Montana Discussion Thread

User avatar
saur44l
Posts: 961
Joined: 07 May 2016 22:16
Location: Macedonia

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3811 Post by saur44l » 18 Aug 2022 14:32

Cause they didn't have enough manpower to take on two large states at the same time,sadly as a result we have a map dlc with quality that is all over the place.Some parts of the map are setting new standards,others are made on pair with the latest dlcs and large part of the map is pre Idaho quality,not to mention that some parts of the map have a base map flavour.And that is why I can't make up my mind about it,all I know that this is a first time that I am finding myself wanting to drive on the older maps rather than staying in Montana.
User avatar
xXCARL1992Xx
Posts: 16524
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 12:18
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3812 Post by xXCARL1992Xx » 18 Aug 2022 14:41

Montana didnt have less people working on it then Wyoming or Colorado had, Texas is made by different people that concentrate on it for 2 years already whil3 2 other map teams do the other states and a few people do the rework when time allows it
| !!!NO SUPPORT OR REQUESTS OF ANY SORT VIA PM!!! | Screenshot Thread | Steam Workshop | World of Trucks Profil |
[ external image ]
killingjoke28336
Posts: 522
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3813 Post by killingjoke28336 » 18 Aug 2022 14:56

Base map flavour? Where? I recently drove through Nevada and really nothing comes close to that bad level of scenery in Montana.
User avatar
saur44l
Posts: 961
Joined: 07 May 2016 22:16
Location: Macedonia

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3814 Post by saur44l » 18 Aug 2022 15:18

xXCARL1992Xx wrote: 18 Aug 2022 14:41 Montana didnt have less people working on it then Wyoming or Colorado had, Texas is made by different people that concentrate on it for 2 years already whil3 2 other map teams do the other states and a few people do the rework when time allows it
Then maybe map was rushed,maybe the initial plans were different but for some reasons it was released sooner than it should have,all I know that overall I am disappointed to be honest.
killingjoke28336 wrote: 18 Aug 2022 14:56 Base map flavour? Where? I recently drove through Nevada and really nothing comes close to that bad level of scenery in Montana.
Some of the cities are with the quality of the base map,Helena and Laurel for example.Scenery along some parts of the I-15 and I-94,same can be said and for some parts of the smaller roads.
killingjoke28336
Posts: 522
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3815 Post by killingjoke28336 » 18 Aug 2022 15:25

I just don't see it with the scenery of I-15 and I-94, especially the I-15 I find amazing.
Helena I agree, it really looks unfinished and just bland and kind of rushed. Laurel is a really small town in reality so I don't expect much to see there apart from the railroad station. But the refinery in Laurel looks really great at night you should check it out.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30154
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3816 Post by flight50 » 18 Aug 2022 16:55

@saur44l You're impossible to please then. If you are disappointed in Montana, you are going to hate the rest of the Great Plain states. I advise don't even buy them. Montana was accelerated yes. Pavel stated this as he already explained why. But what we got is still are really good dlc. You can always go into the editor and make it better for your liking though.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3817 Post by Trakaplex » 18 Aug 2022 18:14

killingjoke28336 wrote: 18 Aug 2022 15:25 I just don't see it with the scenery of I-15 and I-94, especially the I-15 I find amazing.
Helena I agree, it really looks unfinished and just bland and kind of rushed. Laurel is a really small town in reality so I don't expect much to see there apart from the railroad station. But the refinery in Laurel looks really great at night you should check it out.
A lot of us said Montana was rushed, and it took only 11 months. That explains it. I really want to see more west-to-east road connection out of Helena. Maybe US-12 from I-90 to Roundup. Its current state makes it look like just an advanced rest stop town. Other than that, as well of US-20 through Rexburg to West YS, and US-89 up to Livingston, I have no complaint. Honestly, I think they could've done US-287 up to Helena by sticking it stealthily directly east of the grade on I-90. It wouldn't be too close to Bozeman.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3818 Post by Trakaplex » 18 Aug 2022 18:15

flight50 wrote: 18 Aug 2022 16:55 @saur44l You're impossible to please then. If you are disappointed in Montana, you are going to hate the rest of the Great Plain states. I advise don't even buy them. Montana was accelerated yes. Pavel stated this as he already explained why. But what we got is still are really good dlc. You can always go into the editor and make it better for your liking though.
Oklahoma will be nicer I think, but in terms of roads. It depends on how Davido maps the state. And besides we get more of I-35. Texas will introduce so many new interstates we haven't seen in ATS forever.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
gaillard
Posts: 724
Joined: 28 Jul 2020 19:15
Location: 97 Sambre-et-Meuse

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3819 Post by gaillard » 18 Aug 2022 18:35

US-93.
Going north from Salmon, first Historic point. (sec-0018-0012);-71151.6;73.1074;-44446.9;0.838889;0.0162689
First words: On they way north...
Should be I think: On THEIR way north... 1.45.3.9
https://imgur.com/a/SAHnSqV
User avatar
saur44l
Posts: 961
Joined: 07 May 2016 22:16
Location: Macedonia

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#3820 Post by saur44l » 18 Aug 2022 18:40

flight50 wrote: 18 Aug 2022 16:55 @saur44l You're impossible to please then. If you are disappointed in Montana, you are going to hate the rest of the Great Plain states. I advise don't even buy them. Montana was accelerated yes. Pavel stated this as he already explained why. But what we got is still are really good dlc. You can always go into the editor and make it better for your liking though.
We already did saw some glimpses of the Great Plains(small parts at least) with Colorado and Wyoming,and they were really nice,the difference in quality for me at least is night and day,take away the parts that I like in Montana and what I have is the worst paid dlc so far for ATS,But once again that is me,I see other people are satisfied and that is ok,you can't please everyone.
killingjoke28336 wrote: 18 Aug 2022 15:25 I just don't see it with the scenery of I-15 and I-94, especially the I-15 I find amazing.
Just to be clear,I am not saying that every mile of I-15 and I-94 are made with base map quality,only some parts of them.Part of the I-15 going from Idaho Falls to Butte is really nicely done,I have no complains there.Same with I-94.I am not saying that everything is wrong.It is just I have that feeling that more should have be done.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], dkasper00, gaillard, gandalf7472000, hangman005, Harpole94, IHAVEADREAM2595, joshuatree and 15 guests