Montana Discussion Thread

[Optional Features]

As I said previously, sometimes SCS focuses on the wrong roads. It's like releasing a car with a spoiler but without one door.
For me personally Yellowstone and Cody in Wyoming were more important, but still, US-20 is a big miss if it really won't come with this DLC.

I would say this is because of a lack of research and a focus on scenery, rather than industry. The national parks are a nice addon to the game, and I wouldn't want them to be removed. But they are not essential to a trucking game. If we had RVs or cars, they would be far more useful.

I don't think Yellowstone handles a lot of semi truck tourism. I could be wrong.

[oldmanclippy]

If Yellowstone was off in a corner of the country that didn't have any cities around it or roads through it, then I could have cared less if it made the game. It's nice scenery, but it wouldn't have served a purpose. The road network of southwest Montana, northwest Wyoming, and eastern Idaho would have a gaping black hole in the middle of it if Yellowstone didn't make the game. Yes that's how it is in real life unless you have a permit to service the park, but having Yellowstone in the game brings value as an optional alternate fantasy through-road to make traversing the region a bit less repetitive for those who want the option. *That* is why Yellowstone was clamored for, not really because it's scenic and beautiful, but because its location with respect to the rest of the road network made its inclusion appealing from a simcade trucking game perspective. And I fear that SCS is learning the wrong lessons from that, *potentially* bringing roads like Going-to-the-Sun instead of actual transit routes like US-20 from Idaho Falls to West Yellowstone. Maybe it's not an either-or situation because of the sector distribution, IDK, but to me the priority should be getting the road network in good shape with as many transit options as possible, *then* filling in with fun extras. I'm certain Going-to-the-Sun (and US-89 or Beartooth if they make them) will be wonderfully mapped just like Grossglockner, but those are IMO each fun extras and not actually bringing utility to the road network.

[Optional Features]

If Yellowstone was off in a corner of the country that didn't have any cities around it or roads through it, then I could have cared less if it made the game. It's nice scenery, but it wouldn't have served a purpose. The road network of southwest Montana and northwest Wyoming would have a gaping black hole in the middle of it if Yellowstone didn't make the game. Yes that's how it is in real life unless you have a permit to service the park, but having Yellowstone in the game brings value as an optional alternate fantasy through-road to make traversing the region a bit less repetitive for those who want the option. *That* is why Yellowstone was clamored for, not really because it's scenic and beautiful, but because its location with respect to the rest of the road network made its inclusion appealing from a simcade trucking game perspective. And I fear that SCS is learning the wrong lessons from that, *potentially* bringing roads like Going-to-the-Sun instead of actual transit routes like US-20 from Idaho Falls to West Yellowstone. Maybe it's not an either-or situation because of the sector distribution, IDK, but to me the priority should be getting the road network in good shape with as many transit options as possible, *then* filling in with fun extras. I'm certain Going-to-the-Sun (and US-89 or Beartooth if they make it) will be wonderfully mapped just like Grossglockner, but those are IMO each fun extras and not actually bringing utility to the road network.

Yeah, agreed. I think SCS just needs to express their purpose, rather than give people false hope. They aren't really trying to make a trucking game. They are making a tourism game with trucks as the main way to explore the map.

Having more roads never hurt anyone, but it's just funny that the same community (not you) that says we can't deliver downtown because trucks don't go there wants to be able to drive through a national park even though most trucks don't go there. Why not both?

Why place restrictions on existing roads in the first place? Fine players that go places they aren't supposed to go, but fill the map with roads. Then we can decide where to go, and if we get stuck, well, that's on us.

[ads678]

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.

[Optional Features]

Feedback is essential to making the game better: agreed!

[Shiva]

US-287, north of West Yellowstone, there one can see Yellowstone Holiday RV Campground.
Yellowstone Holiday RV Campground, 16990 Hebgen Lake Rd, West Yellowstone, MT 59758, USA
So that road is 100% in. I do not think that they would do a stub there. I could, of course, be wrong.

I-191, I am quite sure that is in, due to both Four Corners an Bozeman distance signs.
And I have not seen that combo on a real sign.
Big Sky, Ennis, Bozeman. Can be seen on https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6698848 ... 312!8i6656 IRL.

Regarding USA.dds, there could be that SCS sees that some previously marked road is not possible. How big ruckus would that cause on the forums etc?

[oldmanclippy]

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.

[Quark]

...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.

Not saying this is such a bad idea in itself. But can already envision this messiness very well. And Instead of "why road X needs to be in over road Y" probably gonna be more like "why WE need road X+Y+Z+....

[Dareus]

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

[Marcello Julio]

Is good to hear that Thank You Dareus