Tiny sheds on wide lands? Come on, Squad.

[Andersenman]

I realise that designing and coding levels of improvement for the various buildings is one thing and designing and coding SimCity-like game mechanics for arranging them is another, but at the beginnings of my space programme I wouldn't bulldoze and lay down asphalt and other infrastructure suitable for an area the size of Cape Canaveral TODAY for the humble sheds I'm starting with just to satisfy the weird notion that I can keep the geometric centre of my future buildings always in the same locations. That just looks silly.

If I had a little garden or farm in the middle of nowhere, I wouldn't put my outhouse a 20-minute tight-thighed Riverdance away just so that I could build it into a fully-fledged sewage treatment centre in the off chance my little patch of potatos and cabbage turns into a huge acricultural site complete with 5k-occupancy town to work, live and develop from it.

Would you?

[xub313]

It makes it look much cooler when you upgrade the buildings in my opinion. Also, this seems like an extremely small detail to worry about. The buildings are easily within a kerbal's waking distance.

[spinomonkey]

I see what you're saying and tend to agree. I don't know much about the coding end of this and I imagine a lot of the problem has to do with upgrading one building to tier 2 or 3 while another building remains at tier 1. Thus one building takes up lots of room while another doesn't. Unfortunately, I don't imagine this will change much. I would agree that they should limit the concrete roads so much in the early tiers. Maybe replace some of the empty landscape with trees or whatnot to fill in the space.

[undercoveryankee]

I'd imagine that the kerbals in the early days also want to be careful that an explosion at one facility won't damage the other facilities. With that in mind as a factor, starting each facility roughly centered in the area you're planning to expand into makes some sense.

[razark]

I'd imagine that the kerbals in the early days also want to be careful that an explosion at one facility won't damage the other facilities.

This explains why it would be spread out. You don't test rocket engines next to an office complex, or build a childcare center across the street from the explosives testing area.

[Xavven]

I see what you're saying and tend to agree. I don't know much about the coding end of this and I imagine a lot of the problem has to do with upgrading one building to tier 2 or 3 while another building remains at tier 1. Thus one building takes up lots of room while another doesn't. Unfortunately, I don't imagine this will change much. I would agree that they should limit the concrete roads so much in the early tiers. Maybe replace some of the empty landscape with trees or whatnot to fill in the space.

Reminds me of my neighborhood, which has very wide roads compared to the traffic they support... now. My city planners had the foresight to leave room for expansion.

[nine_iron]

No issue here, as a long time city sim gamer I tend to lay out and leave gaps for future buildings/roads etc.

[Parkaboy]

I just wish they added some decoration so the terraind didn't looked so empty around the buildings. Like a few bushes and ornamental plants. Check this out:

[workerbee]

I just wish they added some decoration so the terraind didn't looked so empty around the buildings. Like a few bushes and ornamental plants. Check this out:

http://sites.ieee.org/ias-cmd/files/2014/02/visitor_map_main.jpg

I feel like this appears gimmicky -- like a map at Disney Land. Not a fan. I like the way it is now...besides, seems like a detail such as this is the least of our concerns as passive participants in the development process.

[numerobis]

You could place the buildings yourself, a la sim city. I'm assuming they did it as it is because it would have been more work to let players place the buildings (and performance might have suffered, but maybe not).

[cantab]

You have to bear in mind the Space Centre isn't just for looks and driving around, it's also a game interface, the "Main Menu" once you're loaded your save. Keeping the stuff in the same place through the tiers means the user interface stays relatively stable.

[Vanamonde]

As this seems to be feedback on recent game features, moved to Development Discussion.

[Carmoldu]

I don't like the nonsense pathways that comes with this isue too

[Andersenman]

Thank you for moving, Vanamonde, I forgot about that section.

You have to bear in mind the Space Centre isn't just for looks and driving around, it's also a game interface, the "Main Menu" once you're loaded your save. Keeping the stuff in the same place through the tiers means the user interface stays relatively stable.

Yes, it is a purely cosmetic bother with me. I suppose Squad needed to make a cut for .90 and decided upgrading the buildings (and a few ground textures) is enough feature for now instead of also including different-sized ground patches with roadways that either match every possible configuration, or can be upgraded separately, or whatnot, an adaptive initial camera that always keeps the whole KSP in a reasonable frame regardless of upgrade status, complete with all the coding and testing that would have entailed.

Still. It looks silly.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Andersenman

[MKI]

I realise that designing and coding levels of improvement for the various buildings is one thing and designing and coding SimCity-like game mechanics for arranging them is another, but at the beginnings of my space programme I wouldn't bulldoze and lay down asphalt and other infrastructure suitable for an area the size of Cape Canaveral TODAY for the humble sheds I'm starting with just to satisfy the weird notion that I can keep the geometric centre of my future buildings always in the same locations. That just looks silly.

If I had a little garden or farm in the middle of nowhere, I wouldn't put my outhouse a 20-minute tight-thighed Riverdance away just so that I could build it into a fully-fledged sewage treatment centre in the off chance my little patch of potatos and cabbage turns into a huge acricultural site complete with 5k-occupancy town to work, live and develop from it.

Would you?

It might not make sense to you realistically. But gameplay wise the KSC is basically an interactive menu.

So what if the building you want to use keeps moving, or changing positions. Even if its minor? It might get somewhat confusing for no reason other than "Theres to much space otherwise."

With the current setup you know EXACTLY where what is all the time, their placement limits are always the same. Even when you upgrade it you can still click on the same patch of ground to get where you want to go.

You could also argue that the space area is a specification of spaceflight. That buildings earlier need to be further away so not to much is destroyed from an early accident.

It might not make sense to you, but these are kerbals. They invented electricity after they learned spaceflight. Hell they might of envisioned their ultimate space center at stage 1 and set out to designate each plot of land for the future. It might look weird because we just don't really get it.

In the end it is an interface, arguing it doesn't make sense is because we aren't Kerbals. But it does make sense for a main menu. Things don't change dramatically so people don't get confused. Not only coding more complicated features is demanding but totally unnecessary.

Edited December 20, 2014 by MKI

[Andersenman]

same things that cantab said

Again, agreed, a gameplay menu. Agreed, cosmetic.

Again, illogical and silly, with "protection from early accident" a far-fetched excuse that, for me, just breaks suspension of disbelief.