Montana Discussion Thread

Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1771 Post by Shiva » 28 Jun 2022 15:57

Yeah, I too, hope US-20 comes later.
Unless SCS is not finished with that part yet. But 1.45Beta does look like the compability patch for Montana DLC.
The odd thing is, the road is NOT ingame, but there is mountain models that fit close to this location IRL.

US-89 and US-212/Beartooth Pass? We'll have to see in the future, but at release, seems as a no.
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
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5377
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1772 Post by oldmanclippy » 28 Jun 2022 16:47

Shiva wrote: 28 Jun 2022 15:57 Yeah, I too, hope US-20 comes later.
Unless SCS is not finished with that part yet. But 1.45Beta does look like the compability patch for Montana DLC.
The odd thing is, the road is NOT ingame, but there is mountain models that fit close to this location IRL.

US-89 and US-212/Beartooth Pass? We'll have to see in the future, but at release, seems as a no.
Hmm yeah those mountains (the Centennial Mountains) are quite distinctive. The whole situation is just really strange to me. Clearly it was at least planned at one point. I don't know why that would be the road you would cut if you wanted to get it out the door. US-287, yeah cut it. US-20, not a road you should cut. I'm still holding out hope that either this isn't Montana's compatibility patch, or that the beta will be updated later with US-20. It's just too important to leave out.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1773 Post by Tristman » 28 Jun 2022 17:09

Oddly there does seem to be a small piece of US-287 in the game, so we might actually get that road. Not sure why though. I'm sure it's a nice road, but does it add much next to US-191?
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1774 Post by flight50 » 28 Jun 2022 18:31

clifflandmark wrote: 28 Jun 2022 11:09 If they release it in next couple weeks, it means they were faster in MT compared to WY.Montana is huge. At least, it's bigger than WY and also, it still includes Western part of Rockies. If they got faster in MT, that's probably because of plains in MT.

We don't know how many blogs left. It can't go beyond 1.45, right ?
The plains is exactly why its faster. Something I've been saying the past year is that 2/3 of Montana (East of I-15) is much easier to map. Only 1/3 of the state is your Colorado, Idaho mountainous type stuff. Also credit the newbies for being all over it too. Its possible that they brought a little speed with them. 2 dlc's by a less than 2 year experienced team is great for moral. One thing for sure is that the Great Plains will go much smoother. Most of the GP are straight roads so they will be straight forward and to the point. Can't add detail that doesn't really exist. Stay true to the scene. It is what it is. The one downside to making cities to large in the GP will be a culprit of 1:20 and straight roads though. The sense of distance will play a bigger roll in the GP states.
hangman005 wrote: 28 Jun 2022 12:33
flight50 wrote: 27 Jun 2022 18:41 US-20 is a must to connect Idaho Falls to US-191 into YS and Bozeman. I doubt that got the X. If US-20 was already polished, then no it wouldn't change much. I don't remember the status of it though.
Looks like it will need the Cody US14 Treatment from what I can see. But I'm in agreement its a must have.
Well if we have to round up the troops...so be it. The one thing the devs don't have when making these maps though is community feedback. So we really don't how they are picking roads. I like to analyze the roads in a state though. There are a few things I look for. Access to every city from another city in that same state. What is the logical route. Now go to the adjacent states. What is the logical route to those same cities. If the answer is the same, that road is needed. US-20 is another US-14 I agree. But before pitching for it, I'd give the devs a chance first. We don't know what's the deal with it though so we'll just have to wait. Unlike US-14, its an easier wait. The hole is not that glaring like US-14. The biggest issue with no US-20 is that its the most logical route to not commercially truck thru YS. For those that want to be more realistic, US-20 is your route to go around it without going too far out the way.
oldmanclippy wrote: 28 Jun 2022 14:04 I will reiterate that IMO, US-20 from Idaho Falls to West Yellowstone will be the biggest miss in ATS so far, and it's not even close. I fear that if it is indeed missing from Montana, that SCS is learning the wrong lessons from the Yellowstone debacle.

@Dareus, maybe you could pass on to the team that the reason people were disappointed that Yellowstone was not originally meant to come with Wyoming, is not because we wanted to take that route every time between Sheridan/Cody and Jackson, but rather because we wanted an optional alternate route between those cities that would break up the monotony of going the long way around every time, as well as filling the empty northwest corner of the state. I don't think anyone who complained about Yellowstone would have wanted those roads at the expense of important transit roads. US-20 between Idaho Falls and West Yellowstone is the main corridor for trucking in summer months between Idaho Falls and Bozeman. Without it, the only options are to go I-15 to I-90 or US-26 to US-191 *through a national park*. Both of those are wildly unrealistic. Additionally, if it is true that we're getting US-287 and US-191 between West Yellowstone and I-90, and possibly even US-89 between US-20 and I-90 as well, then IMO it is a massive waste to include all those roads, if the only way to use them is to illegally go through a national park. National park roads shouldn't be the roads we rely on to make a trip, they should be alternate routes for people who are willing to eschew realism once in a while for fun. That should not, IMO, come at the expense of roads that will allow us to drive realistically 90% of the time, such as US-20 between Idaho Falls and West Yellowstone.

That last part is why I'm still holding out hope that US-20 is still coming. No way SCS would make all those roads south of Bozeman without a way to legally use them. It would be a decision far more baffling than leaving out Cody and US-14 was in Wyoming.
Lmao. We think alike. I make the above comment before I even read yours. But I totally agree the wrong lesson would be learned from YS. So may statement is even more valid above. One must think about travel. The most common saying is what is the quickest route from point A to B? A straight line. Figure of speech but its saying direct patch. US-20..US-14...US-2 to WA-20, those are direct paths from A to B and I totally agree with oldmanclippy is that these illegal routes are great.........for those of us that don't care about rules and regulations. But they should indeed be alternates at the same time. As the states start to square up, they also get smaller. So hopefully more logical paths come and not be so debatable.
oldmanclippy wrote: 28 Jun 2022 16:47 Hmm yeah those mountains (the Centennial Mountains) are quite distinctive. The whole situation is just really strange to me. Clearly it was at least planned at one point. I don't know why that would be the road you would cut if you wanted to get it out the door. US-287, yeah cut it. US-20, not a road you should cut. I'm still holding out hope that either this isn't Montana's compatibility patch, or that the beta will be updated later with US-20. It's just too important to leave out.
Terrain models can always be a culprit on why something gets cut. But for US-20, its curvy. SCS can easily cheat it. If US-287 makes it...even in parts, why not this if US-20 can't get into WYS due to space or conflicts? Use MT-87 to still achieve the same goal. Exaggerate US-20 Reforma style to get it to US-287. The good thing about density is that there are options. There could always be a way around a conflict.

[ external image ]
User avatar
ads678
Posts: 491
Joined: 27 Nov 2018 15:56
Location: Eastern Europe

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1775 Post by ads678 » 28 Jun 2022 19:06

As I said previously, sometimes SCS focuses on the wrong roads. It's like releasing a car with a spoiler but without one door.
For me personally Yellowstone and Cody in Wyoming were more important, but still, US-20 is a big miss if it really won't come with this DLC.
User avatar
rbsanford
Posts: 2007
Joined: 15 Sep 2018 02:11
Location: Duluth, MN

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1776 Post by rbsanford » 28 Jun 2022 19:55

Tristman wrote: 28 Jun 2022 17:09 Oddly there does seem to be a small piece of US-287 in the game, so we might actually get that road. Not sure why though. I'm sure it's a nice road, but does it add much next to US-191?
It is pretty redundant, but there is something fun about it: mile 1776, as measured from the 287's southern terminus, is on that segment of the highway, and guess where it is... the Jefferson River crossing! How neat is that coincidence?

I don't think that's enough of a reason to add the road, though. But I'm still an advocate for the highway between Three Forks and Helena.
The Journeys of Zephyr of the American West

Handy maps and diagrams.

Furthermore, I consider that I-80 across Nevada must be redone next.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1777 Post by Trakaplex » 28 Jun 2022 19:58

ads678 wrote: 28 Jun 2022 19:06 As I said previously, sometimes SCS focuses on the wrong roads. It's like releasing a car with a spoiler but without one door.
For me personally Yellowstone and Cody in Wyoming were more important, but still, US-20 is a big miss if it really won't come with this DLC.
US-20 would make sense to be in, because in the devcam, they have ID-33, which connects Rexburg. And the map routing from Idaho Falls to Yellowstone would be seriously disjointed.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
Seerman
Posts: 1181
Joined: 31 Mar 2021 13:59
Location: Where I am?

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1778 Post by Seerman » 28 Jun 2022 20:07

I read about this route on Wikipedia, and now I agree with many guys here. This route MUST be in the game!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_20
I translate via Google Translate. Sometimes he does it badly. I beg understand and forgive. :geek:
_____________
Peterbilt 389 Rework | Western Star 5700XE Rework
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5377
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1779 Post by oldmanclippy » 28 Jun 2022 21:47

flight50 wrote: 28 Jun 2022 18:31 Terrain models can always be a culprit on why something gets cut. But for US-20, its curvy. SCS can easily cheat it. If US-287 makes it...even in parts, why not this if US-20 can't get into WYS due to space or conflicts? Use MT-87 to still achieve the same goal. Exaggerate US-20 Reforma style to get it to US-287. The good thing about density is that there are options. There could always be a way around a conflict.
If it means getting Idaho Falls connected to Bozeman, I wouldn't mind this solution. Considering we're getting West Yellowstone though, I'd say do whatever it takes to keep US-20 in tact. If for whatever reason it's just not possible, then break it up. But make sure the connection gets in.
Trakaplex wrote: 28 Jun 2022 19:58 US-20 would make sense to be in, because in the devcam, they have ID-33, which connects Rexburg. And the map routing from Idaho Falls to Yellowstone would be seriously disjointed.
Do you mean that ID-33 is featuring at Sage Junction on I-15? They didn't have much of a choice since that's where the Port of Entry is. I don't think that's evidence in favor of US-20 unless we can see ID-33 going all the way to US-20. ID-33 is a beautiful road, I've driven it from US-20 to the Wyoming border and although the real fun is on the Wyoming side with WY-22 and Teton Pass, the Teton Valley on the Idaho side is breathtaking.
Seerman wrote: 28 Jun 2022 20:07 I read about this route on Wikipedia, and now I agree with many guys here. This route MUST be in the game!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_20
IMO, it's a road we should be getting from Newport, OR to Rockford, IL unbroken except for the segment between Cairo, OR and Boise, ID which is too close to I-84. With maybe a few cameo appearances east of there, but it's mostly too close to interstates to touch it between Rockford and Boston.
Last edited by oldmanclippy on 28 Jun 2022 21:56, edited 1 time in total.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1780 Post by Tristman » 28 Jun 2022 21:51

From what I saw in the devcam, ID-33 only exists to access the port of entry there. The road to Rexburg is a stub, as is the road west.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], East27, Google [Bot], Holzauge and 6 guests