rbsanford wrote: ↑25 Jun 2022 03:48
I can understand cutting the 12 between Helena and Forsyth (I don't like the idea, but it makes sense), but the highway between Helena and Garrison should be in for sure. Otherwise, travel between Helena and points west will be a pain, having to detour down to Butte every time. Incidentally, that segment of the highway includes its highest point (McDonald Pass), which is also where it crosses the Great Divide. I think the 287 between I-90 and Helena is also a must.
I agree that cutting the 191 between Bozeman and West Yellowstone would be painful; I've also been down that road IRL, and Gallatin Canyon is stunning. It's certainly one of the highlights of US 191 overall, which is really saying something. Out of the three Yellowstone connectors in the area, I'd say the 287 is the least necessary for ATS. The 89 could be cut too, but since it's been confirmed, oh well. IIRC, the 191's crossing of the Yellowstone at Big Timber has been shown in a blog post, so that likely confirms the highway between I-90 and US 87.
I would also consider running the 2 as far east as Culbertson, then connecting to Sidney via the 16. There's also 200S connecting Glendive to the 200, which could come in handy.
Fears of conflicts from density are merited, but Montana is so big, that maybe it can spare some of these redundant roads. Remember that just because the road network looks tight on the 2D map doesn't necessarily mean it'll feel that way in the game. Washington is the densest state in the game so far, it looks a little janky on the UI map, but it feels so right in the game.
In real life, yeah going from Missoula to Garrison would be a pain. In ATS at 1:20 scale, it won't be as bad as one may think. We have much worse detours in the game than that. If it came down to MT-200 and US-12 West of I-15, getting from Missoula to Great Falls, Havre, Lewiston or Glasgow is much worse without MT-200. I'd look at serving those 3 cities easier than the one. The one is more feasible to deal with as it fairly close to Butte. Now this of coarse assuming that both can't fit. If both fit, cool.
US-287 between Helena and I-90 has zero cities in between. With I-15 there, its purpose isn't justified. Highest point....SCS probably doesn't get it in accurately anyways and its extra mapping in which I-15 does the same. US-191 would be the preferred route continuing thru YS. But if US-287 is in, its harder to justify US-191. I totally agree on US-2 though. I'd rather Culberson get in a scenic to get a more square up map with Montana and not with North Dakota. But then there is Miles City and Glendive to Glascow. MT-24 makes travel easier for them. Not sure if we get both MT-24 and MT-16. US-85 in North Dakota could take the place of MT-16 though. Its not too far off at 1:20 scale for that detour.
Washington is definitely the densest map. But its not perfect. Vancouver to Longview is about the only issue I have. Its a very quick route due to Portland. It is what it is though. Things should get Washington dense the further we move East as the states get smaller. The vegetation and cut planes allows Washington to be Washington. Montana doesn't have that luxury the further East we get from I-15. Open space and plenty of it is what gets us density.
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
Tristman wrote: ↑25 Jun 2022 06:21
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.
[/quote]
That's a nice road to have but it has zero purpose other than detour or another option. No cities along I-90 between CDA and Missoula and for US-2, nothing between Sandpoint and Kalispell to justify MT-56 that can't be done with US-95 or US-93 to get to any city North of I-90. If they add it, cool but I wouldn't expect it honestly. Now Troy could be scenic if the devcam show that, but that doesn't mean MT-56 is accessible. Depends on how we get to access Thompson Falls. I'm betting its just like Coulee Dam. One way in and one way out. We'd really need all of MT-200 to get 2 entry points. But at that point, MT-56 is really extra mapping if we can get from Sandpoint to Thompson Falls much easier. I just don't see MT-56 being relevant no matter the situation. But that's just me. Doesn't mean I'm right.
werewoooooooolf wrote: ↑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.
I can agree with this. There is only so much that can get in. At 1:20 scale, that means 19 other things don't get in and that 20th one does. There will be a ton cut from the game now, moving forward and from the pass. Even at 1:15 or 1:10, stuff gets cut so its no wonder even more gets cut at 1:20. The game will never be like real life and that is what many want considering the word "simulator" is in the title. The game is fun, its missing a lot of features but the experience definitely is not bad. I'd rather have what we have than be playing one of the other flopped games. Only thing we can do is keep requesting for more features to get added. The balance is okay for what it is. But the features.....ehhh yeah they lack. ATS is compared to a lot of other games and it really only fair to judge it with apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.