Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

killingjoke28336
Posts: 135
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#301 Post by killingjoke28336 » 02 Mar 2021 15:17

I really hope that they get rid of these generic red mountain textures and hills they used all over the place in California and especially in Nevada.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 19267
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#302 Post by flight50 » 02 Mar 2021 16:14

Yeahhhh, the california hill 2 model is horrible compared to new models now. That is the one model I hate the most and hate is a strong word. Its so 2d and has zero depth. Replacing that model alone fixes 50% of the backgrounds in California, Nevada and Arizona. Other base map models of mountains could just use a much better texture. Some of the base map models do have organic shapes and have depth though. I'd be baffled if such models from the base map continue to be used. Even far in the distance.........those model should be deleted from the SCS library. SCS can do sooooo much better now.

killingjoke28336
Posts: 135
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#303 Post by killingjoke28336 » 02 Mar 2021 16:25

Yes please, kill 'em all! And never come back :D

Onagerlinn
Posts: 124
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 04:22

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#304 Post by Onagerlinn » 02 Mar 2021 18:15

@averyc2506 That's a great map. Ajo is an interesting add, but I like it! There isn't a ton down there but it adds something the area in AZ south of I-8, which is otherwise a massive void. I'd also add US 191 between Willcox and Safford as well.

User avatar
clifflandmark
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
Location: Urfa
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#305 Post by clifflandmark » 02 Mar 2021 21:42

IamTheOne wrote:
02 Mar 2021 14:18

If there's anything that screams "bad rescale map", it's the stretch of road along Lake Tahoe, next to Carson City. Its only purpose is a scenery road, and fails at that; the mountain texture is as thin as a piece of paper, and is vastly inferior to its Yosemite counterpart. I think you did well by restarting it completely from scratch, and I hope that SCS does the same.

Ironically, in-game, Primm looks more like the real-life Vegas than the ATS version of Vegas. I wouldn't mind scrapping the city out of the game, considering its usefulness has diminished greatly since the inclusion of Utah and re-do of Vegas.
The best option to fit evertyhing in 1:20 is sliding map into Pacific. Also, It will open up plenty of room for San Francisco and Los Angeles.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 19267
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#306 Post by flight50 » 02 Mar 2021 22:15

Agreed. At least California that is. Its the only state that will get the rebuild on the Pacific. Doesn't have to take up too much space either but growing it another 5-6 miles into the Pacific can indeed add extra space for cities that are along the coast. I'd add Oakland, San Jose and San Diego to that list though. In turn, this frees up space inland for I-5, CA-1, US-101, CA-99 and US-395. Everything else benefits from that.

Fortunately, the US's largest cities with the largest metro areas in the top 5 (excluding DFW) are all on a body of water and can all get the same treatment. LA, NYC, Houston and Chicago. Grow the metro areas by using the water.

User avatar
MT269
Posts: 322
Joined: 20 Apr 2018 15:17
Location: Australia

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#307 Post by MT269 » 03 Mar 2021 14:47

My main dislike about using the ocean to expand cities is that the coastline in the map will look out of place and unrealistic. It wouldn't surprise me if SCS used the same technique with Florida and NY when the time comes. In my opinion, it's pointless, and I'm personally against it. I'm so glad that they haven't done this so far.

This concept of the game that is literally worse than the current state of the Utah DLC. But this is just my 2c worth.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 19267
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#308 Post by flight50 » 03 Mar 2021 15:49

Actually SCS has already used the water in California and Oregon. Not as much as they could though. You're the first person I've seen against using the water to try to gain more space. The in game map we drive and the map projection that just tells us roads and cities are not in unison with one another. They are not 1:1 with one another. If you are in the game, you'd have no idea you were even over the water. You could be in Hawaii in the game and still have no idea you were in water if SCS showed land in the game out to Hawaii. If you have a better idea how to gain more space for coastal cities, please share it with us all. I'm sure SCS would be open to hear options. Otherwise, the water is pretty much coastal city's best bet to gain space. For those of us that play ATS more regularly and prefer ATS to ETS2, more space is a huge plus. If you don't play ATS much, complaining about SCS using the water really doesn't suit everyone that does play ATS regularly.
Last edited by flight50 on 03 Mar 2021 17:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
clifflandmark
Posts: 285
Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
Location: Urfa
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#309 Post by clifflandmark » 03 Mar 2021 16:04

@MT269 even If you want to be in the right place on the map, 1:20 scaling will not allow this anyway. And it'll never be accurate until 1:1. I told it for Istanbul before. Fitting whole Istanbul into this "narrow" map means "cropping" ( a huge crop) istanbul. sliding map into sea is still the best option.

killingjoke28336
Posts: 135
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#310 Post by killingjoke28336 » 03 Mar 2021 16:20

flight50 wrote:
03 Mar 2021 15:49
Actually SCS has already used the water in California and Oregon. Not as much as they could though. You're the first person I've seen against using the water to try to gain more space. The in game map the drive and the map projection that just tells us roads and cities are not to in unison with one another. They are not 1:1 to with another. If you are in the game, you'd have no idea you were even over the water. You could be in Hawaii in the game and still have no idea you were in water if SCS showed land in the game. If you have a better idea how to gain more space for coastal cities, please share it with us all. I'm sure SCS would be open to hear options. Otherwise, the water is pretty much coastal cities best bet to gain space. For those of us that play ATS more regularly and prefer ATS to ETS2, more space is a huge plus. If you don't play ATS much, complaining about SCS using the water really don't suit everyone that does play ATS regularly.
I see. So the ingame GPS map doesn't show the coastline and you won't notice that you are already in water comparing to the world map. So you could fake the position of yourself onto the real coastline in the world map, is that correct?

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drayman, maydaypvd, parasaurolophus67, Szioul and 10 guests