ProMods

While that is true that its only 5,000 ft taller than ground level its not the major factor of why they appear small, here in Flagstaff, AZ we sit at 7,000 ft and Mount Elden the mountain closest to town tops out at 10,000 ft as well. If elevation we the major reason they seem small then Mt. Elden should be a tiny hill compared to other mountains of similar size such as Sandia Crest. However, that isn't the case as the Elden is very tall in appearance despite being only 3,000 ft above the city. The major reason things seem small is due to the distance you stand from the mountain itself, as you get farther away perspective changes and you start to get the feel of the actual scale of the objects you are viewing, anything that is small will appear much larger as you get closer to it. Does this mean that that missing 5,000 or more feet doesn't mean anything, not at all, that missing elevation would make the mountain truly enormous were it visible so your point is well taken. I suggest this as an idea to lend flavor to the map its not necessary to add as the mountain will not affect or change the route your driving its just something to make it seem less like a flat Kansas which is to me incredibly boring landscape to drive on.

Poor Cessna, down on the road.

I like the new trailer video very much

the delivery point in the airplane looks nice

1.29 open beta for ATS is out. (Link: http://blog.scssoft.com/2017/10/america ... e-129.html) It includes new roads for CA, AZ and NV, prepares the connections to NM and several other improvements (support for different time zones!!)

But the one that intrigues is the next one:

SCS Blog wrote:Complete overhaul of navigation algorithms (direction aware, multiple modes)

Could it mean multimodal transport? Could it be the solution to those who don't want to buy all DLCs?

Jontsuba, I think you may be on to something about the multiple modes comment in the SCS blog. Not much use for ferries in the ATS map, so it could very well refer to trains to get to DLCs that are separated on the map for those who don't own all of them. Heck, it could even let them do a few east coast states in the near future, without all the boring corn fields in between.
My only concern, if our assumptions are correct, is whether it will mess up the economy. Let's say, in the future, you have the New Mexico DLC and a hypothetical Texas DLC. You want to take a job from Arizona to Texas and want to drive the whole way, but there is a train available across New Mexico for players who don't own that DLC. Hopefully, you can turn the "train mode" off, or it at least will not penalize you like the notorious ferry bug in ETS2.
In further support of this hypothesis, note that there are already rail connections built into ATS as pick-up/drop-off points in the freight market. I would think it would be fairly straightforward to connect these with a railroad.

Wouldn't multiple navigation modes mean something like letting us choose the shortest, fastest etc. route?

It`s another option. That's why I'm asking. It could also refer to the long awaited Bus DLC. Or even the Special Transport DLC that they showed last week.
I guess those with experience with the editor might have a better insight.

peniu wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2017 15:13

Wouldn't multiple navigation modes mean something like letting us choose the shortest, fastest etc. route?

I have upgraded my ATS and this is what they offer :

Best - shortest - small roads