Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
SCS is really leaning on it being the “California” rework and not the “Basemap” or “Southwest” rework, so I don’t feel confident any of Nevada is getting love until California is done or they announce another rebuild. I, personally, don’t have a strong opinion either way but I know some here do.
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.
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.
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Regarding San Rafael in phase 2, I wonder if we’re “saying goodbye” to all of it, or if they are turning some of it into an unmarked scenic town.
I think they could turn the I-580 part of San Rafael into scenic, and maybe have some of it around the US-101 heading north to Ukiah. The part around US-101 heading south to SF I hope they just remove completely in favor of a scenic view of Richardson Bay perhaps.
I think they could turn the I-580 part of San Rafael into scenic, and maybe have some of it around the US-101 heading north to Ukiah. The part around US-101 heading south to SF I hope they just remove completely in favor of a scenic view of Richardson Bay perhaps.
- TheAmir259
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
- Location: Malaysia
- Contact:
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
My guess is that San Rafael will be directly incorporated into San Francisco, so basically the only thing that might change in this Phase 2 would be that San Rafael would lose its City Marker. And then San Rafael itself would get heavily reworked in Phase 3, which would align with Phase 3's objective (being Bay Areas rework). I would really hope that they would at least maintain or have a few depots still around in San Rafael after the rework, but i do see San Rafael being reduced in importance drastically compared to its current status.
The biggest problem i see is how they're gonna fit a scenic Santa Rosa north of it, while maintaining San Rafael's current size, in addition to the distance between the Richmond side and Sacramento, especially after getting Sacramento reworked. The only way out from what I can see is dragging San Rafael's current position slightly westwards, and possibly down too, which would also shift San Francisco down and westwards as well, to hopefully fit more roads such as the I-205 near Tracy, and maybe I-505 too.
Another suggestion I would like to make is that Oakland should also be directly integrated into San Francisco, especially given how close of a proximity they are. Having more marked cities aren't necessarily a good idea, and it also has never meant to say that you can't place down city signs of that place if it is incorporated into a bigger/more famous city nearby. Just like how they're still able to place subcities or districts within cities in ETS2 such as those capital cities (Istanbul, St. Petersburg, Madrid, Paris, Rome, etc.).
This might be controversial, but it is up to you guys to debate whether this is a good idea or not. I'm also aware of how the current method in ATS works just fine and no such tweak is needed, examples are Seattle (with Tacoma & Everett being separate), Salt Lake City (Ogden & Price), Boise (Nampa) and so on.
The biggest problem i see is how they're gonna fit a scenic Santa Rosa north of it, while maintaining San Rafael's current size, in addition to the distance between the Richmond side and Sacramento, especially after getting Sacramento reworked. The only way out from what I can see is dragging San Rafael's current position slightly westwards, and possibly down too, which would also shift San Francisco down and westwards as well, to hopefully fit more roads such as the I-205 near Tracy, and maybe I-505 too.
Another suggestion I would like to make is that Oakland should also be directly integrated into San Francisco, especially given how close of a proximity they are. Having more marked cities aren't necessarily a good idea, and it also has never meant to say that you can't place down city signs of that place if it is incorporated into a bigger/more famous city nearby. Just like how they're still able to place subcities or districts within cities in ETS2 such as those capital cities (Istanbul, St. Petersburg, Madrid, Paris, Rome, etc.).
This might be controversial, but it is up to you guys to debate whether this is a good idea or not. I'm also aware of how the current method in ATS works just fine and no such tweak is needed, examples are Seattle (with Tacoma & Everett being separate), Salt Lake City (Ogden & Price), Boise (Nampa) and so on.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Combining San Francisco, Oakland, and San Raphael into the “Greater Bay” area may not be a bad idea, as long as the ICC’s are expanded in the process.
Speaking of I-580, I hope they replace the bridge between San Raphael and Richmond. From what I gathered, that crossing is a cantilever-truss structure IRL, and the bridge in the game looks nothing like the real thing.
Speaking of I-580, I hope they replace the bridge between San Raphael and Richmond. From what I gathered, that crossing is a cantilever-truss structure IRL, and the bridge in the game looks nothing like the real thing.
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
I think they might move where San Rafael currently is further south. I was just checking in the map editor, and the stretch of road between Ukiah and San Rafael is really short. From blog pictures, we know that Petaluma is being mapped, so that leaves very little room for anything else. For that reason, I don't think Santa Rosa will make the cut.
I don't think ATS needs to have big cities in the same way that ETS2 has them. A metro area in the US generally consists of various cities and towns, but the bigger cities in ETS2 generally consist of a big city (for example Paris or Rome) and some various districts or industrial zones that are not towns themselves. They could make Oakland unmarked imo, and add its depots to San Francisco, or keep Oakland as a separately marked city with the port as its main attraction.
I don't think ATS needs to have big cities in the same way that ETS2 has them. A metro area in the US generally consists of various cities and towns, but the bigger cities in ETS2 generally consist of a big city (for example Paris or Rome) and some various districts or industrial zones that are not towns themselves. They could make Oakland unmarked imo, and add its depots to San Francisco, or keep Oakland as a separately marked city with the port as its main attraction.
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
The panhandle between Lamar and Amarillo.
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Highly doubt they move San Rafael further south. Based on the blog they seem have limitations in terms of space for bay area. So I think what will be left of San Rafael would be the stretch between US101-I580 and US101-CA37(if it is included considering it's marked in map editor) interchanges and probably two east and west bound weigh stations in St. Vincent and Terra Linda. Also highly doubt Santa Rosa will be included due to limited space. They also mentioned Napa valley in the blog but not sure how we can access that area with current routes.
On the topic of bay area I hope they update Richmond, specially the refinery part. Also there are some huge auto warehousing facilities, ports and intermodal terminals in Richmond which could be another new industry for the bay area. We already have such facilities in ETS2 Iberia, so it would be beneficial if it's included in ATS as well.
On the topic of bay area I hope they update Richmond, specially the refinery part. Also there are some huge auto warehousing facilities, ports and intermodal terminals in Richmond which could be another new industry for the bay area. We already have such facilities in ETS2 Iberia, so it would be beneficial if it's included in ATS as well.
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Combining Oakland and San Francisco is not something I want to see honestly. That can remove industry. Each city can only have one type of prefab of its kind. Now with more diversity, it won't really matter but let's say both have a Tidbit. Only one Tidbit can exist per city unless one is a warehouse and one a store. This doesn't work for 2 Sunshine Crop farms, 2 Bushnell farms, 2 Deepgrooves, 2 oils/gas depots....that is were we need diversity.
Along CA-99 and I-5, we need multiple crop farms. I'd love to see Yuba City, Chico, Stockton, Fresno or Bakersfield have 2-3 farms with each having a totally different crop. So fo me, combining Oakland and San Francisco does nothing. Oakland will still exist. Scenic or not, space is still being occupied. A marked city is only a marked title. Size doesn't matter. Scenic city still have a name as well. I don't think it will benefit ATS combining the two. It only makes depot options smaller per city. Not enough diversity in ATS to go around. In the Midwest and East, by time we get there, there should be a ton more new companies and industries. Should be a lot of middle man companies too. You can then combine a lot more/absorb more as things will be tight. Not necessary to consolidate in the West imo.
Along CA-99 and I-5, we need multiple crop farms. I'd love to see Yuba City, Chico, Stockton, Fresno or Bakersfield have 2-3 farms with each having a totally different crop. So fo me, combining Oakland and San Francisco does nothing. Oakland will still exist. Scenic or not, space is still being occupied. A marked city is only a marked title. Size doesn't matter. Scenic city still have a name as well. I don't think it will benefit ATS combining the two. It only makes depot options smaller per city. Not enough diversity in ATS to go around. In the Midwest and East, by time we get there, there should be a ton more new companies and industries. Should be a lot of middle man companies too. You can then combine a lot more/absorb more as things will be tight. Not necessary to consolidate in the West imo.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
Are you sure about this?
I know that there are currently cities with multiple prefabs from the same company, e.g. NAMIQ in Raton. Maybe they're different prefabs, not sure about that. But I wonder why you think this limitation exists.
vanilla player, loving ETS2, loving ATS even more! |
Map with all cities | Personal cabin accessories
[ external image ]
Map with all cities | Personal cabin accessories
[ external image ]
- supersobes
- Global moderator
- Posts: 13714
- Joined: 07 Dec 2016 21:53
- Location: Northern Virginia, USA
- Contact:
Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread
A city can have multiple of the same company, but so far as we've seen, none of the cities in ATS have repeats of any one prefab. Different companies have multiple prefabs. For example, the Wallberts across the street from each other in Kingman, AZ. One is a store, and the other is a distribution center. In the case of NAMIQ in Raton, they're three different prefabs. One is a mine, one is a processing plant, and the other is a yard.
[ external image ]
[ external image ]