Kansas Discussion Thread

angrybirdseller
Posts: 3303
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#361 Post by angrybirdseller » 30 Jan 2023 00:37

Kansas have three east to west routes and three north to south routes then minor state and county roads.

Think Kansas City will layout like Portland did with Oregon DLC so you get I-35, I-29, I-70 and then I-49 needs connection as well.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#362 Post by flight50 » 30 Jan 2023 03:41

I sure hope the Missouri River isn't too wide like Porland's Columbia River though. That ate up a lot of space. If we get both sides of KC, they will need the space.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3303
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#363 Post by angrybirdseller » 30 Jan 2023 05:34

I do not think be problem much with Kansas City the depots can be setup in the outlying areas. Portland think done very well with the space they had to work with. St. Joseph is 50 miles away, so space won't be problem. With Kansas they could use Overland Park as end point and only of part Kansas City come with Kansas. Will see what happens, the otherwise the oblivious ones already mentioned are like I-335 and I-135 will come with Kansas, but US-160 is question mark. With 10-12 marked cities will work fine, but without mountains to worry about can spread it out more.

Have US-160 and US-400 had options in the southern part of Kansas with West to East routes. The northern part of Kansas US-36 another East to West route. Then US-54 is nice route to have as it connect to panhandle of Oklahoma and Texas links up with direct route to Wichita. North to South routes US-83 and US-81 are obvious ones with US-75 and US-77 are possibilities. Don't want roads on top of each other, but do not want big holes in the map.
Gormanbros
Posts: 323
Joined: 02 Jun 2020 02:24

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#364 Post by Gormanbros » 30 Jan 2023 09:25

Re: Lawrence, I think it will probably be just scenic, if that. I see it as part of the same category as Boulder CO and Temple TX. Decent sized college focused cities, but stuck in between two larger and more industry-focused cities that will 100% make the game. For Lawrence, it's between Topeka and Kansas City. For Boulder, it was between Denver and Fort Collins. And for Temple, it was between Austin and Waco.

Generally, the kinds of places that would be added if there was room, but because they're in cramped areas between two bigger cities they don't make it as a marked city.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#365 Post by flight50 » 30 Jan 2023 13:18

Actually Boulder is not between Denver and Fort Collins. Boulder is not off I-25. Now Temple and Laurel, those are examples as they are both off the interstate that the 2 marked cities are and is close proximity. Lawrence is in the same situation as those 2, but not Boulder.

It's all about industry though. Apparently there was no industry that interested SCS to put something in Temple. But we did get Belton. We can't get both. Prior to Montana releasing, CDA to Spokane, Boise to Nampa and Portland to Vancouver were some of the shortest routes between 2 marked cities. Laurel joined that group and it was marked for its industry.

Temple is 35 miles from Waco and 68 miles from Austin. Yet Temple wasn't mark because it really didn't need to be in SCS eyes. Texas really didn't need it marked with 29 marked cities on the roster. Temple isn't as big of a name for Texas as Lawrence is for Kansas. When you think Texas, most don't think Temple unless your from the area. Kansas on the other hand, it doesn't have the big list of city names like Texas. Topeka is no Waco and Kansas City is no Austin when you look population density. But they all have legit industry.
Thijmen98
Posts: 16
Joined: 26 Jun 2020 07:45
Location: Duiven, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#366 Post by Thijmen98 » 30 Jan 2023 13:58

interstate trav wrote: 29 Jan 2023 20:43 This is exciting.

I don’t get why people think these states will be bundled. I think as we move further there are also more routes, the west has Mountains and when you get past the Mountains it’s more highways.

Kansas will most likely have quite a few different routes.
Not long ago it feels like we only had a few states and it limited where to drive and all and now where getting to the Center of the Country. Kansas.
I fully agree with you. I don't understand either why people expected bundles of states already. Kansas is basically the size of Idaho (213k vs 216k km²) with Nebraska and South Dakota not much smaller (200k and 199k km²). Idaho was a standalone, also Washington was a standalone (only 184k km²), so I expect the whole column above Texas to be single state DLCs as well.
Also I don't really understand people wanting Kansas and Nebraska bundled (413k km² together), while nobody mentioned Oklahoma should be bundled with another state, as it is going to be the smallest state (only 181k km²) to be released so far.
Sporcle city quizzes:
American Truck Simulator
Euro Truck Simulator 2


World of Trucks:
World of Trucks
Shiva
Posts: 4973
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#367 Post by Shiva » 30 Jan 2023 14:24

"Raises hand"
Oklahoma, I had an idea, that it could have come with Texas.
If SCS could have had a 2nd Base Map option.

Kansas City KS and Kansas City MO, I wonder how many, or few, road connections will be between both.

flight50, Portland's Columbia River, it is way way wider than what Missouri River is at Kansas City. More than a mile,vs 1/6th of a mile.
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: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#368 Post by flight50 » 30 Jan 2023 16:06

Thijmen98 wrote: 30 Jan 2023 13:58
interstate trav wrote: 29 Jan 2023 20:43 This is exciting.

I don’t get why people think these states will be bundled. I think as we move further there are also more routes, the west has Mountains and when you get past the Mountains it’s more highways.

Kansas will most likely have quite a few different routes.
Not long ago it feels like we only had a few states and it limited where to drive and all and now where getting to the Center of the Country. Kansas.
I fully agree with you. I don't understand either why people expected bundles of states already. Kansas is basically the size of Idaho (213k vs 216k km²) with Nebraska and South Dakota not much smaller (200k and 199k km²). Idaho was a standalone, also Washington was a standalone (only 184k km²), so I expect the whole column above Texas to be single state DLCs as well.
Also I don't really understand people wanting Kansas and Nebraska bundled (413k km² together), while nobody mentioned Oklahoma should be bundled with another state, as it is going to be the smallest state (only 181k km²) to be released so far.
Easy answer for both you. Team size. The Texas dlc too 2 teams. Both those team split up once Texas is over. So where do they go? Just like ETS2 uses 20-25 people to make maps, the Texas dlc took the same for one huge dlc. So naturally, people would want larger ATS maps just like ETS2. Its really no different. Outside of Texas any of the remaining US states even if just 2 are still smaller than ETS2 map dlc's.

One thing both of you have remember is that sq miles/sq km means nothing. SCS does not map the entire state. They only map what they need so that 413k sq miles............we don't get that. Not the mention the type of terrain. The terrain is much much simplier than the West.
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#369 Post by Trakaplex » 30 Jan 2023 16:10

Thijmen98 wrote: 30 Jan 2023 13:58
interstate trav wrote: 29 Jan 2023 20:43 This is exciting.

I don’t get why people think these states will be bundled. I think as we move further there are also more routes, the west has Mountains and when you get past the Mountains it’s more highways.

Kansas will most likely have quite a few different routes.
Not long ago it feels like we only had a few states and it limited where to drive and all and now where getting to the Center of the Country. Kansas.
I fully agree with you. I don't understand either why people expected bundles of states already. Kansas is basically the size of Idaho (213k vs 216k km²) with Nebraska and South Dakota not much smaller (200k and 199k km²). Idaho was a standalone, also Washington was a standalone (only 184k km²), so I expect the whole column above Texas to be single state DLCs as well.
Also I don't really understand people wanting Kansas and Nebraska bundled (413k km² together), while nobody mentioned Oklahoma should be bundled with another state, as it is going to be the smallest state (only 181k km²) to be released so far.
Well yeah, that makes sense, but the Dakotas has to be bundled because based on its name and culture. Maybe it's just me, I thought Washington was pretty small but Oklahoma is slightly smaller with Kansas the same size. But let me tell you - if SCS doesn't start bundling states soon, the whole US would get pretty dang expensive in one bulk. We thought KS and NE should have been bundled because it's part of the Great Plains, heck makes a majority of it. Oklahoma on the other hand is more like Texas in road density and cities. People on Reddit were already convinced Kansas will be a boring expansion and that it doesn't need to be $11.99 and it should not be as worth as Colorado, that too. Kansas really has no hype centered to it - it's dead inside. This is why I thought bundling KS and NE would have been the better deal.

I do feel like there has a team working on NE by this point. I keep reiterating the 1.45 gas branding files.
Gormanbros wrote: 30 Jan 2023 09:25 Re: Lawrence, I think it will probably be just scenic, if that. I see it as part of the same category as Boulder CO and Temple TX. Decent sized college focused cities, but stuck in between two larger and more industry-focused cities that will 100% make the game. For Lawrence, it's between Topeka and Kansas City. For Boulder, it was between Denver and Fort Collins. And for Temple, it was between Austin and Waco.

Generally, the kinds of places that would be added if there was room, but because they're in cramped areas between two bigger cities they don't make it as a marked city.
There obviously wasn't enough space for Temple as I've said. They chose pushing Waco more south and adding West.
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
Optional Features
Posts: 4784
Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14

Re: Kansas Discussion Thread

#370 Post by Optional Features » 30 Jan 2023 17:40

Wasn't California and Nevada a single release when the game started?

Bundling should have been happening all along. Washington with Oregon, Idaho with Montana, Wyoming with Colorado, Oklahoma with Texas, etc.

Releasing states one at a time creates weird situations like Texarkana, which was started last year and will be complete in like 2025. Or northern Idaho, which had a sliver of I-90 for several years.

Geography and road systems are not necessarily split on state lines. Splitting them by state means things will never look proper until the whole map is released in like 2040.

They bundle European countries, so it makes sense that states should be bundled as well.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests