xyzan wrote: ↑19 Jul 2020 10:44But Pavel also said, that this big state is scarying them - which suggests it is huge. Montana is big, but not that big I think. Montana do not have very dense road network (and this counts rather than it's surface) And montana will be weird without Wyoming...
And in terms of Huge and small states, that are close to each other... Texas and Oklahoma... One is large (and scary with it's size) and second one is rather small... Nobody is considering Oklahoma soon
There is only one scary state and that is Texas. No if ands or butts about it. Montana is big but its not Texas big. Its not Texas dense with cities nor roads but the road layout will be awesome. The scenery will be awesome. But better that Texas for sure. I too say it will be like Oregon. In fact, the entire Eastern portion fits Oregon in it. I'd imagine Montana is 5200-5800 miles of road. There is no way that Montana shouldn't have the most road miles of all paid dlc's prior to Texas. Montana shouldn't come before Wyoming though. But if it does, we can't do anything about it. In terms of boxing up the map to avoid crazy gaps, Wyoming, just has to come before Montana.
Agreed. More people doesn't equal faster maps at all. More people means more content on a map or more map in general per calendar year though. The same amount of time to produce 1 state will pretty much be the same. SCS allocates (x) amount of people per state but the devleopment will generally always be the same. But I understand people's thinking because at one point I was green, new to the SCS world. I also thought more people meant faster dev time until I been thru enough of these ATS dlcs to realize, you can't rush quality. Time decreased a lil but not much.
One thing I always say is we get quality, speed and quantity. Pick 2 of the 3. You will never get all 3. Me personally, I will always pick quality and quantity. If you pick speed, in any equation, you won't get quality imo. You will get more bugs and you will get a thinned out dlc in terms of missing roads and cities. Idaho proved the quality part. It wasn't speedy nor did we get quantity. But we definitely got quality. In Idaho's case, the devs can always go back and add quantity. The question is.....will they. ATS is not a small project anymore. It has grown to be a platform. SCS has invested in ATS and more staff is coming because of it. We a still 1-2 teams short though. 3 map teams is the minimum I always say. As Pavel stated before, our wallets will determine if a 4th or 5th map team comes. If we all want to not only complete the US but get Canada and Mexico.....we have to pay up to get more of this good stuff.
Agreed. Montana is definitely in the pipe line but its leading the polls because of Idaho's border layout. If we got US-12 to US-93 and a pole reset, I think the poles would say Wyoming and Texas honestly. But I understand why its ahead. I just disagree with putting it over Wyoming. I'd deal with it if I had to though. I'd just avoid lots of Eastern Montana to Eastern Colorado or New Mexico trips. I'd say any state that is in the public research thread, can get a discussion thread for sure. But yeah I agree that all conversations do lead to Texas, lol. Once it arrives, Texas will still probably come up, lol. But ATS is not all about Texas. It takes all lower 48 to make ATS great and I think the devs can make that happen. Looking at 55sixxx's map, that is the line I can't wait to see. Now if SCS stair steps the map to Florida, it will take a little longer to get Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas. But once those are filled in, oh man will we have a heck of a map. Wide open roads with gorgeous landscapes. Follow that up with dense Eastern states and Texas and the amount of space we have to drive is enormous.