Idaho Discussion Thread

[Freeze338]

Picture 3 has pretty good mountains actually. If they add Missoula and increase the road length over 3300-3500 miles, it'll be a great DLC. Because it has logging roads, great scenery variety ( green in north, desert in south. Also it has great rock formations), farming areas, truck stops etc. I don't know about scenic roads in Idaho but if those roads exist just like WA-20, NM-64, US-550 or US-101 it'll be an amazing DLC.

I'm gonna honest I was disappointed about Utah as well for driveable road distance and Salt Lake City. If they add 1-2 more roads and remake SLC mountains it'll be an amazing DLC.

But I'm expecting a lot about Idaho overall that I see in blogs. Probably I'll be happy about Idaho DLC.

[angrybirdseller]

The mountains do need work for Salt Lake City the limitations of 1:20 of scale will affect Denver the same way along with Las Vegas rebuild. The majority of driving on freeways not backroads and Utah not Washington or Oregon most population live along 120 mile north to south corridor along the Wasatch Mountains only so many road to fit. Idaho will be fine as Boise they can combine SLC methods of suburbs and the Yakima style downtown to drive thru. Idaho does not worry me like Texas where less room for error and the cities have more cut out like Dallas or Houston. Idaho you notice the assets made from previous DLC are being used rather wisely for truck stops with ATS there far more flexibility to create truck stops compared to ETS2.

[Travismods]

I hate to be moaning here but the new screenshots show a true lack in any realistic mountain regions that are a huge part of Idaho IRL. For reference, Idaho highways:

[ external image ]
[ external image ]
[ external image ]

I do not see a single shot with those kind of views. The reason these DLCs are starting to look samey is because SCS still won't add real elevation changes and massive mountains in what is argubly the most mountainous regions of North America. The only, only place in ATS I see realistic mountains and elevation is in the Sierra Nevada mod. Sure, it is at a cost of popin issues. Still a compromise could be made, I still think the old graphics engine can handle more than the same old flat landscapes.

And before anyone says it, yeah I know Idaho has its fair share of flat fields and plains. And they do look nice. But a large part of Idaho is mountainous and so far I am not seeing a single shot with those kind of regions. It makes me a little worried Montana and Colorado will also mostly be larger hills, or rather flatlands with hills in the horizon.

[flight50]

@flight50 You remember Shoshone's water tower? That is in the picture you linked.
Shoshone can't be a marked city, right? or can it?

Yep, I remember that water tower. The one across the train tracks. I am thinking it won't be marked as its fairly close to Twin Falls. But I think its possible for something further North on ID-75 to be mapped like Ketchum/Sun Valley, Hailey or even Stanley.

Picture 3 has pretty good mountains actually. If they add Missoula and increase the road length over 3300-3500 miles, it'll be a great DLC. Because it has logging roads, great scenery variety ( green in north, desert in south. Also it has great rock formations), farming areas, truck stops etc. I don't know about scenic roads in Idaho but if those roads exist just like WA-20, NM-64, US-550 or US-101 it'll be an amazing DLC.

I'm gonna honest I was disappointed about Utah as well for driveable road distance and Salt Lake City. If they add 1-2 more roads and remake SLC mountains it'll be an amazing DLC.

I agree with everything here. I think US-95, US-93, ID-75 and ID-55 will be Idaho's main prize roads. Idaho is a long tall state so the roads that it will have will be pretty decent length besides I-90 unless we get Missoula. I too think fill in Southern Utah and reworking the mountain in SLC will make it an amazing dlc. Believe it or not, it is still may favorite right now. The rock formation tool SCS has created is awesome and displays a wonderful creation that looks natural. I am hoping Idaho can shine a bit more than what we all are seeing from the blogs. But the blogs in only a small portion of the story there is more to Idaho I am sure.

@koolizz. We have to remember that the blogs are w.i.p. and will not show us everything...that's a good thing. What they don't show, does not mean it does not exist. Yes Utah let down in a few areas but this is Idaho. Until we see it for ourselves, we really don't know what all SCS has in store for us. I am honestly looking for Idaho to be pretty good. I totally agree on Sierra Nevada....like totally. Perhaps it paved the way for the devs to see what we are expecting with elevation. Good thing Sierra Nevada is how now while Colorado is not as far along as Idaho. They can make changes as necessary. At 1:20 scale, there is only so much that can be done but do enough of it to capture an area and mission accomplished. Once Idaho releases though, then we can critic it more but doing so now, can be doing it prematurely. I wouldn't factor in blog count to equal a disappointing dlc. We must give the dlc a chance. I am not saying go in with super high hopes but lets just wait and see first.

[deross55]

@koolizz I Agree with you 100%. Idaho is looking just like the rest of SCS.

[Robinicus]

Just have to loosen up the pivot point on your monitor stand and attach a string to one corner so you can tilt it up and down to simulate the absent elevation changes.

[Kraake]

I'm a little bit worried in a way for Idaho and Colorado, in a way I wasn't before Utah...We were used to SCS nailing DLCs but I honestly felt Utah was disappointing as a DLC. It lacked smaller backroads and small towns and after like 2 hours of playing I knew the DLC roads without looking at the map. And SLC, man that city is disappointing in the game. It reminds me nothing of real life.......

Hello koolizz.

I've just checked this topic after while and I found your pictures and and your opinions. You have 100% right to think anything good or bad about our upcoming or previous DLC's, I am not gonna argue with you.
But posting pictures like those ones you are missing one detail and it is the perspective (focal length perspective distortion).

See the pictures below...

[ external image ]

Just imagine the silo as a mountain and the shrubs as a city...

[ external image ]

Go to Google street view and find me some picture as your second one provided...

Actually you can! Look HERE & then look HERE.
(That's exactly the same place FYI, just different zoom...)

Can you imagine to play ATS with zoom like in the second link? You will see nice mountains, different perspective, but not 1 mile in front of your truck... That could be fun, actually [ external image ].

You've got my point, hopefully.

No offence!

[Shiva]

I'm a little bit worried in a way for Idaho and Colorado, in a way I wasn't before Utah...We were used to SCS nailing DLCs but I honestly felt Utah was disappointing as a DLC. It lacked smaller backroads and small towns and after like 2 hours of playing I knew the DLC roads without looking at the map. And SLC, man that city is disappointing in the game. It reminds me nothing of real life:

https://imgur.com/3W1b20V.jpg[
https://imgur.com/VTzA9r6.jpg

Then, like another guy said, the national parks were kind of a let down too, they are vast and epic IRL. I have high hopes for Idaho but I hope were are not disappointed. With Utah I already feel it needs a revamp with SLC and more added roads.

Then there is the new screenshots, they actually looks a little disappointing already and I hate that as I was so hyped. Idaho is full of high mountain ranges IRL, where are they? I feel like SCS never really make big mountains their DLCs are always kind of flat even in more mountainous regions. It was the same problem with SLC like stated above.

Sorry, but those would be a bit overkill, for IRL view. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7618899 ... 384!8i8192
Yeah, there could be a bit different mountainbackground for SLC, but having as big as in the pic you posted? no.

Idaho disappointing?
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pUMVfCJ8LPk/ ... 600/07.jpg
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3526819 ... 312!8i6656

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MpzP14I3Q_s/ ... 600/08.jpg
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1011516 ... 312!8i6656

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XeRLTlsAtXI/ ... 600/10.jpg
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4447001 ... 312!8i6656

Yeah, there WILL be stuff that will not look so good in a 1:20 map.

@flight50 I think US-20 will be in. from Mountain Home to Arco atleast.
US-26 east and west of Shoshone? maybe. Atleast 1 of those?

[KnuteOle]

I mentioned this awhile back, but I think the problem is relying almost exclusively on Google Earth is a real challenge.

It's completely understandable why SCS would need to rely heavily on it for reference, but Google Earth does tend to dramatically flatten things out quite a bit compared to what things look like in real life. Google Earth is great for seeing the immediate vicinity, but honestly doesn't provide good accuracy for realistic elevation and topography. I've been to SLC many times, and Google Earth simply does not do the mountains justice.

BUT... unless SCS charges 100x more for each DLC (not recommended) and can afford to send a film and camera crew to each state (highly recommended), we'll just need to accept the Google Earth version.

[Kraake]

@KnuteOle

I've used Google street view just for that example of perspective. On the other hand, you are right. It is not ideal (we are aware of that & I was pointing it out in some stream), but as you mentioned, we can't afford to send a film and camera crew to each state...

My point was that 200 - 500mm + - lens is not a valid argument!
I could use GoPro footage as opposite extreme (not valid argument as well)...