Montana Discussion Thread

[Tristman]

NM is good scenery wise, but company wise oh boy. It uses a lot of base map prefabs that I would love to see replaced. They can also add newer industries to it like oil drilling sites.
Adding more industry to older states is what I probably look forward to most. I’m hoping by the time they rework Arizona, we can get a nuclear power plant there.

Back to Montana, I explored Thompson Falls and Butte today. I didn’t spoil myself with the hidden road, but I found it pretty quickly. It was a joy to drive and felt really unique! Butte I think is also really nice. Some people have complained in the past that cities in ATS are all flat. Butte’s downtown though is one big slope, I had trouble pulling an overweight trailer up there. I really like the mining town scenery it has, a job well done on making it stand out.

Quote removed - Don't quote images/code boxes - Rule 2.3

Try disabling all your mods? The companies are fine for me.

[Trucker_71]

Oregon is completely missing the Syskuse pass

[SuchManor]

Agreed. Textures and getting rid of those base map mountains is all NM and Oregon needs. I don't even think the cities need to be touched honestly. Outside of a few added roads, they stand up well.

I will say I heavily disagree about the cities in NM. Although the general layout may be ok, the assets and buildings are so inaccurate that its hard to tell its even the same place. I recently drove the same roads IRL that are in Alamogordo and Las Cruces and there wasn't a single thing that I recognized, and so many unique assets and buildings that are missing. The US54/ 70 interchange area and around White Sands could use some serious work as well. The same with US70 through Las Cruces, and I'm sure most of the cities in NM DLC are like that. The majority of the cities in NM have no feel to the real ones and use very generic assets. They all, or at least most of them, need to be reworked in some capacity.

[VTXcnME]

@SuchManor

100% agree. NM needs an almost complete overhaul. The only thing that feels even close is the I-40/I-25 exchange in ABQ. But that's about it.

[Optional Features]

Oregon is completely missing the Syskuse pass

Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves lol. Especially since Northern Cali got rebuilt, and it was still left out.

[Trakaplex]

Agreed. Textures and getting rid of those base map mountains is all NM and Oregon needs. I don't even think the cities need to be touched honestly. Outside of a few added roads, they stand up well.

I will say I heavily disagree about the cities in NM. Although the general layout may be ok, the assets and buildings are so inaccurate that its hard to tell its even the same place. I recently drove the same roads IRL that are in Alamogordo and Las Cruces and there wasn't a single thing that I recognized, and so many unique assets and buildings that are missing. The US54/ 70 interchange area and around White Sands could use some serious work as well. The same with US70 through Las Cruces, and I'm sure most of the cities in NM DLC are like that. The majority of the cities in NM have no feel to the real ones and use very generic assets. They all, or at least most of them, need to be reworked in some capacity.

True. Albuquerque is lower quality, they didn't have time to space it to add US-60 through Mountainair. I think Albuquerque deserves a redo (more metro area), but anything outside can catch in the near future. As of now, it's the base map that needs it badly. But definitely, the terrain is different really compared to something like Colorado. I think NM still uses 2016 terrain. If there was something I'd change about NM, is more off highway towns such as Hatch and Truth or Consequences. Truck stops really started to hit home in Oregon, with Seven Feathers in Canyonville. We are seeing more of these stops in new California such as Corning, I'm sure SCS can add it to NM.

[flight50]

Agreed. Textures and getting rid of those base map mountains is all NM and Oregon needs. I don't even think the cities need to be touched honestly. Outside of a few added roads, they stand up well.

I will say I heavily disagree about the cities in NM. Although the general layout may be ok, the assets and buildings are so inaccurate that its hard to tell its even the same place. I recently drove the same roads IRL that are in Alamogordo and Las Cruces and there wasn't a single thing that I recognized, and so many unique assets and buildings that are missing. The US54/ 70 interchange area and around White Sands could use some serious work as well. The same with US70 through Las Cruces, and I'm sure most of the cities in NM DLC are like that. The majority of the cities in NM have no feel to the real ones and use very generic assets. They all, or at least most of them, need to be reworked in some capacity.

I can be honest and state that I have never looked at any of the buildings for accuracy in NM. Same thing with a few Montana comments, you only know thing are off if you've been there or Google Maps searching it. For most people that don't look for such accuracy, we don't care as long as it looks like it fits. I can agree that with the way SCS maps now, buildings tend to be a bit more accurate so yeah change them to better models if thats the case. NM was the first paid dlc so expecting a huge jump in asset accuracy compared to now would still be night and day that ATS wasn't ready for back then. The team back then was like 7-9 mappers and about the same for asset builders. But overall, NM is good compared to the base map. Expecting Wyoming/Montana for NM is taking unnecessary resources if an entire overhaul is expected. SCS won't rebuild the entire state. Some asset replacements is about the best that would happen. SCS could change at most 30-35% of NM. Expecting 80% percent treating it like the base maps is asking for too much for a state that still holds it own.

Montana is the current bar right now. The team has made some improvements from last year's installment and that good to see. I still like Wyoming a lot. Both states offer the best backroads imo and they are a joy to drive. I still have a ton to be excited about in the state though and I won't be able to comment on more until the up coming weekends.

[BASSLovah]

Sadly, each DLC takes a lot of work and by the time we get to the East Coast we'll say the same about Montana or Wyoming but it's not feasible. SCS cannot rebuild every state each time they surpass themselves, unless it a day/night difference like with the UK in ETS2 or CA in ATS.

As long as the core layout stays the same (correct traffic signs and road layout, a few landmarks and the right architecture), I don't see them reworking DLC states and for a good reason too.

[flight50]

@BASSLovah I totally agree and that is where I'm going with my comment above. Each time SCS raises the bar, they can't keep going backwards to overhaul and entire state. If the rebuild team turns into the ATS maintenance team (as I like to mention a lot), that team can make tweaks and updates to keep the entire map fresh with asset updates. Kinda like they updated assets for 1.40's lighting update. Or to implement new traffic lights globally, new signage globally, implement new restaurants and new depots. That type of of stuff keeps the map updated. But to expect everything to be on the exact same level as the latest and greatest is asking for a lot and we'll never see all of North America. Base map to Montana, yeah that's a jump worth overhauling. But Oregon/Washington to Montana, nahhh, that's not necessary. Not with things leveling out now since Idaho.

Once the base map is updated, I'd expect that team to split off and only leave a few behind to keep the map tidy. Most will be shifted over to paid dlcs to push for more real estate getting covered.

[Shiva]

Oregon is completely missing the Syskuse pass

What and where is Syskuse pass?!
I tried to google it, bing it and found Zero.

Ohhh...
Siskiyou Pass!