ATS v 1.46 speculation

[heroictrucker]

how about pull into the dock most of them are blinking red so when u get into the docks it should turn like green

that why when it ask u too unload it then pressed enter and u all set

i think this was mention quite a few times in the decussion or in the wish list i think

[VTXcnME]

One thing that would be a nice addition, my buddy and I were discussing last night while we were hauling over height equipment. Height markers and bridge clearance checks. It feels like every bridge in ATS is artificially elevated to avoid any collisions.

Picture an oversized/over height load, having bridge markers that would indicate you will or will not clear the overpass, having to plot a route that cleared all of those.

[flight50]

All bridges are elevated indeed. I'm sure its because there's not always space to make paths go around. When ST came out, SCS mentioned that they have to cheat things a tad. They have to make the bridge tall enough for the largest cargo. Pretty much all cargo has to pass under to account for that one person that wants to ram things. IIrc, there is only 1-2 that won't clear things and that is part of the Forestry dlc which is not core content. When they gave us the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado with an elevated height the real height which is like 13'-8 or something crazy low (I can't remember exactly), I knew that ATS would never feature much else to avoid clearance structures. I was hoping to get the alarm active at the Eisenhower. We could get markers, but they wouldn't be much good if we are not forced to detour.

[Optional Features]

One thing that would be a nice addition, my buddy and I were discussing last night while we were hauling over height equipment. Height markers and bridge clearance checks. It feels like every bridge in ATS is artificially elevated to avoid any collisions.

Picture an oversized/over height load, having bridge markers that would indicate you will or will not clear the overpass, having to plot a route that cleared all of those.

It is: some of them are nearly 20 feet tall. Combine that with the overwidth lanes, and the driving experience is incredibly unrealistic at best.

All bridges are elevated indeed. I'm sure its because there's not always space to make paths go around. When ST came out, SCS mentioned that they have to cheat things a tad. They have to make the bridge tall enough for the largest cargo. Pretty much all cargo has to pass under to account for that one person that wants to ram things. IIrc, there is only 1-2 that won't clear things and that is part of the Forestry dlc which is not core content. When they gave us the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado with an elevated height the real height which is like 13'-8 or something crazy low (I can't remember exactly), I knew that ATS would never feature much else to avoid clearance structures. I was hoping to get the alarm active at the Eisenhower. We could get markers, but they wouldn't be much good if we are not forced to detour.

Well, the reason one of the forest dlc loads won't clear bridges is because no one irl hauls that machine like that on the road. A few have tried and quickly met a bridge and the thousands in fines, potential loss of business, and insurance claim for a half million dollar machine. I don't expect SCS to know this as none of them have spend enough time in America to understand how we haul things. However, I have personally reported this load as a bug as well as another forum member. Years have passed, but SCS refuses to fix it.

But what you describe is one of the core problems with the game from a realism perspective. Let's make the world fit the truck instead of making the truck fit the world.

Oversize loads irl are limited to routes based on their size. If a company wants to ship a 16 foot wide object on a road that only supports a 15 foot wide object, the agencies involved will reject the proposal or find a route that works within existing limitations (maybe a route twice the length, but with proper clearance).

The SCS approach is to instead just make the road the width of a runway and the bridges tall enough for a mining truck to pass under. Then it's "fixed", but not really. It's just unrealistic and takes no skill.

[Tristman]

They have to draw the line between simulator and game somewhere, they could also have included those cargoes with the special transport DLC, and we would only see them on like 2 fixed routes in the game, but instead they let us haul them wherever we want.
There are only so many roads in the game compared to in real life, so there's not always going to be an alternative route we can take to avoid clearance/width issues. I think it's fair they make it so you don't have to worry about this. If the game map had a bigger scale, perhaps they could have included roads with limited clearance. It's a similar issue in my eyes as the detour feature that can't be utilized properly due to a lack of (realistically) alternative routes.

But hey let's bash SCS again and say they have no skill.

[Optional Features]

They have to draw the line between simulator and game somewhere, they could also have included those cargoes with the special transport DLC, and we would only see them on like 2 fixed routes in the game, but instead they let us haul them wherever we want.

Yes, and they drew the line somewhere around mobile game. Like I mentioned, if they fixed the model, clearance wouldn't be an issue. It's not an overheight load irl: it's one in game because they didn't know how it is done.

It would be similar to having us haul a dump truck with the bed raised and then just raising everything so it didn't get caught.

There are only so many roads in the game compared to in real life, so there's not always going to be an alternative route we can take to avoid clearance/width issues. I think it's fair they make it so you don't have to worry about this. If the game map had a bigger scale, perhaps they could have included roads with limited clearance. It's a similar issue in my eyes as the detour feature that can't be utilized properly due to a lack of (realistically) alternative routes.

Well, there are actually a ton of roads in game, but most of them have XXX marks or gates in front of them lol. Different subject for a different day, though. Realistically, though, if someone is hauling oversize and they get to a low overpass, they take the exit, reenter the freeway and carry on. That is possible in game and irl.

Secondly, oversize (and specifically overheight) loads are not realistically transported everywhere. So it doesn't make sense to artificially raise every bridge on the map to accommodate a load that'll never pass through.

But hey let's bash SCS again and say they have no skill.

Did I actually say they have no skill or are you saying I said that? Seems like another of the strawmen that are raised daily around here.

SCS has tons of skill from mappers to graphic artists to 3D modelers. They have challenges with leadership (Pavel is overly cautious in many ways) and research. If their research arm improved, we wouldn't be delivering milk tankers to a grocery store for example. That's not a problem of skill: that's a problem of research.

[Optional Features]

The SCS approach is to instead just make the road the width of a runway and the bridges tall enough for a mining truck to pass under. Then it's "fixed", but not really. It's just unrealistic and takes no skill.

And to follow up, this is referring to the skill of the player. It takes no skill, meaning driving an oversize load is unrealistically easy and presents significantly fewer challenges than it should considering the title of the game.

Look at these screenshots from a YouTube video.

He's having to watch all the bridges and powerlines, covering the width of two lanes, driving on the curb, using the whole road to turn, etc.

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

That takes skill, and it looks like a fun challenge. Again, in this game, there's a near 100% rate of success. No chance for failure = far less fun.

[flight50]

I have to agree with every word @Tristman is saying. At the end of the day, its game. On top of that, its not a 1:1 map so limitations are across the board. What one sees as lack of challenge, another sees it as twice as hard. You see this coming from many ETS2 players saying how difficult it is to drive in ATS with the larger wheel base trucks...trailer that don't have steerable rears. At some point, one must think about the millions that play the game and not just uno number one or the 5% hardcore mindset. The line has to be drawn and I agree that its fair SCS makes it possible for more to enjoy loads vs those that are perhaps more skilled at challenging routes.

Why make it hard for all. Main reason I made this thread viewtopic.php?p=1496505#p1496505. Its not core content but combine the hard challenges on given roads in a purposely hard dlc, combined with the current map that we know and a compromise is met. Everything along a route does not need to be challenging though.....only some parts. So SCS could use some extra mappers after this years maps are out to test out something like this. There could be 5-6 new roads/paths. Just like ST routes are added, a Challenges dlc could do the same. Create above average skill level task to accomplish.

[Optional Features]

Why make it hard for all. Main reason I made this thread viewtopic.php?p=1496505#p1496505. Its not core content but combine the hard challenges on given roads in a purposely hard dlc, combined with the current map that we know and a compromise is met. Everything along a route does not need to be challenging though.....only some parts. So SCS could use some extra mappers after this years maps are out to test out something like this. There could be 5-6 new roads/paths. Just like ST routes are added, a Challenges dlc could do the same. Create above average skill level task to accomplish.

I don't think it should be hard for all: it should be hard for some if they want it to be.

Right now, it's "Easy Road". The most challenging part of the game is backing, and that isn't very challenging due to the incredibly limited number of dock configurations in game.

There is no other game I know of that is called a simulator and leans this heavily towards arcade. Most simulators, by genre, offer different levels of challenge for different levels of player. If a player is new, doesn't have the skills, or is just not interested in a challenge, he would know to avoid those tasks. Like I, someone who is terrible at virtual racing, would not expect to win a 24 hours of Le Mans race in a racing simulator. If it was an SCS game, though, I would.

Oversize loads and hazmat should be the most difficult part of the game. They should be catered to the player who wants to push his skills, and that should involve at least the possibility of a low clearance or tight turn for oversize and some kind of higher chance of rollover for tankers. That's not asking for much.

[flight50]

I can agree on SCS should have different skill levels. Those levels could assign a few routes of difficulty, obstacles of difficulty, etc. WoT would be great for that. The new WoTr that is suppose to come could be the hardcore version many are looking for. If or when we get the driving school, it would be cool if that tied the new WoTr into different skill level like novice, intermediate and expert levels. Requiring certain licenses to take certain loads, endorsements, HH and even ST loads.