmart. That is like putting Ikea everywhere in ETS2 when there is no Ikea there in real life. I can bet you ETS2 fans would complain if Ikea was dropped everywhere where it shouldn't be. Have some type of realism for reality locations when it comes to depots. We don't need their true branded name but a parody, put the right building in place at least.
Well, the problem with Ikea for instance, is that every mayor city in the country where I live, has an Ikea... This would mean that in ETS2 all cities in The Netherlands could have an Ikea. And that's way too much for ETS2. It's nice to have one Ikea in a small country, but not every city in that small country would need an Ikea, although in real life all those cities have an Ikea.
I don't know about Walmart, but looking at Google Maps it seems that all mayor cities and also a lot of not so big towns in the US have a Walmart. This could mean that Walmart (Walbert) easily can be overpopulated in ATS. I don't want Walbert to be in 75% of the cities in ATS. But that amount of Walberts unfortunately is the reality...
Bingo....and this is what I keep bringing up. Glad you spoke on Ikea in Europe because I had no idea what its like. But you just painted the perfect picture what I speak of. Too many for ETS2.........that is exactly what Wallbert is doing in ATS but multiple that by 10. Its getting bad. Granted you are 100% correct that Walmart is everywhere in the US. That's reality. That is 1:1. At 1:20 is wayyyy worse and exaggerated. Where is Target, where is Sam's, Where is Costco? Alberstons, Krogers, Safeway, Aldi. There are other grocery stores and other supermarkets to make. Even if Walmart came licensed in ATS, its still too many in the gme. Between Walmart, Target, Sams and Costco together would be much better than having Wallbert everywhere as the solo supermarket. That is exactly my fear. By the time the US is completely mapped, We are looking at 500 Wallberts if SCS doesn't change up what they do.

Walmart owns both Walmart Neighborhood and Sam's. If SCS is fond of Walmart, at least do those 2. But more diversity is heavily needed. For Texas, H.E.B. is big the further South you go. I think Kroger and Albertson's fits better though as they are more national and we need national grocery chains. We don't have any. Count how many grocery stores are in ETS2. A lot more than just one. Follow what ETS2 is doing in its economy. A diverse economy goes a long ways. H.E.B would be more like a one off and only in Texas. The more states that come though, you can brace yourself for nearly every city having a Walmart. The game doesn't have to mimic that level of persistence. Not when there are other options. If the other options are not in (x) city, then yeah, toss in Walmart or bring in something new like a bakery, candy factory, Frito Lay snacks/chips, etc. Anything is better than Walmart in every single city. Way too many options here in the US to keep using the same company just because in real life its everywhere.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3882 Post by flight50 » 28 Jun 2022 19:29

2 simple game changers for me that could come with Texas is a "Rush Hour" feature. This is basically increased traffic density based on not only roads types, but time of day like irl. Cip's traffic mod is the perfect example and why I've had the Rush Hour thought for awhile. I don't use the mod anymore because I try to cut back but its the only mod I like and understand how to adjust to my liking. If SCS made a traffic category in the options, Rush Hour could have a lot of control per user. Don't make it global. Allow people options just like Fmod and other sliders that came. In order to do Rush Hour though, we must get that engine upgrade. So until we can get better performance, not too much will happen in terms of better game play. The best thing that could come in this engine update in the works is multi core support. DX12 is just a part of the equation to make things easier but its multi core that can help split up the load from single core thinking.

The other big changer for me is weather improvements. Mainly speaking....."Thunderstorms". They can get reallllllly nasty here. The best way to describe it is take the heaviest vanilla mode rain in ATS....Now multiply that by 10. Oklahoma can get nasty too. So its a feature that benefits more than just Texas. Just bring it. Make a new Weather section in the options. When seasons come, add to this category. So from tire slippage, to visibility issues, to new vibe of wet, to more immersion, hail and finally traffic pattern malfunctions. More wrecks from random events, detours gets a boost, delays, traffic signals random events and even "Rush Hour" gets effected. A lot could come from thunderstorms if it was featured. To me, that is game changing. Its the alternate until seasons come and gives the game a little more spice.
McFly wrote: 28 Jun 2022 18:34
werewoooooooolf wrote: 28 Jun 2022 16:23

Just more roads and ICCs for now.
Sorry for being off topic for a sec, but what is an ICC? I'm reading this everywhere on this forum and have no clue what it means, Google didn't help me either (just shows results like Illinois commerce commission, intraclass correlation or international classification of crime)
Guilty as charged, lol. I talk about ATS needing new companies, industry and cargo constantly. I got tired of typing all three words out so I just starting calling it ICC's and ask everyone to bear with me, lol. Eventually others started using the term. Now more people are pitching in to get change for more diversity so we'll see if SCS continues improving ICC's beyond Montana and Texas. I'd like to think so. Idaho really lit me up with zero ICC's. I've been rambling about it every since. ATS can never get another Idaho performance when it comes to ICC's. It has beauty and looks great but offered nothing to the economy. Not even one new company, smh. I took that personal to be honest as a slap to ATS fans that want more from a logistics point of view. Seeing how many new companies comes to ETS2 per dlc really angered me to be honest. So yeah, I'll constantly speak on ICC's until its a focus with every dlc for ATS.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5300
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3883 Post by oldmanclippy » 28 Jun 2022 21:25

Idaho really was a big letdown in every department except visuals which it excelled at. Lacking road network (part SCS fault for not getting creative enough, part real life fault), no new companies or industries, missing grades, abysmal performance on launch (that has been fixed since). Colorado had better road network, grades, and performance, but didn't bring that many new companies/industries. Wyoming kept up the improvements CO made while improving visuals even more, but still didn't bring enough companies and industries. Montana finally looks like it will bring a more substantial ICC offering. Texas, better ratchet it up a few notches from Montana even. Oregon brought 9 companies. Texas needs to bring 15-20. Iberia brought 20, and yes Iberia is more different to the rest of Europe than Texas is to the American West, but a) the differences are greater than most Europeans would think, and b) we need to play catch up after WA, UT, ID, CO, and WY let us down in terms of companies.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
Brendan0620
Posts: 422
Joined: 04 Feb 2018 00:26
Location: Northern Tampa Metro, Florida, U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3884 Post by Brendan0620 » 28 Jun 2022 23:01

I think there is going to be some (at least one) big feature coming with Texas, whether that be DX12, or AI traffic improvements, or multi-drop, or whatever helps float in the boat with Texas. This is just speculation though.

By the way, it's been a while since the Texas Microsite got exclusive content (those gas/restaurant company extras). I wonder what extra content on the site that will come next? :ugeek:
[ external image ]
Intel Core i7 13700F -> MSI GeForce RTX 4060TI 16GB -> 32GB RAM -> Y40 Case
What is your Favorite Interstate in American Truck Simulator?
User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 885
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3885 Post by SouthernMan » 28 Jun 2022 23:08

@Brendan0620 I must say that I agree with that. I also think about the possibility that with Texas will come something relevant. Maybe we're wrong but I hope not lol
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3886 Post by Optional Features » 28 Jun 2022 23:40

oldmanclippy wrote: 28 Jun 2022 21:25 Idaho really was a big letdown in every department except visuals which it excelled at. Lacking road network (part SCS fault for not getting creative enough, part real life fault), no new companies or industries, missing grades, abysmal performance on launch (that has been fixed since). Colorado had better road network, grades, and performance, but didn't bring that many new companies/industries. Wyoming kept up the improvements CO made while improving visuals even more, but still didn't bring enough companies and industries. Montana finally looks like it will bring a more substantial ICC offering. Texas, better ratchet it up a few notches from Montana even. Oregon brought 9 companies. Texas needs to bring 15-20. Iberia brought 20, and yes Iberia is more different to the rest of Europe than Texas is to the American West, but a) the differences are greater than most Europeans would think, and b) we need to play catch up after WA, UT, ID, CO, and WY let us down in terms of companies.
One big thing thing Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming lack is roads to nowhere. Forest tracks into the bush, gravel paths through the fields, etc. I really hope Montana will get many more of those. There should be a network of roads in the forest, some leading to logging sites or quarries and some just leading to other roads.
Quark
Posts: 1104
Joined: 08 Feb 2019 07:48
Location: Germania

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3887 Post by Quark » 29 Jun 2022 00:24

Agree with this. Idaho was the biggest dissappointment it clearly could've been much better in this regard. Enough room was clearly there especially south of I-90 east of Grangeville for a big, maze like network of dirt roads for more logging camps stuff. Real life roadnetwork of Idaho wasn't really favourable and more dirt roads + forestry would have at least partially made up for this. Also hope we will get to see more of those in Montana.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3888 Post by Optional Features » 29 Jun 2022 00:44

Quark wrote: 29 Jun 2022 00:24 Agree with this. Idaho was the biggest dissappointment it clearly could've been much better in this regard. Enough room was clearly there especially south of I-90 east of Grangeville for a big, maze like network of dirt roads for more logging camps stuff. Real life roadnetwork of Idaho wasn't really favourable and more dirt roads + forestry would have at least partially made up for this. Also hope we will get to see more of those in Montana.
And with these roads, scs has a lot more liberty to do things that aren't 100% based on the real place.

Utah could have gotten the same thing: that whole bottom corner is just begging for some offroad routes.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3889 Post by Trakaplex » 29 Jun 2022 04:10

If you devcam into Texas in 1.45, you can see half of El Paso including the downtown and I-10/US-54 interchange. East of Hobbs is all of Seminole and a small chunk of Lamesa. They apparently added more of US-84 southeast of Farwell. Through Carlsbad vid US-62/US-180, you can see NM-7 and the caverns entrance, and part of Hudspeth County (not to mention SCS misspelled the name on the "county line" sign). Off US-285, is the Orla stop.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3890 Post by flight50 » 29 Jun 2022 10:08

SouthernMan wrote: 28 Jun 2022 23:08 @Brendan0620 I must say that I agree with that. I also think about the possibility that with Texas will come something relevant. Maybe we're wrong but I hope not lol
I third that in motion, lol. But I'm usually fairly positive than most anyways. The new engine didn't come with 1.45 so onwards to 1.46. With that engine update, its going to address a few things off the bat. What those are would have to be something SCS has integrated along with the update itself. Other things will just have to wait til its turn. Maybe the update needs to be more stable. Maybe the devs just need more time to implement other plans or maybe the skill just isn't there to do some of the things we ask. No matter what, like it or not, the game we know now, will not be the same with the upgrade.

@Quark Your comment reminded me of this, lol. viewtopic.php?p=1443202#p1443202. Idaho definitely had space to do more considering it had less innovation. The innovation and creativity just wasn't there. I totally agree that visually it made a newer standard. But gameplay, nah. Not even close to anything likeable. We can't get another one of those. Idaho is suppose to be big on potatoes. Lumber could have been another add with mazes of logging camps Northeast of Grangeville like what I linked. But nothing. I doubt Montana adds any of that along US-12 but why should it. Idaho should have done this. Maybe the rebuild team which is lead by the lead that was over Idaho, maybe he can take this new team and double back and add missing things like deeper forest tagged to Grangeville. Rework White Bird (yep that was coming, lol) and make the road type correct along with make a proper summit.

@oldmanclippy There you go again, lol. Thinking alike. I've said it before as well that Texas needs to bring 15-20 new companies. Sounds like too many? Nope, I don't think so. Not when you see similar size dlc's like Iberia do it. We don't always gets so many new industries like Montana is doing with dlc's but there should be a few Texas could do. But its about the companies in Texas that could be disappointing. Less than Montana or Oregon would be disappointing. In fact, Texas needs to at least double what both those dlc's do....combined. Not very hard to pull off if ETS2 maps get 20+ new companies. I'm thrilled to see many of you jumping on board with me now in this fight. Something I said before is that Texas can feature every single industry available in ATS now, but give every industry 1-2 new companies and Texas can survive the ICC worry. The industries Texas can't bring, double back and fill in industries. That is how you make the economy deeper. That is how Texas is less repetitive.

Livestock is the largest in the US in Texas. Colorado teased it but Wyoming actually implemented it. Two ways to make it deeper is bring processing houses and cold storage. Pavel needs to squash worrying about this prefab. Why bring meat as cargo if you are not gong to complete the chain properly. Cotton is coming with Texas. Its also the largest producer in the US. Textiles cold debut in Texas but probably won't. Its not on the microsite at least. Texas is also the leading state in wool. So sheep should debut and double with the livestock industry to push livestock and by products of livestock like milk, wool, leather and if we ever get chickens, we get meat and egss.

Oil and Gas is also the largest in the US in Texas. Revamp refineries. Be more innovative. Revamp chemical plants and introduce biochemicals and by products of oil. Inert gases. That is along the lines of gases so new tankers for different media. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, propane, hydrogen, helium, etc.....research these gases and find out if they can be implemented into ATS. I know propane and carbon dioxide can work in ATS. Texas has a few carbon sites. Also this is not on the microsite. Its a new industry that could debut but probably won't. It works with sythencitc and natural rubbers to support the tire industry with supports the upcoming car factory. We already have auto parts. Texas is also bring glass. Make the auto industry valid. Building Materials, omg. Roofing, insulation, frame work, precast forms, plastic and metal piping facilities. Several of those here in Texas. Food manufacturing and farms. Sooo many Global Mills, Sunshine Crops type places out there. Sugar Beets comes with Montana, what will Texas add? Logistics companies. Iirc, ETS2 has like 10 or so. ATS....just SellGoods. Texas could bring 2-3 there at the least.

All that stuff adds up. All this makes a deeper economy for ATS. All this brings new to a state that just may not be able to add as much new industry. But SCS can fully control new companies with every dlc. That's several new companies/prefabs there. Texas has the space to do a ton but more than likely, features a lot of repeat companies. The cities in Texas should give us a big feel vibe. Why go thru all the trouble of detailing these cities to recycle the same over used prefabs and old companies. That is could be the downside to Texas and what pulls the ratings down. So who ever is in control of industries and new companies....there is a lot to consider. The same research and effort that goes into ETS2, needs to apply to ATS moving forward. But the focus on the purpose of the game...logistic. Hauling cargo from point A to B. #ATS ICC improvements.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hangman005 and 11 guests