Montana Discussion Thread

goalsa320
Posts: 71
Joined: 23 Aug 2019 03:19
Location: Arizona, US

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#51 Post by goalsa320 » 23 Jul 2020 00:40

Just because Montana is not as big population wise as Texas is, there are plenty of reasons Montana is going to be an epic state.
Here are some highways I'm excited for Montana. I-15, US-93, US-89, and US-191 will be completed. Large portion of I-90, US-2, and US-12 will be added. And introducing a new interstate! I-94!

Onagerlinn
Posts: 67
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 04:22

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#52 Post by Onagerlinn » 23 Jul 2020 01:02

To add, Texas also has a whole bunch of midsize cities--Amarillo, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Laredo, McAllen, and likely more--that will need to be done to about the quality of Spokane.

Edit: To piggyback off Flight50's comment, I'm kind of hoping for about 5500-6000 miles in Montana. If Oregon was able to get 5,000 at launch, I think 6,000 is reasonable for Montana.

Xaagon
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#53 Post by Xaagon » 23 Jul 2020 01:25

flight50 wrote:
23 Jul 2020 00:31
3 major cities?
I was thinking Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio. Austin is big, but I still think of it as a medium city (along with El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, Odessa/Midland, etc). Perhaps I'm biased by the presence of pro sports teams.

To get back to Montana, Billings is a big small city and SCS has shown us they can do those very well. I think the towns in Montana & Wyoming are going to be exceptional as SCS has a lot of real estate to work with there.

Comparatively, east Texas has a denser content to space ratio.

angrybirdseller
Posts: 2201
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#54 Post by angrybirdseller » 23 Jul 2020 05:02

Montana largest city is suburb of big major city. Think Montana with 12 cities and 5500 in game road miles of highway is sufficient it's one of lowest density states in the lower 48. Montana I-94 going to be added or wait for North Dakota. I-15 end at jct of US-2 in Sheby.

It's Texas that scares developers not Montana lol

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 14579
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#55 Post by flight50 » 23 Jul 2020 06:17

I-94 picks up @ Billings. I be quite upset if I-94 didn't get us to Glendive. That's wayyyy to much road to be waiting on North Dakota. We should get both West Glendive and Glendive but the entire city can go under the Glendive name. We should be able to get 5-6 companies going in Glendive.

fra_ba
Posts: 339
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#56 Post by fra_ba » 23 Jul 2020 07:47

Not just that, ignoring I-94 kinda means ignoring everything east of this route:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Billing ... 597197!3e0
in which I expect to see 3-4 cities like Miles City, Wolf Point, Sidney

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 14579
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#57 Post by flight50 » 23 Jul 2020 13:18

Yeah. I expect to see, Miles City, Glendive and Glasgow at least. I really think MT-59 has a great shot at connecting Gillette, Wy to I-94 at least. There is just way to much land in Eastern Montana to leave it open for the Eastern states. It really easy land to map to. It wide open rolling hills or flat plains. Its a piece of cake for the map designers. Its so easy, they could do like they did with Idaho and Colorado and show land going into the Dakotas from Montana and Wyoming. Most of us agree that both North and South Dakota should be 1 dlc. Adding in a 1/4 of the missing part of Montana and that's too much work. Get Montana's Eastern portion looking like New Mexico with all the connections as far East as possible. Less work to do when the Dakotas do come.


NorthernAirTrucker
Posts: 16
Joined: 15 Jun 2019 05:54

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#59 Post by NorthernAirTrucker » 24 Jul 2020 05:23

I would rather Montana before Texas myself since I’m loving the forested and mountain areas we’ve been getting. If they are using google earth for reference, which I think I remember that being part of the process, that prove a challenge for Montana (and Wyoming) as the coverage there especially in the street views is very poor where most of the highways and smaller roads are low resolution images or just nonexistent. It seems Idaho is better off here probably because it has nearly double the population and as well noticeable when you hit the Canada border the resolution increases probably again because the entirety of Montana’s population and then another quarter of it could fit into Calgary alone. This will be a reoccurring problem in the northern prairie states.

No doubt I am excited for Texas and the push east, but a good portion of it will be desert again for those that don’t like that and I as far as I can tell I wouldn’t call the scenery in the western portion anything to write home about. I am already worried about the desert hates complaining about some of Colorado. I just really badly want Montana for the additions to Idaho, for the scenery itself, and also because it’s so close to home for me compared to every other state.

A fun Easter egg that would never be added to the game would be summer snowfall the odd time. Last year we got a blizzard in September and down south of the border in Montana was significantly worse than what we got!

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 14579
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#60 Post by flight50 » 24 Jul 2020 06:54

The devs also use videos. There are tons of youtubers that stream there travels. Big rigs, rv’s and other road vehicles. They also use photos. They don’t really have to see high res imo. They just need to see what’s in place. They create the environment to paint the pretty picture anyways.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vinnie Terranova and 4 guests