Utah Discussion Thread

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2941 Post by Xaagon » 10 Jun 2022 15:35

IamTheOne wrote: 10 Jun 2022 15:07 The problem with the state of Utah is that gameplay-wise, it is very much a "transit state"- you go through the state in order to access other states by way of Interstates 15, 70 & 80. As the game's map size continues to expand, this problem will continue to grow.

Is the solution really to add more secondary roads that less players will use as the general map expands eastwards? The game unfortunately can't fix issues of real-life geography and road design, so whether or not you add more roads it's still going to be an unpopular state to drive through.
All states in the middle of the map could be "transit states" depending on how you play. The player can always choose to take cargo to/from Utah.

I've always argued for more parallel roads. US-89 makes a convenient alternative to I-15 and would make the detour feature more realistic.

I would also like to see some combination of roads going to Hanksville. I understand that technically an I-70 connection would not be feasible, but no reason to not link to US-191 where there's even a stub for UT-95. They would have to put a depot in Hanksville like a farm or Tidbit or something to give truckers a reason to go. It wouldn't need to be added as a marked city if that's an issue, just address it to Moab.

Though I haven't seen lots of others clamoring for it, I would also like to be able to drive NV-233/UT-30. Not a lot of benefits to the game as it saves a marginal amount of time going to Logan from the west, but it seems like a really nice drive and would fill another hole in the map.

I'm not expecting any drastic changes to Utah anytime soon. They need to finish the base map rebuild before starting something like this. Once base map is done it would be nice if they kept a few people on a rework team to polish up some of the older DLCs, add depots for new industry into the older DLCs, surprise us with new roads, etc.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2942 Post by Optional Features » 10 Jun 2022 15:45

flight50 wrote: 10 Jun 2022 15:24
seriousmods wrote: 10 Jun 2022 14:13 The game so far in all states lacks really any kind of road to nowhere philosophy: everything is right on the highway.
What do you mean....right on the highway? Highway as in interstates or highway as in US and/or State roads? Either way, I'll have to disagree with that. There are industries in which are not off the highway. It also depend on what you refer to as right off the road. We talking 10-20 feet off the road or 2-3 miles off the road? All mines and logging sites are pushed back so those 2 alone makes the statement false. Wind farms aren't exactly close to the road itself as they are pushed back. The way I see it, if you can't see the main road that you came in on.....its pushed back and not off the road.

In theory, I agree that some things further back from the road would be cool but that only applies to certain industries. There is a lot of space off the roads I agree and this is where some of the largest off road prefabs can exist. But we really only have farms, mines, logging, oil/gas sites, solar field if we ever get it (ETS2 has it already) and vineyards. If complex prefabs ever come...this is where they should be. Especially for oil/gas and farming. Montana will be bring Waste Management. I am sure that falls in line with these others.
The logging sites are the farthest from the road, and the mines are a close second. But look at some of the farms in game and cattle ranches: there's nothing like 10-15 miles back in the sticks.

Oil stuff in game is also fairly close to civilization. With a big space like that, they could put in a remote mine or research site that was like 50 miles back on gravel (on a network of roads, some of which lead to other places or back to the highway).
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2943 Post by flight50 » 10 Jun 2022 15:51

UT-24 actually accessible to I-70 in 2 locations. The East one is the one that we can't have. The town of Richfield already exist in ATS and with UT-119, we can take UT-24 from there and do what we have to do to get to UT-12 or UT-95. Moab is to far away to make a remote depot since it can't connect directly to I-70. Its better to do like Cody or Clifton Az and just add Torrey or Hanksville as a small Tonopah type town. 2-3 depots at the most.


10-15 miles......50 miles....no wonder you say things are close now. What you are asking for is too far. That type of distance doesn't make sense honestly. This is the first time I've heard request of such distance. Your going to continue being upset at this one. Stuff like that will only come with ProMods or Reforma.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2944 Post by Shiva » 10 Jun 2022 18:25

Xaagon, I would have liked NV-233/UT-30 too. But exits do take space.
I even had ideas for a road from Wendover to US-50, something like this https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7359 ... m2!4m1!3e0

My Wendover to UT-56, migth have been something like https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7359 ... c6!1m0!3e0

But the Hanksville connection, that one should be doable by SCS.
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
Xaagon
Posts: 990
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2945 Post by Xaagon » 10 Jun 2022 19:29

I've thought about variations of that route too. Another hole would be filled, but would need some farms or mines or something to make a reason to go there. Definitely one of those roads that you pass the entrance to and wonder "where does that go?"

I think I would connect it to Alt-93 on the Nevada side and bring it all the way down to Saint George like this: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.3960 ... c6!1m0!3e0
User avatar
ads678
Posts: 491
Joined: 27 Nov 2018 15:56
Location: Eastern Europe

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2946 Post by ads678 » 10 Jun 2022 20:00

Speaking of Hanksville, the absence of eastern section of UT-24 will affect it too much, as deliveries to/from this town will have too big detours. With Torrey marked, this won't be such a problem.

[ external image ] [ external image ]
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2947 Post by Tristman » 10 Jun 2022 20:16

I don't think UT-24 between Hanksville and I-70 will ever happen due to the layout of I-70. Personally I would be fine with a long scenic road between US-191 and US-89 with Hanksville, Torrey and perhaps some others as scenic towns.
From looking around on Google Streetview, I couldn't find any semis in this region.
User avatar
ads678
Posts: 491
Joined: 27 Nov 2018 15:56
Location: Eastern Europe

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2948 Post by ads678 » 10 Jun 2022 20:22

Tristman wrote: 10 Jun 2022 20:16 I don't think UT-24 between Hanksville and I-70 will ever happen due to the layout of I-70.
That's what I'm talking about. With the impossibility of having eastern part of UT-24 it makes more sense to have Torrey marked rather than Hanksville.
User avatar
Sora
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2949 Post by Sora » 10 Jun 2022 20:46

I've said this before, but I don't think that Southern Utah and the Cody area are remotely comparable.

Yellowstone is the most famous part of Wyoming, and Cody would be the next logical city to include regardless of its map location simply because it's still a decent-sized city by Wyoming's low standards. Southern Utah doesn't really have either of these factors going on - both of the "cities" people bring up are little more than excuses to make the road viable, and the road itself is far from famous enough to justify its near-total lack of viability for semis. I can understand the idea of filling what obviously looks like a big gap on the map, but... it is a big gap, even in real life.

If SCS adds roads to Utah, I feel like it'd make more sense for it to be roads that could actually conceivably be used by truckers. Things like US 6 (from Delta to I-15), US 89 (from Salina to Provo), and maybe UT 30/NV 233 (from I-80 to I-84). All of these roads are roads that could actually be useful at the scale of ATS, either as immediate connections or as viable alternatives to repetitive routes. Yet even these aren't exactly mandatory inclusions, either. On the other hand, if SCS is adding cities to Utah... my first choice would actually be formally marking Kanab, which is at the intersection of three uncommonly-used roads and actually has a nontrivial amount of history to it.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Utah Discussion Thread

#2950 Post by flight50 » 10 Jun 2022 21:11

@Sora, you have to realize that SCS is the one who proposed the routing thru South Utah. They are the ones that provided both names along the routing. We are just asking to make it happen to add some density. I wouldn't say its excuses to get either town marked if SCS proposed it.

[ external image ]
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 6 guests