[REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5101
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#231 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 16 May 2021 18:16

I think SCS looks in every thread. The last post before your post was from March 21st. The other thread is way more active. But in the end the most important thing is not where a thread is located, but what a thread contains.
User avatar
supersobes
Global moderator
Posts: 13714
Joined: 07 Dec 2016 21:53
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#232 Post by supersobes » 16 May 2021 19:47

There are two separate threads for a reason. The other one is more general discussion and this one is purely information for the developers. Since his post is informational, it's in the correct place.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5101
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#233 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 16 May 2021 20:38

Thanks for clarifying; sometimes it can be confusing where to post.
User avatar
EurocopterX3
Posts: 283
Joined: 23 Oct 2017 19:49
Location: Northern Califurnia, USA
Contact:

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#234 Post by EurocopterX3 » 21 May 2021 21:41

It has come to my attention that Susanville has been added to California as a scenic town within the most recent blog post about the California Rework. While I am extremely happy to see this being added to ATS, I couldn't help but notice an error or odd choice made when it came to the way the road was built. (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SEWhWkqRhGE/ ... 920/11.jpg) For whatever reason, the lane merges into a single lane before Main Street (State Route 36) and Roop Street intersect. This is not at all how the actual intersection looks like at all, in fact, the merge into a single lane doesn't even occur. Rather, the left lane is a one-way turn and the right lane continues into that curve. This can quite easily been seen on Google Maps and for further proof that this is incorrectly designed, here's a video of someone driving through the town. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vatVqdeugSA&t=158s) If this was intentional, I would very much like to know why this was done.
User avatar
Calibuddy99
Posts: 327
Joined: 19 Mar 2022 19:38

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#235 Post by Calibuddy99 » 29 Jun 2022 02:18

Anyone still here? If so, make SCS add Chico and Yuba City, add the rest of the US 99 in California, and South Lake Tahoe, and add the CA 60 in LA.
Nothing to say here anymore.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#236 Post by flight50 » 29 Jun 2022 11:11

Chico works but its a loosing battle at this point for Yuba City. The new I-80 just doesn't allow for it. I've focused my energy in the other thread for just Chico which is more realistic. To get Yuba City, SCS needs to make CA-99 connect to Sacramento and the junction at I-5 and CA-99 just isn't possible. That curve that is there in real life, isn't in the game. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6688313 ... 5.5z?hl=en. There's just no space to pull this off without messing up I-5.
User avatar
Calibuddy99
Posts: 327
Joined: 19 Mar 2022 19:38

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#237 Post by Calibuddy99 » 29 Jun 2022 22:17

Well you could do it if you just made the spot on I-5 just north of I-80 where the third lane ends, and fit it right there. and for the other side, just modify those unrealistic hills to the right when going south bound. Those hills don't exist in real life anyway.
Nothing to say here anymore.
User avatar
Calibuddy99
Posts: 327
Joined: 19 Mar 2022 19:38

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#238 Post by Calibuddy99 » 29 Jun 2022 22:26

Well actually how about this. All of the people here on the forum who want these two cities, how about you all wait until I get my hands on a brand new and very great pc, and then I will make a mod that adds those two.
Nothing to say here anymore.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#239 Post by flight50 » 30 Jun 2022 00:51

When it comes to cities of those 2 sizes, unless you can model new assets for unique buildings and create new depots, it will be copy paste assets that SCS built from other cities. I can do ProMods Canada because SCS is years away and their quality is pretty good. But in the US, a decent sized city that SCS has not mapped may not smooth over too well from some people. Reforma did Reno, Winnemucca and Sacramento but SCS had assets for them. There is nothing for Chico nor Yuba City. I'm sure many will try your mod though. But this is one for me personally, I'd sit out. The intent is good though. I stopped using map mods in the US. But that's just my preference. I don't speak for all.
User avatar
Calibuddy99
Posts: 327
Joined: 19 Mar 2022 19:38

Re: [REWORK] AZ, CA, and NV public research and rework suggestions.

#240 Post by Calibuddy99 » 03 Jul 2022 02:15

I don't care who uses the mod, I just want people to use it. Whenever I have the ability to make it, I will. In fact, I might just make it for myself, because no one really has been demanding those two cities. However if I do use custom assets, then what would be the point of making it for myself. So I will probably release it. But I don't know. Just as long as someone uses it, then it's worth the effort.
Nothing to say here anymore.
Post Reply

Return to “American Truck Simulator”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests