Montana Discussion Thread

Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1701 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 09:19

werewoooooooolf wrote: 25 Jun 2022 08:50
seriousmods wrote: 25 Jun 2022 07:11 I understand that scale plays a big part in these decisions, but I think the mappers tend to emphasize non-functional scenery over functional industry. I hope Montana isn't a continuation of that.
I believe they are striking a good balance between making cities feel like cities, having good rural scenaries between cities, deliverable depots and non-trucking areas with the current working scale. Of course I mean the latest map expansions but anything post-Arizona isn’t ‘worst’ as you try to convey here. Of course there are misses but do they make the game experience bad? Absolutely not.

It’s just that you use some strong words to describe almost everything.
I think the cities are mostly pretty decent as well. There are consistent issues with backdrops, road accessibility, and company diversity, but overall, I would agree. Cities do feel like cities. It's the space between them that doesn't feel right.

That's why I don't like I-5: none of the cities are particularly bad, but nearly entire regions got axed to make them as big as they are. Wyoming is similar, although I have never visited. Just watching some YouTube videos, I can tell the cities feel too close together.

I might be a little harsh at times, but some of that is to counter the people that act like everything is perfect as is. There's always room for improvement: that applies to me and skills I have as much as anyone else.
User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4100
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1702 Post by harishw8r » 25 Jun 2022 09:55

That’s the curse of I-5. All bigger, major cities are along the interstate. Couple that with all the exits that lead to other west-east roads, so I believe it almost inevitable that the stretch from Everett to Eugene feel too urban.

I don’t think Montana would suffer from any of that. The area is huge so there’s enough freedom as compared to a dense state like Washington.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1703 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 09:58

werewoooooooolf wrote: 25 Jun 2022 09:55 That’s the curse of I-5. All bigger, major cities are along the interstate. Couple that with all the exits that lead to other west-east roads, so I believe it almost inevitable that the stretch from Everett to Eugene feel too urban.

I don’t think Montana would suffer from any of that. The area is huge so there’s enough freedom as compared to a dense state like Washington.
Yeah, you make a good point: maybe there is no way around it. My dream would be a map twice the size with twice as much rural area and cities as they are.

But I know the chance of that happening is zero.
User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1704 Post by TheAmir259 » 25 Jun 2022 10:59

I do agree the I-5 representation is the worst of all, but that is, like mentioned before, the curse of I-5. Wyoming's one is not bad at all, maybe a little on Cheyenne but other than that, i think that's it. Even the Sacramento reworked isn't making me satisfied at all, but there is no other way i guess due to the map scale, so there is no helping it.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
User avatar
festmache
Posts: 426
Joined: 21 Nov 2016 18:44
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1705 Post by festmache » 25 Jun 2022 11:13

seriousmods wrote: 25 Jun 2022 08:37 Stuff I haven't seen looks far better than stuff I have.
True! The curse of a highly scaled-down world... Much easier to appreciate for parts of the world you're not too familiar with ;)
vanilla player, loving ETS2, loving ATS even more! | 🇳🇱 🇪🇺
Map with all cities | Personal cabin accessories

[ external image ]
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1706 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 11:23

TheAmir259 wrote: 25 Jun 2022 10:59 I do agree the I-5 representation is the worst of all, but that is, like mentioned before, the curse of I-5. Wyoming's one is not bad at all, maybe a little on Cheyenne but other than that, i think that's it. Even the Sacramento reworked isn't making me satisfied at all, but there is no other way i guess due to the map scale, so there is no helping it.
Yeah, there are areas that are close to an hour irl: in game they are like two curves lol.

As the map expands, though, I'll be able to spend less time out west.
festmache wrote: 25 Jun 2022 11:13 True! The curse of a highly scaled-down world... Much easier to appreciate for parts of the world you're not too familiar with ;)
But then the problem is wanting to travel to see places irl lol. Then what!
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5379
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1707 Post by oldmanclippy » 25 Jun 2022 14:02

There are really only two ways they could make the rural areas in between cities more dominant: either get rid of some cities, or change the map scale to be 1:3 in cities and 1:20 out of cities, not an overall 1:20 representation that needs to fit both 1:3 cities and 1:x roads which is what we have now. But that would result in a really warped map. Corridors like I-5 would be way longer than empty stretches like I-90 between Seattle and Spokane. Washington state would be way taller north-south than it is IRL. Wyoming would be way wider east-west. That wouldn't be the end of the world if the background map didn't have borders on it, like the old 18WOS games. But I think it would be a touch too wacky for most people to stomach.
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)
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30154
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1708 Post by flight50 » 25 Jun 2022 14:15

rbsanford wrote: 25 Jun 2022 03:48 I can understand cutting the 12 between Helena and Forsyth (I don't like the idea, but it makes sense), but the highway between Helena and Garrison should be in for sure. Otherwise, travel between Helena and points west will be a pain, having to detour down to Butte every time. Incidentally, that segment of the highway includes its highest point (McDonald Pass), which is also where it crosses the Great Divide. I think the 287 between I-90 and Helena is also a must.

I agree that cutting the 191 between Bozeman and West Yellowstone would be painful; I've also been down that road IRL, and Gallatin Canyon is stunning. It's certainly one of the highlights of US 191 overall, which is really saying something. Out of the three Yellowstone connectors in the area, I'd say the 287 is the least necessary for ATS. The 89 could be cut too, but since it's been confirmed, oh well. IIRC, the 191's crossing of the Yellowstone at Big Timber has been shown in a blog post, so that likely confirms the highway between I-90 and US 87.

I would also consider running the 2 as far east as Culbertson, then connecting to Sidney via the 16. There's also 200S connecting Glendive to the 200, which could come in handy.

Fears of conflicts from density are merited, but Montana is so big, that maybe it can spare some of these redundant roads. Remember that just because the road network looks tight on the 2D map doesn't necessarily mean it'll feel that way in the game. Washington is the densest state in the game so far, it looks a little janky on the UI map, but it feels so right in the game.
In real life, yeah going from Missoula to Garrison would be a pain. In ATS at 1:20 scale, it won't be as bad as one may think. We have much worse detours in the game than that. If it came down to MT-200 and US-12 West of I-15, getting from Missoula to Great Falls, Havre, Lewiston or Glasgow is much worse without MT-200. I'd look at serving those 3 cities easier than the one. The one is more feasible to deal with as it fairly close to Butte. Now this of coarse assuming that both can't fit. If both fit, cool.

US-287 between Helena and I-90 has zero cities in between. With I-15 there, its purpose isn't justified. Highest point....SCS probably doesn't get it in accurately anyways and its extra mapping in which I-15 does the same. US-191 would be the preferred route continuing thru YS. But if US-287 is in, its harder to justify US-191. I totally agree on US-2 though. I'd rather Culberson get in a scenic to get a more square up map with Montana and not with North Dakota. But then there is Miles City and Glendive to Glascow. MT-24 makes travel easier for them. Not sure if we get both MT-24 and MT-16. US-85 in North Dakota could take the place of MT-16 though. Its not too far off at 1:20 scale for that detour.

Washington is definitely the densest map. But its not perfect. Vancouver to Longview is about the only issue I have. Its a very quick route due to Portland. It is what it is though. Things should get Washington dense the further we move East as the states get smaller. The vegetation and cut planes allows Washington to be Washington. Montana doesn't have that luxury the further East we get from I-15. Open space and plenty of it is what gets us density.
ASUSTechSupport wrote: 25 Jun 2022 04:35 I think MT-56 between Troy and MT-200 was also implied when troy was visible in the Devcam at the start of the 1.44 open beta
Tristman wrote: 25 Jun 2022 06:21 I think MT-56 between Troy and MT-200 was also implied when troy was visible in the Devcam at the start of the 1.44 open beta
I do remember the intersection in Troy, but not whether MT-56 looked like a stub or not. It would make sense to have it as a western entrance to Thompson Falls though.
[/quote]
That's a nice road to have but it has zero purpose other than detour or another option. No cities along I-90 between CDA and Missoula and for US-2, nothing between Sandpoint and Kalispell to justify MT-56 that can't be done with US-95 or US-93 to get to any city North of I-90. If they add it, cool but I wouldn't expect it honestly. Now Troy could be scenic if the devcam show that, but that doesn't mean MT-56 is accessible. Depends on how we get to access Thompson Falls. I'm betting its just like Coulee Dam. One way in and one way out. We'd really need all of MT-200 to get 2 entry points. But at that point, MT-56 is really extra mapping if we can get from Sandpoint to Thompson Falls much easier. I just don't see MT-56 being relevant no matter the situation. But that's just me. Doesn't mean I'm right.
werewoooooooolf wrote: 25 Jun 2022 08:50
seriousmods wrote: 25 Jun 2022 07:11 I understand that scale plays a big part in these decisions, but I think the mappers tend to emphasize non-functional scenery over functional industry. I hope Montana isn't a continuation of that.
I believe they are striking a good balance between making cities feel like cities, having good rural scenaries between cities, deliverable depots and non-trucking areas with the current working scale. Of course I mean the latest map expansions but anything post-Arizona isn’t ‘worst’ as you try to convey here. Of course there are misses but do they make the game experience bad? Absolutely not.

It’s just that you use some strong words to describe almost everything.
I can agree with this. There is only so much that can get in. At 1:20 scale, that means 19 other things don't get in and that 20th one does. There will be a ton cut from the game now, moving forward and from the pass. Even at 1:15 or 1:10, stuff gets cut so its no wonder even more gets cut at 1:20. The game will never be like real life and that is what many want considering the word "simulator" is in the title. The game is fun, its missing a lot of features but the experience definitely is not bad. I'd rather have what we have than be playing one of the other flopped games. Only thing we can do is keep requesting for more features to get added. The balance is okay for what it is. But the features.....ehhh yeah they lack. ATS is compared to a lot of other games and it really only fair to judge it with apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1709 Post by Tristman » 25 Jun 2022 14:46

Yeah, on further analysis, it seems you're right. Having MT-56 doesn't add much unless you're coming from Canada. And that Canada entrance is still a while away.

(Blue = interstate, red = US highway, green = state highway)
Attachments
MT.jpg
Last edited by Tristman on 25 Jun 2022 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30154
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1710 Post by flight50 » 25 Jun 2022 15:05

^I'm willing to bet that is more like what we'd get. The green routes, I see that just like US-20 in Idaho how it goes North of I-84 and loops. No MT-56 means a lot of play room for a good US-2 and space for I-90.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: oldmanclippy, ShadowScorpion_9 and 13 guests