Montana Discussion Thread

[Optional Features]

It takes the community to provide feedback and developers willing to implement that feedback. It happens a tad more often than SCS is given credit for. I'll give 2 more examples. Both I talked about for awhile. 8x4/4x2. They not perfectbut they are implemented. The other, ICC's. Most of you see me post about ICC's a lot. Has SCS not responded with what....8 new companies for Montana. We haven't seen new like this since 2018 brought Oregon.

Texas is bringing some new companies too. Phase 2 California brought one. So things not tagged to licenses or equipment/machinery seems easier to get in the game. So there is change. Just not the change some want. If SCS keeps their foot on the gas for ICC's, the game gets much needed diversity.

To be fair, just about all of the 8x4s SCs included are hot garbage. Which is weird. Placing an additional axle realistically shouldn't be hard, but yet they managed to mess it up.

And then out comes the 9900, their best classic truck by far, and it doesn't get an 8x4 option at all.

@koolizz is right, though. When it comes down to it, we are paying for the same thing in new wrapping most of the time. I'd be surprised, shocked even, if Montana and Texas don't contain garages whose models date back to ETS1. And there are likely warehouses in these DLCs that are equally as ancient.

SCS will build a much better truck yard, and then block it off with XXX barriers or gates. Then they'll reuse the same old models for the functional part of the map, and call it complete.

It makes no sense.

[flight50]

These are a few examples, indeed. And also, don't forget that long logging road that came with Washington. Wasn't it you who came up with that idea until a dev chimed in and picked it up? Wasn't it even SimonEndt or what his name was, the current map lead of Texas DLC? Did i get the story right?

Edit: Now the question remains, why haven't we seen more of such longer and challenging logging roads afterwards? Idaho was pretty dissappointing in this regard (not only in this, but anyway) and i really hope that with Montana we get to see a little more of it again. Both, in terms of quantity and quality.

Yes you are correct. I posted a logging trail in the mountains in the Oregon thread before Washington was even announced and Simon took it from there. viewtopic.php?p=865969#p865969


And yes it was SimonEndt that did Bellingham. Its still the best logging road in the game imho. I'd love to see if he brings that magic to Texas as the lead. Now Texas doesn't have the mountains/elevation in the East but I'm sure some good will come with the lands. To offset the elevation, perhaps we can get a lonnnng multi trail path in East Texas. If not Texas, somewhere East of the Great Plains. I think the MidWest has good logging to come as well.

[TheAmir259]

And then out comes the 9900, their best classic truck by far, and it doesn't get an 8x4 option at all.

Oh tell me about it

[oldmanclippy]

Of the likely marked cities (i.e. the ones from the 1.41 background map), we haven't seen blog screenshots for Helena (which is a lock and will get its own blog) and Lewistown. Glasgow only has pictures from Fort Peck, and we haven't gotten any screenshots off the main drags for Kalispell yet, but both of those are locks too.

Lewistown fortunately is on both US-87 and US-191. The evidence is pointing towards us getting all of US-87, and US-191 north of Lewistown has a screenshot, so unless SCS pulls some really wacky road fragmentation in the middle of the state (i.e. US-87 -> MT-19 -> US-191 and something like US-89 from I-90 to Great Falls to bypass it on either side), then Lewistown should at least make it as scenic. I think it would be really strange to not have it marked, that'd be a big gap in the middle that would only exist for thru transit. Lewistown won't get its own blog most likely, so it is a bit strange that we haven't seen it yet. Perhaps it'll be in the Lewis and Clark blog? That'd make sense I suppose.

[Tristman]

I also think Lewistown is just a given. It's both remote from other marked cities and on an important intersection, so it makes lots of sense to mark it.
We don't always have to get blog posts about every town. I think with Wyoming we got just one picture of Riverton for example, and with Idaho we got no confirmation of Grangeville before launch.

[flight50]

Iirc, Lewistown was found in the game file list of marked cities. Someone posted that list before in this thread somewhere.

[harishw8r]

Yeah, the one that got me surprised but not having Shelby in the list

[flight50]

^Same here. I been pitching for Shelby ever since that list was revealed. I've done the same for Cody and will speak up for Shelby. Shelbyis an even better location than Cody. US-2 @ I-15 is too big of a location for no marked establishment.

Montana can still include Shelby day one though. Catch it before Montana releases. But at least we know Cody is coming. Cody could get hold out buyers now if they where on the fence with a less filled out Wyoming.

Cody also plays into the hands for Montana with US-310 too which ties is Cody well.

[Shiva]

Ain't the list from what names of cities and towns were removed from the background map?
We'll have to see how things look. Would be nice if it had some depots.

[Kistk3]

I don't think map scale is a problem for Shelby don't be included. But sometimes seems to me SCS is a bit lazy on adding roads and places on the map, don't take me wrong, we are all customers and want the best, but take the examples what Promods and even Sierra Nevada did with the same 1.20 scale. Even in Idaho has room for another roads there and nothing came. Good that Cody will make it to the game in 1.45 but was't there in first place.