If you were the developer, what scale would you make the map?

[KnuteOle]

I just did a delivery from Sidney, Montana to Oakland, California. It took me two hours of real time to make the trip, and it was epic going through 5 states.

By the time the entire country is completed, it could take over 5 hours in real time to make a trip cross-country. If the scale was 1:10 (meaning, the route would be twice as long), you're looking at a full day of playing the game to make one cross-country trip. That would sound great to me. Though it would be unlikely that I'd be able to do that in one sitting.

If we presumed development time and quality would be the same regardless of scale, and only focus on what scale we would actually be willing to play, then I'd probably vote for 1:10. I think a 1:10 scale would allow for the sense of how expansive these states really are.

In particular, I'm really looking forward to the great plains simply because of the vast emptiness and long, straight stretches of road they provide with rumbling thunderstorms far in the distant horizon. I'm not sure the current scale will allow for that kind of feeling and experience; at 1:20, I'm concerned the great plains will feel much more populated and dense with towns every 5 minutes instead of how spread out they really are. There's beauty in nothingness. I just hope the great plains states provide that sense.

[gaillard]

Though it would be unlikely that I'd be able to do that in one sitting.

Well, really nobody's asking you that.

My idea would be to do in one session a day (2-3 hours according to each's own schedule) what a trucker would do in one day.
And when you have to rest, well that's tomorrow, or later.

I think it would be fun if a five-day trip would need to be done in five days (sessions).
Now dawn to dusk is too short to believe it.

You need to rest less than a half hour after starting your journey. You fill your truck every 30 minutes.
So if I was the developer, I would have chosen 1:10

That is, with what I know now, and with a blank page to start. So that's ATS 2.x or ETS2 2.x Nevermore said Ed's crow.

[Optional Features]

Don't forget that in order to make trips longer with the current scale you can use warp. I play at 0.85 and it slows things down noticeably. Of course it's not like a really different scale though.

Sadly, warp doesn't work in convoy mode. I prefer using a cargo weight mod: it makes things slower, too, but where a real trucker would slow like a mountain.

[Sovereign 89]

Personally I think 1:10 would be ideal scale all around both for ATS and ETS2 as well. It is not too small, yet it is not too big and definitely more stuff could fit on the map, thus making drives even more realistic.
On the other hand, due to time constraints I believe 1:15 would be most logical scale to go with. It is still bigger than 1:20, but doesn't takes as much time as 1:10 would. That's especially true for smaller countries. For example, my country is quite small compared to the rest, and many things will be left out due to 1:20 scale. If the scale was bigger, lots of this important stuff could be implemented as well, that can't be with current scale.
However, I believe that as technology and mapping techniques advance further, that at some point in future we could expect another rescale which could bring both games to 1:15, and maybe even 1:10. It may not be soon, but there's possibility for it. And if not, then when both game maps are completed.

[plykkegaard]

Rescale would result in a new game not compatible with current game
The work required is huge

Also the inadequate render distance needs to be solved too before a rescale would be any worth

[VTXcnME]

Ah yes... the "it can't be done, why talk about it" post. Tried, true, and barely worn out!


I agree 1:15 would have been a better choice. 1:10 would have been too big. 1:1 I'm not sure would have been feasible. We'd still be waiting on New Mexico DLC at this point.

When the map was California/Arizona/New Mexico/Utah, sure... a larger map would have been fantastic. But now that SCS is getting us to stretch our proverbial legs with more DLC, I think 1:15 would be the max size I'd want. At current, it does take a goodly amount of time to go from Bellevue to New Mexico. When we get further east DLC, there'll be plenty for everyone me thinks. Those that want to do marathon long sessions behind the wheel will be doing 2,500 mile cross country trips. Those who want to stay more local/regional will be doing 1,000 or less rips around their given region.

By the time the whole lower 48 are done, we might be happy SCS chose 1:20 scale just so we could do a handful of jobs around the nation and not spend 2 days IRL trying to accomplish it. LOL. If they ever get to Canada, 1:20 might still feel overly huge. We'll see.

Either way, the further east we go, the happier I get. I am one of those goofy fools that likes to settle in and cruise for 1,500+ miles at a run. Right now, that's basically taking loads from one corner of the map to another.

[flight50]

^Agreed. The map is small now so not everyone is happy. But I agree that the more than comes, the more real estate that people will have. The more real estate, the more appreciative of the scale. Of course this is an opinion in which we all have. I wouldn't expect a new scale though unless ATS2 is on the menu and even then, we might be looking at a completed lower 48.

Question is, how do they sell and market the game at that point. How expensive will it be.

[Trakaplex]

Rescale would result in a new game not compatible with current game
The work required is huge

Also the inadequate render distance needs to be solved too before a rescale would be any worth

When ATS transferred from 1:35 to 1:20 all they did was to move the assets of the cities and add more terrain in between. But since this is not like old ATS and there are more roadside attractions now, it might be more difficult. The SCS team is growing, but personally by the time New England comes...

...a bigger scale will indefinitely be mandatory. Look how dense Connecticut is. We have I-91/I-95/I-84/I-395, and many cities all shoved barely within 100 by 80 miles. New England is probably 2031 lol minimum, so we shouldn't care. But as @flight50 said, quite a bit of us are getting tired of 1:20, and for the worst, since there are lots that aren't modeled in the game.

[flight50]

@Trakaplex I never said quite a few are getting tired of 1:20. I think time wise, 1:20 is where it should stay. Now I did say that if we did happen to get a rescale, I'd go with 1:17. Its half way between what we have and 1:15. I'd only do that just to get a little more distance in between cities. Basically the same thing as you described, move the cities and splice in more terrain. I think the cities are sized nicely for what they are. But we could get a little more terrain to stretch out distances. Going beyond that scale, we need ATS2.

For me, 1:10 or larger is out for ATS1. 1:15 is pushing it. It seems like it take forever to get somewhere in the UK when I play ETS2. If it takes much longer to drive, it will take much much longer to develop. Then people are looking at higher price tags for dlc's and the base game. With people already complaining about ATS prices, I'm honestly surprised to see so many favor 1:10. That's not thinking about how much if effects every aspect of the game.

[AlexxxF1]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me there are some who are under the delusion that if they got or get a new scale they would get or get more roads and cities. In fact, if instead of 1:20 the scale was 1:15 or 1:10, then we would have received or will receive the same number of cities, roads for the same period of time.
What I mean.
If we had a scale of 1:15, we would have the same number of roads and cities like now, only within not 11 states, but 6 states. For a scale of 1:10 within the limit of 3 states.

What would we have for a scale of 1:15 vs 1:20 at best?
2016 - ATS (CA, NV) release in 1:35 scale - scale complaints - selected and rebuilt in 1:15 scale by the end of 2016 in very poor quality.
2017 - first half Arizona DLC.
2018 - second half Arizona DLC.
2019 - first half New-Mexico DLC, second half New-Mexico DLC.
2020 - first half Oregon DLC, second half Oregon DLC.
2021 - first half Washington DLC.
2022 - second half Washington DLC.
at the moment we would have exactly the same density of roads and cities like now - the only thing we would not have Utah, we would not have Idaho, we would not have Colorado, we would not have Wyoming, we would not have Montana. shape of the map would be terrible at the moment.
So my question is would we get a bigger increase in players with this DLC release, or vice versa, we will lose players?
everyone just started complaining about too much monotony (desert states for the first three years, green states for the second three years), the slow release of DLCs would be many times more noticeable, and there would be thousands of times more complaints about the lack of new companies and much more time was spent on their development. like in the same Texas.
yes, speaking of Texas, at best, we would have received Texas DLC only by the end of 2027, and not like now, at the end of 2022 (12 years vs 7 years
after as you bought ATS). about the scale of 1:10 is not even worth considering based on all this.

When after ATS release , for several years, 3000 players playing at the same time in ATS on Steam. with the release of Colorado DLC we got stable 6-8000 players playing at the same time. with the release of Wyoming DLC we got stable 8-10.000 players playing at the same time. with the release of Montana DLC, taking into account the summer holidays and the fact that the least plays in the summer, in spite of everything, there was still a peak, I saw it at the weekend - 14.500 players playing at the same time in ATS.

I think 1:20 is a very good compromise to get to the East Coast as quickly as possible. so that the gap in quality, the picture of the East vs West states would not be huge in the end. so that the feeling and sensation of a whole and unified world would be preserved. to make Canada and Mexico possible too.