Hard economy cost/income evaluation of fieldwork.

[NDDan]

Replacing a tractor after its engine has been running for 50 hours sounds overly silly though. If the game had obvious scales, that the fields are x10 smaller than in the real world, and the tractors are driving x10 times as fast in the real world, so 1 tractor hour in game is worth 100 in real life, then it may get a little closer to making more sense, but from my impression they're trying to go for 1:1 scale, though I've got a feeling field work takes up more time in the real world..

Thank you, all, for your work here. It’s really helpful, and I look forward to hearing more of your findings.

I’ve wondered about scale since I started playing with FS19. I don’t think they intend a 1:1 scale (if we’re thinking of scale the same way). For realism, some things have to be 1:1 scale, like buildings and machines. Speed also. Combining at 40 mph to fit a 10:1 scale would break the simulation. Yards also need to be somewhat close to a 1:1 scale. But as a game, fields can’t be, as that would make the game absolutely epic, and not in a fun way. So there has to be some paradox in scaling, where certain elements are 1:1, and others are some other scale.

In FS19 with seasons, I wondered if Realismus saw a 50:1 scale (3 day months, 5x speed recommended). Does Giants intend a 150:1 scale, since they initially designed FS22 to be one day months? I doubt it. But I wonder what it is. At one time I calculated scale using real life wheat yields and prices as the two factors. I came up with approximately 8:1.

But there are so many other scaled elements like fuel consumption, maintenance, land prices, or just total profits per time invested. I would really like to know what scale is intended. I can’t believe it’s really 1:1. If I could make 30k a year off one acre of grass and a few hours of work, I’d become a real farmer.

I think they could make the game more immersive by stating a scale, and basing as many game elements as possible off of that scale.

[Mwal]

The fields are to scale it’s the yields that are wrong. That’s where the game is set up different than real life. You wouldn’t have that many bushels or liters per acre and you wouldn’t get paid that much per bushel or liter. If you owned every field on the base American map it still wouldn’t make you the money required to buy 99% of the large equipment in the game nor would it be worth it IRL. It’s also the reason the in game workers struggle to turn around, no one seeds a 4 acre field with a hundred plus foot drill. Most in game players run farms that are smaller that what they used to run with steam tractors or horses. It’s the ability to make money that’s blown way out of proportion. Fuel consumption is really close to correct also, it goes off machine hours and is at worst a close average. Fuel consumption fits the tiny operation equation as well.

[NDDan]

I think we’re just thinking of scale in different ways. We could ask, scaled to what? I’m thinking in terms of an in-game field compared to a real life field that would yield the same income or profit. What would owning 10 acres in game be comparable to in real life? I’m thinking that we figure out game scale based on economic and time factors.

In real life, you don’t have a country road every few hundred feet. You also need to drive more than half a mile to get to all the different sell points. I’m thinking of Elmcreek as a scaled representation of an imaginary Midwest area. I’m pretty sure there are no places 1.2 miles by 1.2 miles that have 5+ farms, 2 elevators, a grain mill, a grain dealer, a biogas plant, a biomass plant, an oil plant, a sawmill, an implement dealer, a freeway, a dairy, various other businesses, a town, a minor league baseball team, and a state park. The way I think of the game, the geography is scaled to (sort of) fit the time and economic scale.

[paul_c]

I’m pretty sure there are no places 1.2 miles by 1.2 miles that have 5+ farms, 2 elevators, a grain mill, a grain dealer, a biogas plant, a biomass plant, an oil plant, a sawmill, an implement dealer, a freeway, a dairy, various other businesses, a town, a minor league baseball team, and a state park. The way I think of the game, the geography is scaled to (sort of) fit the time and economic scale.

Farming in Latvia is somewhat like that - there are VERY small "units" which are overseen by the government farm management officials, who regularly come round and tell you what to do. Next to no equipment though, and lots of manual labour or making do with eg 1x 25hp tractor that doesn't really work, etc etc....

In the UK, the "average" size of an arable farm is 1000 acres, so obviously with that being said, there are smaller arable farms but much less than about 250ac doesn't make sense in terms of equipment - you need certain things, and it doesn't make financial sense to have them and not the land to farm. Dairy/beef are smaller. Sheep could be smaller still, but there's a lot of extensive farms which simply graze vast areas in eg Highlands or Wales, so it skews the average farm size figure.

[Mwal]

I think we’re just thinking of scale in different ways. We could ask, scaled to what? I’m thinking in terms of an in-game field compared to a real life field that would yield the same income or profit. What would owning 10 acres in game be comparable to in real life? I’m thinking that we figure out game scale based on economic and time factors.

In real life, you don’t have a country road every few hundred feet. You also need to drive more than half a mile to get to all the different sell points. I’m thinking of Elmcreek as a scaled representation of an imaginary Midwest area. I’m pretty sure there are no places 1.2 miles by 1.2 miles that have 5+ farms, 2 elevators, a grain mill, a grain dealer, a biogas plant, a biomass plant, an oil plant, a sawmill, an implement dealer, a freeway, a dairy, various other businesses, a town, a minor league baseball team, and a state park. The way I think of the game, the geography is scaled to (sort of) fit the time and economic scale.

A ten acre field in game is a ten acre field in real life and as long as the implement speeds are realistic (which some are and some aren’t) the time scale and everything is the same. The only scale is economical and yields. If I had to make a guess playing on normal is about 10x real life money made per acre. On the map stuff I do agree with you, they cram things together to make it work and really need to go to a 4x map as their standard map size in my opinion.

[lawm]

Once there is a full switch to next gen systems is it likely they can go to a 4x map? Or has it always been 2x?

[humbe]

There's obviously a lot of different scales in the real world when comes to farming. Lately here in Norway, there's less small farms than it used to be, and where the country is fairly flat and works for farming, some farms are becoming big, but there are still a lot of small hillside farms with a few small fields, and overall farm scale is probably tiny compared to countries with a lot of wide open spaces. Though I guess the small farms aren't that likely to be growing grains anymore, but grass for livestock.

With the suggestion of depreciation and more details on maintenance cost and the like, I've tested more and dug up more information on that, but I think I'll start another thread on it, instead of hiding it on page 3 of a topic with a much more generic name I intended to log a bit more about relative cost of the different types of fieldwork..

[dan1109]

Once there is a full switch to next gen systems is it likely they can go to a 4x map? Or has it always been 2x?

Its possible but I think unlikely in FS22 - they can see from sales figures a year before F24/25 launch, how the metrics look for new customers with old gen, as to see if its wort the trade off to outcast old gens with the inability to run certain maps compared to next gen...or might even not support old gen in the next release, to allow even further limits pushed on the next gen consoles. Whatever brings them more revenue, I am certain that will be the path they follow.

As far as nextgen owners looking down at people still playing oldgen consoles, preventing better features due to HW limitations, now you know how PC users feel at times.

[lawm]

Once there is a full switch to next gen systems is it likely they can go to a 4x map? Or has it always been 2x?

Its possible but I think unlikely in FS22 - they can see from sales figures a year before F24/25 launch, how the metrics look for new customers with old gen, as to see if its wort the trade off to outcast old gens with the inability to run certain maps compared to next gen...or might even not support old gen in the next release, to allow even further limits pushed on the next gen consoles. Whatever brings them more revenue, I am certain that will be the path they follow.

As far as nextgen owners looking down at people still playing oldgen consoles, preventing better features due to HW limitations, now you know how PC users feel at times.

No that's what I meant. I dont see next release being on old gen. So if that's the case, in strictly next gen, will the new systems support bigger maps or is it all relative being that they will be running more features and better graphics so the maps will stay 2x.?

Yes as a console player I envy PC players but I did not discover farm sim until after having a ps4 lol

[Mwal]

No that's what I meant. I dont see next release being on old gen. So if that's the case, in strictly next gen, will the new systems support bigger maps or is it all relative being that they will be running more features and better graphics so the maps will stay 2x.?

Yes as a console player I envy PC players but I did not discover farm sim until after having a ps4 lol

I would say it’s like most things, if the overwhelming majority of players seem to want bigger maps then you will probably get them. As much as some people say giants are are money grubbers who don’t care about their player base, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. They do seem to operate of player opinions with most of the features added in the past. Add that with the bigger slot count and who knows, I could see it happening

[paul_c]

I would prefer finer resolution on maps - for example last night in the dark, I was combining corn along a diagonal edge which was jagged. If it were more granular it could show as a much more natural edge to follow.

[lawm]

I'm sure either way I'll get *censored* into the next iteration lol

[blue_painted]

I would prefer finer resolution on maps - for example last night in the dark, I was combining corn along a diagonal edge which was jagged. If it were more granular it could show as a much more natural edge to follow.

I'm with you on that ... on a standard size (2x2km) map I couldn't get through the whole year in less that 12 day seasons (in FS19 that) so for my play-style, hands-on, minimal automation, larger maps give nothing: Nice neat edges, and smooth curves on the other hand ....!

[paul_c]

I think the 2x2km map is the right balance in size - there is sufficient farmable land to make the summer months "busy" - especially if you're into silaging too. Winter is obviously a bit quieter. But if you're too picky on the fields you farm, you may run out. I don't understand this strategy of sleeping for multiple months at a time, you still sit in front of the computer and play the game for x hours, its just those hours are more of the same stuff??

Regarding bigger maps - it would be good for reality to reflect that often farmers take on outlying land, eg for silaging, and that it can be spread out. So it adds another element to the gameplay, to consider the transport/logistics of getting equipment out there, doing jobs, then getting home, if you don't use TAB teleporting.

[humbe]

Pretty sure Giants only have the customers interest at mind here, but if they release a 4x4 or an 8x8 map, then "everyone" will start to try it out, and if it requires a high end PC to work correctly, they will be overflowed in angry requests that their game is broken and requires too much resources and long threads with tons of players that didn't get it to work. I'm guessing they might release bigger maps, or more resource eating maps, once they see that a large chunk of the players can handle it, so the gain is bigger than the pain.

If you watch the videos of how they created the existing maps, you hear that they put quite a bit of effort into creating maps that will have natural barriers, so you don't have to render stuff far far away all the time. Even at 2x2 size, they sound like they do quite a bit of planning to ensure it should work smooth for most people.

A mod using a 4x4 or an 8x8 map is much easier to dismiss as way too resource demanding and will only work for high end PC players.

Ideally, it would be great if they managed to have a grid map, so for instance, the map could be divided into 1x1 plots, and at any time you have loaded the 1x1 plot you are on, and the 8 surrounding 1x1 plots, and if you drive over to a neighboring plot, you could dump 3 plots out of memory that is no longer neighbors and load in the new 3 neighbor plots in the background, so you could have a large map but where you no longer needed to have all the information in memory at a time.