Texas Discussion Thread

[SmokeyWolf]

I would make Killeen scenic but mark Temple or Waco.

[flight50]

Waco makes more sense to be marked. Temple is between Waco and Austin. Temple being scenic allows more space for the two marked cities. Therefore, Temple could be smaller in size to give way to the marked cities.

[supersobes]

They could still add delivery points in Temple and just assign them to Austin or Waco too. Although that practice is more common in the ETS2 maps, there have been some instances in ATS where they've done something like that.

[Xaagon]

It will be interesting to see how SCS handles two cities close to each other in Texas. They marked a lot of close cities in the Seattle area, but prior to that San Francisco and Oakland were the only marked neighbors.

I'm suspecting that both Dallas and Fort Worth would be marked, but I'm not as confident about the smaller pairs like Odessa & Midland, Lufkin & Nacogdoches, Tyler & Longview, etc. I'm also suspecting that if Galveston is in that it's absorbed by Houston due to Houston being a lot bigger. That speculated, I will say that the road signs in ATS have gotten a lot better and missing and absorbed cities will likely make appearances at least on highway exit signs.

[flight50]

I'd love for Temple to get remote depots. Either Waco or Austin could host Temple for sure. I'd go with Waco to get it a bit more. Austin is much larger and support 4-5 depots by itself. I'd give Temple (2) depots:
-Tractor Supply (Plaster & Sons) as this gives us I-14 service road
-McCoy's Building Supply (Plaster & Sons) gives us service road off I-35
- (1) of the three car dealerships off I-35...Voltison, Drake or DeMurro
- Ashley Furniture (Heartland)
- Home Depot (Home Store)

Of all that, its possible to give Temple something. Will that happen...no telling but its possible. Between Waco and Austin, both of them could bring 3-5 depots that are not in Temple. We'll see how Texas plays out. One thing for sure is that ATS could get more depots around the map. More new industries and more new companies can help. I hope the trend of providing depots to scenic cities but tagged to the largest nearby city continues. SCS has been doing this a bit more as the new dlc's come. A town does not have to be marked to get a depot and I am loving how this is working. It doesn't need to happen to the points its overdone though. But enough to provide more exploration.

Close by cities.......I tend to notice that SCS is close to the 30 mile mark. If there is at least 30 irl miles between, its very possible. CDA and Spokane, Nampa and Boise are a couple other examples. Portland and Vancouver are a bit different though. The Columbia helps but considering those are in 2 different states, Vancouver pushed the map further North than what it should have been but its close irl and in game. It like San Fran and Oakland with the body of water. I think a narrower river and pushing Portland down a tad would have helped. Anywho, it is what it is. Dallas and Ft. Worth is on the edge of that 30 miles. Its slightly more actually. But the cities are so large and so close together, that they have make up one huge metro area. So separate they should be but very large area combined. Considering its the largest inland metro area in the US, both cities would have to feel like it which means both should be marked. There are numerous smaller cities that make up DFW. A solid 24-25 total with at least 6 of them in the top 100 largest cities in the US enclosed inside of DFW itself. So it will need to definitely feel huge. There is no ocean or huge lake like LA, NYC or Chicago metro areas to push into the water to gain space. Inland...you just have to spread out. Not to mention Denton and Waco on the North and South side of the DFW metroplex.

The smaller cities mentioned could go either way. I'd love to see them all separately honestly. If they came as Salmon, ID, St. George, UT or Grand Junction, Co size, I think it could work. But if that is not possible, I'd at least like to see something represented from the unmarked city make it to the marked city so that the vibe is that its still there.

[MT269]

..... just wish they filled in Southern Utah. That is a beautiful route. I

Not that long ago, you implied that it would almost destroy the game completely, if SCS built a junction to the 24 off the 70. So how are they going to connect to the existing roads?

I don't even know if they've heard of Hanksville anyway.

[flight50]

@MT269 You are not telling my complete story. I said if they connect to I-70 near US-191 they would destroy that part of I-70.......not the game. The mountain models will not be easy to modify near US-191. Where I have the black X's below is a no go. There is no space to modify it to allow UT-24 to come thru. I never said it would destroy the game so your statement is not being truthful. But UT-24 can still be connected to I-70 near I-15 at Richfield. Richfield is already scenic in the game and you can see a road coming thru. That can be UT-24 connecting to the on/off ramp there. They could still follow 80% of their original dds map. By the way, SCS has heard of Hanksville actually. They have a sign off US-191 saying to Hanksville. Actually Torrey would be the better town to place a depot anyways. There is more industry in Torrey than Hanksville.

This is what SCS could do now.
[ external image ]


SCS dds map. They have Torrey and Hanksville marked so yes, they know about Hanksville. If they study the cities they do, they know about all the cities....more than most people on here including myself. You have to know what you place on your map if you are going to add it. They need assets for it, they need to know what roads to add to it...industries. They know more than what you give them credit for. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean they don't know.
[ external image ]

Unfortunately SCS stopped updating the the dds map so Texas was never really populated. There is one Texas file but its so old that its obsolete now I am sure. They are much better mappers and so much experience gained that the Texas dds file won't matter. I think it was made after NM. I don't think Texas will suffer the same faith as Utah though. Main reason, Texas has the largest road network of any state. If one looks at the Rand McNally, Texas is pretty much covered in STAA routes so Texas should come with a nice selection of roads. Texas does not have the terrain of the West to worry about conflicting roads not being able to connect to another so the issue Utah has, I don't see happening. The state has been in development for over 2 years now so I'm sure they have a good idea on the layout. With the numerous city count, I'd like to think the roads connecting to them would be numerous as well. I won't be surprised if they have a few cities on there that I don't know much about. Their research department will be educating me as well as others. Texas is a huge state so I am sure most can't claim to know every inch of it personally.

One thing for sure though is that Texas will be one heck of a state to explore. I'd imagine the Cruising Texas even will be like Iberia in only making 20 cities the the goal to reach. If Texas can add new members to the game, that is a win win. But imho, all that starts with the Texas blogs. The first one was good. It showed Texas under a good light. Texas is more green that it is desert. It has dry areas for sure but for the most part, its covered in vegetation. Considering its so large, the transition between the biomes will be intriguing.

[SmokeyWolf]

I think Dallas Fort Worth should be one big marked city. Believe that would capture the feel better.

[Sora]

I feel like there's a decent chance we get both Waco and Killeen, while Temple is either skipped or consolidated into Killeen. Interstate 14 means that you can push Killeen off to the side a bit so you have more room to work with, compared to Temple which is liable to get crushed between everything else that needs to be on I-35.

And while I'd agree that calling it I-14 is overselling it a bit, it bothers me less than I-86 (ID). 14 at least has the decency to be the only 14, and has potential for expansion that 86 doesn't. Then again, "potential" doesn't mean a whole lot when there are like five different Interstate projects in Texas that are moving at a snail's pace (2, 14, 27, 69, and the Pierce Elevated.)

[flight50]

The biggest reason Dallas and Ft. Worth must be separate is because they both have town centers. Both centers have to be in the game either way. In ATS, there is only one town center per city to date. Under one name, they have to put 20-25 depots all under one name. I'm not sure if there are limits to city name characters in the name itself and if there is a limit to how many depots a city can have. We know 12-15 depots per city can work but can the game handle 20+. Its possible that DFW gets a few depots outside of the area. Example...Denton, Rockwall or Waxahachie. Denton may not be able to be marked. If that is the case, it could go under Ft. Worth. Dallas is the larger city so it might have a few more depots so put Denton depots with Ft. Worth. If Dallas absorbs other cities, it too will have more depots added to it. So if both Dallas and Ft. Worth are separated, they can absorb other smaller cities instead of absorb themselves.

Killeen definitely has the space to be marked considering its off to the West. There shouldn't be much of an issue with scale. The question is....what industry does Killeen serve? Other than the retail depots that we can already get elsewhere around the map or maybe adding something like HEB, Killeen is more mapping. Killeen is basically Ft. Hood. A city that we can't delivery cargo for its main purpose. I just don't see Killeen being worth much without military cargo.