Missed Opportunities: What Would You Put Here?

[Optional Features]

There is always a reason lifted by some on the forum why status quo is good enough. Why expecting more is not only unnecessary but unwarranted in so many scenarios.

I know that I am truly thankful none of those folks were ever pioneers in any fields of study or research.

I mean why would you want to replace your horse and carriage with a car? Where will the gas come from? Such a crazy idea!

[chris2002]

There is always a reason why SCS cannot do better. But the potato PCs, but the keyboard users, but the engine--it's always something.

These aren't valid reasons why we shouldn't have more places to deliver: instead, these are reasons why other parts of the game desperately need improvement.

Do you realise that the only easy thing in theses topics is to say "fix this", "fix that", "add this", "add that" ?

Yes, most of the thing can most fixed/changed, but most to them are not just a trivial a "do this", "do that" because most of the proposition has some more deep implication on gameplay, performance, etc. that need to be kept in mind.
Of course I would be happy if every single of the proposition could be done, has fast as possible. But it takes time, especially if you want to do it properly, for all the player base not just high end PC user.

Note : SCS did already quite a lot the last 10 year. To realise it, just try some older version. SCS allow you, via the beta tab in the properties menu of steam, to open the version 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 (1.6 been the second version after the rescale, which happened in version 1.5) of ATS.

[Optional Features]

Do you realise that the only easy thing in theses topics is to say "fix this", "fix that", "add this", "add that" ?

Yes, most of the thing can most fixed/changed, but most to them are not just a trivial a "do this", "do that" because most of the proposition has some more deep implication on gameplay, performance, etc. that need to be kept in mind.
Of course I would be happy if every single of the proposition could be done, has fast as possible. But it takes time, especially if you want to do it properly, for all the player base not just high end PC user.

Note : SCS did already quite a lot the last 10 year. To realise it, just try some older version. SCS allow you, via the beta tab in the properties menu of steam, to open the version 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 (1.6 been the second version after the rescale, which happened in version 1.5) of ATS.

I'm not a high end PC user myself. To some of you, I probably have a potato PC. But I still want to see the game improve. For one thing, I want a reason to upgrade my hardware. This game doesn't give me reasons to upgrade. If I wanted, I could buy an expensive PC today and play, but the benefits of that PC would be a slightly higher frame rate. I see footage from people with super computers, and it doesn't impress me. The game should be markedly better on a better system. It currently is not.

Has SCS made improvements over the years? Of course. But they are slow and minimal in comparison to what they could have done. This thread and the cargo threads in this forum are designed to point out areas where SCS has overlooked opportunity that exists within what they have already created. This isn't really even asking them to do something new, but rather to take what they already have and make the most of it.

And the response that is received from a consistent part of the community is why these improvements shouldn't happen. It always falls back on performance or someone who can't upgrade their hardware or whatnot. I understand those people exist: like I said, my pc isn't impressive itself. But a successful company cannot expect to expand and thrive if they appeal only to the lowest common denominator of customer. Ford produces both the Platinum and the XL. These are wildly different in price, but cover the whole range of customers for F-series pickups. SCS should do the same.

There should be a reason to want to upgrade one's system: wildly better graphics, better skyboxes, better weather, better traffic, etc. Not just from 30 to 60 fps. That's not really anything to get excited over.

But the bigger point is this: no matter what these threads ask, SCS isn't listening. They are too busy building additional states that will contain some of the same old, tired prefabs and thousands of better quality decorative buildings that we can drive by. My opinion, and those of fans who feel the same, doesn't really count for anything.

[Quark]

The only thing some people point out is that sometimes isn't as simple as you often make it out to be. Why should anyone have anything against improvents in the game? For example the quote below:

For a game based completely on triggers and boxes, making these locations functional isn't an impressive feat: it's not like we're asking them to make the building have an accessible interior.

Again, this might be true for SOME ingame models directly besides driveable roads or nearby. like the warehouse in ST.George that VTXcnME has shown a couple pages back. But definitely not true for a ton of other buildings little further away from such a road. This is one of your examples:
[ external image ]

The building itself including parking lot and stuff to start with, low poly. Now look on the left side the whole scene is horribly low detailed. Now tell me again it just needs a trigger to make it functional. The WHOLE scene would have to be completely reworked or do you think that anyone would be happy with that, driving through this area i hope not.

These aren't valid reasons why we shouldn't have more places to deliver: instead, these are reasons why other parts of the game desperately need improvement.

Exactly....and that's the point. The game and its engine in its current state has significant limitations. And here especially its monocore nature. Again, many things in these games, and here especially the cities too, are designed the way they are largely because of these limitations. Performance issues, Potato PC or high end machine, everyone has to suffer from it to a more or lesser extent. Cities in these games are plain performance killers. So they use these "tricks" to make them appear larger than they are. To put it another way, much more will hardly be possible at the moment, without the performance suffering too drastically. Doesn't mean they couldn't open up a few blocked roads here and there or make some currently unused buildings functional right now of course, but certainly not to the extent as you seem to envision it.
Now, the ultimate question remains, why does it take so terribly long? Why the heck is it taking so long for SCS to make this engine multicore ready? This current state limits so many things it is urgently necessary to move these games forward.
I mean, we know they are working on it but we cannot wait for another few years it should happen rather sooner than later. Yeah sometimes i tend to agree with you that SCS really need to take some more risks here and there progress happens indeed way too slow in some cases.

[Optional Features]

The building itself including parking lot and stuff to start with, low poly. Now look on the left side the whole scene is horribly low detailed. Now tell me again it just needs a trigger to make it functional. The WHOLE scene would have to be completely reworked or do you think that anyone would be happy with that, driving through this area i hope not.

I wouldn't say it needs to be completely reworked: it needs some work. The building isn't super bad. There are incredibly low poly cars in the parking lot, and there are no other details like parking lines and whatnot. If those were added and the building was touched up a little bit, it wouldn't look that bad. It's not like the common prefabs in the game are that great either, and they are everywhere and increasingly tiring.

Exactly....and that's the point. The game and its engine in its current state has significant limitations. And here especially its monocore nature. Again, many things in these games, and here especially the cities too, are designed the way they are largely because of these limitations. Performance issues, Potato PC or high end machine, everyone has to suffer from it to a more or lesser extent. Cities in these games are plain performance killers. So they use these "tricks" to make them appear larger than they are. To put it another way, much more will hardly be possible at the moment, without the performance suffering too drastically. Doesn't mean they couldn't open up a few blocked roads here and there or make some currently unused buildings functional right now of course, but certainly not to the extent as you seem to envision it.

See, we are stuck in a loop it seems, at least from a discussion perspective. SCS isn't stuck in a loop at all as they are doing what they please irregardless of most opinions. Even flight appears to be getting tired of waiting for cargo, and he has put more effort into some of his posts than most of us combined.

But the loop is: we point out something that the game could really use, and we come to the conclusion that the game engine is the reason why such a thing isn't possible. So then the discussion shifts to why the engine should be replaced (since it is currently outdated) to which members will come along and say that the engine is fine, and SCS can make it do whatever they want. And then we ask why they haven't, and there is no satisfactory answer. Or we talk about why they should stop development of this game and start afresh, and people talk about how great it is that SCS never produces new games and instead drags old ones into the future. No one will ever agree on this.

My suggestion would be to stop developing ATS at the Mississippi while in the background working on a new game, ATS2 or whatnot, that was developed from east to west. This would mean that states like Maine and New York, which will never be done at the current rate of progress, would be done nearly immediately, at higher quality, with better traffic, graphics, performance, detail, and more. I know that's not what will happen because that's not Pavel's idea of progress, but that's what I would do if I were in charge.

Now, the ultimate question remains, why does it take so terribly long? Why the heck is it taking so long for SCS to make this engine multicore ready? This current state limits so many things it is urgently necessary to move these games forward.
I mean, we know they are working on it but we cannot wait for another few years it should happen rather sooner than later. Yeah sometimes i tend to agree with you that SCS really need to take some more risks here and there progress happens indeed way too slow in some cases.

Now to this point, why does it take long? It doesn't take long, to SCS. SCS is very comfortable with the current state of the game, the current number of players, and the current development speed. The reason is simple: SCS isn't passionate about trucks, trucking, roads, infrastructure, industry, or just about anything that this game involves. They are making a game as a job, not a passion project, and it shows. They even said out of their own mouths that the game was basically a gamble that succeeded.

When you have community managers that don't know anything about trucks, vehicle modelers that repeatedly get things wrong, and a community that has the patience of a goldfish and the knowledge of an ant, you get a game like this. I saw a post today on a social platform about a player who encountered a bridge while hauling a forestry machine. It was a really good insight into the state of the community, at least the people SCS has catered the game to, the casual. In this post, the player was asking what to do if he encountered a low bridge to which some players replied that the bridge should be fixed. That's not how it works irl. The answer to the question was he should abandon the load as SCS still (after several years and reports) has not fixed the raised cab on the heavy haul dlc log loader. Only one person seemed to notice that.

This is not how to haul a log loader on the road.
[ external image ]

This is how:
[ external image ]

I reported it here more than a year ago.
viewtopic.php?p=1518833#p1518833

SCS could do better if they wanted to, but they don't want to. There is no lack of skill in this company: we can see that in the things they get right (which are numerous). There is a severe lack of passion and an apparent lack of direction and leadership.

If they actually asked the community what it wanted, the overwhelming opinion wouldn't be new cascadia skins and dinosaur plushies. But they don't ask because they don't want to know. They are happy as is: people are buying DLCs; money is flowing in, and things seem great.

At a certain point, if that stops, then they will care, but by then many players will have moved on.

The only purpose of this and the other thread bearing a similar name is to point out areas where within what they have already made, there are opportunities to do better. I doubt they will listen, but maybe some modder will draw inspiration from it and make a version of their own.

[SouthernMan]

Here's a good example of what SCS could do...
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

[Optional Features]

Exactly! This is something that the game is severely lacking: small companies. Here's a small warehouse off a main road that some SCS mapper put there with good intentions, but no desire to make it functional. It's not the hardest back, but it's not the easiest either as drivers will have to content with traffic entering and exiting.

SCS has already done much of the work on the mapping side (same with vehicle models like the dump trailers which have an interior, but no cargo plane and a permanently closed tarp): it's the functionality that is completely missing.

[SouthernMan]

@seriousmods Exactly! scs has put lots and lots of warehouses and small companies around the map, now just make them functional. That's what I did with this one in the photo above. It looks good so far.

[Optional Features]

@seriousmods Exactly! scs has put lots and lots of warehouses and small companies around the map, now just make them functional. That's what I did with this one in the photo above. It looks good so far.

Yep, nice work!

[Optional Features]

[ external image ]

Used truck and trailer dealer for sure.