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

OldVern
Posts: 84
Joined: 09 Oct 2019 07:15

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

#561 Post by OldVern » 14 May 2021 09:44

Ultimately it's a game simulating a real life activity (trucking and logistics) so if livestock is transported in reality it sould be in the game. Otherwise as indicated above there are so many factors that could offend the "PC" brigade, if they were all excluded you wouldn't have a game left. The only justification for not including a particular commodity (maybe alcohol or tobacco) would be if it affected the age rating of the game, PEGI in the UK. I understand this is a factor with the tablet games like Hay Day not having beer or wine production featured.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#562 Post by flight50 » 14 May 2021 13:20

Will Ag stations be dependent on City names though? Or are they just buildings. On Google Maps, yes its identified as Hornbrook. If keeping the name as a deliverable, I'd really like to see at least one of those small livestock farms in Hilt. But there is a very very strong desire to get Yreka in the game. To me, if there is a 30 mile difference, that's enough space to squeeze in two towns. Based on that theory, Yreka is too close to be marked as Yreka. The only solution is to create Yreka as scenic but tag it as Hornbrook. So relocate Hornbrook, make Yreka with depots and either remove or improve Hilt. Removing hit to create space is cool with me. That gives more space for a relocated Hornbrook with the Chevron truck stop and then 1-2 depots for Yreka.

If I recall, someone mentioned that from California to Oregon is an elevation change that SCS didn't get in. If they remove Hilt, that frees up space for that change now. Hopefully we'll see it in ob here in the new upcoming weeks.
User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 3641
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Minnesota, Iowa, Dekotas, and Nebraska
Contact:

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

#563 Post by bobgrey1997 » 14 May 2021 19:15

Wouldn't make more sense to tag it as Yreka, but include Hornbrook as part of it?
30 miles in reality is just over 1 mile in-game, so that would put these three areas just around the corner from each other (if not actually together). It might be best to bring in the farms in Hilt, build Yreka, mark the two as Yreka and remove Hornbrook entirely.

As for the elevation change, I personally feel SCS did good here. From Redding to Medford is full of curves and hills, mostly uphill when going north, just as in reality. That said, it's all up and down curves from Redding, California to Eugene, Oregon, so it's hard to actually notice an overall elevation change (you go up, but then come back down). With the limited scale, I think SCS got the overall feel of the area very accurate.
User avatar
jdwarfer
Posts: 636
Joined: 15 Jan 2018 10:14

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

#564 Post by jdwarfer » 15 May 2021 09:58

OMG here we go again. Now they need to rebuild the original map of ATS.
They should stop improving quality and keep the same standard from now on, so the map would be finished once and for all at some point, not too long in the future lol.
Otherwise they will need to remake stuff again and again, regarding the current rate of work done. It's kinda preposterous (First time ever I use that word. I just wanted to, don't mind it).
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#565 Post by flight50 » 15 May 2021 13:57

I agree 100%. I honestly said that with Washington, then with Utah, then with Idaho. Idaho took it up a notch but the focus was so high on visuals with Idaho, that it lacked everywhere else. The game play suffered. Halt at Idaho and the game with still look great. Colorado is a much better dlc in terms of game play but isn't a night and day jump from Idaho.

Performance will be effected if they keep trying to increase visuals. The game looks good...stop. Focus on other things now. AA, AI, cargo, industry cargo packs, seasons, rigids, multi drop, more companies, more industries, features, hard-core career mode, better weather system, improved particle system, revamped trains, licensed trailers, tuning packs, light bar dlc, multi core support, ....just to name some things.

I do concur with the base map rebuild hands down. Wyoming is looking great but looks like slight increase in visuals. Maybe because Wyoming originally started development with the new lighting system. Texas will follow. As long as New Mexico hold up, it could be our lowest quality paid dlc. NM is still good quality though.
pigbrother
Posts: 3321
Joined: 03 Jun 2016 07:36
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

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

#566 Post by pigbrother » 15 May 2021 14:18

I wouldn't be so hard on Idaho tho. I remember being happy when it was launched because we finally moved over the most PITA state in the US: an odd shape with basically one route East to West and one route South to North. Montana will make it better, but the state by itself was kinda hopeless from the start.
I have approximate knowledge of many things
User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 3641
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Minnesota, Iowa, Dekotas, and Nebraska
Contact:

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

#567 Post by bobgrey1997 » 15 May 2021 15:09

The only reason I care much of anything for Idaho is as a connector. Right now, it allows us to get from the Pacific Northwest to Utach and Colorado without having to go through the base map.
jdwarfer wrote: 15 May 2021 09:58 OMG here we go again. Now they need to rebuild the original map of ATS.
They should stop improving quality and keep the same standard from now on, so the map would be finished once and for all at some point, not too long in the future lol.
Otherwise they will need to remake stuff again and again, regarding the current rate of work done. It's kinda preposterous (First time ever I use that word. I just wanted to, don't mind it).
I can not agree with this. Saying one should stop improving is saying they should stop working entirely.
Regardless of the product or task, progress is always the underlying goal. Without progress, there is no reason to continue working towards that task or product.
There is a significant change in quality between Oregon and the base map, but I can't tell any change between Oregon and Colorado. I know there are improvements, but only enough to make Colorado feel right, not enough to make it stand out from Oregon (which also feels right). If the base map gets brought up to Colorado standards, and maybe a few touches to New Mexico and Oregon, I think they and the existing DLCs will fit in with future expansions, regardless of quality improvements over those future expansions.
User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

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

#568 Post by Xaagon » 15 May 2021 15:11

Idaho is a good DLC, though it really needs Montana to connect a lot of its northern roads. Visually it's one of the best DLCs we have. My biggest complaint with Idaho is that it didn't introduce new cargo, trailers, or companies.

I agree that nothing really has to be reworked in a major way from New Mexico on (though additional roads are always welcome), but the base map was built with older technology that resulted in forced prefabricated intersections and highway interchanges that differ wildly from reality. So I agree that the base map needs a major rework.

I'm guessing that people will be complaining about the slow rate of new states for the next couple of years. Texas will take an especially long time due to its size and the number of large cities it has. After Texas I think things speed up, as I don't think we're going to get all of the density that eastern states have. I may change this opinion when I see what Texas DLC offers east of I-35.
User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 3641
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Minnesota, Iowa, Dekotas, and Nebraska
Contact:

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

#569 Post by bobgrey1997 » 15 May 2021 18:29

Isn't Texas after Wyoming (winter of this year)?
I love when they add new roads. Maybe in the future, we can see some more small-scale reworks on the city level (like Tonopah and Vegas) in DLC areas (maybe tweak Albuquerque, New Mexico; Eugene, Oregon; or Salt Lake City, Utah for example). There are many opportunities to improve on things like layout, or adding some new unique structures or signs to give each location more character, and even to bring new industries to old areas (like the Farmer's Barn store to New Mexico or something). These don't require full rebuilds like we are seeing in California. California needs it because the map is fundamentally different (cities designed for a 1:35 map instead of a 1:20 map, old assets and model formats for roads and signs, old plain-texture terrain, etc). New Mexico may require a small amount of rebuild to correct this, as it released towards the end of the pre-Rescale era (yes, it was after the Rescale, but much of the fundamentals remained the same). Oregon, however, is completely post-Rescale, so no such rebuilds should be required for Oregon or later map areas.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#570 Post by flight50 » 15 May 2021 18:43

@Xaagon. Yessss. This is my thing on Idaho. I will and forever be down on Idaho because it did not produce new cargo nor new companies. Not to mention a sub par effort on Whitebird Hill. That'snot much to ask fo imo. Other than that, I don't have an issue with Idaho. Anyone who seen me post in the Idaho thread will see I praised Idaho despite the above.

I just don't want to see any of the base map treated without getting something new. To much new has happened since California was built. California has new companies that can come just for California and/or other states in general. This is the time to make things right though. Those short cuts can go now. If the rebuild has effort applied, might as well go all in.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GH0ST13 and 11 guests