Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1311 Post by flight50 » 12 Jun 2021 22:14

Nope, not much you can do with I-35 or Texas in general. Most of the Great Plains will be straight roads for the most part. For me, I wouldn't call Temple or Killeen painful though. But by far, I-35 will be the busiest stretch of interstate in Texas per square mile. Texas is big but at 1:20 scale it still has its limitations. So people shouldn't expect more things to fit just because of its size.
Shiva
Posts: 4961
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1312 Post by Shiva » 13 Jun 2021 11:49

1 good thing to Killeen is that it only takes 1 exit from I-35. But that exit is not a small one.
If Temple in and US-190 too, then this could have been an option for roads with depots for that area https://www.google.com/maps/dir/31.0757 ... m1!1b1!3e0
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
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1313 Post by flight50 » 13 Jun 2021 15:03

If Killeen is in, I see its best benefit is getting West off the I-35 corridor via a backroad. The junction to get to Killeen isn't too bad actually. Its smaller than the one you see in the big cities when transitioning to another major interchange. For example I-10 @ I-37. Temple could possible support 1 depot and the rest be in Killeen. We'd get I-14 as a very short interstate. It would be like I-11 in Nevada coming into Vegas. Killen has retail depots that it can support. Nothing ground breaking. US-190/I-14 connecting West would help with road density and detours though. At the same time, I wouldn't be too upset if Killeen doesn't make it. Either way, Killeen is cool with me.
Tristman
Posts: 1536
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1314 Post by Tristman » 13 Jun 2021 15:15

Just like how they do microregions with marked cities (Kennewick/Pasco, WA or Provo/Orem/Spanish Fork, UT), they could do this with scenery cities no?
They could combine Temple, Benton, Killeen and perhaps Copperas Cove into one bigger scenic area. They could also just make it a marked microregion if there is sufficient space.
That said, we are already pretty sure that Lampasas is in the game as a scenery town, so that leaves less space for the towns named above.
Kirmes-Truck
Posts: 96
Joined: 08 May 2020 07:53

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1315 Post by Kirmes-Truck » 15 Jun 2021 06:54

@ SCS

I want to suggest to implement

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

in Fortworth.

They have a huge facility with an own airport.

Aircrafts like C-130J Super Hercules, F-16, F-35 are manufactured there.
User avatar
Bedavd
Posts: 1651
Joined: 31 May 2018 15:09
Location: Michigan -> Washington

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1316 Post by Bedavd » 15 Jun 2021 07:29

SCS have stated before that they wont including military locations as anything more than scenery in the game for whatever reason, so I don't think Lockheed will show up. We might get the buildings if they're close enough to the highway, or it might even become Darwing and be retconned into making purely commercial planes like we have in Washington. But its very very unlikely we're going to be delivering military things there either way.
Check out my Michigan research map!
Check out my ATS IRL map! -> Leave any feedback in my thread!
Kansas added! Up-to-date blog photo locations for upcoming states also included.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1317 Post by flight50 » 15 Jun 2021 11:42

@Kirmes-Truck If you look on page one, I already have that marked as a potential spot so its already been suggested almost a year ago. Despite me already knowing ATS won't get any military. However, Lockheed does have a couple of helicopters that could be in that are not military based which is why I marked it. No war planes would ever make the game but the helicopters could. The better option would actually be Bell Helicopter also in Ft. Worth. I don't think either would come though.
Kirmes-Truck
Posts: 96
Joined: 08 May 2020 07:53

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1318 Post by Kirmes-Truck » 15 Jun 2021 14:17

The C130 also exist as civil versions.
LOCKHEED MARTIN also is in the Gaming industry if we count the flightsim software Prepare3D.

I think that after SCS represented Boeing in Seattle, it is ok to represent also Lockheed Martin.

Also you know that Boeing and Airbus are one of the biggest military suppliers in the world.

Foe example Boeing develops drones, missiles, military vehicles, like Boeing 737-P8 Poseidon, 767-KC-46 Pegasus and much more.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1319 Post by flight50 » 15 Jun 2021 16:48

In ATS military is not represented though is what we are saying. Doesn't matter if Boeing does military. What we have if their passenger plane part. That's the difference. Lockheed may be in other games but ATS is ATS, not other games.
User avatar
J.Random
Posts: 818
Joined: 22 Jul 2018 10:25

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#1320 Post by J.Random » 15 Jun 2021 20:18

Does it mean that there is no chance of us getting airplane boneyards with CA/AZ rework? Pretty sure they're all next to military bases and there is no dedicated civilian-only yards.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], rbsanford and 11 guests