Timestamps have been added to provide easier access to info in this long video. Although unfortunately the white spreadsheet background makes some of the chapter titles a little hard to read from the progress bar - if that bothers you, consider using the timestamps in the description. I will definitely watch out for that in my next video. Have a nice day guys!
Personally i think chains should be carried as a body add on and equiped unequiped in the menu where your beacons are etc, it's stupid to have them as a full tyre option only changable in the garage
What a fantastic idea man. Unfortunately I don't think that's gonna happen in Snowrunner since it would require some serious modifications to the game's technical framework, but I would love to see that in a sequel.
That is how they work in real life on big trucks. Snow comes, chain comes. They help in snow as well as ice, so it would be nice to see a snow only buff in game. Just from the experiences I have had with my single wheel dumps in real life.
@@zeenmuch90 Agreed, I really don't understand why they just didn't keep it as used in real life? Fitting only when needed, chains will give you much-needed grip on most off-road surfaces apart from some types of boulders/bed rock, or green logs, but the rest of the time they will save you by "Dig-In" on beach sand to deep snow or even flooded fields that have simply turned to swampland.
Indeed, and where i work IRL, we have heavy chains whit spikes for extra grip on ice, only for use when needed, otherwise if used all winter, it would flaten the spikes, renders it useless..
Absolutely brilliant - thanks so much for this. I've been playing for a few weeks and ended up going with UOD II's on nearly every truck I can put them on purely because I thought they looked the chunkiest (biggest/deepest tread) so it was good to actually know why. Also lots of really useful stuff on chains - I put them on the BM17 for Alaska and thought it went well then went back to UOD II's and there was a big improvement .... so no chains for me unless I'm somewhere with lots of ice. I'm three maps into Alaska with Pedro Bay still to do so I may try them again there. However I now have two x Tayga 6436 with the UOD II's and that seems unstoppable... what a truck!
Great stuff there. I did some experiments with larger and dual wheel configurations and noted some interesting results. Widening the axels with wider or dual tyres will improve stability and grip. ... but, if the engine power is not up to the job, there will be a negative affect on forward movement. Bigger/Duals, versus smaller or single = more traction and weight... which means they won't turn if you don't have the power. At the very least, the extra size, will also effectively change your effective gear ratios, everything else being equal. For example, I noted that with a medium power engine, on the ANK Mk38, increasing wheel size actually meant the gear ratios were reduced so as to move the wheels less quickly. This may or may NOT have a desirable effect. If your low gear is already too low to effect good forward momentum, things will be worse. Big wheels turning more slowly adds to inertia and you can sink more easily before making progress. Smaller wheels will spin more easily for any given "gear ratio x engine revs/prop shaft rotation" .... which MAY be desirable IF they were too slow to start with... OR, not good if they were prone to spinning already. I also found that doubling the wheel number using a mod, could reduce speed with a weak engine. The FULL potential of the extra wheel/tyre contact area (multiplied by the grip factor) was only realised by upgrading the engine significantly. There is a complex relationship between torque delivered to an axle, revolutions, and wheel size. So, as a rule of thumb, bigger wheels, more wheels would potentially improve forward movement, but gearbox choice and engine power, will complicate things. But it is fun to experiment ! And experiment you must. A balance of tyre choice, engine power and gear ratios can only be achieved by experimenting. And ....unfortunately, once you add heavy weights etc, and trailers, the results can be VERY different, to those achieved with an empty truck -- not only due to weight of the cargo, but what it does to COG, and how that weight is distributed to the drive wheels. Good fun huh ?!!? 👍😁
This is probably the best tire guide I have seen for this game. Great work man! I'm currently on the Wisconsin map and I was still confused as hell as to what tires were the best to use, but this video confirms some of my beliefs so far and crushed others 😅
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Yeah, for sure. I noticed right away when I tried it in some of the deep mud in zimnegorsk. It's extremely good 😎 i also didnt know the MHS1, which I thought was great (as it was the option for the azovs) were only slightly better than OHS, but significantly worse in anything other that deep mud 🤓
This is the kind of information we need to see in game, not these worthless vehicle stats. It's really hard to tell the difference between trucks when the only 2 ratings you see are "A" and "S".
Can't say enough about the good information and good presentation of it. Great work, gonna change my [game] world! Keep up the good work. You deserve more views!
Wow that's surprising, what video games thought me after years and years of playing, is, the last unlockable items are always the best. Thanks for this very in-depth review. Very nice.
Great information here! I assume most if not all of this info is still up to date even a few years later. I had always used mud tires because I thought the larger mud rating would always trump anything else. But this video has changed my mind. I love the look of double rear tires and the fact that they give added stability is a huge plus.
Great video! You covered each unlock stage, what to use, and when. The tire stats are accurate and play a big role, but hitbox also plays a big role in this test, which you didn't cover. Here's what I've found so far: narrower hitboxes allow vehicles to dig in more. TMHS and AMHS actually perform worse than other off-road and mud tires. I haven't compared footage of the different run tire sets, so I don't know what the best tire is, but I can confirm that the bogger tires actually slow vehicles down.
Having dumped countless hours into the game, I'm fairly sure "digging in more" does not improve traction by much if at all. If anything it only increases resistance on lighter trucks which slows the truck down. Comparing A/TMHS against OHD I/UOD II may suggest this but if you instead compare either of the above to anything in the MHS or OHS sets, this no longer checks out. They are the narrowest and sink the deepest but also noticeably worse. I do realize that OHD I and UOD II perform better than A/TMHS on some soft surfaces (most notably light mud in Yukon). My theory for why this happens is that in those "substance pools" are thin enough to where the wheels can actually consistently touch the "body" at the bottom, in which case the "BodyFriction" value becomes much more significant, and offroad tires have a value of 3 whereas A/TMHS has a value of 2. It is for this reason that I frequently used OHD I over the balloons on my Tayga in Yukon. I briefly checked your channel and it looks like you are a modder so you may know something that I don't. But purely going off of my in-game observation, it seems like that sinking deeper into snow/mud does quite the opposite, unless the snow/mud layer is really thin, but it will often be ill-advised to pick tires specifically for those areas because they are neither where you take the most risk, nor where you drain the most time.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam My own tests confirm what you say. OHD 1 and MHS tires are often faster than the balloon tires on shallow soft surfaces (like you said, probably because they then also use the body and not just substance friction), but if you go into deep mud the balloon tires will go through, while all the MHS and OHD will get stuck or slow down to a point of virtually being stuck.
I actually agree, Infact before finding this video I already made and posted one of my own: ua-cam.com/video/esjkhMtXo0c/v-deo.html It's super rough, but the brute-force testing and having side-by side comparisons seems to suggest that offroad tires are the same, if not better in the most favorable mudtire conditions. I'm gonna see if I can get in contact with firefly and work on figuring this out so we can all have answers.
I'm watching your video just now. Hope you still see the comments. What a complex subject. I couldn't understand 100% of the whole explanation. We usually choose the biggest "excellent" mud tires and that's it. I was using a website with tire grip values. The higher the value, the better. But now I don't know how to choose the best tire anymore. Is it correct to say that vehicles that have unique custom original tires from that vehicle perform better? For example Hummer, Tatra Phoenix.
What i did for the test is load up black badger lake Wisconsin, and I used the ANK military truck. I drove to the river crossing and put it in "medium low" before I started crossing. It didn't dig in and I feel like I crossed faster than if I just full throttled it all the way across.
Also, I've recently discovered that UAD III rear chains actually have their traction values from the Offroad template, not the Allterrain template for the front tires, meaning values similar to UOD rather than to UAD.
18:35 correction: CAT 745 С comes on MSH IV stock. M set (HMD, ATMD) is twice heavier than U set (UHD, UAD). Same for TMHS/AMHS. TH357 tires also listed incorrectly - they are using HeavyMudtires template (same as super-heavy trucks like Kolobs) with 0,5 1,7 3,0 stats Same for Zikz 605
I still make sure to have a truck with chains for parts of Amur to help me with the pulling of heavy cargo on ice. Notably on Chernokamensk or the steep hill next to the launch site as well as when crossing icy rock crossings on the rivers. For scouts in Amur it's a mixed bag but more often than not some places are designed so you can only go through with chains as you have no snow patch and only a steep icy rock. For the rest of Amur you need mud tyres. For other regions they aren't so necessary.
Hey man, could you link to _your_ spreadsheet in the description or a pinned comment? I have had Blade's saved forever now, but it'd be very handy to able to look at them side-by-side
So, can I ask you a question? I was wondering why they put the fine tune gear box in the game. The only thing I could come up with is, something is speed/ tire spin related. So I tried varying my throttle when going through mud. I feel like when you get the wheel speed to correlate to the vehicle speed, you get through the mud faster. I don't know if I'm perceiving it wrong or if that's whats happening. What do you think?
I think they put Fine-tune GBs in the came purely as a "wow"-factor (so they, and excited players, can say it's in the game). The game's physics don't really allow the precision to make a useful difference, and on mouse & keyboard, the input scheme completely is just too big of an inconvenience.
My question is, how is rock surface handled by game. Is it considered asphalt or dirt? There are some rocky roads, big rocks through river, rocky banks of rivers, .... Didn't find answer here either.
Drawing from my experience I believe rock surfaces are considered dirt (however silly that sounds). Even if it were considered asphalt, it would not justify usage of highway tires since you will still be getting stuck everywhere else 😅
@@FireflyOnUA-cam I don't think so. But I do run the Jearbear Trucking co (PS4) search for us on FB ConsoleRunners - SnowRunner & MudRunner Community - No Mods
Kind of wish this info were available in-game. Even if not as decimal fractions, why not the same "bars" as power-to-weight, durability and fuel efficiency?
I know right? It would be less confusing even if they just listed the numbers without explanation, instead of having the same "Good" or "Excellent" for two types of tires that look different and cost different.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Agreed. The game has a lot of hidden stats, some of which would be really useful. Stuff like actual engine power, or the weights of things. How heavy is this crane? How heavy are metal beams relative to wooden boards? Luckily, we have people like you collating this stuff, but it would help if it were available in-game.
@@Malidictus I actually have sources for literally all of those you mentioned: engine torque output, add-on mass, and cargo mass. I plan on covering them in future videos, but no telling on how long its gonna take since I'm all of a sudden busy again (every time I try to reboot my channel lol). Stay tuned tho.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Gotcha. That would be nice to see. I've been digging through the XML files myself of late (trying to make a double medium logs semitrailer work right), but that's a LOT of info in there. Would definitely appreciate a video on mass, torque and power-to-weight. That seems counter-intuitive the way it works right now. No pressure, of course. I know how it is. Every time you think you'll have time, "life finds a way" :) Best of luck.
I guess I could have but I didn't do so because I don't plan on updating it, unlike BladeChildX who continues to update his sheet. Also didn't want to break apart his work, re-assemble it, and just repost it somewhere else - especially if I'm not gonna update it, which may confuse his (or my own) audience down the line. This kind of stuff serves its purpose better under context (i.e. the video). Your comment actually reminded me to add timestamps to the video so 1) thanks and 2) you can use them to jump to any of the 5 spreadsheets now, if you want regular access to them. Again, keep in mind that unlike the original spreadsheet, the video may age.
I think the point with the rear chains only is due to some trucks lacking the AWD option, so only rear wheel traction, it is not that good of an idea to put high traction tires on dead axles, it will only increase friction, without increasing pulling capacity on rough terrain.
That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that OHD I & UOD II (which are dual tires) are the best options, unless the truck in question has super-wide mud tires (AHMS or TMHS)
That is the exact opposite of what I said. I thought I specifically said that OHD I & UOD II are the best to use, unless the truck in question has super-wide mud tires which have even more surface area.
I believe rock surfaces are considered "Body" (so not "Substance" or "Asphalt"), so they are affected by the friction value in the middle of the table. Also, if you are on a snowy map, some rock surfaces are covered by ice, which benefits from chains. Hope this helps you.
BladeChildX has added the 605R's tires to his live spreadsheet. Check the link to that in my description. The "ZHM Special Tires" have the same stats as the default "MSH I" tires on the Cat 745C, Antarctic, & Kolobs. The Tatra T813's default tires are titled "MSH I". I assumed that this means it's the same situation as the Zikz. I checked the XML files and was able to confirm this. The rest of the T813's tires should be the same as tires with the same name on other trucks. I think at this point this video calls for a follow-up that covers the Tatra, Zikz, and some other interesting discoveries I've made since I uploaded it. I'm a little busy atm but I'll try to get on with that.
@@N0xtron If somebody tells you "The Tatra's MSH I is better than the normal MSH I", I wonder what benchmark it is that they are comparing. The old MSH trucks are in a completely different weight class (>25T) whereas Tatra is
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Thanks for all the info, i saw the zikz tires arent even that good as the tuz 420 ones but very heavy therefor can bring the power on the ground. The Tatra is not as good as other trucks cause of the low weight but it can mount chained muds compared to the zikz and is really good on fuel imo ^^
@@N0xtron Wheel mass is important in that 1) it brings the center of mass closer to the ground, which improves stability, and 2) it apparently plays affects traction (even when the wheel mass accounts for a small portion of total truck mass). #1 is self-explanatory but I was not aware of #2 before a guy called "Ankur" brought this to my attention and I've yet to test it specifically. You can see our conversation under his comment. So yes, wheel mass is much more important than I previously thought, and I intend to cover it eventually. I believe wheel mass is also tied to the truck and not the tire choice, which (if I'm right) would put the Tatra at a disadvantage to the Zikz and old MSH trucks. Tatra still has it's insane P2W holding it up though. Also yes, Tatra is extremely fuel efficient for a truck that has the 530 AT engine - likely due to its light weight. It will probably go much further without refuel than the Zikz since it can carry slightly less fuel but consumes it way slower.
Question: Do mud tires have a different multiplier compared to off road and others or really the only thing we should look for are the three numbers in the files? Like even though MHS I is not so good with it's 2.0 2.0 value, but does it have some other value that would still make it better than off roads like OHS II?
Hardness, width, and "radius offset" are likely to also affect performance. You can find these in the XML files. However my experience so far suggests that none of these create a large difference within the range in which they vary across different tire types, especially standard ones like MHS and OHS. If I remember correctly MHS I and OHS II both have the same "base" width, but OHS II has a "radius offset" (it's rounded on the edges, thus reducing its contact area) (In the case of OHS II it mimics its visual appearance but that doesn't have to be the case). However, OHS II is also softer than MHS I, which may allow it to compress against the ground and enlarge its contact area - which is why trying to draw conclusions from these attributes is difficult 😅 The only stat that I've found to change things massively is the friction values, which is why I mostly stick to discussing them in the video.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam I know, it's hard to find any evidence other than grip values, but I noticed for example that the Zetros modded truck is quite mobile even if I use the stock tires, wich are around 2.4 grip, so basicly Tayga tires, but of course the tires narrower, and the truck doesnt have dual option, still it is faster than the tayga in deep mud. That's why I asked if anything else can be read from the xml files that makes sense why one truck is better than the other even though the grip values are the same and visualy one tyre is narrower than the other
@@tumate45 If you are going to compare things across trucks then there's also: - Truck body weight - Truck body weight distribution (might put more pressure on some wheels that others) - Truck engine power ...etc. It'll get drastically more complicated. You can definitely get those stats too from the XML files, but it would be hard to quantify how much of a difference each one makes in relation to the rest based on the stats alone. Tbh it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to make a video on how to get & read the stats lol
Information for highway and all terrain tires dont need nobody will newer use it. Becouse there is no map where you can really use it these tipe of tires. Eweryone will allways use mudtires i think. What do you think?? What are you useing for most trucks?
I haven't tried them must so I cannot from experience, but their stats indicate that they are nothing special (which is why I also didn't bother trying them much). While this video is very old, BladeChildX has updated his spreadsheet (docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ehuLHwbmA5ktr0ZC_gv52H3fkz3qxJY_i_uS7Gh0xRU/edit#gid=0) and you can see that DMHS is basically MHS I (but softer & rounder, which the sheet doesn't show). OHS II has not failed me in 2 years and I still expect them to be better, and MHS II & III will just be vastly better even purely based on stats - they have higher friction values while also making the wheel wider.
Timestamps have been added to provide easier access to info in this long video. Although unfortunately the white spreadsheet background makes some of the chapter titles a little hard to read from the progress bar - if that bothers you, consider using the timestamps in the description. I will definitely watch out for that in my next video. Have a nice day guys!
Personally i think chains should be carried as a body add on and equiped unequiped in the menu where your beacons are etc, it's stupid to have them as a full tyre option only changable in the garage
What a fantastic idea man. Unfortunately I don't think that's gonna happen in Snowrunner since it would require some serious modifications to the game's technical framework, but I would love to see that in a sequel.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam I can't imagine that will be any time soon ! It's still a very enjoyable game tho regardless.
That is how they work in real life on big trucks. Snow comes, chain comes. They help in snow as well as ice, so it would be nice to see a snow only buff in game. Just from the experiences I have had with my single wheel dumps in real life.
@@zeenmuch90 Agreed, I really don't understand why they just didn't keep it as used in real life?
Fitting only when needed, chains will give you much-needed grip on most off-road surfaces apart from some types of boulders/bed rock, or green logs, but the rest of the time they will save you by "Dig-In" on beach sand to deep snow or even flooded fields that have simply turned to swampland.
Indeed, and where i work IRL, we have heavy chains whit spikes for extra grip on ice, only for use when needed, otherwise if used all winter, it would flaten the spikes, renders it useless..
Wow a lot of time has been invested in that, thanks.
Indeed, although part of it was my inefficient recording & editing process. I aim to improve down the line. Hope you stick along!
Great in depth video! Glad to have been of help.
The man himself
Omg sup!
Absolutely brilliant - thanks so much for this. I've been playing for a few weeks and ended up going with UOD II's on nearly every truck I can put them on purely because I thought they looked the chunkiest (biggest/deepest tread) so it was good to actually know why. Also lots of really useful stuff on chains - I put them on the BM17 for Alaska and thought it went well then went back to UOD II's and there was a big improvement .... so no chains for me unless I'm somewhere with lots of ice. I'm three maps into Alaska with Pedro Bay still to do so I may try them again there. However I now have two x Tayga 6436 with the UOD II's and that seems unstoppable... what a truck!
Great stuff there.
I did some experiments with larger and dual wheel configurations and noted some interesting results.
Widening the axels with wider or dual tyres will improve stability and grip.
... but, if the engine power is not up to the job, there will be a negative affect on forward movement.
Bigger/Duals, versus smaller or single = more traction and weight... which means they won't turn if you don't have the power. At the very least, the extra size, will also effectively change your effective gear ratios, everything else being equal.
For example, I noted that with a medium power engine, on the ANK Mk38, increasing wheel size actually meant the gear ratios were reduced so as to move the wheels less quickly.
This may or may NOT have a desirable effect. If your low gear is already too low to effect good forward momentum, things will be worse. Big wheels turning more slowly adds to inertia and you can sink more easily before making progress. Smaller wheels will spin more easily for any given "gear ratio x engine revs/prop shaft rotation" .... which MAY be desirable IF they were too slow to start with... OR, not good if they were prone to spinning already.
I also found that doubling the wheel number using a mod, could reduce speed with a weak engine. The FULL potential of the extra wheel/tyre contact area (multiplied by the grip factor) was only realised by upgrading the engine significantly.
There is a complex relationship between torque delivered to an axle, revolutions, and wheel size.
So, as a rule of thumb, bigger wheels, more wheels would potentially improve forward movement, but gearbox choice and engine power, will complicate things.
But it is fun to experiment ! And experiment you must. A balance of tyre choice, engine power and gear ratios can only be achieved by experimenting.
And ....unfortunately, once you add heavy weights etc, and trailers, the results can be VERY different, to those achieved with an empty truck -- not only due to weight of the cargo, but what it does to COG, and how that weight is distributed to the drive wheels.
Good fun huh ?!!? 👍😁
Yes.
In conclusion, highway tires.
This is probably the best tire guide I have seen for this game. Great work man! I'm currently on the Wisconsin map and I was still confused as hell as to what tires were the best to use, but this video confirms some of my beliefs so far and crushed others 😅
Glad to hear that man. I'm going to assume that Tatarin's tire stats were among the "confirmed" beliefs? lol
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Yeah, for sure. I noticed right away when I tried it in some of the deep mud in zimnegorsk. It's extremely good 😎 i also didnt know the MHS1, which I thought was great (as it was the option for the azovs) were only slightly better than OHS, but significantly worse in anything other that deep mud 🤓
This is the kind of information we need to see in game, not these worthless vehicle stats. It's really hard to tell the difference between trucks when the only 2 ratings you see are "A" and "S".
Yeah man, always felt so. When it comes to trucks we actually use, the P2W range they all sit in is quite narrow.
you absolutely killed this man
Omg thanks!
Can't say enough about the good information and good presentation of it. Great work, gonna change my [game] world! Keep up the good work. You deserve more views!
Thanks!
This is a great resource! I've just now discovered your snowrunner stuff ... youtube algorithm did you no favors
No it didn't. Tbh it's partly on me that I didn't think harder about how to promote my videos.
Wow that's surprising, what video games thought me after years and years of playing, is, the last unlockable items are always the best. Thanks for this very in-depth review. Very nice.
Hey thanks man, wanted to know if the double tyres or the single one was better for the Tayga. This answers it. Maths power dude.
Great information here! I assume most if not all of this info is still up to date even a few years later. I had always used mud tires because I thought the larger mud rating would always trump anything else. But this video has changed my mind. I love the look of double rear tires and the fact that they give added stability is a huge plus.
Thanks for the updated spreadsheet
No problem!
Thank you for all the work you put into this video!
this is a really really useful video great job
still very helpful today to a new player ! ty for the video
Great video! You covered each unlock stage, what to use, and when. The tire stats are accurate and play a big role, but hitbox also plays a big role in this test, which you didn't cover. Here's what I've found so far: narrower hitboxes allow vehicles to dig in more. TMHS and AMHS actually perform worse than other off-road and mud tires. I haven't compared footage of the different run tire sets, so I don't know what the best tire is, but I can confirm that the bogger tires actually slow vehicles down.
Having dumped countless hours into the game, I'm fairly sure "digging in more" does not improve traction by much if at all. If anything it only increases resistance on lighter trucks which slows the truck down. Comparing A/TMHS against OHD I/UOD II may suggest this but if you instead compare either of the above to anything in the MHS or OHS sets, this no longer checks out. They are the narrowest and sink the deepest but also noticeably worse.
I do realize that OHD I and UOD II perform better than A/TMHS on some soft surfaces (most notably light mud in Yukon). My theory for why this happens is that in those "substance pools" are thin enough to where the wheels can actually consistently touch the "body" at the bottom, in which case the "BodyFriction" value becomes much more significant, and offroad tires have a value of 3 whereas A/TMHS has a value of 2. It is for this reason that I frequently used OHD I over the balloons on my Tayga in Yukon.
I briefly checked your channel and it looks like you are a modder so you may know something that I don't. But purely going off of my in-game observation, it seems like that sinking deeper into snow/mud does quite the opposite, unless the snow/mud layer is really thin, but it will often be ill-advised to pick tires specifically for those areas because they are neither where you take the most risk, nor where you drain the most time.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam My own tests confirm what you say. OHD 1 and MHS tires are often faster than the balloon tires on shallow soft surfaces (like you said, probably because they then also use the body and not just substance friction), but if you go into deep mud the balloon tires will go through, while all the MHS and OHD will get stuck or slow down to a point of virtually being stuck.
@@SchokoIadenonkel Double-confirms my observation. Thanks for sharing btw ;)
I actually agree, Infact before finding this video I already made and posted one of my own: ua-cam.com/video/esjkhMtXo0c/v-deo.html
It's super rough, but the brute-force testing and having side-by side comparisons seems to suggest that offroad tires are the same, if not better in the most favorable mudtire conditions.
I'm gonna see if I can get in contact with firefly and work on figuring this out so we can all have answers.
Stats always make it clear thank you.
Yo! This video is an awesome addon to the spreadsheet. Thanks for making this!
Glad to be of help!
I'm watching your video just now. Hope you still see the comments.
What a complex subject. I couldn't understand 100% of the whole explanation.
We usually choose the biggest "excellent" mud tires and that's it. I was using a website with tire grip values. The higher the value, the better. But now I don't know how to choose the best tire anymore.
Is it correct to say that vehicles that have unique custom original tires from that vehicle perform better? For example Hummer, Tatra Phoenix.
Thanks for your time making this, good job sir
This is amazing! Great job!
Thanks bud
Thanks a lot for the detailed video! Any chance you'd be willing to share your edited version of the spreadsheet?
What i did for the test is load up black badger lake Wisconsin, and I used the ANK military truck. I drove to the river crossing and put it in "medium low" before I started crossing. It didn't dig in and I feel like I crossed faster than if I just full throttled it all the way across.
reducing wheelspin always helps with going through
Also, I've recently discovered that UAD III rear chains actually have their traction values from the Offroad template, not the Allterrain template for the front tires, meaning values similar to UOD rather than to UAD.
Interesting... Good to know
Can you make a updated vídeo about this topic please 🙏
18:35 correction: CAT 745 С comes on MSH IV stock.
M set (HMD, ATMD) is twice heavier than U set (UHD, UAD). Same for TMHS/AMHS.
TH357 tires also listed incorrectly - they are using HeavyMudtires template (same as super-heavy trucks like Kolobs) with 0,5 1,7 3,0 stats
Same for Zikz 605
"CAT 745 С comes on MSH IV stock" - so does that mean we should stick to those or still go for the MSH II as per the video?
@@nzmike7497, MSH 2 is still better. I've just corrected the info about the default set.
I still make sure to have a truck with chains for parts of Amur to help me with the pulling of heavy cargo on ice. Notably on Chernokamensk or the steep hill next to the launch site as well as when crossing icy rock crossings on the rivers. For scouts in Amur it's a mixed bag but more often than not some places are designed so you can only go through with chains as you have no snow patch and only a steep icy rock. For the rest of Amur you need mud tyres. For other regions they aren't so necessary.
Exactly what I would do. Chains are not automatically the best just because the map is snowy. It changes depending on where you're going.
Really nice video!
Thanks!
Hey man, could you link to _your_ spreadsheet in the description or a pinned comment? I have had Blade's saved forever now, but it'd be very handy to able to look at them side-by-side
Great info. Thank you.
Thanks! Super detailed and helpful!
Thanks for letting me know I'm helping!
There's physic's that apply in real life, and then there's the physic's that are envolved in games.
Can you do one about trailers
So, can I ask you a question? I was wondering why they put the fine tune gear box in the game. The only thing I could come up with is, something is speed/ tire spin related. So I tried varying my throttle when going through mud. I feel like when you get the wheel speed to correlate to the vehicle speed, you get through the mud faster. I don't know if I'm perceiving it wrong or if that's whats happening. What do you think?
I think they put Fine-tune GBs in the came purely as a "wow"-factor (so they, and excited players, can say it's in the game). The game's physics don't really allow the precision to make a useful difference, and on mouse & keyboard, the input scheme completely is just too big of an inconvenience.
My question is, how is rock surface handled by game. Is it considered asphalt or dirt? There are some rocky roads, big rocks through river, rocky banks of rivers, ....
Didn't find answer here either.
Drawing from my experience I believe rock surfaces are considered dirt (however silly that sounds).
Even if it were considered asphalt, it would not justify usage of highway tires since you will still be getting stuck everywhere else 😅
Nice job on the tire video 👍
Thanks! Are you somebody I know?
@@FireflyOnUA-cam I don't think so. But I do run the Jearbear Trucking co (PS4) search for us on FB ConsoleRunners - SnowRunner & MudRunner Community - No Mods
@@FireflyOnUA-cam There I go using my other account lol.
@@TooManyHobbiesJeremy Lol alright no worries.
Useful video thank you 💪🏻
Kind of wish this info were available in-game. Even if not as decimal fractions, why not the same "bars" as power-to-weight, durability and fuel efficiency?
I know right? It would be less confusing even if they just listed the numbers without explanation, instead of having the same "Good" or "Excellent" for two types of tires that look different and cost different.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Agreed. The game has a lot of hidden stats, some of which would be really useful. Stuff like actual engine power, or the weights of things. How heavy is this crane? How heavy are metal beams relative to wooden boards? Luckily, we have people like you collating this stuff, but it would help if it were available in-game.
@@Malidictus I actually have sources for literally all of those you mentioned: engine torque output, add-on mass, and cargo mass. I plan on covering them in future videos, but no telling on how long its gonna take since I'm all of a sudden busy again (every time I try to reboot my channel lol). Stay tuned tho.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Gotcha. That would be nice to see. I've been digging through the XML files myself of late (trying to make a double medium logs semitrailer work right), but that's a LOT of info in there. Would definitely appreciate a video on mass, torque and power-to-weight. That seems counter-intuitive the way it works right now.
No pressure, of course. I know how it is. Every time you think you'll have time, "life finds a way" :) Best of luck.
Could you include your version of the spreadsheet with pictures?
I guess I could have but I didn't do so because I don't plan on updating it, unlike BladeChildX who continues to update his sheet.
Also didn't want to break apart his work, re-assemble it, and just repost it somewhere else - especially if I'm not gonna update it, which may confuse his (or my own) audience down the line. This kind of stuff serves its purpose better under context (i.e. the video).
Your comment actually reminded me to add timestamps to the video so 1) thanks and 2) you can use them to jump to any of the 5 spreadsheets now, if you want regular access to them. Again, keep in mind that unlike the original spreadsheet, the video may age.
I think the point with the rear chains only is due to some trucks lacking the AWD option, so only rear wheel traction, it is not that good of an idea to put high traction tires on dead axles, it will only increase friction, without increasing pulling capacity on rough terrain.
Potentially. People don't really seriously use non-AWD trucks tho.
Please do a new guide including newly added trucks like the Tatras
So douley tires are just a visual upgrade and don't actually help with off-road or mud like it would in real life due to double the surface area?
That's the exact opposite of what I said.
I said that OHD I & UOD II (which are dual tires) are the best options, unless the truck in question has super-wide mud tires (AHMS or TMHS)
That is the exact opposite of what I said.
I thought I specifically said that OHD I & UOD II are the best to use, unless the truck in question has super-wide mud tires which have even more surface area.
19:30 what about the TrM tire? on paper looks like crap, but it is unique compared to TMs - it is not wide.
Under which category does rock surface fall under? The contest "Cliffhanger" is full of rock surface and mud tires doesn't grip at all why?
I believe rock surfaces are considered "Body" (so not "Substance" or "Asphalt"), so they are affected by the friction value in the middle of the table.
Also, if you are on a snowy map, some rock surfaces are covered by ice, which benefits from chains.
Hope this helps you.
Great video
Hey firefly any chance to get the values of the new tatra tires too, since the Zikz tires aren't in so we can compare?
BladeChildX has added the 605R's tires to his live spreadsheet. Check the link to that in my description. The "ZHM Special Tires" have the same stats as the default "MSH I" tires on the Cat 745C, Antarctic, & Kolobs.
The Tatra T813's default tires are titled "MSH I". I assumed that this means it's the same situation as the Zikz. I checked the XML files and was able to confirm this.
The rest of the T813's tires should be the same as tires with the same name on other trucks.
I think at this point this video calls for a follow-up that covers the Tatra, Zikz, and some other interesting discoveries I've made since I uploaded it. I'm a little busy atm but I'll try to get on with that.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam But i heard from at least 3 that the custom mhs 1 are better on the tatra than the real ones, thats why i ask. Thanks for the answer
@@N0xtron If somebody tells you "The Tatra's MSH I is better than the normal MSH I", I wonder what benchmark it is that they are comparing.
The old MSH trucks are in a completely different weight class (>25T) whereas Tatra is
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Thanks for all the info, i saw the zikz tires arent even that good as the tuz 420 ones but very heavy therefor can bring the power on the ground. The Tatra is not as good as other trucks cause of the low weight but it can mount chained muds compared to the zikz and is really good on fuel imo ^^
@@N0xtron Wheel mass is important in that 1) it brings the center of mass closer to the ground, which improves stability, and 2) it apparently plays affects traction (even when the wheel mass accounts for a small portion of total truck mass). #1 is self-explanatory but I was not aware of #2 before a guy called "Ankur" brought this to my attention and I've yet to test it specifically. You can see our conversation under his comment.
So yes, wheel mass is much more important than I previously thought, and I intend to cover it eventually. I believe wheel mass is also tied to the truck and not the tire choice, which (if I'm right) would put the Tatra at a disadvantage to the Zikz and old MSH trucks. Tatra still has it's insane P2W holding it up though.
Also yes, Tatra is extremely fuel efficient for a truck that has the 530 AT engine - likely due to its light weight. It will probably go much further without refuel than the Zikz since it can carry slightly less fuel but consumes it way slower.
Question:
Do mud tires have a different multiplier compared to off road and others or really the only thing we should look for are the three numbers in the files?
Like even though MHS I is not so good with it's 2.0 2.0 value, but does it have some other value that would still make it better than off roads like OHS II?
Hardness, width, and "radius offset" are likely to also affect performance. You can find these in the XML files. However my experience so far suggests that none of these create a large difference within the range in which they vary across different tire types, especially standard ones like MHS and OHS.
If I remember correctly MHS I and OHS II both have the same "base" width, but OHS II has a "radius offset" (it's rounded on the edges, thus reducing its contact area) (In the case of OHS II it mimics its visual appearance but that doesn't have to be the case).
However, OHS II is also softer than MHS I, which may allow it to compress against the ground and enlarge its contact area - which is why trying to draw conclusions from these attributes is difficult 😅
The only stat that I've found to change things massively is the friction values, which is why I mostly stick to discussing them in the video.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam
I know, it's hard to find any evidence other than grip values, but I noticed for example that the Zetros modded truck is quite mobile even if I use the stock tires, wich are around 2.4 grip, so basicly Tayga tires, but of course the tires narrower, and the truck doesnt have dual option, still it is faster than the tayga in deep mud. That's why I asked if anything else can be read from the xml files that makes sense why one truck is better than the other even though the grip values are the same and visualy one tyre is narrower than the other
@@tumate45 If you are going to compare things across trucks then there's also:
- Truck body weight
- Truck body weight distribution (might put more pressure on some wheels that others)
- Truck engine power
...etc. It'll get drastically more complicated.
You can definitely get those stats too from the XML files, but it would be hard to quantify how much of a difference each one makes in relation to the rest based on the stats alone.
Tbh it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to make a video on how to get & read the stats lol
Amuuur, amur, region. Ha. That is funny
very nice video
I wish you could swap out front and back tires with different setups.
That would be nice. It would make some trucks look awfully weird tho lol
Information for highway and all terrain tires dont need nobody will newer use it. Becouse there is no map where you can really use it these tipe of tires. Eweryone will allways use mudtires i think. What do you think?? What are you useing for most trucks?
Offroad & mud. Hwy & AT are basically stepping stones.
What about the more recent DHMS?
I haven't tried them must so I cannot from experience, but their stats indicate that they are nothing special (which is why I also didn't bother trying them much). While this video is very old, BladeChildX has updated his spreadsheet (docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ehuLHwbmA5ktr0ZC_gv52H3fkz3qxJY_i_uS7Gh0xRU/edit#gid=0) and you can see that DMHS is basically MHS I (but softer & rounder, which the sheet doesn't show).
OHS II has not failed me in 2 years and I still expect them to be better, and MHS II & III will just be vastly better even purely based on stats - they have higher friction values while also making the wheel wider.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam Thank you so much!
Thanks 😎👍
No problem :)
The game really doesn't give you enough information when it comes to trucks and upgrades
OHD 1 tire are like Honeybadger
Can you just tell me which tires would work best for the Vorons trucks ?
OHD I works best for Voron D, Voron AE, and Voron Grad.
@@FireflyOnUA-cam but isn’t the MHS wider?
@@jankhalil2065 The rear doubles on OHD/UOD are wider than any MHS.
awesome
I watched your video to the end and felt like I just had a nice lecture. Clear logic and Well-organised framework, much appreciated!
Thanks a ton! Feels great to be appreciated!
I'm a simple boi, if tire look cool, I use .
Why didn't they just display a traction value or something? Wtf is this Poor/Average/Good crap?
Big