Texas Discussion Thread

[MT269]

@flight50

I did remember at the time of posting. But I accidentally misworded it (it was getting late). I meant to say that it would potentially destroy the immersiveness of the main highway, in a similar style to building a highway interchange in the centre of the CBD of a major city.

What I would like to ask is which modifications to the game would you be able to tolerate, if SCS ever decides to fill in the ugly black hole?

It is one of the most visually attractive areas of the entire US. Why leave it out for so long, if not forever?

And I'll have to admit that despite the fact that I contributed to this being brought up, there may be less inappropriate threads for this discussion than one about Texas.

[flight50]

Good ole getting sleepy stikes, lol. I find that I make even more typos when I'm fighting sleep like a kid, lol. The markup on the previous page fills that hole nicely imho. I hope the rebuild team circles around to do fill the hole. I think if the devs do a good enough job on Texas and even beyond now that they have more man power, I think large holes like what we have in the West will be eliminated or drastically reduced. The states get smaller but more compact. If Pavel doesn't put enough men on a dlc, everything is bound to repeat the West unfortunately.

[MT269]

You said not that far back in the past that you didn't want to see that landmark in Hwy 70 destroyed in order to make way for the 24 junction.

It almost seems like SCS doesn't care that much about feedback from a tiny minority of customers. Would they add more roads if there was a competitor to ATS which was attracting their current fans to the alternative?

I'm sure there is minimal demand for roads in southern UT, which is why they haven't added anything since it's release in 2019. It will more than likely act as a reason for them not to have to worry about it at all in the future.

[SmokeyWolf]

@flight50 agree on Killeen. Not much there besides retail.

[flight50]

For me, I'd rather see a city develop that is along a major route that more than likely makes the game that is not a big time city name vs getting Killeen in. Notable mentions: Dalhart, Pampa, Kerrville, Paris and Sulfur Springs. These are along some cities that are right off the main route thru the state. Each of these could be easily marked but more than likely all scenic towns. All are worthy of a remote depot though imho. If Texas continues the trend of remote depots to unmarked towns, Texas will have a great chance of having depots all over the place. Texas might have quite a few scenic town considering its size. One shortage we have in ATS is having many places to deliver to just outside of marked cities. I love the idea of taking depots beyond town centers. I sure hope remote depots is the trend moving ahead. If this is the case, getting more marked cities per dlc is really a non factor. I'd rather have more delivery locations vs having more marked cities.

[Sora]

One advantage Killeen has over several of those cities is the fact that US 190 has a good chance of getting in regardless - it's the most likely east/west access road for College Station and San Angelo.

Paris and Pampa might not even make it into the game, depending on the routes they select. I could potentially see Dalhart getting screwed as well, although that route should be there. Sulphur Springs and Kerrville are a bit more likely, but they both share a fundamental problem: they aren't on or near any major junctions. This might make them less desirable in the eyes of SCS because they're only making one route more interesting instead of more than that.

[flight50]

US-190 only makes sense if we got College Station though. Its pretty much in the same boat as Killeen as well. It is set off from the main Interstates. College Station being a college town, its the same as with Killeen as we only really get retail depots there too. We''ll have plenty of retail already without either Killeen or College Station. If I had to choose something connecting I-45 to I-35, it would be US-290 instead. Smaller towns involved so its less map designing. I'd have to assume that the devs would try to minimize map design involved considering the size of this dlc. The larger the cities/towns, the longer the dev time. If no US-290, they are better off doing State Hwys to wiggle thru connecting the two Interstates. I'd avoid College Station as well though. To many assets must be created for it. TX-7, TX-105 to TX-36 to US-79 or US-190 then would work. Anything works to wiggle thru but I'd omit a college town and a military town as the industries are lacking and don't add anything new to the game. Even adding HEB isn't enough to justify those 2 towns. We can make up the retail depots elsewhere. The amount of assets needed for the mapped cities is perhaps already overwhelming. I'd love to take some smaller roads to wiggle thru anyways. Seems as though Iberia complaints is because of that. Not as many secondary roads as some fans would have liked to see. Texas hopefully has a nice selection of secondary roads.

Pampa is a scenic town for when Oklahoma comes. I don't expect US-60 to go far in Texas. We'll need US-60 to get from Amarillo to get us into Northern Oklahoma. I think US-60 has a good shot of being the parallel road to I-40. Paris is also better scenic. Buttt it does have 2-3 depots that would bring something new to the game unlike Killeen and College station. Paris has Campbells, the Eiffel Tower for a landmark, Kimberly Clark, Turner Industries Piping and J Skinner (bakery). US-82 is the perfect road to connect Wichita Falls to Texarkana. There is no quicker route to connect the two. I-30 takes us too far out the way. Neither of the cities I mentioned are marked type cities but they can easily be scenic with depots. Neither of them causes scale issues as each is 50+ miles away from a marked city. If there is 100+ miles from marked city to marked city, we'll need something to break up the scenery if possible.

[ external image ]


Kerrville and Sulphur Springs don't need major junctions. No mapped city have to have that. Evanston,Wy is a perfect example. CDA in Idaho is another. It just has on/off ramps. Most small cities in ATS are actually this way along major routes. Elko, Cedar City, etc. As long as there are simple exit ramps, that makes things even more simplified and possible. Major junctions take up a lot of space. That type of space is easier to omit than on/off ramps.

[shadynsx]

Would be funny to have a marked city named Paris in ATS tho

[Xaagon]

There's definitely room for Paris if they want to add it. Question is, how dense will they make Texas east of I-35? The answer to that will set my expectations for future DLC in the eastern states.

[flight50]

^I can agree with that and that is a million dollar question. I am very curious about what happens outside of the Texas Triangle. But East of I-35, Marked or scenic we have:

• Texarkana

• Sulphur Springs

• Tyler

• Longview

• Nacogdoches

• Lufkin

• Houston

• Beaumont

• Victoria

• Galveston

• Corpus Christi

• McAllen

• Brownsville

• Hunstville

• Port Arthur

• College Station/Bryan

• Corsicana

• Paris

• Marshall

• Greenville

• Mt. Pleasant

• Livingston

• Jasper

• Athens

• Palestine

Cyan, I am quite sure they are marked. Pink, possibly scenic. If its not colored, I have no idea. It could go scenic or non existent. I do think some density needs to come though. I think vegetation will really help out East Texas. They will have vegetation to hide things in the distance. Unlike the West, there won't be mountain side to populate miles off the road. Lands will be flatter and tree walls will be be a bit easier to pull off East of I-35 vs West of I-35. I'm sure there are some hills that will come here and there but a hill is no mountain. I thought Eastern Colorado would be denser than what we got but if that is anything to go by, I won't expect to much in East Texas either unfortunately. I'd love to be wrong. Texas is a different map lead. No matter what, we'll need some good roads to get around Texas. I still think 28-35 marked cities are possible. The list above is pretty much half the state. Double the list to include West of I-35 and that could be what Texas as a whole looks like marked and scenic. There should be no shortage of scenic towns. Very small Texas towns will have to give that old abandoned look. Well need something like:
View 1. This old vacant building, the old tractor out front, old gas pumps on the opposite side of the road.
View 2. Over grown vegetation on abandoned lot, old vacant business, abandon appliance outside......things need to look dirty and country in small towns. Everything is too perfect in ATS and its not that way in real life. Follow US-90 thru Valentine to see more.
View 3. Old elongated buildings, NEW old broken down vehicles. We need more variety. The current selection is getting old and repetitive. Add some old mobile homes in some areas. Many of them are abandoned as well. Most mobile homes are in mobile home parks.
View 4. I'd love to see some of this on some US and State Hwys. If you want realism...this is real. This is stuff you can see all along remote towns away from the big cities. The scenery doesn't always have to be jaw dropping beauty but accurate and detailed true to life is just as good as any big city ticket item.

The above is all along US-90 but there are more roads around the state that can do the same thing.