Montana Discussion Thread

Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1691 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 04:33

Have either of you been to Washington lol? I-5 is by far the worst highway in the game, and Washington is no exception. I-90 through Snoqualmie isn't so great either.
Last edited by Optional Features on 25 Jun 2022 04:44, edited 1 time in total.
ASUSTechSupport
Posts: 99
Joined: 06 May 2020 02:21
Location: Worcester, MA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1692 Post by ASUSTechSupport » 25 Jun 2022 04:35

I think MT-56 between Troy and MT-200 was also implied when troy was visible in the Devcam at the start of the 1.44 open beta
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5387
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1693 Post by oldmanclippy » 25 Jun 2022 05:22

seriousmods wrote: 25 Jun 2022 04:33 Have either of you been to Washington lol? I-5 is by far the worst highway in the game, and Washington is no exception. I-90 through Snoqualmie isn't so great either.
Washington could have done with more room on I-5 south of Seattle, whether that would be through canning Tacoma or making I-5 windier or something IDK. Other than that, I don't feel like the density hurts it. Which was my point, that you can have a dense state that doesn't feel overly urban (for the most part).
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
rbsanford
Posts: 2007
Joined: 15 Sep 2018 02:11
Location: Duluth, MN

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1694 Post by rbsanford » 25 Jun 2022 06:19

Oh yeah, I might be thinking of that crossing instead. I hope we'll get that stretch of the 191, though, since it's one of my favorite highways.

I would also consider adding US 14A between Cody and the 310. Also, I don't see why US 212 between Crow Agency and the 59 would be saved for South Dakota, since that part of the Absaroka Cutoff (a good name for the Crow Agency-Belle Fourche segment of the 212) is entirely in Montana.

The population density on I-80 in Wyoming was unavoidable. All the cities along the highway in the game are very significant in the state IRL, and leaving out one or two would be a bad idea. Size-wise, I think they work pretty well; I think if they were made smaller, people would still complain. Overall, the stretches between cities still feel barren and open, as they should, except for the Rawlins-Laramie section, which has much more going on IRL, but sacrifices will have to be made now and then.
The Journeys of Zephyr of the American West

Handy maps and diagrams.

Furthermore, I consider that I-80 across Nevada must be redone next.
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1695 Post by Tristman » 25 Jun 2022 06:21

ASUSTechSupport wrote: 25 Jun 2022 04:35 I think MT-56 between Troy and MT-200 was also implied when troy was visible in the Devcam at the start of the 1.44 open beta
I do remember the intersection in Troy, but not whether MT-56 looked like a stub or not. It would make sense to have it as a western entrance to Thompson Falls though.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1696 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 07:11

oldmanclippy wrote: 25 Jun 2022 05:22 Washington could have done with more room on I-5 south of Seattle, whether that would be through canning Tacoma or making I-5 windier or something IDK. Other than that, I don't feel like the density hurts it. Which was my point, that you can have a dense state that doesn't feel overly urban (for the most part).
Yeah, the first two towns you hit going north are 40 miles apart irl. They are an exit away in game.

The recurring problem with SCS maps imo is that they leave out rural areas in favor of cities. The cities are all overscaled, so they squish in a rural area in between to kinda have the feel of the place. But if you know these places from real life driving experience, you know that the rural area often far dominates the city. A city might be large, even major, but if it's surrounded by an hour of farmland on either side, that should be depicted.

The second problem they have is a complete and total lack of understanding of industry in America. Most prefabs in the game, even given the scale limitations, are not impressive. This is partly due to areas that are blocked off, but in many cases, they are just left out. Large distribution centers are almost completely missing right now, and things like this massive grain terminal didn't make the scaling cut. Anyone who travels I-5 has seen this place, and it stands out for how massive it is.

[ external image ]

Then there's this mile-long (or more) sawmill that also was left out.

[ external image ]


I understand that scale plays a big part in these decisions, but I think the mappers tend to emphasize non-functional scenery over functional industry. I hope Montana isn't a continuation of that.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3303
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1697 Post by angrybirdseller » 25 Jun 2022 07:16

Let's see you build map Washington West Coast is where 70% population lives. At 1:20 scale 95% of items get cut ✂️ out.
User avatar
Bedavd
Posts: 1651
Joined: 31 May 2018 15:09
Location: Michigan -> Washington

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1698 Post by Bedavd » 25 Jun 2022 07:51

Idk. I live here and I think they did a pretty good job with I-5 in Washington. It moves pretty quickly between north seattle and Everett but I get why it was needed. I wish it felt more urban between Olympia and Everett but we really do have a ton of trees like that so I’m not too mad
Check out my Michigan research map!
Check out my ATS IRL map! -> Leave any feedback in my thread!
Kansas added! Up-to-date blog photo locations for upcoming states also included.
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1699 Post by Optional Features » 25 Jun 2022 08:37

Bedavd wrote: 25 Jun 2022 07:51 Idk. I live here and I think they did a pretty good job with I-5 in Washington. It moves pretty quickly between north seattle and Everett but I get why it was needed. I wish it felt more urban between Olympia and Everett but we really do have a ton of trees like that so I’m not too mad
The north part isn't as bad as the south to me (other than issues like the Everett Boeing plant being half as tall as it should be and having the wrong airplane models in front). Idk: it's the reason I like ETS2 at times. Stuff I haven't seen looks far better than stuff I have.
User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4105
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#1700 Post by harishw8r » 25 Jun 2022 08:50

seriousmods wrote: 25 Jun 2022 07:11 I understand that scale plays a big part in these decisions, but I think the mappers tend to emphasize non-functional scenery over functional industry. I hope Montana isn't a continuation of that.
I believe they are striking a good balance between making cities feel like cities, having good rural scenaries between cities, deliverable depots and non-trucking areas with the current working scale. Of course I mean the latest map expansions but anything post-Arizona isn’t ‘worst’ as you try to convey here. Of course there are misses but do they make the game experience bad? Absolutely not.

It’s just that you use some strong words to describe almost everything.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brothergun, Class2ldn and 11 guests