ATS concept map (fanmade)

Shiva
Posts: 1753
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: My concept map for future state DLCs

#11 Post by Shiva » 10 Jul 2019 14:24

LAFAYET47. Many cities, but less population, that could be balanced by having fewer destinations in those cities.
Even smaller places need to get stuff in and out.

ads678, I know it is not super easy to do these, but I would be interested in seeing way more of what the future maps might look as.
+ to see your ideas how far it could be plausible to have single state DLC's.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.

User avatar
Vini
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Jul 2013 20:25
Location: SeaShepherd Cons. Society
Contact:

Re: My concept map for future state DLCs

#12 Post by Vini » 10 Jul 2019 16:31

2nd pic is ...

Image
Image

fra_ba
Posts: 347
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: My concept map for future state DLCs

#13 Post by fra_ba » 10 Jul 2019 17:01

I agree with Shiva regarding number of cities in Montana. Also development time probably won't be a problem since most of those cities are quite small similar to omak in Washington!

ads678
Posts: 334
Joined: 27 Nov 2018 15:56
Location: Eastern Europe

Re: My concept map for future state DLCs

#14 Post by ads678 » 10 Jul 2019 17:03

@Sora, I think area Laramie-Cheyenne-Fort Collins it is too dense. I assume Cheyenne-Laramie could be like Yakima-Ellensburg in Washington. Actually Wyoming was not hard to me, Texas is much harder.

@flight50, I'm surprised because English is not my native language and I thought it is obvious for american. I even use Google Translate sometimes)
And any suggestions are welcome, I absolutely understand that some places on my map could be wrong. This map didn't cost too much time for me (about 1-2 hours per state) so it is not a big problem to rebuild anything.

@fra_ba, I think Riverton is too close to Thermopolis and Lander is county seat so I decided to include it instead of Riverton. Thermopolis is some kind of tourist center, Douglas is 50/50. I added Torrington because US-85 should go somewhere.

@LAFAYET47, I think it is optimal number of cities/towns. And it will not unbalance economy because there could be only 1-2 delivery points for some towns so it won't be too much jobs to Wyoming and Montana. And about taste of loneliness these towns are just marks on the map. They are still small and should look like scenery towns with some delivery points.
And I agree with you about New Mexico. I think it was a mistake to release it after Arizona. In my opinion it should be Oregon-Utah-Washington then maybe New Mexico.

@Shiva, it depends on feedback from those who live there and know about some landmarks that definitely should be on the map. I wouldn't add anything by myself.

Shiva
Posts: 1753
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: My ATS concept map for future state DLCs

#15 Post by Shiva » 10 Jul 2019 17:51

ads678, I would be interested in seeing what you think would be plausible for even more states.
Greedy bastard I am ;)
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.

User avatar
CodArk2
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 May 2019 04:30
Location: Texas coast

Re: My ATS concept map for future state DLCs

#16 Post by CodArk2 » 10 Jul 2019 19:11

I already noted this on the 'States you would like to see next thread" but I will reprise some of the comments about southeast and east here:

1. Galveston or Texas City should be south east of Houston so Interstate 45 has somewhere to terminate. Galveston is a big tourist town but has a port and some industry. Texas City has a lot of heavy industry, the second biggest oil refinery in the US and a larger port than Galveston. One of them should be in it. If neither are in, I would expect interstate 45 to terminate in Houston.

2. There should be a city between Houston and Dallas, either Conroe, Huntsville or Corsicana. Huntsville has a big, prominent statue that's easily visible from interstate 45, so that would d be the most likely pick in my mind, but at least one of them I can see being likely.

3. US Route 96 parallels the Louisiana border and would be a good addition to the map. Extending roads into Louisiana from 96 would be easier.

That said, it's not a official map, and it looks good overall. The other things I noted (like 290) were added. Brenham may be too small to be marked, but the Blue Bell Creamery should definitely be in there. As for Montana , Colorado and Wyoming, they look good to me, but I am unfamiliar with those places. Overall its a good map, I can't wait to see more states to open the map up more.

Blake1Studios
Posts: 19
Joined: 09 Apr 2016 21:12

Re: My ATS concept map for future state DLCs

#17 Post by Blake1Studios » 10 Jul 2019 19:25

I think the lack of a city north of Houston is fine. I was reading the Texas public research thread a few days ago and someone brought up a really brilliant point that Interstate 45 north of Houston has way more urban stuff along the side of the highway than any sides of Houston. The urban areas just keep stretching out for forever before you finally reach some countryside. None of those towns are big industrial destinations anyways, just add some decent scenery along Interstate 45 to represent the urban area.

Completely agree that Galveston/Texas City area should be included though. Major destination imo, and the charm of the Galveston area would really suit ATS well. Excellent point. I hope it's included in the final game.

ads678
Posts: 334
Joined: 27 Nov 2018 15:56
Location: Eastern Europe

Re: My ATS concept map for future state DLCs

#18 Post by ads678 » 10 Jul 2019 20:54

CodArk2, I already answered you but ok.
1. Galveston/Texas City are technically on my map with their delivery points. SCS just don't usually mark cities on the map that are very close to big cities. Houston is huge so I expect delivery points to these cities marked as 'Houston'. Such things happen a lot in ATS and ETS2.
2. Same as Galveston/Texas City, those cities could be scenery with delivery points marked as Houston and Dallas. Actually there is no marked cities on I-90 between Seattle and Spokane so it could happen in Texas.
3. I will look at this part, I just don't want to overload this area. Maybe I'll do something If I make Louisiana.

User avatar
CodArk2
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 May 2019 04:30
Location: Texas coast

Re: My ATS concept map for future state DLCs

#19 Post by CodArk2 » 10 Jul 2019 21:04

@ads678

I am aware. It’s mostly so anyone who didn’t see that thread sees it here too. It isn't a personal attack or anything, more of a “what I, as a resident of southeast Texas, would like to see”. They may just put Houston in and have delivery points far out, butbto me Galveston and Texas City are distinct and have heavy industry, especially Texas City. You are right that Huntsville and Corsicana don’t have much industry, same with brenham, but they are suggestions, same with route 96. Obviously not everything can be in, but they are suggestions, nothing more. I do like the map overall.

User avatar
maskmcgee
Posts: 333
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 23:17

Re: My concept map for future state DLCs

#20 Post by maskmcgee » 10 Jul 2019 23:27

LAFAYET47 wrote:
10 Jul 2019 06:17
Great concept map @asd678, I wish SCS could take a look on it. The only "criticism" I might have is about Wyoming & Montana. These states, although massive, have so little population (1.500.000 inhabitans between the two) adding "many" cities like you did could unbalance the game economy. Too much jobs leading to these states is simply not very realistic. High density in both population and roads should be more in line with more relevant states. Wyoming and Montana are just the oppossite. I would lower the number of cities there
Nobody is going to accept any DLC those sizes with less than 12 cities. Population is irrelevant. Just make the cities smaller and with less industries.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KnuteOle and 16 guests