Montana Discussion Thread

[Trucker_71]

@Shiva Sorry, I forgot the spelling of it. Siskiyou pass is a significant hill between Oregon and California. In the winter I've seen the chain up law go into effect and stay on most of the winter. As far as SCS is concerned, it's mostly flat.

[BASSLovah]

Oh wow, had no idea. Those grades look amazing to drive on but as you're saying, IG it's mostly flat. I really hope they re-do some of the passes they left out since now they have more experience from what I've been able to see in Montana.

[Shiva]

I would rather say, Siskiyou pass, is not ingame, at all.
To implement those, a total rebuild would be needed, between Medford and Shasta Lake "Weed".
Including a removal of Hilt?
Who knows, maybe SCS migth do that in future?

So far, what I have seen, Montana DLC is good.
It is missing US-20, between Idaho Falls and West Yellowstone.
There is some smaller roads that could be added, to increase density of roads.
Then there is roads that would have been nice, but that seem not to have any space on one end or another.

[VTXcnME]

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.

My understanding there is one team out of the three (soon to be four) is dedicated to redo/rebuild. Let that small team keep creeping across the older parts of the map (Rest of CA/AZ/NM/NV) and brush up/refresh what needs obvious work.

I know when it comes to NM, being one of the places in ATS I've been to... yes, I had higher expectations. It needs some love. It's one of the OG first DLC maps SCS put out after ATS released. It's on outdated resources. If you're looking at anything other than the road/truck in front of you, you'll see it. As you drive from Montana to Wyoming to Colorado to New Mexico on I-90/I-25 you can see the scenery quality drop off. The road grading falls off. The quality of the buildings and city layouts and road networks is sparse and dated.

I'm not for the redoing Colorado or Wyoming. Even Oregon and Washington are okay. But Utah and NM are the lesser quality maps now. Parts of Utah are better than others, but most of New Mexico needs to get worked over again. If not the whole state, certainly ABQ. And I'm sorry, US-60 being split really doesn't need to happen. That should be addressed when the redo ABQ. I've seen road networks run as close or closer in other states than US-60 would against other roads in the area.

Letting the reno team work it all thru really won't slow down *NEW* DLC. And honestly, it makes sense to have a smaller team go behind and update depots, add new global assets that have been updated/made better. Really not a huge ask.

[xXCARL1992Xx]

it is the other way around it there is not much time left the rebuild them will be used to get the DLC out

[killingjoke28336]

I still don't understand the decision to make Shelby only scenic. It really is all there just put in some depots and industry. The location is perfect for a marked city.

[Tristman]

It's fairly close to Great Falls and Havre though.

[killingjoke28336]

And so are Miles City, Glendive and Sidney. For me it makes no sense.

[festmache]

I understand that making beautiful mountains probably takes way more time than making these basic ones... However, my advice for SCS mappers would be: go for the low hanging fruit! Just round the edges in these basic mountains a little and it already looks much better. Still not as beautiful as the really great mountains, but much better nonetheless, without too much effort.

Just to show what I mean, check this screenshot which was taken near Missoula.

In one spot, it shows two background moutains.
The left one is just fine for a mountain in the (far) background.
The right one... Meh.

[ external image ]

[SuchManor]

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.

If a rebuild team is kept around throughout the games life then I see no issue in completely rebuilding NM to get up to Northern CA/Montana's bar. NM looks ok at best, Oregon looks good, and southern CA/NV/AZ looks bad. After those three are rebuilt from the ground up, next would be NM. Then do minor tweaks to states after that. (if) the bar keeps going up, NM will look worse and worse and will look out of place compared to the fully reworked and new states around it.