Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4100
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3181 Post by harishw8r » 17 May 2022 15:12

For those who asked:

[ external image ]
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5380
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3182 Post by oldmanclippy » 17 May 2022 15:50

With the release of the Montana microsite showing (subject to change of course) ~15 blog topics before the release date announcement blog (which to me, puts us at an October release date roughly), I'm starting to think Texas is more likely for a March 2023 release than a December 2022 release. Better to not rush it out to release so soon after Montana and give it all the time it needs. Especially if Western Balkans ditches Greece to make a December 2022 release window, which I think is possible.
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)
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3183 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 16:08

oldmanclippy wrote: 17 May 2022 15:08 I find that the research team is really good at finding cool buildings and other manmade landmarks to include that increase immersion, but when it comes to landscapes I do think there has been less attention to detail. There is absolutely attention to detail given to mapping landscapes which are of very high quality, but there are a few locations in each map that, when compared to Google Maps / Street View, make you go "what were they looking at when they researched this?". ETS2 I think the landscapes do feel distinct and different from region to region, so perhaps there needs to be some cross-game research strategy sharing. ETS2 needs to share landscape research strategy and company diversity strategy. The ATS team needs to figure out very quickly that the US is an incredibly ecologically, culturally, and economically diverse place. Not as much as Europe, but still surprisingly high levels of diversity.

Grand Teton National Park, Jackson, and Jackson Hole, a masterclass in using the right vegetation, road signs, mountain models, etc. Perfectly researched. It is uncanny how great it feels to drive through. Best part of the game.

Salt Lake City, a big missed opportunity. Wrong mountain models, a downtown area that feels more like a theme park version of SLC, and lots of missing industry on the northwest side. Really poorly researched. Worst part of the game because the rest of Utah is so excellent.

Washington SR 20, a fantastically researched road.

I-5 near Mount Shasta in the CA rework, a poorly researched road.

I-15 in Idaho, a fantastically researched road.

US-95 near White Bird Hill in Idaho, a poorly researched road.

I-84 in Oregon, a fantastically researched road (with poor implementation east of Pendleton).

...

In the last few ETS2 expansions, there have been very few locations (I can't even think of an example off the top of my head) that seemed poorly researched. Romanian ecology and geography feels distinct from Bulgaria which feels distinct from Turkey. Andalusian ecology and geography feels distinct from Portugal which feels distinct from Catalonia which feels distinct from Galicia which feels distinct from the Basque Country etc etc etc.

I think overall, ATS does a good job *in a broad sense* in differentiating states. Washington has a distinct vibe from Oregon which has a distinct vibe from Idaho which has a distinct vibe from Wyoming etc etc etc. Washington, Wyoming, and now the CA rework are the best at this IMO. But on a micro level, there are instances where assets get reused too often, which is less of a problem for building prefabs as it is for landscape elements such as rocks and vegetation. It's good that Simon acknowledged that the trees need to be "Texas-ified", but I agree that the problem should not have occurred in the first place. They have done a good job with rocks, I think they need to seek out an expert in vegetation to advise them going forward. Even if they just pay for a day long consulting session to poke their brain about regional differences in US vegetation. Every little bit of knowledge will help.

With Texas, I want to be able to be dropped anywhere in the state and immediately know where I am. Signage, road design, buildings, etc all play a part, but so does vegetation and landscape. Northern Texas will feel like Southern Oklahoma, Eastern Texas will feel like Western Louisiana, and Western Texas will feel like Eastern New Mexico of course because geography doesn't care about state lines, but with a state as big as Texas with its own unique and distinct regions within it I think the differentiation should be key.
Yeah, it's important to note that they got I-5 wrong twice, more than five years apart. That I just can't understand.

Same is true for a number of other places on the map: decorative buildings are the best part. Backdrop mountains, road grades, and companies are the worst.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3184 Post by Shiva » 17 May 2022 17:26

Rather, Mt Shasta, was omitted, due to space given to other stuff.
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: 5380
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3185 Post by oldmanclippy » 17 May 2022 18:06

Mount Shasta is in the game, it's just that the model is nowhere near as imposing as it should be. They should have the person who worked the Tetons go and do a new model for Shasta.

And, since we're on the topic of Texas, Guadalupe Peak for good measure, if it hasn't already been worked. That might have been started a year ago though.
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

#3186 Post by Shiva » 17 May 2022 19:27

O wait, it can be seen from I-5, at Weed. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4191119 ... 384!8i8192
Yeah, it could be a tad higher.
But, no one mentioned that the model is a bit wrong.
The flatter Shastina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastina should be towards Weed, not the Mount Shasta peak itself.

Guadalupe Peak? US-62 should have 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: Texas Discussion Thread

#3187 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 19:31

Shiva wrote: 17 May 2022 19:27 O wait, it can be seen from I-5, at Weed. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4191119 ... 384!8i8192
Yeah, it could be a tad higher.
But, no one mentioned that the model is a bit wrong.
The flatter Shastina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastina should be towards Weed, not the Mount Shasta peak itself.

Guadalupe Peak? US-62 should have it.
It can be seen basically just out of Oregon all the way past Redding down to before Corning.

But that's not the biggest issue: it's the complete omission of several mountain passes along the route. I can understand limitations of game clip distance: I cannot understand how you miss several mountain passes.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3188 Post by Shiva » 17 May 2022 19:35

@seriousmods You're welcome to add them yourself.
Until the day SCS decides to make that road a slingering spaghetti.
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: Texas Discussion Thread

#3189 Post by Optional Features » 17 May 2022 20:00

Shiva wrote: 17 May 2022 19:35 @seriousmods You're welcome to add them yourself.
Until the day SCS decides to make that road a slingering spaghetti.
Redo scs's work so it can be broken days later by a patch? Nah, I'll pass. Already did that once on a mod map: my work didn't even make it two weeks before being lost to time.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30156
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#3190 Post by flight50 » 17 May 2022 20:10

oldmanclippy wrote: 17 May 2022 15:50 With the release of the Montana microsite showing (subject to change of course) ~15 blog topics before the release date announcement blog (which to me, puts us at an October release date roughly), I'm starting to think Texas is more likely for a March 2023 release than a December 2022 release. Better to not rush it out to release so soon after Montana and give it all the time it needs. Especially if Western Balkans ditches Greece to make a December 2022 release window, which I think is possible.
The closer to release for Montana, the more Texas blog can kick in. So Texas kicking in completely after Montana releases....doesn't have to happen that way. We get blogs now, just not in that 2-3 week window. More Texas blogs will have to offset the coming of Montana. If Montana is September/October, Texas has to increase blogs come August/September if it's a November/December release.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ETS-20B, explosion65, Harpole94, KennyPete, ShadowScorpion_9, TheTiger, tigolebitties and 15 guests