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

Post Reply
Posts: 124
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 04:22

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

#1 Post by Onagerlinn » 04 Apr 2020 12:03

Hey everyone!

I wanted to create this thread to help centralize discussion about rebuilding the base map. As we know, the graphics and layouts are a bit dated compared to the newly released DLC maps, and discussions have popped up in various threads (like the Utah thread) as to how we can improve them. It's absolutely a worthwhile discussion, so I thought I'd make a new discussion where we can keep everything in one place and on-topic.

That said, some questions I want to throw out there:

1. Would you be okay with SCS pushing back some future DLC maps to focus on a rebuild of the base maps?

2. Would you be willing to pay money for rebuilt states? Say $11.99 for Nevada and Arizona, $19.99 for California

3. What parts of the base map, in your opinion, need to be rebuilt the most?

4. Feel free to go crazy here; what would your ideal rebuilt base map look like?

Posts: 1057
Joined: 15 Mar 2018 12:08

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

#2 Post by jarryed » 04 Apr 2020 12:30

1. No. They can do it a little at a time if they so choose to do so. I personally believe that Arizona is fine after it received the signage update.

2. No. You are talking about base game states. They should not be paid in any way, shape, or form. Why should a California rebuild cost more than a current map expansion anyway? Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.

3. Nevada along with Southern California.

4. Would love to see Long Beach and/or Los Angeles Port(s) being added. It is a huge shipping area for product coming into the USA.

Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Apr 2020 18:20

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

#3 Post by MTom » 04 Apr 2020 15:26

1. I'm fine with future DLCs pushed back tho don't see why it would be necessary, as baove mentioned they can do the old states little by little

2. Definitely not...paying for a few graphics update on existing content would be a very bad example to set.

2. Not specific areas, more like the things badly needed a refactoring are the hills/mountains...coming back to AZ from NM they look like PS2 assets. Same if you come back to CA from WA

4. One thing i really miss from the map is Lake Tahoe i'd love to have it in there. Also a not very well known location, but i tell you from personal experience is Grand Canyon Lodge on the northern rim. It;s a very nice drive a a very challenging parking at the lodge but they deliver there on 18 wheelers.


Posts: 177
Joined: 11 Dec 2016 12:39
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

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

#4 Post by mira666 » 04 Apr 2020 16:17

This comes up repeatedly when looking at the ETS map, and every time the answer is the same.

If a rebuild happens it shouldn't be expected that payment would be needed, this would make it a case of those that have the rebuild and those that don't, and SCS would never support two different versions of the base map.

By all means SCS may update bits of the base map piecemeal (like they have with Germany in ETS2) but I don't mind if it takes 3 years.

And certainly the idea of adding the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles would be gratefully received :)
ETS2 and ATS Vanilla Gamer 2012-Now

interstate trav
Posts: 904
Joined: 23 May 2018 15:44
Location: California

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

#5 Post by interstate trav » 04 Apr 2020 19:59

1. Honestly at this point after Wyoming and Montana, after Idaho and Colorado that is, if they work on Texas and take a lot of time and we get California rebuilt and Nevada, I’d be fine with pushing back a little.

That being said I’m also fine with sections being done at a time. Los Angeles will be the largest most time consuming, and Southern California will be a lot if they add the right cities. So I could go either way.

2. Don’t really want to pay for it. It would just replace the existing, but if it speeds up the rebuild, I’m on the fence.

3. Southern California I mean from the 5 99 jct South. The entire 15, 40 10 and adding the 14 as a Freeway. Barstow needs to be redone and scaled down, add Baker, and the Baker Grade and drop to Primm.
Add San Bernardino and surrounding areas even if there just scenic. Make it as dense as Washington it’s got much more population then anywhere else in the game currently

Nevada as well, Las Vegas and Primm being the biggest to do. Also add Mesquite asa scenic town and maybe truck stop.

For Reno East of there on the 80 add the 95 and add a few exits.

All that being said I drew some concept maps for this

Here’s my Los Angeles

Here’s Las Vegas

Here’s the Central Valley

Here’s the San Francisco area

Here’s Barstow in detail and the 15 to match the current the with the scale

This is Baker or Mojave Desert

And here is San Bernardino in more detail

Posts: 2368
Joined: 08 Mar 2019 23:27
Location: Virginia

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

#6 Post by Larry71490 » 04 Apr 2020 20:07

I would add Blythe, Needles and Ludlow as scenic. Get rid of the Euro style truck stops. They have their purpose when we get to the toll roads as they would be perfect to represent service plazas.

interstate trav
Posts: 904
Joined: 23 May 2018 15:44
Location: California

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

#7 Post by interstate trav » 04 Apr 2020 20:47

I agree. Ludlow is about 50 miles east of Barstow so scaling let’s it fit, and I personally want to add that section of Route 66 with Amboy as a scenic thing. Having the Roy’s sign, and an alternate to the 40. There’s a few fun desert roads that can fill in a lot of space.

Blythe as well, Indio and all of them can have the real life truck stop exits or just an exit with a Gas station.
Also got the 15 the truck stop off Linwood is it, then there’s no truck stops for a long stretch.

Posts: 1184
Joined: 15 Sep 2018 02:11
Location: Duluth, MN

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

#8 Post by rbsanford » 04 Apr 2020 21:21

I think Blythe should be marked, and should replace Ehrenberg. Needles should also have more of a presence, and a proper truck stop to replace the Euro-style rest areas currently there.

By the way, there's already a discussion about this in the Public Research section. I'm not saying the discussion here isn't welcome (that's more of a moderator's call anyway), but the other has a lot of ideas and concept maps that are worth checking out.

@MTom, Lake Tahoe is already in the game, it's just off the beaten path and kind of obscure. It would be greatly helped by US 50 between Sacramento and Carson City, as well as a scenery update. The North Rim of the Grand Canyon would also make for a nice scenery spur, but for that we'd need US 89A, which also has some nice scenery, and would be a great alternate route into Utah.
Check out my Imgur page for ATS screenshots, railfanning, ship spotting, and more!
Latest screenshot album: Vol V: the Colorado Experience

Handy maps and diagrams.

User avatar
Posts: 2531
Joined: 07 Jan 2017 22:59
Location: NJ

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

#9 Post by dk00? » 04 Apr 2020 23:49

Extremely opposed to this. At this point, I'd rather get past Texas preferably to the Atlantic before rebuilding. If it was just a sign refresh like Arizona got. ATS is still to a point running behind the rescale and another delay could do more harm than good.

Once done with Texas and Montana if Nevada was to get redone, I'd be fine with it. California can wait until further down the line. It would be fine for new signs in California until that point.

Two no.
Last edited by dk00? on 05 Apr 2020 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
Odd Lot Logistics
ATS Truck: Western Star 49X

DK's Screenshots(5-26-2019)

User avatar
Posts: 1757
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

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

#10 Post by Sora » 05 Apr 2020 00:11

I feel like it'd be a very good idea to refresh Nevada in the nearer future. Because of the way that state is set up, it takes up a massive amount of the map despite having a relatively small number of roads, and refreshing it would do a lot to improve the entire game flow just because of how much it'd open up Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and the states beyond them. In other words, it offers a disproportionate benefit to the broader map compared to the number of roads it would require to be redone. Honestly, they wouldn't even necessarily need to do the whole state if it wasn't feasible; just doing the Interstates, Las Vegas, Winnemucca, and US 95 would cover most of what extends to the larger network, and would enormously improve the shape of the "higher-quality" map.

On the other hand California feels like something they should probably hold off on for a while. I won't deny that it needs it the most, and in some spots it needs it badly, but I don't think there's really much that can be done about it in an expedient manner. California is absolutely huge, so rebuilding it would almost certainly take a very long time and effort even compared to a typical DLC map, and because it's off to the side you won't generally need to even enter it most of the time once Idaho is in play (and even if you do, it will probably be somewhere north of I-80, which is relatively decent because much of it is either post-rebuild or post-Oregon.) California should probably be done eventually, but I do not feel like it offers as much of a return as Nevada does at this time -- not when there are still so many other states to work on, that would also result in SCS actually getting paid.

Arizona is mostly fine as it is now. There are definitely some artifacts, inaccuracies, and a little weirdness here and there, but not really enough to where I feel like a rebuild is warranted at this point in time. Pretty much the only thing I feel Arizona needs in the short term future are a few more key roads -- one to connect Show Low to Camp Verde (AZ 260), and one to connect Clifton to Phoenix (US 70). Preferably one to connect Clifton to Utah, as well (191), but I admit that one's more for consistency than utility compared to the alternate routes the other two open up.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: befsztyk, Cemail Cebeci, doxa782, jdkelley93 and 9 guests