Texas Discussion Thread

fra_ba
Posts: 292
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#91 Post by fra_ba » 22 Jun 2020 06:59

ASUSTechSupport wrote:
22 Jun 2020 03:51
Made it using Microsoft Paint
Looks good. You may work with GIMP or Paint.net which offer lots of cool stuffs and they are free. It also probably better to use a background image of the area you want to depict. For this you may use google maps with zoom level of around 11-12.

ASUSTechSupport
Posts: 9
Joined: 06 May 2020 02:21

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#92 Post by ASUSTechSupport » 22 Jun 2020 16:36

@flight50

Thank you for your feedback and encouragement. I do agree that business 20 can be omitted, as it is close to the service roads of I-20. It would be nice to have both TX-349 and US-385, but I think you are right on US-385 being more likely, especially since this route would meet up with Us-62 from Hobbs to Lubbock. The loop for midland can be omitted if there is no TX-349 or TX-191, however I think that the loop for Odessa is needed imo, due to US-385. I believe that a way to bypass a downtown should always be provided as an option, especially when you are not delivering to that city. SCS has done this with many cities in NM(Roswell, Alamogordo, Farmington), so I could see it carrying over.

@fra_ba

Thank you, I will definitely give those tools a try.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 14062
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#93 Post by flight50 » 22 Jun 2020 19:26

I agree with the loop bypass to avoid downtown. Options are good. Making cities too linear is for scenic towns, not deliverable towns. Whether SCS separates both Midland and Odessa doesn't really matter in regards to road layout.

Larry71490
Posts: 1640
Joined: 08 Mar 2019 23:27
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#94 Post by Larry71490 » 22 Jun 2020 22:53

I would consider it all one city though. A lot of people consider it as Midland-Odessa like a lot of people combine DFW.

You know what I wonder if it would be best to make DFW one big city?

averyc2506
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 Apr 2020 00:23
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#95 Post by averyc2506 » 22 Jun 2020 22:54

@Larry71490 i think that was the plan they mentioned. it would be too packed on the map to display both

fra_ba
Posts: 292
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#96 Post by fra_ba » 22 Jun 2020 23:33

For DFW I prefer two separate cities. But ok with Midland Odessa as a one city.
On the topic of loops, do we actually need complete loops?

KnuteOle
Posts: 228
Joined: 11 Jan 2020 01:11

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#97 Post by KnuteOle » 23 Jun 2020 00:11

In your opinion, what is the largest city in Texas (not including suburbs--i.e., not part of a larger metro) that would likely just be a scenic and not have a delivery point?

Waco? Abilene? College Station?

averyc2506
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 Apr 2020 00:23
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#98 Post by averyc2506 » 23 Jun 2020 00:15

@KnuteOle i think that those 3 cities u listed will have delivery points. the largest cities that i think would not be marked are temple (killeen marked) , bryan (college station marked), and longview (tyler marked)

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 14062
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#99 Post by flight50 » 23 Jun 2020 01:01

Midland/Odessa labeled with a forward slash is fine by me. Combining those two works. DFW could go either way for me but I think separate is best for a few reasons.
-Midcities separates them and tons is going on there alone. Arlington, Irving, Grand Prairie, Euless, Bedford, Hurst, North Richland Hills, Cockrell Hill, Las Colinas
-Both have downtown skylines and both should show up as their own. Neither are similar
-Both have different traffic so both should be able to have different settings

As far a loops, no they are not exactly necessary but the maps I showed has options. Only the first one has full loops. But Option 2 is what I'd go with. Forming the outer loops sets the boundaries. Along with the interstates that run thru the loops, a ton of surface streets can come off the loops and on the thru interstate roads.Without the inner loops, companies can use surface streets off the partial loops. If SCS instead did surface streets in lieu of the inner loops, there is lots that can be done. This latest markup up below provides a a few main roads in both Dallas and Ft.Worth that can make up for the missing inner loops.

DFW will need to be about surface streets and density inside and outside the loops. In using Option 2, I think that is the best choice to represent the area. I think option 2 will free up a tad more space yet have density. Its the happy medium between all three. Option 3 yes misses too much detail imo. Note I-30 (the one magenta road that links both cities) right where the 2 blue interchanges are on I-30. Considering these interchanges would have to be there anyway for immersion and accuracy, go ahead and make these accessible. Just don't connect them North and South to the yellow interchanges along the green loop. SCS can create surface roads both North and South of the blue dots with companies/industries.

Surface road example. TX-303 that runs from East Loop 820 all the way to TX-408 could be a linking road with companies off it. It parallels both I-30 and I-20. North of I-30 there isn't a straight thru road like that but I'd use Trinity Mills and Shady Grove. They connect up to the North side of the area. See example below. The red is made to be a loop inside the loop. These are actually some of the major surface roads in DFW. They are inset inside the green loop fairly nicely and sets up lots of room for urban development. Now this is not even considering what it actually on the out skirts of the green loop. There is more land there that is a gold mine for companies. If Dallas could get 8-9 companies, Ft. worth get 7-8 companies and the mid cities gets 4-5, that is an impressive number of companies. We are talking about 19-22 companies in the entire DFW area. If that sounds like too many remember, we are talking about the largest inland metro area in the entire US. Not only that, but we are talking about 14 of the largest cities (highlighted in read below) in the entire US. Its super urban here with a massive amount of trucking possibilities in ATS. On the low side, 19 is definitely feasible imo. Remove the red roads and it still works but where is the urban road density? Where are the surface streets going to come from at that point. Will everything just come off ramps off the main Interstates at that point? I probably won't go too much beyond the map below though. It gets way more complicated and you'd need a 1:1 map then.

Image

Image


Now I am focusing on DFW here for a few reason. One, I live here so I am more familiar with it. Second, it is the most difficult place in the US that is inland to pull off. Yes there are 3 other larger metro areas in the US but they are on bodies of water so they are not inland. The will have the water to push things out further to gain space. Third, multiple people are confirming that they think Houston will be much much easier. I'd still like to do a map eventually though using Sora's info.

averyc2506
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 Apr 2020 00:23
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Re: Texas Discussion Thread

#100 Post by averyc2506 » 23 Jun 2020 01:48

i was just thinking about the panhandle, and i wonder if there will be another city in it with amarillo. im thinking pampa would be most likely to make the cut


also happy 100th post in this thread 8-)

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FierbetoN, flight50, jeff_peters, Mic_2, Quark and 23 guests