Poll: Choose (3) States you would like to see next

What state should be next

Kentucky
11
2%
Mississippi
30
6%
Iowa
102
20%
Tennessee
25
5%
South Dakota
98
19%
Louisiana
127
24%
North Dakota
46
9%
Illinois
84
16%
 
Total votes: 523

User avatar
howey
Posts: 1714
Joined: 11 Aug 2018 12:08
Location: Wollongong NSW Australia

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5111 Post by howey » 12 May 2021 01:25

Yeah quite doubtful that Montana be next year, Even though Montana isn't as populated or dense as far as cities and industries as Texas it's still no slouch either. Their are still enough road layouts and towns to fill the gaps of its sparse environment. Iberia was suprised in this way and Wyoming to would be a idea to see how they go about it has Wyoming is similar to Montana in what it offers with it's population of cities and towns, industries and road layout. If Wyoming is in a similar mindset to what the ETS 2 map team did with Iberia then we could see alot more offered then what alot of people are assuming. If that is the case then that quite well makes Montana being offered alot more then what alot of people assume also and in that case will take more time to create which is why i think Montana would be 2023 at least.

Plus you factor in now a section of the map team is on the California reworks project that decreases the production of future map DLC's as less people from the map team will be working on them. I wouldn't be suprised if a decent number of mappers are working on the rework as it is a big task to complete itself, especially if they carry over to Nevada and Arizona afterwards. It would be better for SCS imo to go to a smaller state such as OKC after Texas and also perhaps Kansas if they wanted to push 3 states quickly after Texas but guess we will have to wait and see what they decide to do.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30157
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5112 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 02:46

I don't think SCS removes people from a paid dlc to a free reworks though. That's why it took so long to kick out Germany. The reworks team has no affect on the paid map teams but the paid map teams can have an effect on the reworks team. The reworks team is very small. If it grew by now, they will get pulled if need be. It was noted on the 2020 xmas stream that they were small and will grow over time. There are a few reasons why I'm going with Montana for 2022 though. Even if it happened to be Winter 2022, its still 2022.

1) Wyoming is about to release in another month or two at the most. So lets say July for worse case. The entire Wyoming team goes to Montana. They will need a few morebodies because of the size of Montana.......no worries though....read on.
2) Texas more than likely does not make it out for 2021. So it should come Spring of 2022. Worse case, Summer 2022. Once Texas is out, there will basically be 2 map teams freed up. One can go to Oklahoma, the other can go help Montana if need be. So whether Montana needs a little help or a lot of help, the Texas team will be able to help and they'd pull the rebuild team if they needed to in order to get Montana out for 2022. Same that happened with Black Sea. You pull from the free map team, not the paid team.
3) Montana's size is deceiving in my opinion. Take Texas for example. Go outside of the Texas Triangle and its a lot of open space and no mountains or huge hills. 2/3's of Montana is just like Texas. Flat open lands with miles of flatter terrain. It will be easier to hide distances in Montana though because it could have a few rolling hills.
4) another year Idaho is in bad shape with no Montana. SCS should avoid this at all cost. Idaho needs Montana like yesterday. Not doing Montana for 2022 prolongs the frustration some people have with Idaho. Some people even refuse to buy Idaho until Montana releases.

We won't get a map dlc this year perhaps but we should at least get 2 next year. Montana could go 1.5 years and release for Oct/Nov 2022 and Texas worse case goes Summer 2022. Best case Texas comes Spring and that frees up a lot of mappers. People can go in many directions at that point. Montana, California, Oklahoma or even Louisiana. It really depends on how well Wyoming does. The fewer the bugs the better. The least amount of time fixing bugs once it release helps. Will the entire Wyoming team be able to go to Montana (probably not) but most will as others stay behind to fix bugs. I can't see Montana going to 2023 and Texas being the only map coming for 2022. Texas already causes us to miss a map for 2021 and to only get Texas for 2022 when we have (4) map leads and basically (4) map teams, that would be a little underwhelming.

Now if Oklahoma took the place of Montana for 2022 and it came for Winter instead of Montana, that works as well. We still at least get 2 maps again moving forward. Then and only then I can see Montana coming for 2023. These thoughts doesn't include new employees that are still getting hired though. Veterans loose time training but it pays off in the long run. More people means more content worked on in parallel. More people doesn't meant faster development though. Train good now and get more content later. ATS has at least 30 mappers now. At least there was 30 in December when Pavel mentioned ATS has about as many mappers as ETS2. Montana is very similar to small towns in Texas, Wyoming and Idaho. They won't be huge towns at all. The largest towns will be Billings, Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell, Helena, Butte and Great Falls. Texas has (6) huge cities. Montana will just have mid sized. No huge downtown centers to worry about but enough to drive thru like Boise. These towns are about the size of Idaho Falls, Montrose or Coeur d' Alene. Not to big so not as time consuming.
User avatar
clifflandmark
Posts: 904
Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
Location: Urfa
Contact:

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5113 Post by clifflandmark » 12 May 2021 04:21

flight50 wrote: 12 May 2021 02:46 More people means more content worked on in parallel. More people doesn't meant faster development though.
I can't remember where I read it before but I remember something like this. If different teams work on same things or team A don't know what team B does or some situations like these occur "more people doesn't mean faster development."


For example, there are 2 people with new ideas for a project.Person A has 5 ideas.Person B has 5 ideas, too.but one of their 5 ideas is same. So there's 9 ideas. but we assumed 10 ideas for the project in starting.The number of people and the number of ideas do not increase in parallel. Now spread it to 50 people, there should be 250 ideas but due to the same ideas from human brain capacity (same ideas from different people) it'll decrease to 100 ideas.(just a sample)

and that's why even big companies in gaming can't go further in content. developers cant remember the starting point when they reach finish line.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30157
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5114 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 07:47

I just realized why Montana is so critical at this point. I didn’t realize that Idaho has 6 connections to it. I think all 6 will make the game too. I was thinking 4 perhaps for some odd reason but there is a lot more than that.

*US-2. I’d like to think SCS gives us a connection from Sandpoint to Kalispell. Not to mention, go back and connect Sandpoint directly to Coleville Washington
*I-90. CDA to Missoula. Thin panhandle but we must have it.
*US-12. Grangeville to US-93.
*US-93. Salmon to Missoula.
*US-20. Gets us to US-191 and to YS.
*1-15. Idaho Falls to Butte.

There is even one more potential to make it 7. ID-200 to MT-200.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5115 Post by Shiva » 12 May 2021 10:23

WA-20/US-2, between Washington and Idaho, I still hope for that, but it will be anything but easy.
ID-200 to MT-200, plausible. That road was in 1 of my ideas to get more roads to Idaho, without going too deep into Montana.
The rest you mention flight50, are 100%. Would be strange otherwise.

Ah yeah, next map after Wyoming?
Texas. If not delayed too much. See below for what if delayed. Late 2021 or more likely 2022 earlyish.
Montana. Unless Texas delayed. See above. Summer 2022?
Oklahoma. Late 2022 or early 2023.
My theory atm.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30157
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5116 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 12:57

WA-20 to US-2 definitely won't be easy. I looked on the map with the dev camp a few times and the terrain definitely needs to be reworked for sure. They'll have to figure something out when Montana comes though. It makes zero sense go from Omak or Coleville via I-90 in any form. If we are trying to go to Kalispell to have to go WA-20 E to US-395 S to I-90 E, to US-95 N and then back to US-2. The decision to not connect Sandpoint in the beginning wasn't a wise decision to begin with. The person that did Sandpoint didn't do any favor for the person that may have to come back thru to connect later. Its about planning ahead and when Montana comes, that road should be connected.

US-2 from Spokane to Sandpoint seems a bit tougher to do but from WA-20, much more feasible. That just might be the best that can happen to continue US-2. We need to get it all the way to Minnesota and in one piece as much as possible. There is a lot more wiggle room with WA-20 to get to Sandpoint though. They can tinker with curvy roads to get to Tiger, Wa and then down thru Calispell, Wa before joining back up to US-2. Somehow, Newport needs to be added as a scenic town though. That's the one definite town that I'd include between Sandpoint and Coleville.

That route seems like a nice lil scenic drive along the river though. SCS has been doing a great job with roads that follow rivers. Its been quite immersive. Lots of curves that can come that can provide some good distance between deliverable towns. So much of that path can be tree walls so I think it could work. The river and the mountains on the back side of the River would be the trickiest to do. The route comes in at 109 miles long so its definitely worth it to put it in. Start with dropping in Newport right on the border as close as possible. Cheat it West into Washington if need be. Then layout the roads connecting them up from that point. If something like this route can't be possible, its going to be a huge challenge once they get East. That is when its really difficult to do stuff. Its fairly sparse now but the East will give the deves a work out to get things to fit. They can't just always skip stuff. They'll have to find ways to get compact details into the game on the side of the US.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5380
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5117 Post by oldmanclippy » 12 May 2021 14:27

On the topic of road connections:

I agree that WA-20 or US-2 needs to come to connect Northern Washington with Northern Idaho and Northern Montana. Colville to Sandpoint is already ridiculous and will only be more baffling when Montana comes. If only one comes, it needs to be WA-20. But I really want to have US-2 in its entirety. The only other parts of US-2 that could feasibly be left out in the future is the stretch from Quebec to Burlington in Vermont and Newport or Bangor to Houlton in Maine (they won't double up with I-95). The rest of US-2 is certain to be included, so it would be a bummer to have just one small hole between I-5 in Washington and I-75 in Michigan. Road continuity is a very important priority for me.

I think US-2, I-90, US-12, I-93, I-15, and US-20 will connect Idaho and Montana. The US-20 connection could come with Wyoming but I'm not counting on it. I don't see them adding ID-200 and MT-200, it doesn't really add anything. There aren't any other connections that would work I don't think, so I think the ID-MT connections are actually pretty easy to predict compared to other state borders. Needless to say Idaho will be enhanced dramatically by these connections, particularly Salmon, Sandpoint, and Idaho Falls.

Now I'm really getting ahead of things here, but the possibilities for connections to North and South Dakota also really excite me and those will be some of the things I'll be most focused on when Montana releases. US-2 and I-94 are shoe-ins to connect to ND. US-12 could come with SD, but I think the two states might come together so it might not matter. We will need a road to connect Glendive with northern North Dakota. Perhaps this is MT-2005 and MT-13 to get us up to US-2 within Montana, but I'm hoping that instead we get MT-200 continued east to meet MT-16 coming from Glendive, and then MT-200 continues to the border and turns into ND-200. This would get us access to Watford City and US-85 and hopefully the rest of ND-200 to get us lots and lots of oil depots. I drove ND-200 from US-85 ND-22 and it's remarkable how much oil plays a role there. There might be more drills than people along that stretch. ND-200 from US-85 to US-83 gets us an alternative to the I-94 slog (and it will be a slog after the first couple times driving it) and access to plenty of oil and cattle. Tie some of the depots to Watford City, some to Dickinson, and some to Bismarck. And of course there'd be more oil up by Williston too. I really think we'll need a better solution to Glendive -> Williston than just going Glendive to US-2 within Montana, then east to ND. MT-200/ND-200 fills this role very well and sets up lots of industry in the middle latitudes of North Dakota. In order for this to happen, SCS needs to think ahead about how they want to get from MT to ND besides just US-2 and I-94.

Here is what I mean (MT-200 between Circle and Riverview could probably be axed without much trouble so I crossed it off):
[ external image ]

For South Dakota, the only Montana connections will probably be US-12 via North Dakota and US-212 via Wyoming. But these are both absolutely critical.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30157
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5118 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 16:00

I'm thinking MT-16 doesn't connect Glendive to Sidney unless MT-200 is running East to West in full. To get to US-2,, I'm thinking US-85 off I-94 connects US-2 to I-94. That saves them from needing to do MT-16. US-85 and US-385 hopefully runs North and South to get in the Black Hills. Culbertson and Sidney or something else for that matter would need to have depots imo in order for those associated roads to be added to Montana. Otherwise, they are just extension roads for ND which means no depots to come to those towns. Not to mention SCS typically doesn't fill out the Eastern portions of dlc's. They are saved for the adjacent state as extensions. There has to be depots in the Eastern portions of dlc's for roads to go so far East. Glendive for I-94, Glasgow or Culbertson for US-2. Nothing else really says map me for Eastern Montana. Its just so open that SCS will more than likely just leave it as that too. MT-59 just might be the only North to South road in Eastern Montana unless US-2 brings a depot or two East of Glasgow.

Assuming the Dakotas come separately, US-12 would be a North Dakota road. It could connect up with US-385 in North Dakota which ties US-2, I-94, US-12 and I-90 together. But if we get the Dakotas combined, yeah I agree with ya....it won't matter. Bowman, ND could be a town to place. Marked or scenic I have no idea but its an intersection both US-12 and US-85 can meet.

In your map, honestly, I'd keep MT-200 intact. I'd remove MT-200S instead. If we don't have any depots along MT-200 from Sidney to Jordan, that shortcut won't do much. We can go from Grass Range, MT all the way to Sidney, MT with just scenic towns so no other connection are valid at that point. The less breaking up of roads, the better. Kinda like US-2. Keep it as whole as possible. Same with US-50. Hopefully with the California rebuild, we get US-50 from Carson City to Sacramento. The US routes are a joy to have in their full length when possible. So if SCS starts them in one state, if they run into another state, they are sort of necessary to continue imo.

Ultimately, I see Northeastern Montana and not needing a lot of density to get from Montana to North Dakota. US-2, MT-200, US-12 and I-94 is more than likely all we will get in that area. Leaving out MT-16, ND-16, MT-13 and MT-200S won't affect too much at I:20 scale unless that area was loaded with depots which I don't think happens until we get into North Dakota. I sure would be nice to know this answer for Eastern Montana come Dec 2022.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5119 Post by Shiva » 12 May 2021 18:21

Coleville WA-20/US-2 Sandpoint, might be possible with a more than a few cutplanes.
Sandpoint's northwest forest industry, it has scenery that reaches WA-20, but that ain't that big of a problem.
Actually, I think a good map editor could make that route.
If I had to choose, I would rather miss the US-2 section between Spokane and Newport, if it means that Coleville WA-20/US-2 Sandpoint fits.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30157
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5120 Post by flight50 » 12 May 2021 18:54

^Agreed. As much as I'd love to get US-2 from Spokane, looking at it all with dev cam doesn't seem as easy as WA-20. We just need some type of connection to link all 3 states together without involving I-90. I think there is a depot right off US-20 in Spokane that is the issue. Home Store or Bushnell, I can' remember. But it seems like an space conflict trying to continue US-2. That might be why they halted there. But WA-20 allows a lot more wiggle room. With 109 miles to cover though, we just need SCS to choose 1-2 small scenic towns to spice up that route.

Agreed on the cutplanes. I expect that to be part of the solution no matter what. There are some very low res mountains in place in that area. But if a road goes thru there, they have to replace them anyways with better quality and still have Deepgrove in Sandpoint look good and undisturbed as much as possible. When we get it, I'm definitely making that Coleville to Kalispell trip asap. Most of the route is all trees and distant mountains but seems like a nice peaceful drive. Should look pretty good. That road should be linked to the Idaho dlc though and not with Montana. But I don't think it comes until Montana.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brothergun, LegoTechnicFanBoi, Triple-Ce, Xefjord and 14 guests