Montana Discussion Thread

[parasaurolophus67]

not really "lazy" But time limit on projects. they have a time schedule on certain projects and got to move on to the next one which is why they don't add everything we want.

[flight50]

@parasaurolophus67 Exactly. Time limits is what keeps them on track and keeps wait times as low as possible. With Texas, that pattern gets messed up. But the other key thing to time, is 1-2 extra people per dlc. In the West, SCS is stretched thinner because the states are much larger. After Texas, California and Montana (the largest 3 states in the lower 48), the states go to Washington size and smaller. When Washington released, we had 2 map team. Now we pretty much have 4 map teams.

So where am I going with this? If it takes 10-11 people to make a map dlc now......if they use 9-10 on smaller states, that could mean less sectors per person with smaller states which means time limit won't be a big of a factor. In the West if they had 1-2 extra people back then, that is less sectors per person which could have given us 1-2 extra roads. I believe Idaho and Utah where made with like 8-9 people, not 10-11. SCS was inching towards 3 map teams back then so they were stretched thinner, iirc.

Now the bandwidth is larger. Moving forward, Pavel will have to allocate the proper size team per dlc without thinning them out. If he thinks a dlc like....lets say Oklahoma will take 9 people, make it 10. That one extra person can make a difference and knock out 3-4 sectors. Go one more person than what you think it will take and that should cover a lot more ground and less stress. If each mapper did 3-4 sectors vs 4-5 sectors, that is more mapping that can get done in the same amount of time.

[Shiva]

Someone said the magic word "sectors".
"me starts counting Oklahoma sectors"
36 in total. With that, I count even if a small state area is in a sector.
18 of them totally or +95% inside the state.

Montana? about 75 sectors. Some of those do include Idaho and Wyoming.

[flight50]

@Shiva. Its official now. You are our sector go to person, lol. How many didn't Washington have? It can't be much more than Oklahoma needs. I think 10-11 did Washington. 75 for Montana is a lot. If Montana is around the corner, that goes to what I've been saying that 2/3 of the state is much much easier to map than what SCS has been doing in the West. That or the Montana is seriously rolling. They are the Wyoming team and I'm still impressed with what they pulled off with the mostly newbies for Wyoming. Well those newbies have one dlc under their belt and that's all the confidence they needed. Davido is doing a great job with leading his team. They are cranking out Montana in about a years time. I speculated about 14 months honestly, including testing and all. 11-12 months will be impressive.

The risk with newbies is less detail but as long as the right detail is where it needs to be, sweet. Remote areas, no-mans land can cut a few corners. The biggest help is premade terrain models. The more the better as it allows people to drop-in, blend in and move to the next area. I'm getting pretty excited about Montana as I knew I would. I've been wanting it a lot more than my own state. At the start, I never expected 8 new companies along with new industries until SCS reaches the next new region perhaps. I'm very content with the last Western state adding some love. Hopefully a lot of these Montana companies gets spread around but still not over used. Then there is the Idaho help that Montana brings. The missing puzzle of WA-20 to US-2 is still in question. Does Montana bring that too?

There have been jobs I avoid with each map release. For Wyoming, its anything from Northern Wyoming to Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. With I-90 gap closed, things open up. I-15 and US-93 also come into play with continued roads. Add in Cody/US-14 and everything coming with Montana will be niccccce.

[harishw8r]

I'm still wishing for Beartooth though. They used YS as a tool to describe Laurel and nothing more. Beartooth would make YS complete.

[oldmanclippy]

Yeah the new map team that started with Wyoming is coming into its own for sure. Wyoming is a top tier state, would definitely be #1 if cities along I-80 were just a bit smaller. If Montana brings all these new companies and industries, with the improved mountain building from Austria that we've seen in some of the screenshots, and a whole bunch of density in the east, then I don't think it'll have a problem unseating Colorado as the best so far. I'm just really intrigued as to how dense it's gonna be. We've gotten surprises like US-89 heading north of I-90, MT-24, MT-135, Going-to-the-Sun Road (which could also mean US-89 north of US-2), a hint at MT-43, and possibly US-287. None of those were expected by me anyways. I'm waiting to see what central MT looks like. If we get good density north-south with US-89, US-191, and US-87, and west-east with both US-12 and MT-200, that'd be absolutely nuts. The concept map in my signature is insane and is way more dense than the final map will be, surely. But there's some evidence for almost every road on there. So even though it won't be that dense, it still might be really dense considering how big Montana is.

For example south of Bozeman, we have a potential depot found on US-287, US-89 mentioned in the Wyoming Yellowstone blog, and a screenshot from Four Corners where US-191 enters Bozeman. There's no way they'd actually make all three of those roads, yet here we are with evidence of each.

[ external image ]

I think the roads on this map most likely to not make it in are:
ID-200/MT-200 from Sandpoint to Thompson Falls
MT-200 from I-90 to US-89
US-89 from MT-200 to I-15
US-287 from I-90 to US-12
US-12 from US-87 to I-90 (heck maybe we don't get US-12 at all east of White Sulphur Springs)

But beyond that, what gets cut? Maybe we only get 2/3 of US-89, US-191, and US-87 going from I-90 to US-12. But again we have evidence of all three at least partially getting in north of I-90. I think it's possible that SCS won't make all these roads that we have screenshots of through roads, maybe only have them in to get to certain depots from the interstates.

I don't want to overhype myself / set expectations too high, but it is looking like we'll get some good density out of Montana. I'm just so surprised we've seen as much as we have already considering that the DLC might only take a year.

[flight50]

That's a lot of density. I'll take it but I'm sure we don't get it all. If I was taking some guesses:
-US-12 from Idaho to US-93 is all we get until North Dakota brings it East of Miles City. I-90, US-12 and MT-200 all running parallel could get tight. US-12 could get squeezed in that scenario.
-US-191. If we get US-287 and US-89, US-191 could get cut. We can still have 2 routes to Bozeman. US-191 could stop in W. Yellowstone. SCS does chop up US routes and I don't think its worth putting all 3 in coming out of YS. Iirc, that entire area has mountain valleys and those models take space. No US-191 gives space to Bozeman and let US-89 and US-287 be the two ends of Bozeman.
-MT-200 West of Great Falls gets cut.

Everything else is feasible. US-87 is the surprise one for me. I never really expected that one. But it ties in I-90 and MT-200. US-191 between MT-200 and I-90 is 50/50. Again we have 3 roads linking I-90 to MT-200 with US-89, US-191 and US-87. Sure density is great as well as more options for detours, but if Montana is around the corner, some road density could get scrapped to make the deadline. The black US-routes in Central Montana are iffy. We really only have to get to Lewiston from I-90, I-15 and US-2. The other cities are off I-15 and I-90 in Central Montana.

Short but necessary routes are MT-43 and MT-24. They are equal to like UT-56 and NV-319 that we got with an update awhile back. Looking in from the outside, MT-200 from Missoula to Great Falls is fair game without US-12 in the mix. Helena gains space without US-12 both East and West of it. Helena can spread out a bit more without US-12.

[oldmanclippy]

That's a lot of density. I'll take it but I'm sure we don't get it all. If I was taking some guesses:
-US-12 from Idaho to US-93 is all we get until North Dakota brings it East of Miles City. I-90, US-12 and MT-200 all running parallel could get tight. US-12 could get squeezed in that scenario.
-US-191. If we get US-287 and US-89, US-191 could get cut. We can still have 2 routes to Bozeman. US-191 could stop in W. Yellowstone. SCS does chop up US routes and I don't think its worth putting all 3 in coming out of YS. Iirc, that entire area has mountain valleys and those models take space. No US-191 gives space to Bozeman and let US-89 and US-287 be the two ends of Bozeman.
-MT-200 West of Great Falls gets cut.

Yeah I can definitely see US-12 just not making it between Missoula and Forsyth. Have MT-200 be the main west-east road in the center of the state. So far we only have one screenshot of US-12 in that region, and it's on the concurrency with US-87 so I have a feeling that might be the case.

US-191 not making it between West Yellowstone and Bozeman would be a tough pill to swallow. Of those three routes south of I-90, it's the one I wanted the most. Partly because I've driven it IRL, and partly because it is the most scenic and interesting one of the three. It juts into Yellowstone for a bit, goes past Big Sky, follows the course of the Gallatin River, and emerges from the mountains to quite the vista of the Bozeman area. From a mapping standpoint, it is the logical one to cut if they're only going to do 2 out of 3, since it is the middle one. But it would break my heart just a bit.

MT-200 between Missoula and Great Falls, that's definitely one I can see being cut. But I will say that either MT-200 for that stretch or US-12 between Garrison and Helena should make it. I-90 to I-15 being the only route from Missoula to Great Falls would get old fast I think. Missoula -> Butte -> Helena -> Great Falls would feel a bit too corridor-y for my taste I think if it was the only option.

Everything else is feasible. US-87 is the surprise one for me. I never really expected that one. But it ties in I-90 and MT-200. US-191 between MT-200 and I-90 is 50/50. Again we have 3 roads linking I-90 to MT-200 with US-89, US-191 and US-87. Sure density is great as well as more options for detours, but if Montana is around the corner, some road density could get scrapped to
make the deadline. The black US-routes in Central Montana are iffy. We really only have to get to Lewiston from I-90, I-15 and US-2. The other cities are off I-15 and I-90 in Central Montana.

I think US-89 and US-87 would be the ones to keep between I-90 and US-87/MT-200, with US-191 again getting the boot. That still gives us pretty good density. And a nice box of US-87 -> I-90 -> US-89 that covers Great Falls, Lewistown, Billings, and Bozeman. Then let US-191 go north of Lewistown. That's a stretch we have confirmed already.

Short but necessary routes are MT-43 and MT-24. They are equal to like UT-56 and NV-319 that we got with an update awhile back. Looking in from the outside, MT-200 from Missoula to Great Falls is fair game without US-12 in the mix. Helena gains space without US-12 both East and West of it. Helena can spread out a bit more without US-12.

Yeah I do think that MT-200 would be the better pick to connect I-90 to I-15 (the western part). Let Helena breathe while still giving us a Missoula -> Great Falls connection.

I'll update this with a more realistic concept map based on what we discussed here. The one in my signature is more so "these are the roads that are still possible based on blog screenshot evidence, not something we'll actually get in its entirety".

[MatzMan]

So guys, look at the Archivements on Steam, next DLC on ATS will be Montana.
there is an Archivement called Big Sky Country, when you search by google you will found it, Montana is close to come up.

[Bedavd]

Hey everyone. Sorry I've been pretty MIA these last few weeks. Started my first full-time lawyer job at the beginning of the month and I've had very little time to check the blogs and hunt down locations with y'all. But I went back in and added all the locations you've found onto my map as usual!

I've added an updated map of the blog photo locations for Montana here! We're really starting to get more from throughout the state which is really exciting. In preparation for Montana possibly releasing while I'm in this busier period, I've been getting a head start on drawing the roads into the map as well. I'm only doing the roads that we can see leading into Montana and only to their obvious end points (which means the entirety of I-90 in the state lol).

[ external image ]