Wyoming Discussion Thread

Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6121 Post by Trakaplex » 28 Jun 2022 18:54

From my perspective, WY-120 between Cody and Thermopolis would've worked. We both have the ends in game now. US-85 from Torrington to Newcastle (via Lusk) could also be in the future in 1.46 maybe, but I agree. Wyoming is good as of now, besides WY-120.

Concerns, Nebraska and the Dakotas wouldn't probably come in seven years, lol. Might have to reskin areas in Wyoming by that point.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30154
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6122 Post by flight50 » 28 Jun 2022 19:57

More roads are always good but I ask, what purpose would WY-120 have. That wouldn't justify US-20 to US-310 into Montana. Sure its a short cut but it only justifies Cody to Riverton with no huge benefits to 1:20 scale. Its not saving that much time for us. But it will take a dev weeks to do what we drive in minutes.
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6123 Post by Tristman » 28 Jun 2022 20:02

It's not the most beneficial road, but it would be nice to have. I agree Wyoming is good for roads right now.
I also agree with what has been said about extra roads in other states, but my expectation is they will not appear at least until the rework team starts doing DLC states.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5379
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6124 Post by oldmanclippy » 28 Jun 2022 22:01

I'd like to see one small addition to a DLC state with each update. ETS2 it looks like German cities will be an intermittent project alongside the bigger country reworks. ATS could get road additions alongside the bigger base map rework effort. Just dedicate one mapper each update, even every other update if every update is too much, maybe as training for a newbie like with Iberia, to adding a road to a DLC that could use it. Not everything needs to be a big effort like US-14 and Cody was. Any small addition would help things and could provide good training for a newbie. A win-win in my book.
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)
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3298
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6125 Post by angrybirdseller » 28 Jun 2022 22:07

After base map rebuild refresh of NM, OR will likely occur before if they ever UT, WY, ID revisit parts of the map. Think 1:20 scale there will be some roads missing out, and plain states will be next focus as they easier to deal with while base map getting upgraded to match more recent map dlc qaulity.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6126 Post by Shiva » 28 Jun 2022 22:57

Worland? Maybe some add on mapper might try to shoehorn it in.
I think it might be easier to fit in Buffalo.
And there is already people saying Wyoming is too stuffed on I-80, then they might think the same about I-25
oldmanclippy wrote: 28 Jun 2022 15:17 North-central Wyoming, I feel pretty good about it at the moment. Roads that I think could benefit it in the future are ones that would support Nebraska and South Dakota.

WY-387 from I-25 to WY-59

WY-450 from Black Thunder Coal Mine to US-16

US-16 from Moorcroft to Newcastle

US-18 from I-25 to Mule Creek Junction

US-85 from US-26 to Newcastle

US-26 from I-25 to US-85

For sure, we'll get US-26 and US-18. I think US-16 and US-85 are likely but not locks. WY-387 and WY-450 are less likely IMO.
WY-387, I think you mean https://www.google.com/maps/dir/WY-191, ... 48!1m0!3e0 . WY-191 to WY-387. Both ends ingame.
WY-450, and US-16 would depend if we get that part of US-16, yeah, would be nice.
US-18? part of it would be sure to be in! US-20.
US-85, would be nice.
US-26 toward Nebraska should be 100% lock.
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: 5379
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6127 Post by oldmanclippy » 28 Jun 2022 23:24

Shiva wrote: 28 Jun 2022 22:57 WY-387, I think you mean https://www.google.com/maps/dir/WY-191, ... 48!1m0!3e0 . WY-191 to WY-387. Both ends ingame.
Ah yes, forgot it was the Kaycee not the Midwest exit that was currently in-game. Not a necessary route, but a prime candidate for newbie training for sure. Technically it's WY-192 east of I-25.
Last edited by oldmanclippy on 28 Jun 2022 23:27, 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)
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6128 Post by Shiva » 28 Jun 2022 23:26

Yeah, that could be a nice bonus road :)
Similar to WY-120.
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: 30154
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6129 Post by flight50 » 29 Jun 2022 10:34

Doesn't seem like newbies train much with a new road that come per update like several years back. The team has grown so fast that they are just thrown into the fire and are a gamble. So after training, they are more or less just cut loose to see what they got. If they are good enough, they are thrown onto a map team. Learning on the job from team members is just as good. When covid hit, the office worked from home was more of a challenge for sure for newbies. But we are past that now. SCS is still growing despite the current world issues of today.

I think Wyoming is safe to say, its a very good dlc now. I overlook the size of the cities along I-80. I understand scale but I also understand that people complained in the past about enough surface roads to drive in cities. SCS addresses this and are still criticized. They can't win for loosing. If you want more than one way in or out a city, the city must have size. Not every city in ATS will be able to pull this off. What Rawlins, Laramie, Rocksprings, Evanston and Cheyenne pull off, won't happen in DFW, Houston, LA, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, NYC. So do it where you can when you have space because there is almost a zero change to drive surface street in mega cities like you can in cities with populations less than 50k.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5109
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#6130 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 29 Jun 2022 12:20

flight50 wrote: 29 Jun 2022 10:34What Rawlins, Laramie, Rocksprings, Evanston and Cheyenne pull off, won't happen in DFW, Houston, LA, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, NYC. So do it where you can when you have space because there is almost a zero change to drive surface street in mega cities like you can in cities with populations less than 50k.
I have to disagree... Los Angeles has surface streets. San Francisco has surface streets. So I don't see any problem why DFW, Houston, etc won't have surface streets.

How are big cities in ATS depicted with surface streets? I think what SCS is doing, is this: when SCS creates a city, they not just create a 1:20 scaled down version of that city. No, they take some parts of that city which they at least want to be included in the ATS version of that city. Sometimes a part contains a major road, and sometimes a part contains a surface road. Then SCS creates those parts in a scaled down version (not always in a 1:20 scale, but sometimes in a 1:10, 1:5, 1:3 or even almost in a 1:1 scale).

This ofcourse means that a city which contains surface streets, cannot contain all major roads. But that's ok. We don't need all major roads. We want a nice representation of cities. In case of Seattle there is no room for surface streets. But in case of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boise, etc, we do have surface streets. So why wouldn't DFW, Houston, Chicago, NYC, etc have surface streets? It's perfectly possible. Just get rid of some major roads, as we don't need them all anyway. And instead add a surface street.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JoeAlex23, KaLypso, LeGod7 and 9 guests