Texas Discussion Thread

[flight50]

They don't have capacity to do both Montana and Texas. I have no idea why some of you are thinking Montana could come before Texas. Texas has already been in production since early 2019. Nothing has been mentioned about Montana as it could take at least 1.5 times the amount of normal dlc. Yes Texas is 2-3 times larger than other states but it was started 2.5 years ago. So Summer 2022 gets you 3.5 years of Texas, that is more than double a normal dlc. But if you all want to think Montana comes Summer of 2022 when it hasn't even been announced, go right ahead. I've already mentioned all the map leads and the total number of mappers are on the ATS team as of last xmas. A huge portion of the map team is in Texas. Wyoming is deep into production. There is a rebuild team........what full production staff is there to work Montana? Are you all expecting Pavel to pull from the ETS2 team? That ain't happening.

Texas is larger than Montana yes but Montana itself takes time. They need assets for it and that takes time. They have to have a full production team for it just to even edge out Texas but that team is not available. Did I want Montana before Texas, yes I did but that didn't happen. Montana may or may not even have preliminary started for it, we have no idea. But I can assure you that a full production team isn't on it. If Montana gets the road network that I expect, it will be like all of Oregon and the entire Western portion of Washington's I-5 to the coast. That can not be done in 10 months. Once Wyoming finishes, that is perhaps when Montana can go to full production. Wyoming Summer 2021 and Montana Summer 2022? You need test time for Montana and to start full production from June/July 2021 and expect a June/July 2022 with the required 2-3 months of testing........is too much to ask for. That's asking for a very buggy dlc and I don't want any parts of another Oregon like buggy dlc ever again in ATS. Oregon felt very rush and unpolished as ATS's second paid dlc. New Mexico went much smoother. Spend the time and don't rush Montana. It needs at least 16-18 months. Not 10-12 months. If you compare Wyoming to Montana, Colorado to Montana, Utah to Montana, Idaho to Montana..........Montana is 1.5 times larger in the area it covers and we got those dlcs within 12 months. Not sure how 10-12 months can possible do that with a full production team still on Texas and a rebuild team on the base map.

[Shiva]

Montana might be in preproduction or production, depending on how many map teams.
But only way I would see Montana before Texas, is if the latter would run into some major problems.

[FrancescoMasci]

IMHO no way we see Montana before Texas. It’s too much a requested DLC and already been teased.
Can you imagine how crazy the community will get if Montana is released first?

[killingjoke28336]

Montana is maybe a Winter 2022 release I guess.

[hangman005]

@FrancescoMasci well I guess you could fly to Montana lol,

Seriously I hope Montana would have come first, I understand why it hasn't and SCSs direction now is crystal clear. Ah well get Wyoming and Texas done and we can get Montana.

[flight50]

^Yes. I still prefer Montana over Texas too but I know what Texas can do for ATS. Its was a money move. The best thing I can say that Texas has done is force SCS to assemble a larger map team for ATS. Now its a platform to grow on. Map coming faster hopefully gets more people supporting it. I know more trucks are starting to get more people supporting. After Texas, the map will seriously populate. Montana at the earliest is a Winter 2022 dlc. If Texas is the Summer 2022 dlc or even Spring, that is on track for a dlc this size. It will be 3.5 years in the making at that point and I don't see why 4 years is what some are suggesting. No ETS2 map has taken that long. Iberia was perhaps a 3ish year map as well. There has to be a cutoff. They can always come back and add to Texas later too but they have to get it out the door and start making money. They can't milk Texas that long.

But imagine the manpower available after Texas. That's not even including the rebuild team. I'm sure everyone will shift around as necessary but with 30 mappers or so......that is a lot of manpower for states that are obviously much much smaller than Texas size wise and content wise. Montana will be the last 12+ month paid single state dlc there is. So 2022 will be another exciting year if we will have the 3 largest states in the game. It might be a long shot, but its possible the California rebuild could be close to finishing up Winter of 2022 as well. But really depends on how much help they get. That's assuming after Texas releases, some people go there to push it along. The sooner the rebuild is over, the sooner everyone can go to paid dlc creation again. I'd like to see enough go to Oklahoma to start it after Texas though. Let it be the Summer 2023 map while. So between the rebuild and Montana, ATS could be sitting pretty come Winter 2022.

That makes Winter 2023 exciting to see. The Montana team starts a new project Winter 2022 if Montana can release by then. Where do they go. Half of Texas could be in Oklahoma. Well there are some unaccounted for manpower at that point because I don't think everyone goes to rebuild orrrrrr will they? What do you do with them. Do they all go to the rebuild and we stay at 2 maps a year. Or do you put them on another dlc to keep the push to make money stronger than the rebuild that is free. States do get smaller too. If Jakub mentioned they did Idaho is 8 months, that is a positive sign that a lot of the smaller states, can be done in 8-10 months. Idaho's road network its great compared to other paid dlc's, but its still not small and perhaps just as much work as a smaller state that will all follow after Texas and Montana.

[SmokeyWolf]

They already confirmed Texas. Would rather get Texas out the way as that is a huge money maker for ATS and SCS. I buy map DLC's regardless.

[Shiva]

Texas opens the south. And Oklahoma and north. + what is north of Louisiana.
That is why I have been for Texas before Montana.

[oldmanclippy]

Yes, although I was initially disappointed that Texas was coming before Montana, I think it is the right decision in the long run. If we had it the other way, the order would have been Montana, Texas, Oklahoma, .... But since Texas is near where presumably future expansion in ATS will occur, and Montana's eastern border won't get touched for many years presumably, it makes sense to do Texas first, so that other map teams have a clearer idea of what they have to do (for Louisiana and Arkansas), and while those are worked on you can do Montana which won't need any new neighbors for a while now. Texas first paves the way for the south and midwest, whereas Montana first just delays that groundwork and doesn't set up any states in the near future.

[flight50]

Yeah I can agree with Texas as its the path to the Coast as its a huge hurdle. Get over it and life is much easier. I'd be okay with solo state dlc just as I would with bundles East of Texas. The quality will be the same no matter what. SCS set that standard so that should never be questioned anymore. Now quality does not equal omitting and leaving stuff out. Well not to me. Quality to me is attention to detail and accuracy. Missing stuff and having to cut things out is a result of scale and/or time...that's not quality to me. As much as I'd like to see more road density kick in, scale will be a factor after Texas and Montana are released as the last 2 huge states in the lower 48. Everything else is midsize or smaller. Midsize being Washington.

I still think everything will be okay though....at least West of the Mississippi. Those states are still a lil larger than East of the Mississippi. I'm expect more Washington like density with everything East of the Rockies. For the flattest areas, I really hope road density in the form of grids can happen to get around cities and the states in general. I think the big farming states can be like huge city blocks being out in the country. At least that is how I envision farms by having complex prefabs. Ex. a current farm could be like 100x100 sq km (I don't know the true size). Well a complex farm in the Great Plains could be perhaps 400x400 sq km grids. Instead of 1 farm, how about 2-3 farms in a city block type configuration. Each farm specializes in something else....crops, livestock or milk. For the crop farms, how about 2-3 fields of different crops. That is what I'd like to see as a complex prefab. Multi cargo farms.