Texas Discussion Thread

User avatar
clifflandmark
Posts: 171
Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
Location: Urfa
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#351 Post by clifflandmark » 18 Nov 2020 11:32

People would like to see some details like Darwing Factory in Everett. Texas got one of 'em :

"Lockheed Martin" Factory in Fort Worth, Tx. I hope we will deliver F35 parts.

I want people to keep their expectations high!
Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) - Kocaeli University
Microsoft Flight Simulators' Fan
Starcraft - Diablo II Fan since 2003
Live in Urfa

Shiva
Posts: 2241
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#352 Post by Shiva » 18 Nov 2020 14:46

Texas, Colorado and the Oklahoma Panhandle?
It comprises of 8 map sectors.
Boise City located in the southern bit of the sector where Springfield CO occupies the northern part.
Dalhart TX, would be in the southern end of the sector below Boise City. Well, Boise City would occupy both these sectors, tbh.
Guymon OK, 1 sector east of these, occupying both sectors east of Boise.
In the long run, I think it is possible that these 8 sectors might be found in the base.scs file. Similar to sectors affecting both Washington/Oregon, etc.
Due to them being map sectors that affect 3 different DLC's. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
If Clayton NM gets added to New Mexico DLC, then it would affect Mexico DLC too, due to Clayton being next to/in the sector affecting southern bit of Boise City.

Wait, what was the question again?
Ah Yeah, US-287/385 going from Texas to Colorado, via Boise City in Oklahoma.

Maybe Guymon deliverable, while Boise City scenery?
And Boise City's roads having DLC guards?
We'll have to see in some years, how SCS does this area.
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.

IamTheOne
Posts: 78
Joined: 23 Aug 2018 19:17

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#353 Post by IamTheOne » 29 Nov 2020 03:35

Yea, I'm not too keen on this state's imminent release. Yes, it will have loads of content, but it just doesn't connect well with other states currently in the game- it needs Kansas and Oklahoma in the north in order for it to all flow nicely together. Players will end up all having to go through New Mexico in order to get in and out of Texas, and even then there wouldn't be that many connecting roads.

Especially without Montana, it's going to be brutal taking a delivery to Texas from Washington. Once more states come in north of Texas, it's gonna play very nicely together, and would help bring players more towards the neighbouring states that they might have avoided otherwise (Oklahoma and particularly Kansas).

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 17946
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#354 Post by flight50 » 29 Nov 2020 07:43

Imo, we can't have Kansas without Oklahoma. We can't have Oklahoma without Texas. The good thing about if Montana comes before Texas is that once Texas is released, a North team can stay consistently building North on top of Texas. This also means that we can continuously build East as well. So fill in the West completely and build North from Texas to make more connections with the existing West. Oklahoma in place means that we can get from Lamar to Texas without New Mexico. Kansas in place means that now I-35 and a number of US highways now get us North and South into and from Texas. Kansas also opens up more Great Plains East of Colorado. I-70 imo, is that first major C2C Interstate that ties in a few of the busiest parts of the MidWest to the South. Once Kansas City and St. Louis are in, the road arteries seriously stretch out.

Kansas City to anywhere South of that on I-35 will be huge. Add in going back West to Denver, OKC, Albuquerque, SLC, Tucson, Phoenix, LA....etc. The existing map opens up very well with Kansas, so yeah I agree with IamTheOne. Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota all pretty much just have a major Interstate that runs East to West. But Kansas has that East to West and North to South major Interstate travel. Also with Kansas in place, I think the map would be justified to push to Florida in more of a stair step/boxed fashion. There would be enough states that can stack that wouldn't make it much of a corridor at all. So if I-70 could pretty much stay boxed up, we have a lot more accessible roads. I'd build Northeast/East on a 2:1 ratio vs building North. Basically, for every 2 states East of Texas, we can get one added to the North. The Southeast and the MidWest has smaller states so if SCS stayed with solo releases, they'd fill in faster than the larger Northern states.

interstate trav
Posts: 844
Joined: 23 May 2018 15:44
Location: California

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#355 Post by interstate trav » 29 Nov 2020 23:49

That’s what I hoping they do because one state to the north then one towards Florida as Pavel wants so we all get something good, we eventually get the east Coast started then we can keep filling in the rest of the map.

Shiva
Posts: 2241
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#356 Post by Shiva » 30 Nov 2020 02:11

I'm sort of more for, 2 maps north, 1 map east. If 3 mapping teams.
But this if Texas releases before Montana.
5+4 north, 5 east. Example if all of those states single state DLC's.

@IamTheOne Texas needing Oklahoma and Kansas, for the flow? I disagree.
Colville, WA - Port Arthur TX.
Fastest via Montana. 2271miles. 34hours, with car.
Slower, avoiding Montana 2414miles. 36hours, with car.
Both routes need Wyoming tho.
Avoiding Wyoming and Montana. 2389miles. 36hours with car. Bonus, all roads ingame. Except for the non released Texas.
Nope, I would not call this brutal, taking a delivery from Texas to Washington, without Montana.
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.

angrybirdseller
Posts: 2384
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#357 Post by angrybirdseller » 30 Nov 2020 02:33

Dallas and Ft Worth highway system is far more complex than Los Angeles to me to understand and navigate over ramp flying every which direction. Then Houston little more straight forward then you have Austin, San Antonio just look at how to scale this lets give scs team time to get Texas right. Texas looks more complex than California actually with there frontage and road system as California uses more conventional approach to roads.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 17946
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#358 Post by flight50 » 30 Nov 2020 03:25

@Shiva I'd be fine with 2 North/1 East. 2 North does 2 things that is a bigger plus. Keeps the map more boxed and it gives us more Great Plains quicker. It really depends on how bad Pavel wants to really get to Florida.

@angrybirdseller DFW isn't too bad, lol. I live here though so its a little easier for me. But although I live here, there are freeways I don't touch simply because I don't have a need to. But in no traffic, it can take 1+ hr to travel from Eastern Dallas to Western Ft. Worth. Add rush hr traffic and its perhaps doubled. I normally avoid tolls tough unless traffic is really backed up or need a short cut because I'm tired of driving. I don't expect any toll roads in DFW though. I'd rather SCS use all the available space to give us a denser DFW or just add more depots. I am anxious to see how well SCS can make DFW specifically though. I honestly think how they set it up, is how every large city in the US will be handled. I can vision it in my head but putting it in ATS in 1:20 may not translate well. The biggest issue in DFW is not necessary the Interstates imo, its the interchanges involved to make it all link up. I know I'll have to be fair in judging DFW based on 1:20 scale. But at the same time, I'll be critical if something doesn't make since. From page 1, Option 3 should at least be feasible. I think if we only get I-20, I-30, I-35W, I-35E and I-45.....that won't represent the cities well at all. To capture DFW, to some degree, the two main ring roads need to be present. US-75 is a must but to get it, I-635 really needs to be in place.

When Pavel says Texas is scary, there are several things that equal scary to me:
-overall size
-abundance of interchanges
-current modeling methods of cities. Texas has 6 of the largest. There is another dozen or more of 50k in population cities and tons of scenic towns
-density of roads
-assets needed
-4 distinct regions
-economy needed to drive Texas. This means new companies and new industries. Also include expanded industries
-must live up to the hype

Quark
Posts: 731
Joined: 08 Feb 2019 07:48
Location: Germania

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#359 Post by Quark » 30 Nov 2020 15:42

Shiva wrote:
30 Nov 2020 02:11
@IamTheOne Texas needing Oklahoma and Kansas, for the flow? I disagree.
Colville, WA - Port Arthur TX.
Fastest via Montana. 2271miles. 34hours, with car.
Slower, avoiding Montana 2414miles. 36hours, with car.
Both routes need Wyoming tho.
Avoiding Wyoming and Montana. 2389miles. 36hours with car. Bonus, all roads ingame. Except for the non released Texas.
Nope, I would not call this brutal, taking a delivery from Texas to Washington, without Montana.
Exactly Shiva, facts instead of just assumptions. When travelling from Washington to Texas it makes almost no difference whether Montana is there or not.
And what you show is in principle even the worst case. When are you ever in Colville? Rather rarely. The same is true for CDA and Sandpoint in northern Idaho.
If we take a much more important route as an example, namely Seattle - Ft.Worth/Dallas, than it turns out you are even a tad faster WITHOUT using Montana.
Seattle - Ft.Worth/Dallas via I-90 through Montana: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5826 ... !3e0?hl=en
Seattle - Ft.Worth/Dallas via I-80 through Wyoming: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.560 ... 4,5z?hl=en
A variant without both, Montana and Wyoming, not much longer as well, via I-70 through Colorado: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5604 ... !3e0?hl=en
Conclusion: The assumption that a delivery from Texas to Washington or vice versa is going to be "brutal" without Montana in place is simply not
compatible with reality.

Shiva
Posts: 2241
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#360 Post by Shiva » 30 Nov 2020 16:06

Quark, I could have even gone worse case.
Texarkana to Colville, that would made a bit of a difference, with Montana. But not even close to brutal.
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.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arh12, Bing [Bot], brainkiller112, Cemail Cebeci, Lynodie, MT269 and 8 guests