Can anyone explain this to me?

[Stoney3K]

Here's two setups of Mk2 space plane parts, each taking up the same amount of space:

Which one do you think contains the most fuel? (All tanks are full. The cargo bay holds a total of 10 Oscar-B fuel tanks)

Is this a conscious gameplay decision by SQUAD, or was it just overlooked?

[FullMetalMachinist]

I don't have any "official" information, but I believe it was a decision by Squad to balance out a few things. 

1) The Mk2 parts have a higher crash tolerance 

2) Mk2 parts have a higher heat tolerance 

3) Mk2 parts provide tons of body lift

I think that if you got all that, plus more fuel storage then it would be pretty unbalanced from a gameplay perspective. 

[Stoney3K]

27 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

I don't have any "official" information, but I believe it was a decision by Squad to balance out a few things. 

1) The Mk2 parts have a higher crash tolerance 

2) Mk2 parts have a higher heat tolerance 

3) Mk2 parts provide tons of body lift

I think that if you got all that, plus more fuel storage then it would be pretty unbalanced from a gameplay perspective. 

The point is, you can cram double the amount of fuel tanks inside an Mk2 cargo bay and still have room to spare for some small auxilliary systems. Or have the same amount of fuel inside your cargo bay, and still have room for your payload in between. The cross section (area) of an Mk2 fuselage is just about twice that of a single 1,25m circular stack, so you would expect the fuel capacity to be double that, because its volume is also twice as large.

In the situation as depicted above, the Mk2 rocket fuselage has the same fuel capacity as a single FL-T400 fuel tank. I suppose the rest is wasted, empty space? I can understand it having 1,5x or 1,75x the fuel capacity of its 1,25m counterpart (due to added structural bits and bobs), but this feels a bit too easy to exploit.

[FullMetalMachinist]

@Stoney3K I don't know what to tell you. I see having the same amount of fuel in twice the space as being a gameplay balance to offset the other things that Mk2 parts give you that I listed above. 

I really think it was an intentional act by the developers, but if it bothers you, it'd be pretty easy to write a small Module Manager config to add more fuel capacity to those parts. 

[cantab]

But doesn't the Mk2 cargo bay also offer body lift and durability?

[bewing]

I basically agree with you, Stoney3K -- MK2 looks pretty, but it's pathetic. The crash tolerance bonus is only useful if you crash (an idiotic thing to do). In 1.1.2, there is no body lift. So the only benefit is the heat tolerance. MK2 costs more, it weighs more, unless you do tricks like yours it has the same capacities, and it has a lot more drag -- compared to the equivalent MK1 stuff.

[FullMetalMachinist]

1 hour ago, bewing said:

In 1.1.2, there is no body lift.

 

[KerikBalm]

huh, no body lift in 1.1.2? I remembr in one of the updates, body lift got broken, and then fixed again... is it broken again?

While the argobay thing may hold more fuel, which one has a better fuel fraction... ie wet/dry mass?

In my head I just assume a cylindrical fuel tank inside the mk2... its more mass efficient that way... you get a space between the skin of the structure and the tank which should keep its contents cool (although unless you use LF for LV-Ns, its not clear that the fuel or the oxidizer should be something needing cryogenic storage... you still don't want to heat them too much)... so an insulated fuel cylinder on the inside, with empty space (like the purely structural fusalage pieces) to additionally insulate the fuel from the high reentry temps... it is a more heat tolerant part after all

[Stoney3K]

2 hours ago, cantab said:

But doesn't the Mk2 cargo bay also offer body lift and durability?

That being my point exactly. AFAIK the crash/heat tolerance for a cargo bay and an Mk2 fuel tank are the same, as well as the body lift. If you close the bay doors during flight (which I did not do for the picture just to make it clear that it's a cargo bay) all parts are protected from heat and drag.

You pay a small dry mass penalty for cramming twice the amount of fuel in the exact same space as a standard tank (without any tank clipping involved), leading to a craft that is a lot more compact (or a craft that has significantly more range for the same size).

[Reaper_Works]

Mk2 stuff does need to be nerfed

[eddiew]

2 hours ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

...

My lack of installing SBFM might explain a lot about my game ¬_¬

Then again, really, everything in SBFM should conspicuously be stock  

[Streetwind]

While we're comparing MK2 and 1.25m tanks...

How do MK3 parts stack up against 2.5m and 3.75m tanks in this regard?