Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
Midiangel
Posts: 126
Joined: 28 Apr 2022 07:29
Location: Other country
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3161 Post by Midiangel » 16 May 2022 13:37

Now I'm in a hurry. Everyone in the world suddenly remembered about nuclear weapons, and I would like to ride through Texas and Montana until the world cracked in half. :D :D :D
_________________________________
Google translator has become bad at translating lately. If so, I apologize.
parasaurolophus67
Posts: 4578
Joined: 25 Sep 2018 12:32
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3162 Post by parasaurolophus67 » 16 May 2022 13:47

I wouldn't find that funny buddy. :I
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5109
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3163 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 16 May 2022 13:47

But if you take a look at just the screenshots we got from the Montana blogs and the Texas blogs (so for the moment forget that we will still get several blogs): are there any signs to be seen in those screenshots about how far Montana or Texas are completed? Do those screenshots tell us that Montana or Texas might be ready by the end 2022?
Last edited by Vinnie Terranova on 16 May 2022 15:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Midiangel
Posts: 126
Joined: 28 Apr 2022 07:29
Location: Other country
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3164 Post by Midiangel » 16 May 2022 13:49

parasaurolophus67 wrote: 16 May 2022 13:47 I wouldn't find that funny buddy. :I
I have already experienced a terrible shock, fear, anger, hopelessness... and now only nervous laughter remains...
_________________________________
Google translator has become bad at translating lately. If so, I apologize.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5377
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3165 Post by oldmanclippy » 16 May 2022 15:31

So techincally the discovery that pic 12 is on US-96 doesn't mean we'll get the entire US-96 since it could just be a route to a remote Beaumont depot, but I do think it's strong evidence that we're getting US-96.

To that end, none of the obvious marked city options lie along that route except for Beaumont, so I see two possible reasons for its inclusion. The first being the most likely, just to add density to East Texas. The second, which is a bit more of a stretch, is to provide a more direct route between Beamount and Texarkana, for the latter's inclusion in the Texas DLC. I'm still of the mind that Texarkana would benefit the Arkansas DLC, which needs all the marked cities it can get, more than the Texas DLC, which will be swimming in marked cities. But it's possible that SCS just wants to jam Texas to the brim in which case Texarkana would make sense coming with Texas. There's also the possibility that US-96 is being included to set up a more direct route to Texarkana once Arkansas arrives.

Overall, I am still skeptical that Texarkana would come with Texas, but it is an intriguing possibility. Either way, I'm just excited about the chance of getting some good density in East Texas. Texas from I-35 eastward should bring a new level of density over a larger area that ATS hasn't seen yet.
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: Texas Discussion Thread

#3166 Post by Shiva » 16 May 2022 16:22

Texarkana, I'm for a split for that city.
Similar to Portland OR and Vancouver WA. But better planned, due to better space between Texarkana and Dallas. Than with Portland and the cities south of it.
And when we can see Texas? late autumn/winter 2022, my guess.
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.
Quark
Posts: 1120
Joined: 08 Feb 2019 07:48
Location: Germania

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3167 Post by Quark » 17 May 2022 01:14

Shiva wrote: 13 May 2022 10:16 When checking google streetviews, I did see trees that reminded quite lot of PNW trees, sadly I can't find those areas again.
But it could have been younger trees of what grows in Texas? They weren't very tall, but maybe 5 to 10 metres. 16ft to 32ft.
Well yeah it could've been younger Pine trees that can look a bit like younger Spruce or Fir or maybe you saw Eastern Red Cedar, another evergreen which you can find in Texas which with their conical form can sometimes look remarkably similar as well (in fact, i remember reading somewhere that this conifer is used in a few states like Oklahoma as a christmas tree but possible that i do misremember)
Maybe someone could check what trees are in https://blog.scssoft.com/2022/05/texas- ... ustry.html
And make a list of what trees are shown?
Ok Shiva, I checked the Coniferous trees in the pictures and compared them with the ones we already have via map editor. Let us start with Pic2 that is totally wrong in my opinion. The 4 bigger trees directly behind the logging trailer the most right one is a Lodgepole Pine in this case the model "tall02". The conical tree just to the left in lighter green looks like a Spruce-semidry model the next one i'm not completely sure but looks suspiciously like Spruce-Big2 while the 4th one in darker/more bluish green is unmistakably a Blue Spruce of Colorado, here probably model "Big02". On the rightmost side of the photo are some more of those. Trees in the Backround look like a mix of those 4 mentioned tree models.

Now Pic3. On the left side more Spruces and more towards the right on that green "island" between the dirt roads you can see different models of Ponderosa Pines which already came with New Mexico if i'm not mistaken.

The Pine forest in Pic5 consist of different kinds of Lodgepole and Ponderosa Pines again but possibly also with some what looks like Silver Pines mixed in with, but kinda hard to tell...

These Silver Pines however, which got introduced with Idaho, can be seen in Pic7to the left of the big antenna mast, and also in
at least one other picture (pic 14).

In Pic 4 you can even see some tall Fir trees from Oregon mixed into the woods in the Backround.

I also spotted a few "desert pines" in the center of pic 15 as well as in the backround.

So in Summary, we have the following trees that were showed in the Texas - logging industry blog (and i really have only focused on the coniferous trees here, since otherwise would be too much work):

Pine Trees
- Lodgepole Pines: These Lodgepoles seem to have come with Idaho DLC and are not found in Texas in reality
- Silver Pines: Also known as Western white Pine, also came with Idaho, is native to the Pacific north west and not found in Texas
- Ponderosa Pines: Looks like they were introduced with New Mexico. They ARE also native to Texas but only in the most western, more mountainous part part and usually not in the eastern forests that were shown in the blogpost.
- "Desert Pines": That's their designation in the editor. I believe they can be found on the old California base map so it's a quite old model. But not sure what they suppose to represent exactly. Afghan/Mondell Pines are sometimes called Desert pines but i somehow doubt that they are meant.

Spruce and Fir
- "Spruce": uncertain what they exactly are, Sitka Spruce? Engelmann Spruce? No clue, but Spruces are generally native to high altitude mountain sceneries, and shouldn't be seen in flat, warm eastern Texas. These tree models were used in huge amounts in Oregon, Washington and Idaho DLCs, and that's exactly where they fit, and certainly not in texan logging camps.
- Blue Spruces: These models seem to have been added with the Colorado DLC and is native to the southern Rocky Mountains. Just like mentioned above, Spruces in Texas should be a very very VERY very rare sight.
- Firs: Whatever kind of Fir that is, its the same story like with the Spruces above.

My conclusion: Some pictures seem completely off reality, especially pic 2 and 11 that are showing logging camps. It looks indeed way more like a camp in Idaho than in a texan forest. All the Spruce trees there look totally misplaced.
Same with pictures number 4 and #12 on the left side, culprit this time the Firs. In my opinion, they must be removed completely because these type of trees just don't fit to Texas. Now, i've never been in Texas myself so of course its impossible for me to say if there isn't indeed a Fir or Spruce somehere to be found in this state but after all i do know their rather extensive use in these (admittingly work in progress) pictures looks, in the current state, like a reasonably big mistake.

With the Pine trees on the other hand, i see not reaally a big issue. Sure, Lodgepole and Silver Pines are not native to Texas, but they look pretty similar to the ones actually native to Texas that you can usually find in the huge eastern Pine forests there, like Loblolly Pine or Longleaf Pine... They look similar enough that you don't really need a new model just for Texas if you ask me. Same with Ponderosa Pines, i guess you won't see them much often in the eastern parts of Texas but they don't look totally out of place. So most of the other pictures are ok to me, and especially pics 5 and 7 look like proper texan forest.
There seem to be plantations in Texas too https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ions+texas
Has SCS thought of adding places like this? https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2838376 ... 384!8i8192 1 example.
The Logging camps in the blogpost don't look like Christmas tree plantations though.
User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3168 Post by Travismods » 17 May 2022 07:11

Thanks Quark for breaking it down for us, looks like my gut feeling from working in the editor and comparing with blog shots wasn’t too far off (not a botanist lol) - a lot of the vegetation on these Texas blogs seem off and it is indeed rehashed material from the PNW and NM dlc. The result is unrealistic looking locations coming to Texas sadly. I think its one of many examples of SCS lack of authenticity when it to diversity within the US. They either don’t hire people that understand these things or they just don‘t care or they just don‘t know. Glad we got a breakdown of it so people claiming ”the US looks the same everywhere more or less” can give it a rest.

I suppose the chance of vegetation being placeholders are pretty low as well, for the people clinging onto that as an explanation for
SCS misses every time. We are going to see a Texas with most assets reused from other states, except buildings. Such is SCS understanding of vegetation and climate within the US. A Texas forestry blog should have looked vastly different from an Oregon or Idaho one. People think vegetation is an unimportant detail in this game but its kind of what ties places together making them feel unique from other locations. We now know many of the locations in Texas will look near identical to previous DLCs, even though obviously they don’t IRL.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3169 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 07:49

@Quark They should hire you lol: that's an impressive post!
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5109
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3170 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 17 May 2022 08:27

I still don't get it regarding placeholders... Why would SCS publish blog posts with a lot of placeholders? That makes no sense. No sense at all. Ofcourse I can understand that the screenshots may differ from the final result because it's a w.i.p. But placeholders really make no sense. It's like a home builder shows you a picture of what your house will look like, but when the house is finished it looks very different from the house on the picture. Or you show the barder a picture of a hair model you want, but instead you get a totally different hair model.

I think that if part of the map contains a lot of placeholders, then don't publish a blog about that part of the map yet. Only publish a blog and show screenshots when that part of the map don't have placeholders anymore (or have very few placeholders). And if a blog contains placeholders, say it to your customers so they don't get surprised.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests