Montana Discussion Thread

User avatar
halbtollekreatur
Posts: 823
Joined: 16 Mar 2020 19:23
Location: Petria

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1991 Post by halbtollekreatur » 04 Jul 2022 18:47

Vinnie Terranova wrote: 04 Jul 2022 17:34 Ah, I didn't see those white letters on the white background. There is a sign about the Crow Indian tribe. The Crow Indian tribe speak the Crow language.
"Polson is located on the Flathead Indian reservation, and recently there has been a “push” to educate the town’s children in the Flathead language. Therefore, you will note several signs in both languages"
Source
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30339
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1992 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 18:56

SenseFM wrote: 04 Jul 2022 14:26 but Wyoming was even more depopulated and smaller in area, and it took its time to release. Kudos to the devs in charge of the DLC!
Less population doesn't equal smaller cities though. Wyoming has some of the largest cities in the game simply because there is space to do so. In some cases, a few cities are too large but its all good. I wouldn't say it took its time though.
1) Yellowstone held it up an extra 1-1.5 months. It wasn't going to come at all. It was a last minute add and it was a must to come day one. Most people had no clue where Yellowstone was but they do know Yellowstone exist. If people found out YS was in Wyoming and it didn't come, all hell would have broke loose.
2) that team was predominantly newbies. They did a fantastic job under the circumstances. They got that one dlc under their belts and I had no doubt, they'd rock Montana and they are. Montana is looking great and its the perfect state to follow Wyoming for that team with 2/3 of the state being much much easier and faster to map.

Get your best terrain guys in the Western 1/3 of the state and let the slightly less experienced mappers tackle the Eastern 2/3s. With numbers, Montana has moved month 2 months faster than I thought. Montana gets this team more experience to improve on what they learned on the first project. As the ATS map team grows, hopefully we see fuller teams tackling the issue of missing roads. The less missing roads day one, the less time needed to add them later. If we don't get another map team for awhile, that is perfectly fine. We have 4 map leads now and that is enough to put a nice dent in the US map yearly...permanently as long as project ATS is alive and kicking.

@oldmanclippy I totally agree. A well connected region once Montana releases is going to be huge. Texas is a bonus but its Montana that opens up the map as it completes the West. Even better, like you said, it will all be in good quality. The best part is that even the bad quality is turning into good. Great part for ATS is that its a much much smaller portion of the map that isn't high quality. Biggest reason I think fast tracking I-80 in Nevada is a solid move before going South of I-80 in California. It does more for Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana dlc's than Nevada itself. Not everyone owns those dlc's. Completing California's rebuild doesn't connect directly to a higher quality map until New Mexico so get people supporting the higher quality maps with I-80 Nevada first or simultaneously with Ph3/Ph4.
etsuco05
Posts: 80
Joined: 08 Jun 2020 17:54
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1993 Post by etsuco05 » 04 Jul 2022 18:58

rbsanford wrote: 04 Jul 2022 17:06 Maybe the real welcome signs are copyrighted, although I can't find any information about that online.
The "Welcome to Montana" with the blue background and yellow lettering looks more like a billboard than the typical ground-level welcome sign to me. Some of those other images look more like the actual welcome signs.
AKA “OKRoads”, USA road sign photographer and road scholar
User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 883
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1994 Post by SouthernMan » 04 Jul 2022 19:01

@etsuco05 I totally agree. Imo, it seems like something pretty generic, though.
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30339
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1995 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 19:18

SouthernMan wrote: 04 Jul 2022 16:40 b] Routes: [/b]
Ohhhh nice find. I must say that some of these are great to see. Although its only State highways, its good to see the amount of density. Now if we actually get these roads accessible, that is a different story. I like the chances of some question marks.


MT-43. Ohhh I so want this. Salmon, ID needs this one. The road is in the game but is it accessible is the question. I like the odds.
MT-200. How much of it do we get. I'd say all East of Great Falls for sure. West is iffy.

Notables.
MT-135. We could indeed get St. Regis and US-93 to access Thompson's Falls.
MT-13,16, 24. Something looks like it connects I-94 to US-2 for sure. MT-16, where we get it is the question. Do we get it all? Or do we get Glendive to Sidney or Sidney to Culbertson?

That is a lot of routes though. It certain sounds like we get a fairly dense state. Most could just be mentions of a road ahead but no access to it. We'll have to see. But definitely not a $11.99 dlc imo if we get more than 50% of the state rounds in conjunction with the interstates and US routes.
Shiva wrote: 04 Jul 2022 16:56 flight50, regarding US-20?
I can wait to get it after release, a patch or 2, but then I do want to see it ingame.
Unless SCS can make it to release, without any delays.
US-20 is a day one worthy road but yes I agree. If it came to it, add it afterwards is fine. I'd work it immediately after release though. I wouldn't hold up Montana for this road but a year later is too long. We can manage without it til it comes though. Its not a huge fuss like YS was but its big enough to say that SCS missed one.
User avatar
SuchManor
Posts: 1074
Joined: 21 Apr 2017 00:04
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1996 Post by SuchManor » 04 Jul 2022 20:30

To pair with that, here are the map overlay images which usually means that these roads will be drivable to some extent. This is most likely not all of the routes coming.

[ external image ]
What good is a world without good detail?
Check out my screenshots
User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 883
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1997 Post by SouthernMan » 04 Jul 2022 20:37

I posted this same image in previous posts. I also don't believe that all these routes will be airships. But I could be wrong.
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
User avatar
SuchManor
Posts: 1074
Joined: 21 Apr 2017 00:04
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1998 Post by SuchManor » 04 Jul 2022 20:41

I agree. Some are probably small routes that lead to a depot near a city like has been done before.
What good is a world without good detail?
Check out my screenshots
User avatar
SouthernMan
Posts: 883
Joined: 07 Jun 2021 19:38
Location: Pilgrim on Earth

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1999 Post by SouthernMan » 04 Jul 2022 20:46

It will probably be something like this. But I won't deny it, it would be amazing to be able to have all these routes. :lol: Anyway.
Study will not always make you wise, sometimes it will simply make you more superb.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30339
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#2000 Post by flight50 » 04 Jul 2022 21:12

@SouthernMan The ones you posted are routes that gets signs. I think what SuchManor is saying that with overlays, these are roads we can actually drive on. So of the list SuchManor posted, the overlays is the one that I like seeing most. Its more confirmation as to what we can access. Of the one's SuchManor posted, MT-16 is the prize for me. But how much and where is the question. It would be great if all of it came.

To paint an even better pic MT-200S and MT-24. So Glendive to Glasgow and Sidney to Culbertson sounds promising. So we could end up with a very long US-2. We already know Sidney is in. That is a nice and rare Eastern marked city we get in dlc's. I'll take it.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], brodoug1, rbsanford, Roudou, Victor Torres and 12 guests