having tried out and enjoyed the Point to Point routes, especially the Seattle run multiple times now, can I request we create new PointToPoint categories for modern versions of ATS ? (new routes would be nice, but I mean new categories for existing routes).

I was aware of handling differences between old versions and newer, plus some reworked areas here and there. my current Seattle is over 80 RTA seconds faster than the leaders, using the different techniques, yet is still a few IGT minutes slower. the route appears the same, but with such a big RTA difference, something else is going on between versions (either bigger or more slow-zones, or something else).

I think effectively enforcing people to use an alpha version from years ago to compete is unfair, plus with most states still to be added, it just doesn't make sense. perhaps once it did where the changes weren't as pronounced, but this difference really is huge. in other speedrun boards where a game is in development, we see categories being locked in to cater for newer versions. perhaps this should happen here ?

could we also enforce a fuel consumption setting that is the same for all too, not based on the ECO skill, and possibly default road events ? there is nothing in the rules to specify what settings to use currently and clearly, and for longer runs these are quite important.

updating can be a nuisance, but we are seeing bigger differences in some of these runs, and ahead we will see more routes added. perhaps we need to look at this a bit more.

New categories (as in new routes) could be considered but there is not any compelling reason to split the boards based on things like game version when it is simple to down-patch.

"effectively enforcing people to use an alpha version from years ago to compete is unfair" It is not any alpha version, especially for runs like Roswell-Seattle, that is a run achievable on any fully released game version since the relevant map DLC was released. Knowing which game version to use and making proper use of the relevant 'slow zones' is just part of the IGT run category.

New Game + runs can use modified settings to the runners discretion. It is assumed that you would have maximum economy skill, have realistic fuel consumption disabled, and road events set to minimum. New profile runs specify that only Truck settings can be changed, meaning road events may randomly occur, but realistic fuel consumption can be disabled (I believe it is by default, and there is no reason you would enable it).

no compelling reason is open to debate. it looks like things will remain as they are, but let me cover a few points in response.

Knowing which game version to use and making proper use of the relevant 'slow zones' is just part of the IGT run category.

you are deliberately using an archaic and obsolete beta version to gain a speedrunning advantage (and by extension enforcing everyone to do so if they want to run competitively), with the handling differences, and these bigger IGT/route differences, some of which are still unclear. this is unfair.

in your seattle run you don't use any of the optional slow zones, you stop for repairs after a heavy crash at provo, yet still finish ahead. there's also the big fuel difference, likely due to eco skill, but could be version related. it's clear there's no contest between versions from a speedrunning perspective, the seattle run just highlights this.

many people don't want to download a really old beta of the game just to speedrun it, while maintaining a current version for normal use (with the multitude of patches, improvements and bug fixes that happen). this is not simple. I'm not even sure about the practicalities of using such an old beta with current/future dlc.

people should be able to run a recent/current version and run it fairly, no ?

also, I've seen several other posts made about new routes being added, yet not a single route has been added since I first ran the game. I really don't understand the reluctance to update the board when the interest clearly is there from the community, especially for shorter routes.

"archaic and obsolete beta version" It is very common for games to be speedrun on older versions. Some will have separate leaderboards, others will not. Steam makes it very easy to swap between versions, and there is a separate app that can be used to find any past version that is not freely available. It is not a barrier to entry if you are dedicated to running for podium placement.

"I'm not even sure about the practicalities of using such an old beta with current/future dlc." When you select the beta version it downloads that version of the game and all relevant DLC. When you swap back to the current version it updates everything again. To avoid the time it takes to update you can just make a copy of the game folder and rename them as needed. Also bear in mind the 'beta' label is technically incorrect, it was the fully released version of the game at that time, that is just where SCS puts things for convenience.

"people should be able to run a recent/current version and run it fairly, no ?" They can, there is no reason someone cannot run the current version, sometimes it works out faster (I believe Redding to Yuma is fastest on a more recent version) and other times slower (as you suggest may be the case of Roswell-Seattle). Ultimately any previously fully released game version can be used.

" I've seen several other posts made about new routes being added, yet not a single route has been added since I first ran the game. I really don't understand the reluctance to update the board when the interest clearly is there from the community, especially for shorter routes." What suggestions? What interest? There is a sticky post on the forum outlining how people can make suggestions for new runs, and it has zero replies. If someone performs a run between new places that a ) brings something different to what current runs represent and b ) has an example run to demonstrate it (so we do not just have empty boards) then I am very open to adding something new. But when suggestions are made they never seem to come with examples.

Having reviewed the run side-by-side with my own, it was not clear there are any route difference between the versions, and no indication of time calculation differences either. If you are able to analyse specifically where the differences are between the two, that could be interesting to know, but from what I can tell the differences are just in where time was lost vs gained. My crash was practically offset by your fuel stop (which is less about fuel skill and more about only using a 120 gallon tank, and possibly forgetting to turn off Realistic fuel consumption?) and when I made a later mistake it seems it was made up for by a faster later section. I would encourage you to check your chassis choice and fuel consumption options on your next attempt, and look forward to verifying it as WR, as I am sure it would be.