Montana Discussion Thread

[MRX911]

Thank you Dareus, happy to see that the devs can chime in every once in a while for some concerns on the upcoming map DLC. After all, the eastern part between Yellowstone and Cody, known as US-14 also happens to be shared by US-20, would be a shame to see the western section missing.

Could it be that the square that contains that part of the map is a sector with DLC guard tied to Montana, hence why we don't see it ?

[hangman005]

I could be wrong to the above, but dev caming through Western Yellowstone and US20 there rapidly becomes low quality LOD and terminates into nothingness which I believe is what the Idaho Falls side also does.

[Shiva]

Idaho Falls side of US-20? yeah, does not go anywhere, but I hope that changes in the future.

[flight50]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: SCS should keep updating USA.dds so we could provide feedback on the road network and choice of cities for future DLCs.

Valid point and I concur. Otherwise, we have to wait for blogs or new map releases. But the best way its to use the dds file as a guideline. That avoids the YS, US-20, Cody and now US-20 issue. That gives a little direction as to what's possible to come. The Utah grey out roads. the Oregon greyed out roads. If the community had something to provide feedback on, that works more into the devs favor to give them something to target. That address how many people are needed per dlc vs short changing the team. The bandwidth is there now in ATS. 4 map leads so pretty much 4 teams worth of people. Get Texas and Montana out the door and a lot of people can move around.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: SCS should keep updating USA.dds so we could provide feedback on the road network and choice of cities for future DLCs.

This would be a good way to get feedback from a small number of people who are hardcore enough to follow it, while avoiding too much attention to it. But I bet that SCS shares Shiva's concerns, that if they put a road on usa.dds and they end up not putting it in-game, there would be considerable backlash on the forums.

But I do think that SCS would benefit a lot from getting to hear multiple voices, especially voices from the USA, when they're planning what roads will come. I think they've done an admirable job as a Czech studio finding out and researching what is important to the American road network, but it's clear that there are some gaps in their knowledge and some weird priorities. Getting more eyes on the planning would be a good thing for the final product, at the expense of letting the peanut gallery chime in about why road X needs to be in over road Y. If they can deal with the messiness, I think it would be a beneficial move.

The pre-research threads can only get so much feedback, because they're more about "here's why road X, city Y, and landmark Z should come" in a vacuum. SCS doesn't get a read on peoples' priorities that way, only things that they find interesting without being able to rate how interesting they find those things compared to other things.

Agreed and once again, I made the above comment first and you touched up on what I was saying, lol. Yes Utah and Oregon like I states got backlash because they certain roads didn't make it. Butttt back then, we barely had 2 map teams. Now there is more bandwidth so we'll see. I won't be surprised if the ATS map team keeps swelling a tad more. The entire NA continent is easily a 15+ year project. Less than 3-4 teams only increases the dev time to finish it all. 10 years from now is till a long time. That would be 10 plus the 6 we are already at.

Yesssssss. Thank you Dareus for your input and willingness to pass on the info.

[oldmanclippy]

@oldmanclippy I have passed on the message but don’t worry, some of the map designers are always browsing this thread themselves as well

Thank you!

[flight50]

But I bet that SCS shares Shiva's concerns, that if they put a road on usa.dds and they end up not putting it in-game, there would be considerable backlash on the forums.

Thinking about this more.....I'd say limit the scope to only interstates and US highways. Most interstates are expected to make the game so they won't be a big surprise. Now US highways is the trickier one. Not all will get in but they are based on cities that do make the game. How do they link up, how is travel fluid between cities via backroads. The smaller the state are about to come into SCS's scope. These states have better grids than the West so it might be easier to figure them out.

There are state highways too but that is giving away to much info on a dds file. That is why I mention US roads and interstates only. SCS knows the cities they will mark as deliverable, we won't outside the obvious large cities.

[Kistk3]

^ Also Beartooth. There doesn't seem to be any space available for it though.

I just checked now how WY map looks like on 1.45 open beta, make no sense for me why they push Cody and US-14 too far north near the border, with that, they literally squeezed the chance for the US-212 Beartooth pass be on the game. US-20, US 89 and also US-212, if not going to be there on release, they should think about it on an future update.

[Shiva]

Cody is just a little bit north of the IRL position.
West Wyoming, is even more north.

If you want a Yellowstone map, you could do it yourself?
My meaning is. Do we really need EVERY Yellowstone entrance ingame?
There is now 3 of them.

[flight50]

US-14 and Cody is way more critical than US-212's Beartooth. Its a road @yukonjack_ak (local trucking manager) confirmed that no company will allow their drivers to be on. Not his company...no company. Insurance ain't having it. Sure it would be a fun road to have but we can't have all tourist roads like that. I'd be cool with US-89 out of YS and Road to the Sun only coming with Montana. So too far North, nah. To fit a lot of things in, SCS has to push roads a bit further than they normally would be. Ft. Collins, Reno, Portland, Vancouver, Bellingham. This list will grow in due time just for things to make the game. So it won't be the first and it won't be the last.

[oldmanclippy]

I am a-ok with Beartooth not making it. Yes it would be scenic but it wouldn't add anything from a trucking perspective, realistic or fantasy trucking.