Montana Discussion Thread

luetze
Posts: 180
Joined: 11 Apr 2020 11:47

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3631 Post by luetze » 08 Aug 2022 16:41

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.
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.
User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 885
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3632 Post by SouthernMan » 08 Aug 2022 17:02

luetze wrote: 08 Aug 2022 16:41
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.
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.
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).
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
User avatar
SuchManor
Posts: 1059
Joined: 21 Apr 2017 00:04
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3633 Post by SuchManor » 08 Aug 2022 17:06

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.
What good is a world without good detail?
Check out my screenshots
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5111
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3634 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 08 Aug 2022 17:18

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.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3635 Post by flight50 » 08 Aug 2022 17:24

BASSLovah wrote: 08 Aug 2022 16:36 The problem appears when those low-res textures are right next to the road, with not even trees between the road and the low-res textures. I can't recall where exactly I saw them and I'm at work right now but I'll point them out when I find them again.
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.
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.
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.
User avatar
xXCARL1992Xx
Posts: 16524
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 12:18
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3636 Post by xXCARL1992Xx » 08 Aug 2022 17:26

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 ]
killingjoke28336
Posts: 522
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3637 Post by killingjoke28336 » 08 Aug 2022 17:59

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
luetze
Posts: 180
Joined: 11 Apr 2020 11:47

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3638 Post by luetze » 08 Aug 2022 18:21

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.
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.

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:
Attachments
Inkedats_20210717_130246_00 (Copy).jpg
killingjoke28336
Posts: 522
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3639 Post by killingjoke28336 » 08 Aug 2022 18:37

Try turning off Depth of Field, worked wonders for me.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3640 Post by flight50 » 08 Aug 2022 18:52

@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.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: East27 and 19 guests