why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#301 Post by Travismods » 16 May 2022 22:43

angrybirdseller wrote: 16 May 2022 22:36
There is diminishing returns with graphical improvements where resources may be better spent on gameplay features.
How great then that SCS spent all 7 years since release truly adding to core gameplay features that really changed the way we play and took the game closer to simulating being a truck driver. Oh wait...they didn't and we are all still just moving a static brick truck model from A to B while pressing finish job when parked. Beyond minor things, the only thing that really changed was the size of the map and you know it.

I was really ready to accept your excuse for a poor graphics engine...if you would have suggested a game that actually got its gameplay heavily revamped over time. Because, in theory, I agree with the notion of favoring gameplay over graphics. But then you suggest ATS and ETS2, nah sorry bro we are still just driving around even after all these years lol :lol: . There is really nothing else to the game.
Last edited by Travismods on 16 May 2022 22:47, edited 2 times in total.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#302 Post by Optional Features » 16 May 2022 22:47

abasstreppas wrote: 16 May 2022 22:05 You may one day realise that if people in general are not complaining is because the game actually is a very good product?

Most of you who complain in numbers are actually very few, just saying...
This is entirely perception based, and in many cases in this forum, based on the player's lack of understanding of what is possible. If you have only eaten oatmeal your whole life, and someone is talking about a hamburger, you probably wouldn't understand what they meant. If however, you've had both, most people would agree that a hamburger makes a better dinner.

Time and again members of this forum, including some of the legends, show that they rarely play other games. So from their perspective, yes, SCS is doing a good job. From the perspective of someone like me, who plays a number of games, or someone far more well played than I am, SCS isn't doing that great a job.

And as @VTXcnME points out, those "complaining" are far more numerous than you might realize or SCS might notice. Read down on the blog, the YouTube videos, the FB posts, Reddit, etc. People are asking for the same things we're asking for, just in often quieter ways. Believe me, if SCS released walk mode tomorrow, there would be likely hundreds if not thousands of comments expressing some sentiment akin to "finally". But if such a thing is never brought up, and people don't even know the forum exists, those hopes and dreams are kept internally, waiting to someday see the light.

SCS hasn't produced a very good product. They have produced the framework for a very good product. I'll share a bit more about that in a separate post.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#303 Post by Optional Features » 16 May 2022 22:59

One thing that is wrong with this discussion (and similar ones we've had in the past) is the assumption that when we compare Rockstar to SCS, Rockstar has a tremendous advantage over SCS due to its much larger sales volume and much larger team. This is only partly true.

For map size, SCS obviously has a significant advantage. The SCS map now includes a general representation of parts of 12 states, soon to be 14. With GTA 5, Rockstar only managed to showcase a single city.

Given the size of this map, and the number of assets SCS has created, it's safe to say that the SCS's team's body of work is also more impressive than Rockstar's. Again, it's one thing to represent a city: it's another to represent real life buildings in 12 states. That is impressive.

Where I see a clear difference between SCS and Rockstar is things like ambient sound (sounds of people talking to each other, coughing and sneezing, chatting on the phone, commenting about things they see, etc). Rockstar also has a clear advantage in the weathering department. Pretty much everything in a GTA 5 industrial area looks run down. Almost everything in ATS looks brand new.

Rockstar also has an advantage in lighting (their sun arc and brightness is far more realistic than what SCS offers), water, dust, etc.

None of these things scream billion dollar company to me. But all of them do make for a much more enjoyable experience. I just spent the better part of an hour walking and driving around the industrial zone in GTA 5 (an area to be fair I spend very little time in).

Maybe I'm being ridiculous, but does this look like the work of a billion dollar company? Not to me it doesn't. The hills are more foreboding in the distance; the road surface is completely imperfect, and there are quite a few detail objects laying around. But none of these buildings have interiors. So it's not like that's the big difference, even for a game where being on foot is half of it.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

The biggest difference I see in these is again weathering. And the fact the roads are not completely flat. There's also a ton of pedestrians and a lot of trash on the ground.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

I believe SCS could make their map look like this without spending anywhere close to a billion dollars or without changing most of the objects. Just some better, more realistic/weathered textures. And obviously view distance needs to improve as well.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
Last edited by Optional Features on 16 May 2022 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TruckerKid
Posts: 804
Joined: 13 Jul 2013 01:13
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Contact:

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#304 Post by TruckerKid » 16 May 2022 23:06

seriousmods wrote: 16 May 2022 22:59Maybe I'm being ridiculous...

[ external image ]
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3292
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#305 Post by angrybirdseller » 16 May 2022 23:07

The truck interior does not look like truck, and vehicles driving by do not look like vehicles?
I think scs doing fine in that department as more detailed cars driving would tank fps ordinary computers people play on.

Draw distance complaints the roads were very hilly in 2012 and not straight at all in early ETS2 map of Germany. The technology and manpower were not there to deal with it at the time. Draw distance improve from 2018 on as small tweaks to the map overtime can notice it.

The older trucks years ago did not cast shadow and people still played it. Early AI trucks and vehicles were far worse than now.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#306 Post by Optional Features » 16 May 2022 23:12

angrybirdseller wrote: 16 May 2022 23:07 The truck interior does not look like truck, and vehicles driving by do not look like vehicles?
I think scs doing fine in that department as more detailed cars driving would tank fps ordinary computers people play on.
I would agree. The "lore" cars in GTA V are purposely made not to look like real ones to avoid trademark issues. SCS's lineup of AI cars almost all look nearly identical to real vehicles.

So that's another area where SCS, small company with limited team and budget, beats Rockstar, a juggernaut.

Which is why I think comparisons should be made between the two, especially in regards to maps. I think the GTA V map looks significantly more realistic than the ATS map, but again, the visual differences are mainly textures. The greatest difference is the fact we can walk and drive everywhere we can fit, and we can get stuck if we get in the wrong place. I just did today taking these pics.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

Here are more examples: again, nothing super special other than that it looks run down and I can drive everywhere, even places I'm not necessarily supposed to go. Stuff like graffiti is pretty much nowhere on the ATS map, even in places it should be.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

A few more: pedestrians, weathering, unlimited exploring are the biggest differences here. Again, none of these structures have interiors aside from an open door and path through.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

Now, let's talk trucks. SCS obviously has an advantage in the truck model department, but Rockstar has a few minuscule advantages in terms of truck functionality. Firstly, any trailer that doesn't have a kingpin lock on it, I can borrow/steal. Second, obviously I can open the doors of the truck and get out (this trailer has no opening doors, though). Third, the custom character is visible inside and outside the cab.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

Here's a kingpin lock fyi and one of the many pallets that dot the map. I believe the default forklift can shift these around.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#307 Post by Travismods » 16 May 2022 23:33

What I see with Rockstars worldbuilding is a developer successfully depicting what US cities and countryside looks and feels like IRL, with all the weathering and elevation variation going on. What I see with SCS is a developer successfully depicting a sterile, lifeless, picture perfect postcard version of what the US looks like to a foreign tourist thats never been here. Even though Rockstar only makes like one city and SCS the whole country.

These differences are not explained merely by sales figures and outreach, there is nothing stopping SCS from weathering down textures and building a world with varying elevation. They are explained by lack of general knowledge about the US and a lack of passion and drive for authenticity at SCS in other areas than truck models. Then we have technical limitations, of which there are a ton on the Prism engine. Those don’t exactly help either. But it’s not true that you need a Rockstar budget to have US authentic worldbuilding. You can even do it in Prism, if you have a dedicated enough team with input from real world professionals in US transportation, logistics, american truck drivers and GIS data to back it up. All available, all people and things SCS don’t hire or care about.
User avatar
abasstreppas
Posts: 7492
Joined: 06 Feb 2013 20:32
Location: Back on Öland again
Contact:

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#308 Post by abasstreppas » 16 May 2022 23:39

It's huge difference between hammering the same complaints over and over again, to wishing for stuff to be implemented or keeping speculation threads going.

There are tons of wishes in the wish-list and maybe only 5-10% of those are reasonable to be considered at all. You'll be surprised how much SCS have implemented into the games that's been suggested in the wish-list. You can check one of my threads in the wish-list forum for ETS2, were I try to explain with facts and examples what could be done to improve the game. Some stuff have actually been implemented already, others not.

If you just complain about cargo loads feels too light or trees that are not tall enough, you really need to put up facts to make your point. If you don't put an effort into what you feel need to be improved, nobody takes you seriously.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#309 Post by Optional Features » 16 May 2022 23:53

abasstreppas wrote: 16 May 2022 23:39 If you just complain about cargo loads feels too light or trees that are not tall enough, you really need to put up facts to make your point. If you don't put an effort into what you feel need to be improved, nobody takes you seriously.
Trees and mountains in game seem to be limited by some kind of artificial ceiling that SCS has implemented on itself.

I'll get a pic of trees in a bit, but here are two examples where doubling the height of the mountains would fit the real life geography. The models typically are fine, but they are almost always too short.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

And here are several others.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

And here's the largest building in the world which is again about half as tall as it should be. That's a model of a 737 (which isn't built at this plant anyways, but that's not really the issue). 737s have a tail height of 36-41 feet. The real life building is 82 feet tall. The 747 in the pics has a tail height of 63 feet, and there is plenty of room above.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: why scs software doesn't care about graphics in game?

#310 Post by Optional Features » 16 May 2022 23:56

koolizz wrote: 16 May 2022 23:33 What I see with Rockstars worldbuilding is a developer successfully depicting what US cities and countryside looks and feels like IRL, with all the weathering and elevation variation going on. What I see with SCS is a developer successfully depicting a sterile, lifeless, picture perfect postcard version of what the US looks like to a foreign tourist thats never been here. Even though Rockstar only makes like one city and SCS the whole country.

These differences are not explained merely by sales figures and outreach, there is nothing stopping SCS from weathering down textures and building a world with varying elevation. They are explained by lack of general knowledge about the US and a lack of passion and drive for authenticity at SCS in other areas than truck models. Then we have technical limitations, of which there are a ton on the Prism engine. Those don’t exactly help either. But it’s not true that you need a Rockstar budget to have US authentic worldbuilding. You can even do it in Prism, if you have a dedicated enough team with input from real world professionals in US transportation, logistics, american truck drivers and GIS data to back it up. All available, all people and things SCS don’t hire or care about.
I would agree: I don't see a difference in money in these pics. I see a difference in passion/knowledge. It's clear that SCS either doesn't want to make the US look run down or doesn't understand that much of the US is run down. And the same is true for all of the prefabs I mentioned above, most notably the dog food plant. It's not that they cannot make the plant have a trigger and functional gate. It's that they don't want it to, or with their resources it would have been done.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SashaLuganskiy, Truckingme and 13 guests