Montana Discussion Thread

angrybirdseller
Posts: 3292
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1811 Post by angrybirdseller » 30 Jun 2022 05:31

Beartooth Pass as someone said no insurance company will pay claims for truck stuck up there even RV are discouraged from driving on it.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1812 Post by Optional Features » 30 Jun 2022 08:26

werewoooooooolf wrote: 30 Jun 2022 04:53 That’s exactly why I think Beartooth needs to be included in game. We don’t have a lot of such challenging roads, save the Million Dollar highway. Nightmare or not, it’s still a road where trucking is permitted, unlike the stretch between YS and Cody.
We do have challenging roads in game, but they are represented in such a way as not to be challenging.

Lane width and bridge clearances play a major part in that. If we had realistic either, a lot of places would feel challenging that already are included in the game. One example is Spokane where I was testing the new convention center company: there's a bridge in game listed as 19 feet of clearance according to the sign. I found the real life sign, and it's just over 14 feet.

Irl, every truck (with the exception of oversize loads) is a max of 14 feet tall. Therefore, a bridge that is 14 feet, 5 inches would feel super tight and a bit concerning to a truck driver. A bridge that's 19 feet tall might as well not exist. It would never be a concern unless the trucker was hauling something outrageous, which likely wouldn't be routed that way anyways.

The same is true for lanes: there are many narrow highways in the game that are represented by SCS without ditches, wide and flat shoulders, wide lanes (a minimum of two feet too wide and as much as four feet), and no crowning, bumps, or other weird effects that make the road feel real. These roads would be challenging in a truck irl, but have been expanded in such a way as they don't seem any different from an interstate.

And finally, my personal pet peeve are the mountain passes in game. Right now we have all but a handful of the passes on the West Coast contained within the mapped area.

And yet, pretty much all of them are insignificant with the exception of I-70 to Denver (which could have been steepened a bit itself, although it is decent as is). The old and new Donner passes are not as challenging as they should be; the Grapevine isn't much to write home about; Siskyou doesn't exist along with most of Oregon's big hills on I-5 (a couple are hinted at, but in a muted way); Snoqualmie isn't anything too crazy and has half of its realistic lanes, and the list goes on.

If all of the challenging routes represented in the current map were represented accurately in terms of grade, lane width, overhead clearance, etc, we would have a number of things to choose from.

The Million Dollar highway is nice, a work of art even, but it's not a route that I assume most truckers want to take or take regularly (unless they are based in that area of Colorado). But I-70 is a major thoroughfare, and its representation is incredibly key to a virtual trucker's perspective passing through the state.

The overall point I'm trying to make is Beartooth again would be nice to have, but SCS needs to get the major routes right first. Make them challenging as well, then focus on backroads.

We have Montana Expansion (built by a Montana native and real life trucker) as an example. Based on the little hint devcamming gave me, the first I-90 pass is not as steep as it should be. Recon's pass is a challenge to climb: SCS's version will be a breeze.
chris2002
Posts: 56
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 12:55

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1813 Post by chris2002 » 30 Jun 2022 08:36

seriousmods wrote: 30 Jun 2022 08:26 We do have challenging roads in game, but they are represented in such a way as not to be challenging.
Don't forget that SCS has to cater for player with keyboard input (and not always 60 FPS). As I'm this kind of player, sometime I find difficult to overtake because you can easily over react to the movement of the truck, and either enter collision with the vehicle you are overtaking or the middle barrier of the road.
If the lanes were narrower, that could start to be really difficult to play. For example, some old ETS2 exchange were really difficult for me for this reason.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1814 Post by Optional Features » 30 Jun 2022 09:00

chris2002 wrote: 30 Jun 2022 08:36 Don't forget that SCS has to cater for player with keyboard input (and not always 60 FPS). As I'm this kind of player, sometime I find difficult to overtake because you can easily over react to the movement of the truck, and either enter collision with the vehicle you are overtaking or the middle barrier of the road.
If the lanes were narrower, that could start to be really difficult to play. For example, some old ETS2 exchange were really difficult for me for this reason.
As someone who has played games like this on a limited budget up until recently, I understand lower fps and inadequate controllers (although I've had a cheap wheel for years). That said, SCS doesn't have to cater the game to those playing on keyboard. Part of the reason SCS does make things unrealistic is their own internal team clearly has struggles with virtual driving. If the game was realistic, someone streaming on behalf of SCS might not be able to navigate the road.

Now, we might like SCS to cater to low spec pcs or keyboards and maybe even prefer it, but it's a terrible strategy long term. Those with lower spec pcs and limited gaming hardware budgets are the fans least likely to invest in future DLCs and at some point future games. As such, catering a game to them means that eventually this product will run out of people able to pay for it.

On the other hand, catering the game only towards people with super computers and 900 degree wheels doesn't make sense either as that type of player isn't 100% of the target market. The best place to target is in the middle, offering something for everyone.

That said, the reasons driving on keyboard are difficult is likely more due to road design and vehicle physics than lane width. On a straight section of interstate at speed, a vehicle's wheel (if aligned properly) should not be rotated, and speed should keep the wheel centered. As such, adjustments to the wheel (or keys) should be minimal.

The problem is curves: SCS curves are nowhere near realistic. They aren't even close in many areas. Highway curves twist into a bank regardless of direction to allow people to maintain speed. Most SCS curves are not banked properly or twisted. I describe them as square corners: one person described them like a piece of track on a miniature railroad.

Regardless of description, they aren't realistic. They have defined entrances and exits and are generally flat all the way through. Fix those, and steering would be a lot easier even with more realistic lanes.

On a separate note, a video of Lookout Pass on I-90. Watching videos like this and knowing SCS, I know they will underrepresent the mountain backdrops (and cut their tops way lower than they should be), flatten the curves as I describe, and soften the grades.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NjxWwcopw98&feature=share
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3292
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1815 Post by angrybirdseller » 30 Jun 2022 09:10

@chris2002 yep, I remember older prefabs from ETS2 with keyboard it can be atrocious to drive right or left and get stuck on guard rail. Your right scs has to think about vast majority of keyboard players and game players and not everyone want to use gaming steering wheel. I just use game pad the last 10 years of ETS2.
Tristman
Posts: 1536
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1816 Post by Tristman » 30 Jun 2022 09:18

It’s not necessarily a budget thing, there’s probably plenty of people (like me) who don’t want to purchase a wheel for that one game they play that would benefit from it. As much as I like playing ATS, I would rather not own a wheel that’s gathering dust and taking up storage space most of the time.
chris2002
Posts: 56
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 12:55

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1817 Post by chris2002 » 30 Jun 2022 09:36

Exactly. I've a portable that cater for almost all my need. At one point I will upgrade to a new one, but I don't have the real need of a gaming PC. If I play ETS2/ATS it's also because I can play it on my computer. If not, I would play other game...
But I own almost all DLC (except some parts or paint DLC), and as long I can play ATS on my computer I will continue to buy them.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1818 Post by Optional Features » 30 Jun 2022 09:43

Tristman wrote: 30 Jun 2022 09:18 It’s not necessarily a budget thing, there’s probably plenty of people (like me) who don’t want to purchase a wheel for that one game they play that would benefit from it. As much as I like playing ATS, I would rather not own a wheel that’s gathering dust and taking up storage space most of the time.
And that makes sense from a personal level as well. But it doesn't make sense as a target market.

There should be benefits to having a higher spec pc (higher res skyboxes, extreme view distance, more traffic and the potential for jams, secondary light source shadows, and better particles to name a few things).

And there should be more benefits to using a wheel (being able to navigate tight spots more easily with the assumption there are tight spots).

A great example of where SCS catering ruins the gameplay experience is logging roads. I've been on a number of logging roads in my life, including riding in a log truck. Logging roads are narrow: typically they handle bi-directional traffic on a single lane road with pullouts for people to pass.

This is what it would look like in many places irl:

[ external image ]
[ external image ]

Look at these roads: you could driving a mining truck down them and still have room on both sides. So what is the challenge in that?

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
User avatar
kostraelpayaso
Posts: 73
Joined: 13 Jan 2020 12:17

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1819 Post by kostraelpayaso » 30 Jun 2022 10:36

That's my issue with logging roads and the reason why I barely take them, and even though my company is mainly focused on timber hauling I normaly take jobs from yards close to paved roads because off road experience is very off-puting, either due to road design and the complete lack of off-roading mechanics.

Is it normal for semi trucks in North America to access steep logging roads though? I recently changed career to forestry and here large semi trucks only enter main 'service' roads, normaly paved with gravel or similar and with relatively low steep. The bulk of the logging roads are accessed by smaller 6x6 trucks and machinery (forwarders, skidders, etc.) that have better maneuverability in unpaved narrow and steeper roads.

I would love a revamp of the whole timber industry ingame, from the source to the final destination of the wood. Given a huge part of the map till this point have been based around major logging areas I think is a shame that this industry has not been properly represented ingame. Better and more dense forest road network, more local-focused deliveries and more diverse yards/depots could be an starting point.
User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4094
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1820 Post by harishw8r » 30 Jun 2022 12:57

seriousmods wrote: 30 Jun 2022 08:26 challenging roads in game,
Assume that I’ve ignored most of your text, but I’d like to convey that my definition of challenging is different from yours. I wouldn’t mind lanes being wider; in fact it should be, as most of the players still play with a keyboard or mouse steering, and it’s not a hardcore simulator (it need not be, end of discussion).

By challenging I meant one cannot speed up and they have to be cautious in certain roads. I don’t think about the wheel users or the ones who play with mouse steering with least stability (like me), as the physics is much better in these limits. If you did not understand what I said, try taking a 16+ ton job and play with the least stability and run at high speeds.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vlad (ua) and 17 guests