Poll: Choose (3) States you would like to see next

[Bedavd]

I think we'd actually get plenty of great skyline shots from the Kansas side with just Overland Park, unless you specifically want to drive through it of course. Kansas has two pretty big railyards along I-70 that, at the compression SCS gives us, will probably have the skyline pretty close to them. I'd say we're 100% going to see at least one of the industrial areas of Armourdale or Santa Fe, and scaling will bring those almost right to Downtown.

[oldmanclippy]

But that's the thing, why put all the work of making the Kansas City Missouri models if they're not gonna include it as usable in-game until Missouri comes? Seems like a lot of extra work that could be pushed off to the next expansion to me. Maybe they do that, but then they're also limiting themselves somewhat for what they can do with Kansas City MO later on. I feel like it would be better for them to just do it all in one go either way, but SCS has surprised us before with their innovativeness and creativity so maybe they will prove me wrong.

@angrybirdseller I don't think we can compare to Washington anymore, since the ATS team has grown so much and since Texas will throw off the assumptions we can make based on prior maps completely. Texas is larger than Nebraska and Kansas combined with six(!) major cities, compared to Nebraska's one and Kansas' one and a half. Same with Iowa and Missouri with Iowa's one and Missouri's 2 big cities. Like I said, either SCS will switch to making 3 maps per year state by state or they will start bundling them and keep it at 2. But I have a tough time believing that after Texas their output won't increase. It'd be bizzare if Texas was a one time only surge of effort never to be replicated again via increased pace or increased map size. I think Montana and probably Oklahoma will be standalone, but after that all the map teams should be spun up fully and then increasing size or pace is on the table IMO.

[fra_ba]

It'll be more of a Portland/Vancouver thing than with Ontario, OR and I think that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure what you mean by it being a tease to stop just short of the city, you're still in the metro area and there will be tons of industrial areas and connections between I-70, I-35, US 69, US 73, and either one or both of I-435/I-635. Sure we won't be able to go through the downtown "proper" but outside of Interstates, this wasn't going to happen anyway.

I agree and would add US169 to the candidates. It's sort of the last viable option as an exit and we could see a glimpse of Kansas City, MO too.

[flight50]

I'm kind of on the fence with the split for all or nothing with Kansas. But in this case, Kansas City and Texarkana are two different size cities. Texarkana doesn't make much sense to split up like Kansas and the Texas dlc can do without it. In the case of KC, I think the right thing to do is to split it. Where do you split it....there are several options I-635, US-169 or US-69. We know the major interstates are I-70 and I-35 so they can't not continue to Missouri. For ease of comfort, I will go with I-635 as the terminating point. It connects to I-70, I-35 and I-29. Things get a little tight East of I-635 that should wait for Missouri. All the dashed lines is Missouri side. Kansas can get enough done for 4-5 depots. The trick is to plan the city all at once though. So on paper, its mapped as one. In the game the roads and terrain is mapped as one but do the KC side in detail later. Its similar to Portland/Vancouver except we know more dlc's are coming behind Kansas so might as well make KC lod models.

Kansas City has 3 rail lines over there. Now of course we won't get all three though due to scale. But perhaps 2. I'd take Nortfolk and KCS. For both dlc's, there are plenty of industrial areas to do. As long as the underground storage facility, the airport and at least 2 railyards, I'm good. The map below is just a speculation.

[ external image ]

The split for Texarkana isn 't as big of a deal. Texarkana has a population of 36k. Kansas City metro is 2.1 million strong. It can be just like Portland/Vancouver which was the thought I had too when KC first popped up as to how it should be done. There is a difference between the easiest thing and the right thing. The easiest is to do it all at once for KC. The right thing is to split it. Missouri does have Saint Louis and Springfield. Kansas only has Wichita and Topeka. It would be an even split for both to share some spotlight to the sam area.

[Tristman]

I think Texas will give us better examples of how SCS handles such big cities, but I think Kansas City is big enough that they could split it between the two DLCs.
Due to the large urban sprawl, they could just add the Missouri part as low detail cityscape, and then replace it with the Missouri part when that DLC arrives.

[flight50]

That's what I've been saying for awhile. The 6 largest cities in Texas will indicate how the largest cities are handled in ATS. Post ATS release, the base map states don't measure up to Portland, Seattle or Denver. This rebuild for the base map will be critical. What you do in Texas, works for the rebuild. Texas's top 5 cities are larger in real life than even Portland, Seattle and Denver. DFW is perhaps the most difficult one to pull off of all so far in the game. That's why it would be the test. Its metroplex will indicate how LA, Chicago and NYC needs to look/feel. Houston is right behind DFW as far a space necessary. So what I've been saying the past year or so is solve Texas and you solve the top 10 largest cities in the US for sure.

Granted that better technology or methods can come to help. But for now, we go with the current tech. In order to get these huge metro area in the game, we'll all have to understand the game is still 1:20 scale and not only will things be compressed, but things will be missing that some of us think should get in. To get the realistic cities, the fps will drop which is normal. Either we get the realistic vibe of the city or we stick with base map city vibe. I'm current current map method vibes and will gladly take the realism and a little fps drop over what we had. So we'll have to be lenient as the game grows because SCS is about to start getting into more compact areas of the US with the Southern corridor coming and eventually the deeper Midwest. Sacrifices must be made.

[Shiva]

From mapping point, central parts of Overland and Kansas Cities will be in 2 sectors. Atleast when checking at mapping grids.
1 north, 1 south map sector. The boundary being close to this https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.0149 ... b2!1m0!3e0
I'm in an error of 3-4 km west/east.

[oldmanclippy]

I think the comparison with Portland and Vancouver isn't straightforward though: we got Portland (the bigger part) before Vancouver (the smaller part), but splitting Kansas City would require doing the smaller part first. That being said, I don't think Portland is necessarily visible from Vancouver in game, so they could pull it off.

If it is going to be split, then Overland Park should be marked, not Kansas City KS. Kansas City MO is a mess on its own, best to stay as far away from it as possible for the KS side. Kansas City needs to accommodate I-70, I-35, I-29, I-49, and probably US-50. They could push out I-635 a bit west and have that be the eastern boundary connecting I-70 and I-35, with the distance between them exaggerated. Give I-70 and I-35 plenty of room to stay separated before they meet each other at downtown KC/MO. And this is where it gets really really tricky, because after they meet you have the southern terminus of I-29 jutting off north, taking I-35 with it. Two ginormous intersections within a mile of each other IRL. Then immediately south of where I-35 and I-29 leave I-70, I-70 turns and intersects with US-71, which turns into I-49 further south (and there's also I-670, but best to ignore its existence for the sanity of SCS's mappers). But then if we want I-50 all the way we'll have to add I-435 and I-470, which is even more intersections, including a particularly nasty one with I-435, I-470, US-71, and I-49.

It's clear to me that Kansas City will have to be simplified, and all these roads and intersections cannot possibly make it at 1:20 scale. I-35, I-70, I-29 are must-haves. No way they can get around those. I think that this could be a potential solution (red is Kansas, green is Missouri):

[ external image ]

Ignore US-71, it is the odd man out here. I-635 between I-29 and I-70 is optional IMO, as is I-470 and US-50 east of I-435 if they're not gonna have it go to Jefferson City, but I think everything else is essential. I-70, I-35, and I-29 cannot be broken up at all. I-635 between I-70 and I-35 is necessary for access to the rail yards. And I-435 between I-35 and I-70 (the section south of the city) is necessary to get us to I-49. Kansas City is gonna be a beast of a city to try to fit at 1:20 scale.

[flight50]

Technically, I-435 and I- 635 can be omitted completely if space for junctions is necessary. The necessary interchanges are: I-70 @ I-35, I-35 @ I-70 and I-29 @ I-35. Everything else just gets in where they fit in. SCS won't over complicate the large US cities. Space just isn't there a sthe interchanges are close to 1:1. People will be pissed but tough luck. KC nor any other city will be over complicated. The necessary roads will go thru and if there is space left, then fill it out.

[ external image ]

As is, the East to West runs of I-35 and I-70 will have to be spread a part (North to South). We also have to get the Missouri River into the equation and the bridges will eat up space. That space was ugly with Portland and Vancouver. The best part is there is space in Missouri to cheat East. Kansas must get Topeka in the game as a marked city as its around 60 miles from KC. That's enough space to have Topeka be a decent size and the KC metro area be large. Overland Park must be marked and KC goes to Missouri as marked.

All of KC metro needs to have all the roads mapped at the same time. Trying to figure it out later can be disastrous. So figure out the entire area first, then block off the roads to Missouri once the road network is locked in. Figure out the KC area industries and place industries accordingly. So Overland might only get 4-5 depots. Once Missouri comes, KC gets another 4-5 depots for a total of 8-10 depots which works out great for the split. Hopefully Colorado adds US-36 so that it can go thru Kansas and then thru Missouri in route to Indianapolis. If not, once Missouri comes, we won't get to go to far North. I-29 needs to get us to St.Joseph and I-35 to Cameron as a small scenic city. But I-35 and I-29 have to get us US-36 so that we can have an alternate to St. Louis. Between US-36, I-70, US-50 and I-44, St. Louis should tie into the West very well.

[oldmanclippy]

Well St. Louis is the Gateway to the West after all

I agree, make sure that the essential intersections are in, then worry about supplementing them after. The 3 you mentioned are completely required, whereas the loop interstates aren't. At 1:20 scale, getting from Overland Park to I-49 southbound without I-435 won't be too bad. Same with Overland Park to Kansas City International without I-435 or I-635. But I really hope we get at least a snippet of I-635 to get us to the industrial area in Santa Fe. That looks like a gold mine for depots.