Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2471 Post by flight50 » 18 May 2022 18:55

Shiva wrote: 16 May 2022 17:01 Vinnie, my original full USA is about 7MB jpg file. The bmp is 80MB.
And it is a 50% of the original background map + with added grid lines.

Current map area, it should be withing forum limits?
Is there another way to share this full size file like google docs or something so that we don't have to keep bugging you about sectors?
Shiva
Posts: 4973
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2472 Post by Shiva » 18 May 2022 19:14

Something that allows for 6000x4640pixel jpg's. If for the whole USA.
That is a 50% rescale of the original background map. Gridded. I have not added the sector names.
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
VTXcnME
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2473 Post by VTXcnME » 18 May 2022 20:02

angrybirdseller wrote: 18 May 2022 18:36 We should talk about rebuild of CA-AZ-NV not mapscale!
Kind of plays against each other.

As long as they are rebuilding the map.... moving the scale to say.... 1:15 at the same time feels like it would be a productive use of the rebuild team, would it not? Rebuild and rescale at the same time?

Especially, as noted with the slight detour, with the movement to smaller and smaller states. The west should feel big. It is big. A rescale to 1:15 would allow that, and allow better management of smaller states further east.
User avatar
xXCARL1992Xx
Posts: 16524
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 12:18
Contact:

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2474 Post by xXCARL1992Xx » 18 May 2022 20:13

the smallest country/state we have for both games is Luxembourg, i dont see any need to go 1:15 with the current game, disregarding the fact that it is total nonsense to rework everything, AGAIN to a different scale, for this they would have to scrap all planing for future DLCs and delay Texas and Montana, if they start to rework in 1:15 it is stupid to continue to make new DLCs in 1:20, and then the mismatching starts, it might work in ETS2 with the UK but only because it is cut of from the rest of the map
| !!!NO SUPPORT OR REQUESTS OF ANY SORT VIA PM!!! | Screenshot Thread | Steam Workshop | World of Trucks Profil |
[ external image ]
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2475 Post by Optional Features » 18 May 2022 20:34

@SenseFM Well, it starts at the border. Coming north out of Portland, SCS completely flattened the first bridge you go over (which has a significant arch irl). Then there's the missing port of Vancouver, which is a major destination for a number of things carried by trucks. More than a million Subarus have started their North American journey in this port, and a large amount of west coast wind energy is brought through the port as well.

If we go east along that freeway, the map is reasonably accurate (obviously compressed scale) until the freeway terminates at that rock quarry. If you look on Google, there's a very significant paper mill exists just beyond the end of the road.

Going back west, there's an eastern freeway that connects Portland to the north. Again, due to scale, SCS just ignored the road connection back to I-5.

On I-5 is where things really go downhill. There is significant distance irl from the river to Longview, yet in game it's like a mere couple miles.

Then more missing stuff: huge grain elevator in Kalama, equipment dealer in Chehalis, etc. Snoqualmie Pass is a far cry from what it is irl, even given the scale. The mountains are way too short, there are not sufficient lanes, etc etc. I could go on, but there's a ton wrong with the state. They clearly did not do good research on industries, or the port would have been a priority.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3303
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2476 Post by angrybirdseller » 18 May 2022 22:11

They developer said 95% of landmaks need to be eliminated to fit the 1:20 scale, that means, roads, buildings, mountian peaks etc. I wish some would watch the streams at times than complain. Mt Shaska was eliminated likely did not work with flow off the map, and the scale as well.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2477 Post by Optional Features » 18 May 2022 22:44

angrybirdseller wrote: 18 May 2022 22:11 They developer said 95% of landmaks need to be eliminated to fit the 1:20 scale, that means, roads, buildings, mountian peaks etc. I wish some would watch the streams at times than complain. Mt Shaska was eliminated likely did not work with flow off the map, and the scale as well.
Except Mt. Shasta is included on the map. Do you even play lol?
Shiva
Posts: 4973
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2478 Post by Shiva » 18 May 2022 22:44

That's how things are with a 1:20. And how it would be in an 1:15 too.

VTXcnME a 1:20 to 1:15 rescale, it would have to be done at once. Not state by state.
And how long would that take, for current areas, not counting Montana and Texas. It would take years. Many years, if you would want some quality to it.
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.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2479 Post by Optional Features » 18 May 2022 22:49

Shiva wrote: 18 May 2022 22:44 That's how things are with a 1:20. And how it would be in an 1:15 too.

VTXcnME a 1:20 to 1:15 rescale, it would have to be done at once. Not state by state.
And how long would that take, for current areas, not counting Montana and Texas. It would take years. Many years, if you would want some quality to it.
A rescale (unlikely) should be more land, not more buildings. The map already has plenty of buildings.
Shiva
Posts: 4973
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#2480 Post by Shiva » 18 May 2022 23:39

seriousmods wrote: 18 May 2022 22:49 A rescale (unlikely) should be more land, not more buildings. The map already has plenty of buildings.
Adding that does take time too.
Mostly SCS did the 1:35? to 1:20 rescale quite well.
But sometimes they goofed it up.
For example, Carlin Tunnels . Are they near Elko? No, they are closer to Winnemucca.
A rescale is not like taking a rubber band and pulling it apart on both ends.
It might be more like cracking a big egg. Then taking it apart, to add parts between the cracked parts.
Sort of if you have a 100k bit puzzle and then you add 50k parts or whatever, between the 100k parts you already have.
+ yeah, some new buildings, bridges etc, could be part of that rescale.
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.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests