Not fully agree on this one. If you take a look at the area around Truckee or the area around Whiskeytown Lake near Redding for example the used panos look so bland that they don't add much depth but rather destroy the overall impression of the surrounding landscape. You can't design all the backgrounds by hand of course and panos are needed but some of these low res panos (i.e. the ugly green ones) have been used since the beginning of ETS 2 and just don't look proper. Also I don't think the impact on performance would be so big on a reasonably up to date PC. I know, I know SCS probably wants to keep as many players as possible in the line but at some point you have to make progress which will raise the system requirements eventually.flight50 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 16:26 The low res that everyone is mentioning, I'm sure its related to performance. They are in the far backgrounds for the most part. At least the roads I've traveled. They are not the prettiest but hey add a ton of depth though which we never had before. Drive Montana/Wyoming backroads and note the backgrounds. Then drive Nevada and Arizona and note what's in the distance with them. Its a night and day difference. So its and improvement if you want to go back to 2016.
Montana Discussion Thread
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
- SouthernMan
- Posts: 885
- Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
- Location: Pilgrim on Earth
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Agreed! It's strange that SCS always tries to make their games run on PC potatoes. People need to adapt their computers to games, not games to their computers. If SCS stays at this forever, we'll never see any significant improvements, sadly(imo).luetze wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 16:41I know, I know SCS probably wants to keep as many players as possible in the line but at some point you have to make progress which will raise the system requirements eventually.flight50 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 16:26 The low res that everyone is mentioning, I'm sure its related to performance. They are in the far backgrounds for the most part. At least the roads I've traveled. They are not the prettiest but hey add a ton of depth though which we never had before. Drive Montana/Wyoming backroads and note the backgrounds. Then drive Nevada and Arizona and note what's in the distance with them. Its a night and day difference. So its and improvement if you want to go back to 2016.
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
I also agree. Have the recommended/ minimum specs been changed at all since 2016? Graphics cards and CPUs have come a loooong way since then.
- Vinnie Terranova
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Yet I still sometimes see YouTube videos of people driving in recently released states but with very low graphic settings, like low resolution, AA disabled, etc.
I wouldn't mind if the minimum or recommended specs increase, as long as it is not only because of a slighty better performance, but at least also because of things like more AI traffic, new graphic settings, etc. Or in short: because of some visual improvements.
I wouldn't mind if the minimum or recommended specs increase, as long as it is not only because of a slighty better performance, but at least also because of things like more AI traffic, new graphic settings, etc. Or in short: because of some visual improvements.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Agreed. Right next to the road is an issue. Its worth making a bug report. If its fairly close to an accessible road, its better going thru the proper channels to report it.
You're entitled to that opinion as well as I. I'll have to go back in this weekend to focus on the area you speak of. What I am talkin about is Montana, not California. I don't remember what Truckee or Redding is like. Secondly, what is panos? I'm not familiar with that term.luetze wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 16:41 Not fully agree on this one. If you take a look at the area around Truckee or the area around Whiskeytown Lake near Redding for example the used panos look so bland that they don't add much depth but rather destroy the overall impression of the surrounding landscape. You can't design all the backgrounds by hand of course and panos are needed but some of these low res panos (i.e. the ugly green ones) have been used since the beginning of ETS 2 and just don't look proper. Also I don't think the impact on performance would be so big on a reasonably up to date PC. I know, I know SCS probably wants to keep as many players as possible in the line but at some point you have to make progress which will raise the system requirements eventually.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
- xXCARL1992Xx
- Posts: 16524
- Joined: 17 Aug 2016 12:18
- Contact:
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
they can look at the Steam Hardware Survey, ETS2 disc copy is dead now and they can axe everything that is under GTX 900 series and AMD equivalent, CPU can stay the same, there arent even enough games that use more then 4 cores anyway and SCS doesnt even use 2
| !!!NO SUPPORT OR REQUESTS OF ANY SORT VIA PM!!! | Screenshot Thread | Steam Workshop | World of Trucks Profil |
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
-
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
There are some tree models around flagstaff which are horrible, they look so outdated but I spotted them in Montana on one mountain. Please SCS, get rid of them, they really look like 2012. The trees on the right side of the picture
https://truck-simulator.fandom.com/wiki ... trance.png
https://truck-simulator.fandom.com/wiki ... trance.png
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Sorry for the confusion about the term panos. I'm not a native speaker and I use panos as abbrevation for panoramas or more specific the background panorama textures.flight50 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2022 17:24 You're entitled to that opinion as well as I. I'll have to go back in this weekend to focus on the area you speak of. What I am talkin about is Montana, not California. I don't remember what Truckee or Redding is like. Secondly, what is panos? I'm not familiar with that term.
I'm aware this is the Montana thread but those places in the reworked areas of California are very prominent examples to showcase the issue. Such places are to find in every DLC also in Montana but not so prominent. Wyoming was definately worse in regard of using those low res textures and all in all they did a really good job with sculpturing the landscape in Montana but this is a point I think they could change in future for a better immersion.
Example:
-
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Try turning off Depth of Field, worked wonders for me.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
@luetze Thanks for clarifying panos. Yes those don't look good. I was actually referring to mountains much deeper than that in the background. I've seen some mountains in Montana that was 2-3 layers deep. I'm not good with meters but what you show...........double that distance and that's the depth I'm referring to using low res. Those that you show are pretty close and I'd expect better textures. Especially if its just those with nothing behind them. That scene has no depth behind it. What I'm calling depth is 2-3 layers of ranges put together. That is when low res is okay to use. I don't have any examples as I'm not at my game pc, but I think there were several on US-191, I-15 and I-90 iirc.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: East27 and 19 guests