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

[flight50]

If we reach a point in ATS where New Mexico is the least quality state, we're in a very good position I'd say

Yesssssss. This is what I've been saying for awhile. NM is the minimum. Idaho is perhaps the standard. Idaho goes ahead visually. But yes NM stands up well to all the newer paid dlc's. Sure the dlc's after NM are better and further improved, NM really isn't bad at all. The only thing I have seen in NM that is bad/can be upgraded, is the reused california hills2 model. That model needs to be completely removed. The rock formations are too good now and bad background models have no place in ATS anymore imho.

[SmokeyWolf]

From a optimized point of view New Mexico was perfect and should of been the standard visually. New Mexico is beautiful as is.

[flight50]

NM would have worked for me as a standard.........until Washington. I think Washington could have been that. But SCS went up another notch starting with Idaho. Beyond that, we do not need another boost. Concentrate on the rest of the game. AA, shadows, weather and seasons should be the last finishing touches needed.

I think the rest of ATS can be at peace with Idaho as the standard. Wyoming might challenging that with those mountains though.

[oldmanclippy]

New Mexico just needs a few texture replacements here and there and maybe some redoing of the mountains in the distance to give a more wide open feel. But the road network is pretty solid, Albuquerque is very good. Maybe a Santa Fe rework because it feels too small IMO. But New Mexico doesn't need a whole lot of work and of course I don't want to see it touched until CA/NV/AZ are finished.

I agree, visuals are about as good as they need to be for this game, besides AA improvements. They need to focus on preparing the game engine to more efficiently use multiple CPU cores so that they're ready for the east coast. Heck, Texas and the CA rework will probably need some sort of optimization improvement to really bring out their full potential. Then once that's done, bring gameplay features like seasons and weather improvements like @flight50 said.

[Onagerlinn]

@oldmanclippy Agreed. Really all NM needs are a few new roads (NM 219, US 180/Silver City area, Eastern NM N/S route, US 70 through Ruidoso), maybe some new assets, and that's about it. Nothing needs to be reconstructed. As you stated, some textures could be updated, but visually NM is really good and a giant leap forward from AZ.

[KrysEmlyn]

I'm happy with the map improvements in northern California (and a few other places). I'm liking the new road features that are part of the road template models, such as the reflectors along the center lines.
I hope to see these features spread to the other areas of the map where they actually exist in real life. So far, I've seen them in northern California and a few interchange ramps over in Arizona.

[JackBurton]

Wow. I just got through some beautiful drives in the new northern California, and it is beautiful. The 299 from Redding to Eureka is just stunning. It is incredible how much more immersive these drives have become. Well done.

[flight50]

I totally agree with oldmanclippy as well. NM holds up well. But textures and those background mountains that was a carryover from California needs to be replaced. There are much better options now that have depth and are a little more immersive at the same time. Northern California is a great sign for what's to come for the state. Spread that same type of energy thru the state and we good. Do the same for Nevada and it too is good. I still think I-80 should be fast tracked though and follow it up with US-50 connecting Carson City to Sacramento. So whoever is tasked with Sacramento, should also handle fixing Carson City to make the two roads join up the best way they can. I'm even cool with Carson City not moving. But if US-95 and realigning is to be more realistic, then Carson City will needs some adjustments. But as long as US-50 in with Lake Tahoe is solid, I'm good. I think Northern Nevada with those two roads...an Interstate and a US hwy, the travel options open up more until more of Southern California can be built.

Arizona is behind NM quality wise but it can hold up a little longer luckily until California and Nevada are reskinned. The base map won't be a quick process though. It could be 5 years with the current map team. That should speed up a little once Texas and Montana are out the door. Imo, they are priority. They bring in the money. Keep the base map going but phased. As SCS hires more and more people, that rebuild team should swell. Newbies will go to paid dlc's mostly, while you have a few more veterans that can get pulled for rebuild duties since mapping back then, could be easier for them to deal with than a newbie. Of course if you are starting from scratch, even a newbie is trained for that. But without a complete rebuild, putting a newbie on rebuilds could be more of a delay than starting from scratch.

[SageTDS]

I might have already responded to the original questions a while ago, but I'm here again with an update:
1. Would you be okay with SCS pushing back some future DLC maps to focus on a rebuild of the base maps?
Yes. I think we need to have a good-looking base map to convince new players to buy DLC maps. That said, I am excited for Texas to come within the next 18 months.

2. Would you be willing to pay money for rebuilt states? Say $11.99 for Nevada and Arizona, $19.99 for California
No. We didn't do this with Revisiting Germany, why would we do it with ATS?

3. What parts of the base map, in your opinion, need to be rebuilt the most?
The Bay Area and LA. Los Angeles looks nothing like real life, and even if it would need to take up a lot more space than it does right now, I support overhauling it. The San Francisco Bay Area is better than LA but still lacks important parts such as San José. It also doesn't do justice with Oakland.

[flight50]

I don't ever recall seeing those original questions. So I'll do it now.

1. No. Rebuild the base map in phases just like they did with Germany and just like they started out doing with California. Best case, add more people to the reskin project by hiring more. We'll never get a complete US if they halt paid dlc's. Not to mention, a completed North America. That is a 15+ year project and some of us may not be around for that.

I agree that we need to have a good looking base map to bring up the quality level. But why sacrifice paid dlc's when there are (4) map leads. (4) map leads is pretty much (4) projects. SCS just needs to hire a few more people to join the rebuild efforts. 3 paid dlc's and 1 reskin. When done in phases, a solid team of 6-10 is good enough imho. There should be a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of mappers to asset creators.

2. Yes I'd pay but it won't happen. You can't charge money now for states that released as free. Didn't happen in ETS2 and it won't in ATS either. Germany was free and they just started Austria and it too will be free. California ph 1 was free. SCS will not charge twice for something that we already paid for. That is how you loose customers.

3. I can agree with LA and the Bay area. All junctions, all on/off ramps in California, Vegas got reskinned, Winnemucca isn't accurate, US-95 completed in Nevada. If 85% of California before Oregon is redone, I'd call that good. Pretty much all of Nevada needs it as well. Vegas just needs polished. Reno is decent but I don't know how accurate it is, then there are the rest of the cities and towns.