The Dakotas (North and South) Discussion Thread

[VTXcnME]

@angrybirdseller That. 100%

"...rebuild will go on for years and years anyways as graphic upgrades and better textures will be implemented." YUP

[JoeAlex23]

Nah, i don't see the rebuilds going on "for years", after California, Nevada and Arizona (maybe some cities in New Mexico) are completely rebuild with a decently sized team to get it done faster, SCS will most likely keep a very small "rebuild" team to fix some mistakes, update textures and add some missing roads to all the other DLC's without needing to do a complete rebuild.

[VTXcnME]

I suspect the rebuild team will address exactly that going forward. Some of the gaps, MT-200 or US-12 or whatever folks were complaining about in Montana release (I didn't wanna wade thru the hundreds of posts again). Or updating textures if better ones became available.

Doubt we'll ever see a 100% rebuild of current states like Idaho or Montana or the like. I can absolutely see the rebuild team becoming a 'refresher' team that touches up current maps as the rest of the new dlc teams move east. Maybe they swap out some overused walbert assets to a different company/different prefab. But I agree, after CA/AZ/NM/UT I doubt there'll be need for 100% redo of the state.

[angrybirdseller]

New fast food restaurants assets could see older map DLC getting them like New Mexico and Oregon and fixing textures, but rebuild like base map is getting now no.

Some want rebuilt Oregon, New Mexico, Washington that is definitely not going to happen. They may swap new companies into existing map DLC, but it's refresh after Arizona rebuild done not rebuild.

I agree, they need to move east and focus on that.

[Trakaplex]

I suspect the rebuild team will address exactly that going forward. Some of the gaps, MT-200 or US-12 or whatever folks were complaining about in Montana release (I didn't wanna wade thru the hundreds of posts again). Or updating textures if better ones became available.

Doubt we'll ever see a 100% rebuild of current states like Idaho or Montana or the like. I can absolutely see the rebuild team becoming a 'refresher' team that touches up current maps as the rest of the new dlc teams move east. Maybe they swap out some overused walbert assets to a different company/different prefab. But I agree, after CA/AZ/NM/UT I doubt there'll be need for 100% redo of the state.

Truth. We don't even have Target. In fact an irl Wallbert in Pueblo was a Target. Honestly, every contemporary area must see a redoing one day or not. I honestly see refreshers as well, adding new routes, points, terrain, and textures, but no complete build from the ground up. It depends on how old the DLC gap is. I hope they do so for that gradually, when they reach the other North and South states, Texas will be absolutely low quality (and will need a ground up, which we and SCS won't want). They can retouch parts of New Mexico in a few years, especially Albuquerque. You know, like they did for Hannover recently amidst the revisiting Germany update.

[flight50]

The maps are leveling out every since Idaho. There won't be mass differences that the maintenance team can't keep fresh. Unless the graphics is updated, what we have now won't be drastically different in the future. No much more can improve without engine upgrades.

But whatever changes come, will be to the entire game....like 1.40 did for lighting. Otherwise we will never see the same quality gap like the base map to Montana once everything is refreshed. The quality difference will be NM, OR, WA and Utah. Even they hold up to Montana well but we can tell where things need refreshed.

[oldmanclippy]

Truth. We don't even have Target. In fact an irl Wallbert in Pueblo was a Target.

Oxnard, Eureka (post-rework), and Roswell, too (haven't checked Montana yet).

5 Safeways
4 Costcos
4 Targets
4 Malls/Outlets
4 Non-National Distribution Centers
3 Fred Meyers
2 Natural Grocers
2 Trader Joe's
1 each of 20 others

[John007]

The road at Mount Rushmore [ external image ]

[flight50]

Once Oklahoma is out, I'd like to see Davido's team tackle a bundle. Either Arkansas/Louisiana or North/South Dakota. Those 2 are logical bundles as ATS's first bundles if that plan is considered an option. I skipped Nebraska but perhaps another lead will pick that up so the gap will not be present. Reason I'd go with Davido........., I'll give you 2. Wyoming and Montana. To date, that team of once newbies proved themselves with speed and detail. Not a lot of bugs and not a lot of misses imo. The few misses where corrected and added later.

Wyoming took about 10 months with 10-11 people. Montana took 11 months with the same 10-11 people to start but added up to 15 borrowed from the rebuild team for a few months. If the Dakotas or AR/LA started with 15 people, they could do a lot from the start. Let them crank out one of those bundles. It may take 12 months or it could go up to 14-15 months. By time either of those areas come up, Oklahoma and Kansas will be out. There will be a lot of map to play with. So is it critical to crank out 2 maps withing a year if we can get a larger chunk at once along with another single map dlc? A single dlc like Missouri, Iowa or Nebraska could be done by one team and Davido's team could work a bundle. The terrain in the Dakotas is very similar to what Davido's team already mapped in Wyoming and Montana. They have the experience to roll thru it. The Dakotas combined is basically the size of Montana. Arkansas/Louisiana would take a little more time. Smaller states than the Dakotas, but they have more busier cities.

[Gormanbros]

I totally agree with you.

That really is part of the million dollar question when it comes to ATS speculation. Just what do they consider "states too small to be their own DLC"? We have no idea, really. I think most of us think states past the Mississippi River are too small to stand as solo releases, but who knows what the criteria will be for map releases after the next few come out.

Now with the Dakotas, individually they'd cover a roughly similar size to Kansas and Oklahoma which of course are individual states. But as I mentioned a while ago, there really isn't enough special about North Dakota to sell it individually. South Dakota has the Black Hills/Rushmore, which will sell itself the same way Yellowstone did for Wyoming (a similar-ish state to South Dakota in terms of low density and a reputation for being dull). North Dakota has the oil industry which is cool, but it's not enough to counter the fact it's largely flat, high plains with no big cities or famous landmarks. Nebraska is also a bit iffy when it comes to wider appeal, but Omaha and I-80 will help it.

So bundling ND + SD makes sense. Sharing the Dakota name makes it an even easier sell. But I see this as a bit of a special case. Everything east of the Dakotas is a lot denser and full of mid and large sized cities and landmarks. I think all other bundles will be just based on area size as opposed to viable marketing content.