MTM2.com

Do you prefer flat bin models to have a base box so that you collide at the base of the tree or just completely no collide?

No collide.

That way if you do happen to get out of shape, you don't ruin a great lap.

Monster trucks weigh over 10,000 pounds anyway, so when track makers make trees and things so they stop a truck, that's just stupid, in reality, a 10,000 lb object traveling at 100+ mph... that tree would be toast.

Well yeah...but you don't drive that fast, RF lol. I think there are limits to how far one should strive to make this game parallel real life. I mean, part of the fun in it is that you "can" drive forever on no gas, and you "can" make death defying jumps, blow it completely and ultimately go tumbling off the side of a 300 ft cliff, suffering no damage to yourself or your truck lol.

As for the tree thing though, I think it depends on the track and the track maker. On some tracks having collideable tree trunks negate corner cuts and out right shortcuts, where as on other tracks...like JDAK's Jaunt, trunkless trees are fine. However, I do think that if Shoe had opted to use object boxes to simulate collideable tree trunks the track would be just as good, just as fast, it's just that racers would have slightly less freedom with respect to lateral movement. Another thing that factors in is the model count. If you're already pushing the model count limit (541 I believe), it's safe to say that trees set to no collide, facing is the way to to go. If I had to pick a side though, I'd say go with the collideable tree trunks more often than not.. Afterall, I'm not a sissy and I know how to drive...unlike my good friend, RF lolol.

I guess I should put a goofy wing on all my trucks then, so I can just fly over the trees like Super-Copey.

You still hanging your laundry on that thing?

Anyway, I think it ruins some really great tracks. Case in point, Eno's Woods, Geezer Run, Swiss Alps 2...

They coulda been much better. If you're going to set them to collide, then get them AWAY from the road. I don't know if you've ever raced with Cope, but all he does is rub against you like lonely cat. Sooner or later, one of you is going to go flying, and then slammed to a stop by a tree. Then you might as well just drive in circles till someone wins, because there is no way of catching up to the group.

Don't even get me started on bot trucks running into "collide" objects, and getting in your way. I drive my mtm trucks like I drive my real truck. I go off roading almost every weekend, and I beat on it severly. I for one don't like trees near my truck. That's why my opinion is what it is on this issue.

I'm a firm believer of "what you see is what you get".
That means I expect trees of a certain size to have a collideable trunk and hate it to discover that they are of the "drive through" variety.
As Cope says, an argument for not using collideable trunks is the object count. As a rule of thumb you should use collideabel trunks on trees likely to be hit (e.g. those close to the road) while you can spare them on purely decorative trees.

Another reason to follow Copes always wise advice is that otherwise your tracks' rating will easily drop by 3 or 4 points in his review, unless of course you call him Super-Copey, lol

LOL you are indeed a wise fellow, Rocket. I knew there was a reason I liked you lol.

In all seriousness, the two tracks RF refers to are older tracks...and I happen to like both. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with him about both tracks being ruined by the authors setting the trees to collide. Yep, it's a fact Enocell's "The Woods" was made 2 years after Dmnd Dave's "Swiss Alps", yet on "The Woods", the entire tree model is collideable whereas on "Swiss Alps" DD obviously had the foresight to set the tree models to no collide, then insert object boxes to simulate a trunk. If anything DD should be commended because you won't find too many tracks made in 99 (early 99 too) that used that particular methodology where models are concerned.

But hey, we could go back and forth on this forever. What I know for a fact, however, is that pro racers adapt to all sorts of so-called "flaws" or "shortcomings", if you will, and they make it work, and it's usually because they're trying to figure out some angle to make the racing line more efficient, more direct. Beginners typically stick to the road, and I mean like it was forbidden to do otherwise lol, therefore, they rarely encounter things such as entire tree models that are collideable, and if so, they simply steer clear of it lol. It's perceived as "normal".

Anyway, good stuff here.

I'll have to agree with the what you see is what you get theory.
The ability or patience requier to shave just enough to make a good lap is where the rookies are being seperate from the pro's.

I drove several laps around Copey, and did so on tons of tracks. Trees is not what ruined some of the races, rather it's either one of us daring a little to much somewhere where we should've been more conservative. Trees dont move. If you hit them it's your fault. However everything laying around the intend path should be set accuratly so you'll only hit when you really hit it. It's the same thing with buildings and other objects.

My only restriction with collidable trees is with small bush. i hate it when little bush can stop dead a 10,000 pounds truck.

> Do you prefer flat bin models to have a base box so that you collide at the base of the tree...

I do, so long as they're big trees. hotshoe dosn't but I still think his tracks are great.

what does Kdawg like? :o)