0.20 Discussion thread | Use Safe Mode before reporting

So I've also tried the same thing... actually it is possible to take a T-series+container out of the port. However, it's a complete nightmare, and not really a fair or fun challenge.
I'd like to go into detail and suggest a few changes to make it still challenging, but challenging fun, not challenging/annoying. Also, don't get me wrong- I'm aware that a T-series can't fit everywhere- for example, many time trials are impossible for the T-series, and that's just fine! But a T-series should fit around a port, it's pretty much built for it! How else did the containers get there?

From the cranes towards the port's exit you have 3 paths. I marked them as Yellow, Purple, Red. (There is a small mistake- red actually goes further to the left, in the more open area.) Red is the only one currently possible, but all three paths have their own issues.

Let's start with Yellow. Yellow is broken in two spots. The 1st is this turn.

If you are coming from the left, next to the red container, you can't make the turn. However, from the right (Blue container + ramp) it's fine (barely). I like these difficult tight turns- they give me some ETS feeling, and that's good!
So for this point, I'd suggest to change the red container's position, it isn't really important anyway.

Next, is the 2nd spot- the Nadeoline. As YellwRusty said, this place is broken.

A fix should be easy, that container is in a bad place anyway.

On to Purple.

The turn right between the ramps is impossible from both directions. There is not much you can change here since those ramps are important. So it might be best to leave it as an entrance for smaller vehicles (I imagine the port forklifts used it as a shortcut or something).

Now, as I said, Red is possible if you take the diagonal blue FOLK container corner really wide. However, there are still problems. This time it's an actual bug- some clipping issues on the crane. And since you need to take that FOLK corner extra-wide, invisible crane parts can really become an issue. Here's a video:



And while on the topic of the T-series, this specific T65 has a 5th wheel in the screenshot, but not in game. (BTW I know it's not safemode, but none of this can really be mod-related, so I allow myself to break the rules)

 

That's a big ass post for a really small annoyance. I love it btw

 

I believe that once it is figured out by some people over here (TITLE WAS CHANGED) WIP PAINT SCRATCHES , we will get scratches, and then it will be re-worked to sense mud, and then adopted much like the traffic tool was.

As for on topic things, since this is a discussion thread, and I feel like the devs have alot to deal with, my only on topic comment is a simple thanks for continued work to ensure BeamNG evolves while remaining accessible by even potato skin computers.

 

Will try again, but I already have done so before doing the clean install. Thanks!

EDIT: Safe mode went okay, will be doing another clean install.

EDIT 2: After doing a clean install, issue still persists. No mods installed and running the game on default settings. Will just wait for a hotfix I guess. Thanks again and keep safe everyone.

 

What happened to the barstow's supercharger sound? It used to sound good and now it's back to the same old one that's used across **every** other vehicle. I've never even heard a supercharger that's sounded like the generic sound being used either.

 

I'm not a harbor worker, but I'm sure the crane track is not where containers are loaded on/off trailers.
And if you accidentally got there with a tractor-trailer, now when the place is an abandoned mess, the best way out is the beach offroad route.

 

Wrong. It HAS fifth wheel (Upfit Short).

 

Had he spoke about Base Short config? Then ok, just old screenshot in game.

 

I'm in full agreement - with the current setup, getting a truck into and out of the port is a challenge, but more of the frustrating sort of challenge and less of the entertaining sort of challenge. That ramp next to the blue container at the base of the Yellow Route and the ramps flanking the Purple Route are important and should stay as-is, and it's the red containers along the Yellow Route that need adjusting, as they're only set decoration anyway.

You are correct in stating that Red is the only viable option as it stands. The Purple Route is something I can care less about manuevering a T-series through - in any case, it would only connect to the very congested center of the port. Getting down or up through the Red Route is easy enough (this time I opted for wood planks simply because they're easier to load).




There is one caveat though - and it involves turning the T-series around so that it can be driven back up the Red Route to get out of the port. It's a colossal pain:



But doable with practice and a bit of luck:



Now that gives us the ability to leave with the port set up the way it is. We can take the Red Route, and it works just about as well in the opposite direction. But with a low-slung load like the wood planks, the Yellow Route is now open, and what a beauty it is to drive up with the beach right beside :


But there is a third problem with the Yellow Route that was lurking to give me a nasty suprise. There's a bit of groundmodel here that just needs to be tweaked ever so slightly:



The landing legs of both the Flatbed and the Tanker trailer strike the lip of the ramp. It's ever so slightly, but still enough to bend them as the truck pulls through. Maddeningly, the Dry Van trailer doesn't strike the pavement, but it's also the only trailer that won't fit under the Nodeoline container no matter how it's loaded.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Port operations with this type of crane involve getting a truck & trailer (or railcars, but that's irrelevant for our purposes) underneath the crane in between the tracks, with the container being moved directly from the ship to the trailer. They're not always the trucks the container will leave the port on, and in smaller ports like the ones in BeamNG, it's likely that the stacking in the port itself will be done by container handlers instead of smaller gantry cranes, but this is a pretty typical example:



You're correct in stating that the port is an abandoned mess, and I'm not looking to change that. It can stay an abandoned mess - but I'd like it to be an abandoned mess with two containers moved just slightly over so that we can use the port the way it was originally intended to be used if the situation crops up - say in a scenario, or in career mode if there's a story reason to recover an abandoned container. We lose nothing, and gain something for very little tweaking of existing assets.



I do like that beach. I want to be able to drive out with that view off to the one side, but I sincerly doubt that there's a way to get a tractor-trailer out along that beach - or even any way to get back to the road from that beach. If someone can provide a video of them getting a T-series and trailer from the port, onto that beach, and then back onto a road, then I might reconsider the possiblity.

 

I know the issue of missing wheels of vehicles can be fixed and it is the mod creator's job to fix them, but what about mods that are discontinued? Its not practical for a casual player to dive into the files myself and fix a large bunch of missing tires. Agentmooshroom5's mod pack contains pretty decent cars (some were not really meshslaps, but modified) , but those modders no longer support the cars which have now become broken by the update. It would be nice if a compromise was made, to accept the older mod's way of loading vehicle parts but yet integrate the new loading method.

Also other than the missing wheels, some mods don’t spawn entirely, The oldsfullsize pack being one of them. Thankfully it’s creator is active. I wonder how mods would get rendered unusable like that? For the missing tyres, people were able to list out a reasonable fix, but so far I haven’t seen a workaround for vehicles that don’t spawn entirely or give the “corrupt mod” message.

 

I just have a small thing to say with the Roamer restyling, hopefully I'm not repeating someone's words, but I think the Roamer year lineup should go like this:

Roamer Ph.I : 1992-1997
Roamer Ph.II : 1998-2002

5 years each, and 2002 being a perfect year to end production. I feel it's too old, even with the restyling, to go all the way until 2006, just like in real life the first gen Explorer production (if we count the 2nd gen as a 1st for simplicity sake) ended by 2001.

 

Agree, 2006 for the facelift seems late imo. When i look at the interior it feels terribly outdated even by like 2003..

 

I'm not against rearranging the containers to make the port more driveable.
BNG cranes don't work the way shown in @YellowRusty 's video. Maybe the model should be redone.
Beach route goes past the conveyor yard, then back on the road between the ramp and fuel tank.
-end of slight off-topic-

In Italy, cranes are duplicates for no apparent reason.

 

I agree that the transition could be moved back to 98 or 99, but i don't see the issue with it running till 2006. GM sold the GMT800 Tahoe/suburban etc until 2007.

 

Yeah. Maybe the devs could introduce small interior differences like a newer looking head unit, HVAC controls, and maybe gauges.

 

The LeGran causes this bug on crashing (sometimes)

 

Quick reminder that the Roamer and Explorer are entirely different size classes (full-size SUV vs. mid-size SUV), meaning the Explorer really shouldn't be used as a basis for anything like model years, performance times, etc. (Sites like IGCD seem to ignore this fact and claim the Roamer is an Explorer clone, which is irritating.)

Compare the Roamer to similar vehicles of the time (the Chevrolet Tahoe and Ford Expedition). The GMT400 platform Tahoe was produced from 1991 to 2000, but the Expedition didn't come out until 1998 (replacing the Bronco, only officially produced as a two-door) and its first generation only lasted until 2002. I think the years as they stand make sense enough, if you consider the facelift to be an emulation of each real-life model's respective successors: the GMT800 Tahoe, made from 2000 to 2006, and the 2003-2006 Expedition. You'll notice both ended production in 2006, like the facelifted Roamer.

The only difference is that the Roamer is not a new generation, being on the same frame and having the same powertrain underneath (with a minor engine tune). I imagine this was because it would have been too much effort to make an entirely new frame for a Roamer that shared enough visual similarities to use the same doors, and few people would really notice or care anyway.

In summary, I think the Roamer's years are fine, they seem perfectly accurate if you consider the facelift to be the cosmetic equivalent of a second generation model.