Sangmi

Germany has a machine called the M3 Amphibious Rig that is kind of similar, but would require a lot of new animation rigging to a point where it would probably be too much effort compared to its' value.

These look great! Do you have any plans to mess with some of the more obscure TEC vehicles, like the bridgelaying vehicle?

That's quite the pretty model there, Itch.

You know, that was probably a good step one, but I couldn't find a good email for them.

The more we read into this, the more I start to think that Montana lawmakers never anticipated on anyone looking into the statute this deeply! haha. That's very interesting. I wonder if the definition maybe changes unofficially depending on the warning system configuration of a given vehicle.

I'm not good for much, but I do enjoy my research. I'm always happy to help solve quirky little mysteries like the ones that keep popping up in this thread. Looking through protocols is very fun to me haha. Without sounding too silly.. a POV that gets signed over to the state wouldn't be a POV anymore, right?

The Montana prehospital treatment protocols state that crews can terminate resuscitation efforts in the field under the guidance of their relevant medical direction, though it doesn't specify EMT vs Paramedic. My assumption is that either EMT or Paramedic can declare a time of death depending on the level of the truck (ALS vs BLS) and fill out the appropriate post-mortem paperwork, as long as they've contacted a doctor at the hospital that was going to receive them and gotten their permission to terminate resuscitation efforts. I'll drop a link to the document here. Pages 68 and 69 refer specifically to the cessation of resuscitation by EMS crews in the field. This is the best I could find. I'm an EMT in Indiana so the protocol here is different simply because we have greater access to hospital facilities.

So it's... exactly how we thought it would be. How disappointing.

The problem now is that Sixteen Tons is owned by a publisher whose only real interest in the company is the potential for profit, something that is the downfall of most small game studios. Why spend a bunch of money making something great when you can make something okay that returns a huge profit? Though our community here keeps the game alive some 17 years after its release, our opinion matters much less in the eyes of the developer than that of the people who will casually play whatever free-to-play EMHQ style game they release next. EMHQ was released in 2008 and is still running strong today. It is clearly a revenue generator, and Phoenix Games (who bought 16T in 2020) is only concerned with continuing to improve the cash flow coming out of the game. Because I have no life, I went digging around while reading this thread and stumbled upon a case study on Phoenix Games' website and reads like so: So, to kinda come back and non-rhetorically answer your question (and this is really just my two cents)... Sixteen Tons hasn't made a better game since 2006/2014 because they haven't needed to. Unfortunately, they'll most likely be swept up in the "free to play/gacha game that makes tons in microtransactions" hysteria and devote all of their development time to this premise, and you can't even say that they were forced into it by the publisher because the CEO of 16T himself is on board with it. I don't like to be a pessimist, however.. I'd say this will be 16T's business practice until they get acquired by another studio, or go under. Who knows, when the game releases it may not be that bad. However... I've seen a lot of studios sacrifice their passionate fanbase in exchange for easy money, so I'm on the fence.

Will the police have access to Batman as a deployable unit? This is, of course, critical to the setting. lol

I like doing this kind of research, I am a stickler for realism in all forms of 911 simulation. Can't mod to save my life but I can sure dig through legalese with.. ease. I've been trying to get in contact with MHP but their website appears to be offline and I can't seem to find a phone number that works. If anyone has an email address or phone number for MHP handy, I'd be happy to use it. However, I'm pretty confident that they wouldn't tell me anything that I didn't find searching through Montana's emergency vehicle statute.

Pre-Wedworth-Townsend ambulance services are really interesting.

I had to do a little research because I was curious, but no, these weren't special to the LAPD. These were LA's first paramedic ambulances, prior to the Wedworth-Townsend act authorizing the paramedic squads of Emergency! fame. Besides operating out of Central Receiving, they were also stationed at certain police stations, presumably because they weren't part of the fire department yet. They were all repainted red and white by the LAFD in the early 70s.

Back from another long hiatus from the forums to give my interpretation of Montana statutes, cause I'm weird. Montana vehicle code 61-9-227 seems to imply that not having a siren is what differentiates a volunteer firefighter's POV from an authorized emergency vehicle. (61-9-227. Blinker-type or revolving red light on certain private vehicles -- use -- identification card, MCA (mt.gov)) Montana vehicle code 61-9-401 "Horns, Security Alarms, and Warning Devices" describes the conditions for use of a siren as this. (61-9-401. Horns, security alarms, and warning devices, MCA (mt.gov)) So, I dug a little more. I found Montana code 61-8-102, which provides a definition.. of a definition of what Montana considers an authorized emergency vehicle. (61-8-102. Uniformity of interpretation -- definitions, MCA (mt.gov)) However, the statute that specifies a volunteer firefighter being permitted a light on the front or top of his vehicle does seem to provide a description that wouldn't allow the vehicle to meet the conditions for having a siren and being classified as an emergency vehicle. Montana code 61-9-402 describes the signaling equipment for an authorized emergency vehicle as such. (61-9-402. Audible and visual signals on police, emergency vehicles, and on-scene command vehicles -- immunity, MCA (mt.gov)) The raw legal definition of an authorized emergency vehicle as described in Title 7, Chapter 33 appears to not have been published online or is hiding in a section of the statute that is marked as reserved, because I went through every single article in the chapter and couldn't find it. So, in short, I don't think that POVs in Montana would meet the other signaling requirements of the law to be able to be classed as an authorized emergency vehicle and then use a siren. Though I am tempted now to contact the Montana Highway Patrol and find out. Hope this is helpful. Otherwise I typed a lot to look like a moron.

Lovely thus far! I haven't encountered any noticeable bugs, but I would suggest maybe making traffic a little less dense. A lot of the roads seem to get clogged up pretty quickly.