Wyoming Discussion Thread

User avatar
MT269
Posts: 435
Joined: 20 Apr 2018 15:17
Location: Australia

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1921 Post by MT269 » 05 May 2021 02:51

In regards to on ramps, those narrow primitive middle ages on ramps from older parts of the ETS2 map are the ones that annoy me. Very rough/narrow, with no margin for error. These are the ones that need to be completely eliminated from the game, before the ones in California. I don't have many complaints about ATS ramps compared to these other ones.

Do they really exist in the real world?
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30248
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1922 Post by flight50 » 05 May 2021 07:04

Ramps in the US is a smooth transition. They don't have a crease/hard edge at the top of the ramp like ATS has. When HH first came out, the ramps where so steep that I got stuck on a ramp. To be precise, the one in Elko off I-80 heading East on I-80. I was coming up the ramp with a lowboy and the trailer got stuck on the top of the ramp. The base map ramps in ATS are not realistic by any means. If you don't use lowboys, then one wouldn't think its a problem. But why should ETS2 get better ramps and ATS hold on to its incorrectly modeled ramps?
Shiva
Posts: 4987
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1923 Post by Shiva » 05 May 2021 10:32

MT269, the old prefab ramps that turn right if exiting a highway, those?
Yeah, those are more painful than the straight exit ATS ramps.
Both gone would be nice.
Including those where one lane continues on highway and the other continues as off ramp.

flight50, I am quite sure that ATS will remove those prefab ramps.

I'm interested to see, how the roads close to Bear Lake will go. That connect Idaho, Utah and Wyoming.
I have had theories. But some of those do have faults in them, my theories, that is. Regarding the dlc guards settings. Unless SCS added more options to those.
Altho, if there would be 1 more city to Idaho, then that could solve things bit. This not likely tho? Speaking of Montpelier, or Soda Springs.

So far dlc guard settings are between 2 map DLC's.
"dlc_id_and_ut" as an example.
For my road theories to be correct, there would have to be an "and/or" instead of "and" in the dlc guards settings. And for 3 dlc's.
Unless if the Bear Lake roads will be only used for Wyoming connections. And if no Montpelier, nor Soda Springs.
Altho, for me it seems that there will be a road that connects Idaho and Utah, west of Bear Lake.
Alpha/Beta 1.41, will give the answers.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30248
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1924 Post by flight50 » 05 May 2021 13:28

Honestly, I think both Soda Springs and Montiplier is in. Both as scenic though. I think Option 3 is what we get. Option 5 is ideal but you have to map on both sides of the lake. I'd thinking the lake might get pushed East more too. Without a delivery around the lake, we can do without it if scale is an issue. In the game right now, we can see the split off from US-89 to UT-30. So Option 3 for now is the least we get. At the most, Option 5 is in. There is a sign in McCommas off I-15 that says Soda Springs. So I find it hard for it to not make the game. Where US-30 meets US-89, I find it hard to leave Montiplier out at such an intersection. There is good distance between both. Worse case, push Soda Springs a tad West. But I'm banking on both making the game as small scenic towns.
User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1925 Post by Xaagon » 05 May 2021 18:31

In California, some ramps really are too short in real life.

For example, this one takes you around a 25mph curve and uphill to get to the level of the overpass and then just dumps you onto the freeway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1710875 ... a=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1709275 ... 312!8i6656

It's even hard to get up to speed in a sedan before merging with traffic. The highway here is 65mph (55 for trucks because it's California). The speed limit was 55mph for everybody until some time in the late 1990s, maybe even 2000s. I assume when this highway was built in 1950 something that 55 was the limit at that time too.

After the national speed limit was increased from 55mph they added signs telling through traffic to keep left:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1314856 ... 384!8i8192

Edit: Since this is the Wyoming thread I'll add that I've not seen any short ramps like this anywhere up there.
KnuteOle
Posts: 399
Joined: 11 Jan 2020 01:11
Location: Boise, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1926 Post by KnuteOle » 05 May 2021 18:32

Soda Springs would be nice. It's a Monsanto mining town, and there's a huge open pit mine just outside of town.

Plus it has the springs, which covered my rental car with dirty water while I was there many years ago.

Didn't have a soda while there, though. Maybe next time.
Visit my World of Trucks profile and say hi!
https://worldoftrucks.com/en/profile/4918521
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30248
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1927 Post by flight50 » 05 May 2021 18:56

I'm not too sure we can say that particular ramp in California is too short honestly. Midway thru that turn, you can see the traffic you must merge into as the terrain starts to level out as you get ready to merge. You adjust your speed accordingly. Vs a straight yet short ramp, when you are blinded due to the steep elevation with how close the ramp is to the road you are merging onto.

@KnuteOle Monsanto would be perfect actually. There is a Phosphate mine North of that too. More than likely, we don't get a new marked town in Idaho. But both of those mines are close enough to get added to Pocatello. At least one of those mines is feasible. I don't think US-26 from Idaho Falls to US-89 interferes with scale issues to not do one or both. SCS has been on a trend adding remote depots to unmarked towns. Mining, forestry, oil/gas and farming are the easiest to do remote depots. New or old prefabs for those industries will always work and less map adjustments are necessary vs adding something in an already existing mapped city. When Deepgrove came to California after Oregon, it fit along CA-299 nicely. I don't know how easy it was to program into California though. But that is one issue with prefabs that come after a dlc is released.....how easy can it be added to existing parts of the map. Main reason why I think its a huge mistake not to have more National company chains in ATS like yesterday.

More remote places like these in Soda Springs would be great and adds more depots. The more depots, the more its worth exploring every inch of the map to justify the add. When Nevada gets rebuild, I hope to see lots of these remote places. Wyoming itself should be home to a lot of these remote places. Where space permits, it would be great to see remote deliverable places. When the embargo lifts for Wyoming, the first thing I'll be licking my lips for is that map. What's the final road layout for day one and what cities do we get day one. After that, what companies do we get to deliver to. I think there is a good chance that SCS will give us a solid handful of remote locations. Heck 2-3 handfuls would be even better in such a desolate state.
User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1928 Post by Xaagon » 05 May 2021 19:05

You can see ok at that on ramp, if you remember to look. When I was a new driver this one made me nervous as I imagined somebody racing up way over the speed limit in the right lane. The challenge is to actually get up to speed before hitting the road. I worked for a furniture company back in the day and when fully loaded my box truck had issues doing that before I ran out of onramp. Very short distance from the end of the curve to accelerate and because of the upcoming bridge no place to bail out onto the shoulder if things go badly.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30248
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1929 Post by flight50 » 05 May 2021 19:18

Lmao. Yeah that I can agree with. Most people won't remember to look. They might initially look as they start up the incline, but most would fail to multi task and look at the coming traffic and what's ahead of you several times. Rush hour traffic would actually be easier to merge though. People aren't high speed at that point. We have a few of those in ATS and I always lean out the truck window to see as I am not watching ahead of me, but watching what's coming. If we had better AI, it wouldn't be that huge of a deal, but better AI isn't not available right now. I got caught a time or two because I think a vehicle spawned on me at the last minute. So yeah if you don't keep your eye on things, you could wreck. At least in ATS, we can walk away from the accident. We get a clover in Cheyenne that could be fairly busy. I know I'll be taking I-80 vs I-70 for awhile until I wear I-80 out. Then I'll mix in I-70 again. I-70 is one of those roads you don't ever want to get tired of. So Wyoming is coming at a good time.

But yes, once you start to go parallel with the on coming traffic, you best be up to speed or else, you loose momentum in a truck and you have no choice but to back up traffic. We don't have a consistent flow of courteous drivers on roads anymore. Some people act like its a crime to let you one the highway.
Shiva
Posts: 4987
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#1930 Post by Shiva » 06 May 2021 05:40

Lava Hot Springs, Idaho, that will be scenic, atleast what can be seen so far.
A connection thru Ovid ID, north west of Bear Lake, is in the works.
South of Bear Lake? we don't have the sectors ingame to see that.
Northeast of Bear Lake. There is this possibility -> WY-89
Will it be in? we'll have to see.
Ah yeah, Montpelier, ID. Yeah, I think it will be scenic, more or less.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 100kOm, antonio512, Bing [Bot] and 10 guests