Paddy.

Fabulous. Thank you again for all your work, and continuing to strive to do everything right even when the scrutiny of the masses was on your shoulders.

Prepare for the entire TruckersMP community to religiously quote you on that.

I get all that, but you can't ignore the potential splinter groups that come from Open Source, as I've outlined. When you do this kind of thing to speed up development you compromise it. Why take that risk for the sake of getting releases maybe 1 or 2 weeks earlier? There's no tangible benefit to it.

The implication from your original post was that ProMods had somehow become unavailable. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that you could still play it on MP if you wanted to.

ProMods MP is still available by using the correct ProMods version, just in the same way TMP is available on 1.36. I'm unsure as to why this would be outlined as a concern.

I would personally disagree with the concept of the Tertiary Position. Specifically, the idea that you should angle yourself to be facing onto the carriageway. Within the confines of TMP, you're in a truck which is large and visible anyway, so the idea that this will make you more visible is redundant. It's also particularly dangerous if you are struck from behind, as this will more than likely result in you rolling onto the live carriageway, increasing the potential for more collisions. If you are parked parallel to the hard shoulder, this risk is reduced. The rest is good though. Very well put together.

I would be heavily against the introduction of the Fatigue system within the Multiplayer platform, for a number of reasons. Job Timing The different time system employed by TMP versus the Singleplayer version is already liable to causing issues, particularly with those trying to use the quick-job system. To introduce the fatigue system which would require sleeping, many more issues would come of this, from jobs being marked late, to the fatigue system periodically bugging out, where your driver would always be tired. Accidents I think this goes without saying, but more accidents will come from such a system, and in places like C-D, or any other busy area, the collision rate is already substantially high. This is needless. Misconduct Liability This somewhat ties into the Accidents, but more specifically tackles the liability of players who use a fatigue system. Have a look at this snippet from the TMP rules: This rule essentially says that faulty hardware does not exonerate players from instances of poor driving. That is to say that somebody using a wireless controller will still be liable for disciplinary action if their controller runs out of battery and they cause a head-on collision. Are we then going to introduce a rule saying that those who crash on the basis that they had fatigue mode on are also liable to the same disciplinary action for using a feature offered to them by the MP platform? That would be absurd. If we did allow people to have fatigue crashes, it would become impossible to moderate. How does a Game Moderator know if THIS is reckless driving or the fatigue system? It would cause moderation inconsistency, guessing, more crashes, more administrative paperwork, more headaches, and provide absolutely no degree of immersion. Do not introduce a fatigue system. Please.

It's quite frustrating to see this same concern crop up time and time again, when it's been addressed quite comprehensively by both development and well established community members. You yourself have essentially answered your own gripe by outlining the contents of 1.38 — A map expansion, and an enhancement to the Special Transport Addition. Special Transport cargo requires AI escort. It's therefor not allowed: Why then would it require months of scripting to add some cargo file names into the auto-kick script? As for map expansions, TMP Development have tackled all map expansions with frightening efficiency in the past, including bridging the metaphorical river of identifying players with DLC to those without. This simply doesn't cause the same headaches that FMOD causes. This is a non-concern, and it amounts only to certain people bringing it up to cause drama. Behave. Please.

Yeah, certainly a factor. To be honest I don't know what R* were thinking, given that they were probably still milking GTA V pretty consistently. But yeah, overall, a prime example of why Open Source is nice for competition, but hellish for consistency. ETS and ATS moderation NEEDS consistency, so it's not a genuine viable option. Quite aside from that, the size of the map limits player interaction anyway. Have that contested among a multitude of servers and all of a sudden, you don't see anybody. Ever. Even on C-D. You'd quickly find yourself playing Singleplayer without the AI. Why bother?

FiveM is open source which leaves you with several hundred servers with varying degrees of moderation standards and inconsistency across the board in terms of development, handling of misconduct, and modding within servers. This leaves people more open to behave like imbeciles, get banned, then move right onto the next server to do the same thing, much like Gmod TTT servers or FiveRP servers, as you've outlined. Perhaps the development is a little slower here, but the standards are upheld as a result of this, and I think that benefits TMP as a whole.

Appreciate you and everything you're doing. Thank you for keeping TMP running smoothly and fun for everyone.

I've never come across that issue, but this guide may help:

I'm not sure I understand you there, but I'll explain what I did. I had my original profile (simply called "Paddy") that I had been saving to the cloud with. I disabled cloud saving and, using the tutorial in the original post, duplicated it to make a "SinglePlayerMods" Profile and a "Promods MP" profile. Hope this helps.

This is a lovely addition when isolated, but as @Lasse rightly points out, client-side mods being introduced into the TMP world can seldom be considered in isolation. when a modification such as this is introduced into the game, there would almost certainly be a spark of debate across the forums and on the discord, with a great many people posing arguments along the lines of "if what I suggested couldn't be implemented, why could this?" It would be a fair argument and as such TMP Development staff need to be very careful about what they choose to implement in upcoming versions of TMP, because every novelty has to be justified when the community is as large as it is here. With regards to this particular UI design suggestion, I would lean towards not having it implemented, because when weighed up against other things that could go in to benefit the community at large, this is somewhat superficial and gimmicky in nature.