Oscar-B and ROUND-8 size/fuel balance too good

[Mike`]

Compared to an FLT-100, both the Oscar-B and ROUND-8 contain far too much fuel for their size.

The volume of an Oscar-B for example is roughly about 1/6 that of the FLT-100, yet it contains 2/5 of the fuel.

The fuel and corresponding weight of both tanks should probably be adjusted to roughly half their current values, something like 1/5 - 1/6 of the FLT100 for the Oscar-B and 1/3 - 3/10 of an FLT100 for the ROUND-8.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Mike`

[Snark]

Yup.  They actually used to contain far less fuel, back in the day-- something more in line with their actual physical size.  They got seriously buffed at some point, to an unrealistic degree.  Has been that way ever since.

The fact that two stacked ROUND-8 tanks contain more fuel than an FL-T100, but are a lot smaller, really sticks out (the "clippiness" of that tank, when stacked, exacerbates the issue-- two of them stacked are a lot smaller than twice as big as one of them by itself).

[Dafni]

Its true. But somehow I like them that way. It gives you options for very compact designs, and removes a bit of the guilty feeling of clipping fuel

[sevenperforce]

Since I use the Oscar-B and Round-8 fuel tanks primarily for small probes, landers, and service modules, my head-canon says they are probably hypergolics, which have a high density.

[qzgy]

shhhhh.

I'll take every buff I can.

[Mike`]

2 hours ago, Snark said:

Yup.  They actually used to contain far less fuel, back in the day-- something more in line with their actual physical size.  They got seriously buffed at some point, to an unrealistic degree.  Has been that way ever since.

The fact that two stacked ROUND-8 tanks contain more fuel than an FL-T100, but are a lot smaller, really sticks out (the "clippiness" of that tank, when stacked, exacerbates the issue-- two of them stacked are a lot smaller than twice as big as one of them by itself).

I've seen that in the wiki, and i think their original value was indeed a bit too low for their size, but they got overbuffed quite a bit i think.

I actually don't dislike some clipping of the ROUND-8 tanks, because in "reality" you also wouldn't just stack such a weird shape on top of each other but make a tank in a single piece without some of the volume loss by the round shape, if you know what i mean.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Mike`

[sevenperforce]

In all honesty, they should vary the mass ratio and volumetric ratios of the tanks at each diameter. Mk3-sized tanks are probably hydrolox, so they should have poor volumetric ratio and good mass ratio. Mk2-sized tanks are probably methalox, so they should have medium volumetric ratio and medium mass ratio. Mk1-sized tanks are probably kerolox, so they should great volumetric ratio and poor mass ratio. The smallest tanks are probably hypergolic and should have absolutely fantastic volumetric ratio and really really poor mass ratio.

It's more realistic but doesn't require anything extra from players.