Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

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

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#581 Post by SouthernMan » 07 Feb 2023 17:13

Can I be honest? These skins are extremely strange and unrealistic. If only they tried to make the skins more real...
If they made skins of (fictional) companies, they would certainly be much more interesting.
With all due respect to the people who make these skins, but...
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
Quark
Posts: 1120
Joined: 08 Feb 2019 07:48
Location: Germania

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#582 Post by Quark » 07 Feb 2023 17:15

Trakaplex wrote: 07 Feb 2023 15:48 That might disrupt local realism and culture. Temple and Bryan/College Station was bad omission from Texas DLC (with Temple being a space factor, which I will explain). Both cities play important roles in their local economies. Imagine Newark NJ deleted because it's too close to NYC or Stamford missing since it's too close to Bridgeport or New Haven. Dallas to San Antonio is a four hour drive and they scrapped a lot of places along I-35, that's the same distance and time from DC to NYC. Only there are many more cities. The thing we would get is a hyper-unrealistic map with lots of omissions.

In general, maps would gradually be more disappointing until they're unrecognizable and incompatable with their real locations especially with the cut-and-paste assets. I won't be surprised if they used some lighting by then from the old base map.
Hyper-pessimistic is what i would call such a view regarding future east coast maps. Again, there is ETS2, covering already the most dense regions of Europe. These regions are still, for the most part, denser populated than the US east coast. Some ommissions here some compressions there but you still get pretty decent maps that catch the regional flavour and most of the important cities decently enough. And no, there is practically no real difference between the scales of both games, despite the common assumption of 1:20 vs 1:19. As Shiva has shown some time ago the actual scale is more or less the same. That doesn't mean SCS cannot improve, use more tricks and even still could learn from some map modders of course. The scale is what it is and surely won't change, so we all have to deal with it and its impacts, be it ETS2 players and ALSO ATS players.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#583 Post by Trakaplex » 07 Feb 2023 17:44

Quark wrote: 07 Feb 2023 17:15
Trakaplex wrote: 07 Feb 2023 15:48 That might disrupt local realism and culture. Temple and Bryan/College Station was bad omission from Texas DLC (with Temple being a space factor, which I will explain). Both cities play important roles in their local economies. Imagine Newark NJ deleted because it's too close to NYC or Stamford missing since it's too close to Bridgeport or New Haven. Dallas to San Antonio is a four hour drive and they scrapped a lot of places along I-35, that's the same distance and time from DC to NYC. Only there are many more cities. The thing we would get is a hyper-unrealistic map with lots of omissions.

In general, maps would gradually be more disappointing until they're unrecognizable and incompatable with their real locations especially with the cut-and-paste assets. I won't be surprised if they used some lighting by then from the old base map.
Hyper-pessimistic is what i would call such a view regarding future east coast maps. Again, there is ETS2, covering already the most dense regions of Europe. These regions are still, for the most part, denser populated than the US east coast. Some ommissions here some compressions there but you still get pretty decent maps that catch the regional flavour and most of the important cities decently enough. And no, there is practically no real difference between the scales of both games, despite the common assumption of 1:20 vs 1:19. As Shiva has shown some time ago the actual scale is more or less the same. That doesn't mean SCS cannot improve, use more tricks and even still could learn from some map modders of course. The scale is what it is and surely won't change, so we all have to deal with it and its impacts, be it ETS2 players and ALSO ATS players.
Well here's one thing. SCS screwed up DFW and I'm from DFW. It took THREE years for Texas to be made and this is what they put out with a team of 30? The cities like Houston are terribly designed and the map looks substandard. Three years of planning? There are many more metro areas in denser regions like NYC, DC, Chicago. If they screwed DFW, New England won't stand a chance for something like this. And I doubt ProMods would help SCS even though they do cities better (like Antwerp which was deleted from the base game). It's a separate mod addition. They wouldn't benefit if they made SCS their standards.

Then SCS clearly adds the flair to it.

Discover explorable cities like Austin.
Me: looks at map and sees nothing but I-35, Parmer, and the stack interchange south of downtown.

It's all marketing. Money money money.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
JoeAlex23
Posts: 2268
Joined: 04 Dec 2016 03:24
Location: Dominican Republic
Contact:

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#584 Post by JoeAlex23 » 07 Feb 2023 17:56

I know this is kinda off topic and i don't want to sound rude, i just want to be honest, your problems with Texas sound more like based on a local biased perspective and i've been noticing that since you started interacting on the Texas discussion thread, setting yourself for disappointment since the start, we get it, SCS didn't meet your own expectations with Texas, but guess what, a lot of people feel the same way when an area they are familiar with (and local to) is added to the game and is not what they expected it to be, SCS has to adapt to a scale and keep a consistency around the map, if you expected Texas to be made how you wanted, that's a you problem, your comment saying "The cities like Houston are terribly designed and the map looks substandard." sounds insulting to the Texas team, just my 2 cents.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#585 Post by Optional Features » 07 Feb 2023 18:03

Yeah, they also told us we can explore the rest areas, but that's kinda hard when we're chained to the driver's seat.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#586 Post by Optional Features » 07 Feb 2023 18:16

SouthernMan wrote: 07 Feb 2023 17:13 Can I be honest? These skins are extremely strange and unrealistic. If only they tried to make the skins more real...
If they made skins of (fictional) companies, they would certainly be much more interesting.
With all due respect to the people who make these skins, but...
That is the thing: we don't seem to have any default trucking companies. We have trailers with skins, but all the AI semi tractors are blank. It would be awesome to see a walbert truck and trailer driving around.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#587 Post by Trakaplex » 07 Feb 2023 18:23

JoeAlex23 wrote: 07 Feb 2023 17:56 I know this is kinda off topic and i don't want to sound rude, i just want to be honest, your problems with Texas sound more like based on a local biased perspective and i've been noticing that since you started interacting on the Texas discussion thread, setting yourself for disappointment since the start, we get it, SCS didn't meet your own expectations with Texas, but guess what, a lot of people feel the same way when an area they are familiar with (and local to) is added to the game and is not what they expected it to be, SCS has to adapt to a scale and keep a consistency around the map, if you expected Texas to be made how you wanted, that's a you problem, your comment saying "The cities like Houston are terribly designed and the map looks substandard." sounds insulting to the Texas team, just my 2 cents.
I doubt better maps are impossible if ProMods can do cities and density much better. It has nothing to do with scaling, but the critique. Reforma's El Paso is like 10x larger than SCS's. Some areas of Texas were inadequately mapped that clogged up space for more roads. SCS should face local feedback instead of "research", and determine from us and decide what can fit in the map that way. All they do now is look on Google Maps, YouTube, or whatnot and just model what they see. This can explain many mistakes like the Lufkin Loop 287 ring road and Highway 94 we discussed in the Texas thread.

Especially when you're from Czechia trying the know the locality of certain American states would be difficult.
Them charging $17.99 for this is just :roll: it's very true the map quality in some areas look worse than Colorado. I'm just mad that the three years led to this, an incredibly empty map. A Steam review said this wasn't fully baked, and I agree.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#588 Post by Optional Features » 07 Feb 2023 18:31

Just wait for the Midwest. Since SCS doesn't do meat processing plants, Oklahoma is going to be a snoozefest. Cattle is such a major industry in these states, and it's all but invisible.
User avatar
JoeAlex23
Posts: 2268
Joined: 04 Dec 2016 03:24
Location: Dominican Republic
Contact:

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#589 Post by JoeAlex23 » 07 Feb 2023 19:14

Trakaplex wrote: 07 Feb 2023 18:23
JoeAlex23 wrote: 07 Feb 2023 17:56 I know this is kinda off topic and i don't want to sound rude, i just want to be honest, your problems with Texas sound more like based on a local biased perspective and i've been noticing that since you started interacting on the Texas discussion thread, setting yourself for disappointment since the start, we get it, SCS didn't meet your own expectations with Texas, but guess what, a lot of people feel the same way when an area they are familiar with (and local to) is added to the game and is not what they expected it to be, SCS has to adapt to a scale and keep a consistency around the map, if you expected Texas to be made how you wanted, that's a you problem, your comment saying "The cities like Houston are terribly designed and the map looks substandard." sounds insulting to the Texas team, just my 2 cents.
I doubt better maps are impossible if ProMods can do cities and density much better. It has nothing to do with scaling, but the critique. Reforma's El Paso is like 10x larger than SCS's. Some areas of Texas were inadequately mapped that clogged up space for more roads. SCS should face local feedback instead of "research", and determine from us and decide what can fit in the map that way. All they do now is look on Google Maps, YouTube, or whatnot and just model what they see. This can explain many mistakes like the Lufkin Loop 287 ring road and Highway 94 we discussed in the Texas thread.

Especially when you're from Czechia trying the know the locality of certain American states would be difficult.
Them charging $17.99 for this is just :roll: it's very true the map quality in some areas look worse than Colorado. I'm just mad that the three years led to this, an incredibly empty map. A Steam review said this wasn't fully baked, and I agree.
The problem with ProMods, Reforma and many other map mods is that they cheat the scale A LOT to make things seem more dense that they actually are, that affects a lot of things that you might not even consider, as great as ProMods and Reforma are, they get away with a lot of things because it's a mod and most of the areas are made by only one person and it's down to their own personal preference, they can literally do whatever they want with the area they want to work with, SCS map teams can't get away with that, each SCS mapper gets assigned a sector and they have to follow certain parameters defined by the map leader and they can't just add whatever they want to that area, they have to keep a consistency all around the map, but this is just a pointless discussion, i still believe your opinions about how "bad" Texas is are very biased, but what do i know, i'm just a guy who lives thousands of miles away from any area SCS will ever map...
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the direction in which the game is developing

#590 Post by flight50 » 07 Feb 2023 20:20

Honestly, I have to agree with both post JoeAlex23 made. Scale and personal perception of Texas will give anyone that knows an area bias reviews if they are already critical of things. I have not seen DFW yet other than what Nemiro drove on the stream. I'm waiting til Texas 2.0 arrives. The rest of Texas, I have mostly seen. I'll continue to explore it. I still have about 12-13% of Texas left. Mods, like JoeAlex said don't have to bide by the same rules as SCS. Larger city is not always good. When compared to other cities, too big seems out of place. Reforma and ProMods does a good job on what they do but they don't have to satisfy the same crowds as SCS. They push and focus on different things than SCS. Doesn't make SCS's stuff bad. Those modders take what SCS builds and put their own twist on thing. I don't see any modder making their own assets like SCS from scratch. Not everyone uses mods either. Mods are created by a smaller team that creates their on vision. If people like what they do, use the mod over SCS. No one looses sleep over using what they like or don't like.

For the most part, Texas is pretty impressive to me when you factor in the scale. People asked for space, we got it. Long distance between cities, we have it. Cities can't be stacked on top one another. Marked or scenic. Cities and roads need to feel like it all part of the same country. Missing stuff is obviously going to happen. Expecting this or that at current scale only sets up disappointed as pointed out by others. You can't stick a cube in a sphere's hole....you just can't. Expecting anything beyond 1:20 to fit along with tons of other assets and still fill a since of distance....just don't work. People complained about I-80 in Wyoming fill like cities are stack. Texas gives better distance and there is still dislike. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If it did, scale wouldn't come up. The scale is what it is but it keeps coming up that stuff is missing in these games. I'm Texan and I can say the vibe is there. That was mission number one with Texas and I think SCS pulled it off nicely. Perfect, nope but the vibe is very Texas. The dev time on it is what it is. Its out now and the team has moved on for the most part.

Map wise, SCS is heading in a good direction since Idaho. Scale will not be adjusted again. Get over that and the mapping isn't too bad considering you have 100+ people working maps and not 2-3 people. Lots and lots of different mindsets. Feature wise, its yet to be seen where the game is heading. But once the game engine update does roll out, I'll be on the front lines trying to see what's possible, what is the list looking like on what we can expect. Its time for innovation for better gameplay but all we can do is wait still.
Locked

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DracoTorre, oldmanclippy, Shiva, Spooks and 7 guests