ATS 1.44 speculation thread

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

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#301 Post by flight50 » 25 Jan 2022 23:48

Yeah those are two things I always keep in mind. Stair stepped map and keep dlc's the size of lets say Colorado or Washinton for density. For 2 bundle states, SCS still needs to keep it in that 12 to 14 max months. No matter what. If they can kick out 3 dlc's a year with only 4 months apart, that would be sweet.

2 state bundles still means 2 map teams though. They can undersized that team otherwise. That could backfire and be a 18 month project.
User avatar
Sara
Posts: 721
Joined: 05 Nov 2021 17:59
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#302 Post by Sara » 26 Jan 2022 05:57

I know that Pavel wants to get to the east coast fast, but the team does take the time to put in the detail for the map, especially into each state.

I think there is more of a chance of seeing maximum of 2 states per year than 3. You can't really rush the detail put into the game, and there is currently 2 teams for each "currently worked on" state, with currently Texas and Montana being in development, considering both are large states.

EDIT: Sorry, I made a mistake with my post, I had to fix up my post". Sorry flight50 if I made it sound different to what I am originally saying.
Last edited by Sara on 27 Jan 2022 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#303 Post by flight50 » 26 Jan 2022 11:47

Huh? You are so miss informed....again. I recommend a little more research prior to posting or ask questions. Half your comments on here need corrections in regards to info. False info is how rumors get started. We had 2 states released in both 2019 and 2020. Had it not been for Texas, we would have had 2 for 2021.

Secondly, there are not 2 teams per state. I have no idea where you got this from. Texas is that only exception and that is purely because of its size. Team sizes varied due to amount of work needed. There are 4 map leads for ATS..not 2. Once Texas and Montana are done, it's smaller states onwards. No reason we cannot get 3 states minimum in the future.
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1220
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#304 Post by VTXcnME » 26 Jan 2022 15:26

Once the big states are done, there's going to be faster production. Pretty sure SCS has even indicated once they get Texas/Montana done they'll be pushing for at least 3 states per year.

It's not going to be a quality drop if the states are smaller. Look at Colorado: 104,185 square miles. By comparison Louisiana is 52,378 sq miles. Arkansas is 53,179 sq miles. So those two states are about 106,xxx square miles. Mississippi is 48,430 sq miles/Alabama 52,419. Another 100,xxx sq mile block. Both of those 'bundles' would clock in around the same size as Colorado. Maybe they will bundle states to keep the same 100,xxx DLC release, maybe that's how they'll address the size of what would end up as much smaller DLC's. Keep the same price and a similar square mileage of new map. Who knows.

It's not unreasonable to say SCS might put out 4 states in one year. With 4 map teams- I almost see 4-6 states being possible. Who knows? SCS, and they'll never tell. There won't be a drop in quality as they are building the same sized landmass. Actually not even a whole landmass! SCS isn't mapping the whole state, just the road network... so there's truly no reason to think at minimum there won't be 3 or even 4 states released a year as they cross approach the Mississippi river border states. And if we're being honest, the states get smaller the further east you go. By the end, SCS might be pushing 6 states in the final year in bundled DLC form. New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass, Connecticut, Rhode Island) are about 70,xxx-ish square miles, if that's one DLC, it's 6 states in one year. It doesn't mean the content will be lower quality, it just means the states got freakishly smaller than what's out west.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#305 Post by flight50 » 26 Jan 2022 16:46

^I totally agree. The size of some states equal to Colorado or whatever still gets us a dlc in 12 months. To keep the prices the same, I hope we get bundles equal to current dlc's. That would be wiser than reducing the price because of smaller dlc's.
User avatar
AmericanBirdy
Posts: 11
Joined: 26 Jan 2022 22:02

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#306 Post by AmericanBirdy » 26 Jan 2022 22:19

hi there! as a newbie here i have somethin to say. ets2 is the reason i bought a wheel back in 2014. and the wheel is the reason i`m in love with assetto corsa. haven`t played ets2 since 2015 and now, after 7 years i returned to scs) bought ATS and done 200+ hours in it since 28dec of 2021) so... i say i really love America so for me the idea that all my sweetie (and i from eastern europe)) so all my sweetie will be a location in game makes me feel good. BUT. i saw ats in 2016. i played ets2 in 2013-2014. and now i have a question - why game so slow? why devs are so slow. there are SO many features we need soooo bad and seems that devs is so lazy. i have all ats content and almost all ets2 content, i`m 32 years old and doin my income on my little YT channel and this channel is about games so i wanna ask - is devs are goin to make ATS great (again) or we`ll see only 40dlc and nothin more? no multicore. no good physhics. no good ai. just DLC with states. you know, a watched old 2018 stream with Pavel and other guys and ALL he talked then still NOT in game right now in 2022. and my question is WHY. my brother also fan of ATS and he`s game developer. and he asks too - WHY. i love ATS but it seems that ATS not in love with us. :)
User avatar
CodArk2
Posts: 479
Joined: 15 May 2019 04:30
Location: Texas coast

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#307 Post by CodArk2 » 26 Jan 2022 23:27

I don't look at square miles when it comes to "will I buy this state/DLC". The question is does the state/DLC accurately represent what it's about. Since Texas will be the first DLC state that I have actually been to I will be interested to see how close to real life it is. Even if its not perfect as long as its close enough I'm good on buying it. This means if astate has a decent number of cities and industries and things feel right, I will buy it. And when it comes to Arkansas seeing as that's my home state I will buy it as long as its treated right (more than 8 cities preferably 12-13, some nice views of the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, rice industry, bauxite mining industry, a boatload of distribution facilities given its location and the fact that Wal-mart (Walbert) is headquartered there, forestry, could have Dollarway Road in there as an Easter egg). The same can be said for Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama or any other state. There are two big groups of people that will buy state DLCs: map completionists and people from that state. The first will buy state DLCs anyway unless they feel its overpriced (not enough content for the asking price) which is easily dealt with by putting more content into the state in question, not adding another state. The people that live in the state that the DLC is about will be the second group of people that will buy a DLC and they want to see how accurate things are and see the things about their state presented in a. game and driving on familiar roads. Adding another state doesn't really pull those people in either. Individual states shouldn't have to differ much based on cost if enough content is offered in the state being offered: I would pay 11.99 for Arkansas standalone if it was done right without question.


that said, we have a few states to get through either way before we get to that point. I don't think Texas will come with 1.44. I think that will be California revamp part 2, the extra road in Wyoming, and a few other things perhaps. Texas, if it comes first, I would see as a 1.45 thing, with Montana coming with 1.46 or 1.47 late this year or early next year worst case. Arkansas can't come until Oklahoma is out: Arkansas population is heavily centered around the Arkansas river Valley between the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains and bookended by Fort Smith and Little Rock, so it will be a bit before we get the state: 2023 at the earliest but likely later. I see them going up the row above Texas a bit before moving further east.

@AmericanBirdy Quite a few features have been implemented in the game recently, but SCS doesn't get credit for it because people immediately jump on the other things the game don't have. Oh, we got multiplayer, a feature people have been begging for for years? Great but what about seasons? Now let's constantly harp on about seasons and the fact we don't have them! or getting out of and walking around outside of the truck.Or Multicore. On and on. And when we do inevitably get those things then they will move on to complaining about not having something else. The state DLCs are the primary money makers that pay for everything else, including new feature for both games. I am sure we will get new things this year in terms of features. Pavel mentioning it means its being worked on but they may not like it internally enough to push it to the public yet. Multiplayer was teased over a year before it was finally released to the public in 1.41. They said in the winter 2022 stream that AI fixes are coming in the next few updates (and that a few tweaks came in 1.42).Even if its perfect thoguh people will immediately turn to complaining about something else. I would rather something that is developed and iterated internally for a long period of time and released with few bugs than the "move fast and break things" paradigm I often see where games are unplayable for weeks or months because of bugs. Multiplayer was a good example of this: we got MP that worked day one pretty much perfectly instead of having to wait months for it to work because it was rushed out just to have it.

If the devs are talking about it, they are working on it. But working on it doesn't mean it's in a playable state and problems may arise when working on it that create new bugs that then have to be fixed before things can move forward. that's just software development. With new people joining their team hopefully some things will move faster but its a process.
Last edited by CodArk2 on 26 Jan 2022 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1220
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#308 Post by VTXcnME » 26 Jan 2022 23:33

flight50 wrote: 26 Jan 2022 16:46 ^I totally agree. The size of some states equal to Colorado or whatever still gets us a dlc in 12 months. To keep the prices the same, I hope we get bundles equal to current dlc's. That would be wiser than reducing the price because of smaller dlc's.
The more I thought about that, the more sense it made they might bundle just to keep the price consistent to DLC size.

Most of the western states were same/similarly priced.... hitting smaller states, it would make sense to bundle 2 (or maybe more) together to keep a similarly sized 100-105,xxx sq mile equivalent download. I know they aren't doing the whole states square mileage, but I can't come up with another way to easily say similarly sized road maps. LOL.

If that were the case, it opens all sorts of interesting possibilities as the map creeps eastward. I really like the idea of stepping up the rest of the 'big' states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, S Dakota, and N Dakota) one at a time while stepping east two at a time (LA/AK, then MS/AL, then GA/FL) that would keep pushing east and keep the map stepped semi correctly. It would be a cinch to add TN and the Carolinas and make the map wider so you wouldn't have an odd corridor of essentially I-10 (would have at least I-40 then as well). It would make the push to the Northeast easier, having the step north team keep stepping up the columns north while the other teams build rows west to east.

Damn it!!! I'm getting sucked into the map building again. I can't wait for TX and MT to release.
CodArk2 wrote: 26 Jan 2022 23:27 I don't look at square miles when it comes to "will I buy this state/DLC". The question is does the state/DLC accurately represent what it's about. Since Texas will be the first DLC state that I have actually been to I will be interested to see how close to real life it is. Even if its not perfect as long as its close enough I'm good on buying it. This means if astate has a decent number of cities and industries and things feel right, I will buy it. And when it comes to Arkansas seeing as that's my home state I will buy it as long as its treated right (more than 8 cities preferably 12-13, some nice views of the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, rice industry, bauxite mining industry, a boatload of distribution facilities given its location and the fact that Wal-mart (Walbert) is headquartered there, forestry, could have Dollarway Road in there as an Easter egg). The same can be said for Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama or any other state. There are two big groups of people that will buy state DLCs: map completionists and people from that state. The first will buy state DLCs anyway unless they feel its overpriced (not enough content for the asking price) which is easily dealt with by putting more content into the state in question, not adding another state. The people that live in the state that the DLC is about will be the second group of people that will buy a DLC and they want to see how accurate things are and see the things about their state presented in a. game and driving on familiar roads. Adding another state doesn't really pull those people in either. Individual states shouldn't have to differ much based on cost if enough content is offered in the state being offered: I would pay 11.99 for Arkansas standalone if it was done right without question.


that said, we have a few states to get through either way before we get to that point. I don't think Texas will come with 1.44. I think that will be California revamp part 2, the extra road in Wyoming, and a few other things perhaps. Texas, if it comes first, I would see as a 1.45 thing, with Montana coming with 1.46 or 1.47 late this year or early next year worst case. Arkansas can't come until Oklahoma is out: Arkansas population is heavily centered around the Arkansas river Valley between the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains and bookended by Fort Smith and Little Rock, so it will be a bit before we get the state: 2023 at the earliest but likely later. I see them going up the row above Texas a bit before moving further east.
Only thing I look at square mileage for really is how long should it take for SCS to reproduce the state digitally, and how much should it cost compared to other DLC's. That it's the biggest or the smallest DLC really doesn't mean much. As you said, "what does it add to the game" kind of thing.

As far as Arkasas DLC... you are like me when I think of my home state of Maine. There should be this, that, all the things. I don't think you'll see 12 or 13 cities in Arkansas simply because of it's size. It's half the size of a state like colorado, which has 12 or 13 cities spaced out across 104,xxx sq miles. Arkansas is half that. I'd expect to see a comparable cut to the cities, maybe 6 or 7. It sucks, because when it comes to your home state, there's so much you think is important to represent.

Getting it right, and making it fit SCS's scale is a balancing act that I've found frequently leaves something to be desired
User avatar
AmericanBirdy
Posts: 11
Joined: 26 Jan 2022 22:02

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#309 Post by AmericanBirdy » 26 Jan 2022 23:53

@CodArk2 willing to have better game while spending 100+$ on it and devs that more doin and less talkin = complaining. OKAY ) i understand you
User avatar
CodArk2
Posts: 479
Joined: 15 May 2019 04:30
Location: Texas coast

Re: ATS 1.44 speculation thread

#310 Post by CodArk2 » 27 Jan 2022 01:11

@VTXcnME A better comparison for Arkansas would be Washington state. Arkansas is 74% the size of Washington, a state that had 16 cities in ATS. So in terms of square mileage I don't see why Arkansas can't fit in 12. Arkansas is smaller than western states yes but not by as much as people think (type in "how wide is Utah", then open another tab and type in "how wide is Arkansas", compare results).

Another big factor that everyone keeps missing is landscape. SCS has mentioned it several times but no one seems to be paying attention to it. Forested places can ft more stuff because they can use tree walls to add more roads and content. The sweeping vistas of the Great Plains may be accurate, but they eat up a lot of space they could otherwise devote to things in the game. Washington was dense in ATS, and it is the only state currently in ATS that has over 50% forest cover. Oregon comes close at 48% crest cover. The rest are all at or below 40% forest cover. Colorado is 34% forest cover, Texas is at 37% forest cover, Wyoming is 18% forest cover, Montana is 27% forest cover, Oklahoma is 29% forest cover. Arkansas? its almost 60% forest covered. And roughly half of Arkansas is mountainous which is another thing that allows for them to add more content with cut planes, just like they did in Washington. Maine is actually the most heavily forested state in the US (89%) and also fairly mountainous. While Maine is smaller and less populated than Arkansas it is big enough that I would expect it to have at least 8 or 9 cities when SCS finally gets there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_co ... ted_States

The forests are big thing people overlook and they forget that Arkansas, Louisiana and the rest of the south (Texas excluded) don't have the vast sweeping vistas of sparsely forested plains that go on to the horizon.Tree walls are a natural part of the landscape in most of the south, Washington is the closest any state in ATS has come to the tree cover the south has. And tree walls lets them fit more in. I see states like Arkansas and Louisiana being a lot denser than most here are thinking because most here seem to be reducing it to "bigger state= more stuff, smaller state= less stuff". Washington is smaller than Colorado but has more cities and industries than Colorado did, and I think it was the first cover that allowed for that.


@AmericanBirdy What I was pointing out is that even when the devs DO give a highly requested feature people immediately pivot to asking about something else and complaining about not having it. There is constructive criticism, then there is complaining. "the devs are lazy and slow" doesn't really help anything. having new map DLC doesn't't take away form features, since the maps pay for new features. If they don't talk about new things they are working on we wouldn't have anything to speculate on. They have mentioned DX12 and Vulcan for instance, several times. That's a technical thing that will improve performance considerably on newer machines. With that we would likely get multicore. Physics is already somewhat in ETS2 but not in ATS, so eventually they will hopefully remember to bring it to the ATS side. The AI was addressed as getting fixes in the winter 2021 stream so that's fairly recent. If they are talking about it then they are aware of it. It shows us that they are listening.
Locked

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests