ATS concept map (fanmade)

[egulley316]

I agree with Sora about two different cities with the same name. These cities will have their own industries and appear in each state so there shouldn't be any issues. Only difference is that it should look like one city on the map, otherwise two marks next to each other with the same name would just look stupid.

Overland Park is actually a good idea but I think that there should be Kansas City in Kansas state, it just seems right, don't you think?

@fra_ba, road dencity in this state is very high so if I remove some cities I should remove some roads because they should go somewhere. But then it will look unrealistic. There should be some compromises because of scale. This state actually is second hardest for me after Texas because there is too many roads so you have to decide which of them you should use and which not. But if the scale is not an issue SCS could actually use all of them but It is hard to tell now what will they do.

what gets me is the fact that you may have just created what may be a true 100% plan of what SCS has in store for us.

[ads678]

I made a concept of existing map to see what I would do if SCS never made these states. So I tried to "forget" everything SCS did and made it from scratch (except for Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming, which concepts I've already done before).
I got some interesting results. Sometimes SCS exceeded my expectations, sometimes I would disagree with their desicions (especially odd choice of cities in California).
https://i.ibb.co/6nN4cS6/ats-ingame-map-concept.png
https://i.ibb.co/rpLdLfg/ats-ingame-map-concept-col.png

[nautofon]

Oh, that is interesting.

The choice of cities in California is probably a victim of the limited options they had pre-rescale.

[Bedavd]

Gosh that I-5 corridor is so dense! It would be amazing to see in game but I doubt the rescale will get us anywhere near that (though I get that's not the point of the map haha).

[flight50]

The cool part about California is that SCC can cheat things East a bit to have more space for CA-1, US-101, I-5 and CA-99. Those pretty much run parallel the whole length of the state. That is your density there. California could look like a ladder with all the crossing roads. I think the devs have done enough dlc's now for ATS that they know what they can do to get more into it.

The question is, what will that do about it. Before they go South of I-80, I think they are missing things to make North of I-80 denser. If they want new people to buy it, California has to really come with it. What we got phase 1 was cool and all but I'd hate to see that being all we get North of I-80. At the least, run CA-99 thru Sacramento and add Chico and Yuba City. One as scenic, one marked. Add CA-99 and that will add good density.

[ads678]

@Bedavd I think you mean CA-99, because I-5 corridor is actually very empty in CA.
But basically I only added one city there (Visalia), Modesto replaced Oakdale, + 2 new cities on the section of CA-99 north of Sacramento which doesn't exist in the game.
So if you look closer, there is not much difference if you compare it to the ingame map.

I hope SCS will add CA-99 north of Sacramento. Yuba City and Chico should be both marked I think.

[flight50]

I'll take both Chico and Yuba marked if we can get it. I just didn't want Yuba to take away from Sacramento space. I think Sacramento has to be enlarged just to get I-80, US-50 from Carson City and CA-99 all going thru it. Sacramento should get larger but not too wide because Oakland needs to be more of a factor and adding San Jose will take space. So that whole area hopefully gets revamped for sure. When it does, that will be a huge highlight for ATS. The Bay area/I-80 and North of it hopefully can get done before the end of next year. With a small team, just not a lot of man power right now.

But I figure Yuba can be scenic and get a couple remote depots from Sacramento. Then Chico be the one marked sense it could have a lil more space between I-5 (Red Bluff) and Yuba City.

[Sora]

California is one thing, but honestly, I really want that Arizona.

It's so close to what we have, yet... not. Cutting GCV is a little sad, though - maybe stick its Tidbit in Tuba City? Ain't a super exciting place, but it's the biggest city in the Navajo Nation, at least.

[Tristman]

I really wish they would do the California rework as if they were planning an entirely new DLC, with a completely new layout of roads and towns. California, Nevada and Arizona were originally planned in 1:35 scale after all, so SCS could really increase the density of the state if they wanted to.

So far, Northern California implies that they are only reworking what is already there, which is a shame. But the .dds file has me hopeful that we will see bigger changes as the rework moves south. As for CA-99 with Yuba City/Chico, it not being included in the first phase could be due to one of them being a marked city (and SCS wasn't touching any marked cities in the first phase). But with the I-5 reworked as it is now, it also seems unlikely that the CA-99 and co. will be added in the future.

[ads678]

@Sora In my universe there is no Tidbit I would like to see Tuba City marked + AZ-264, but I don't think SCS will ever do that.
I would add the road to Grand Canyon just for scenic view, but I'm ok with GCV marked.

upd
Forgot about Clayton,NM, now New Mexico looks the way it should.