Why do so many parts scale incorrectly?

[panzer1b]

Well as the title says, ive always been wondering why many parts, fuel tanks, reaction wheels, ect, seem to scale non linearly when it comes to volume, energy useage, ect.

One thing i never understood is why the reaction wheels do not all use the exact same energy per torque they produce. The largest one uses LESS energy then 2 of the mediums, and it has the same torque as 2 mediums. I never understood WHY this is the case. Is going bigger more efficient or something, as even that seems counter intuitive that a larger object, despite producing more torque, is using less energy to do so.

The other major inconsistency i dont understand is why certain fuel tanks have way less fuel capacity then volume would suggest. This mostly applies to the porkjet parts, almost all MK-2 parts, and almost all of the adapters that were added in 0.90.

As an example, take a look at the MK2-2.5m adapter. It has equal capacity to a FLT-800, and just eyeballing it, it could fit at least 3 of the FLT-800s volume wise inside of it. Why then, does it have such lower capacity?

Another example is the MK1 inline jet fuel tank. It has LESS liquid fuel then the FLT-400, and is the same size. Even if it has extra impact tolerance, which i would say could remove 10-20% of the fuel, i very much doubt that it would have less then 300ish liquid fuel, which would still be less then the FLT-400's 400 total fuel (not sure, but i believe LF and O weighs the same per fuel unit).

Finally, almost every MK-2 part seems to have way less fuel then its internal volume seems to give. The MK-2 - MK-1 adapter is twice the volume of a FLT-800, yet has much less fuel then a single FLT-800. 500 total fuel, vs 800 in the FLT, in a tank thats much smaller.

Are these new parts intended as structural parts that dont carry much fuel for their volume? Is this exponentially lower capacity a byproduct on the higher impact tolerance (50 vs 6), or is there some other reason behind it (do the old tanks have too much capacity?). I doubt the 1st reason is valid, or at least not as much as the new parts have less fuel, id guess that the higher impact means more dry mass, and slightly less fuel then volume, but not much less then -30% volume of the tank.

Anyways, id like to know why, or perhaps, if there is no reason, suggest that the fuel tanks be rebalanced in terms of volume they can fit. Same with reaction wheels, they dont scale linearly, which makes little sense for me.

[stupid_chris]

Because the game is terribly blanced. AKA not at all. They're working on rebalancing everything for 1.0, I hope it'll make sense.

[regex]

Because the game is terribly blanced. AKA not at all. They're working on rebalancing everything for 1.0, I hope it'll make sense.

^^This is the best answer to your question.

[Alshain]

There can be several reasons.

1. Things have changed over the years. Amount of torque may have been increased or decreased without balancing the cost, 1.0 will probably fix a lot of this.

2. It is a game first. It has to be playable and serve the right purposes or it becomes useless or too useful. Take the 48-7S for example, it's so overpowered it make other engines pointless and that's why they are nerfing it in 1.0

[panzer1b]

There can be several reasons.

1. Things have changed over the years. Amount of torque may have been increased or decreased without balancing the cost, 1.0 will probably fix a lot of this.

2. It is a game first. It has to be playable and serve the right purposes or it becomes useless or too useful. Take the 48-7S for example, it's so overpowered it make other engines pointless and that's why they are nerfing it in 1.0

i agree, hopefully the 1.0 rebalance will make all parts scale similarly to each other. And as for the 48-7s, i think most of the community knows very well that its overpowered, or well maybee not overpowered, but it makes many lower engines redundant, its better then the radial one, beats 909, ect.

[Renegrade]

Another example is the MK1 inline jet fuel tank. It has LESS liquid fuel then the FLT-400, and is the same size. Even if it has extra impact tolerance, which i would say could remove 10-20% of the fuel, i very much doubt that it would have less then 300ish liquid fuel, which would still be less then the FLT-400's 400 total fuel (not sure, but i believe LF and O weighs the same per fuel unit).

Well, aside from the higher crash tolerance, I'd like to point out that in stock air, mass becomes your cross sectional area, or pretty much mass=drag. A 400 unit tank would weigh 2.15t (instead of 0.9t), and have that much more drag too (almost 2.4x as much). Also that would give it very high wet mass to dry mass ratio, so it's dry mass would have to go up as well, making the drag situation even worse.

Fortunately new aero is coming which should hopefully eliminate this mass=drag nonsense, and making heavy planes will be less of a .. burden *cough*. (plus v^2 lift will help too)

And also everybody pointing out "it's terribly balanced" are all very correct. Many of the numbers were probably just ballparked on the back of napkins, or even eyeballed, to be placeholders until now.

(and yes, LF and O have the same density, each unit is 0.005t)

[Xavven]

Because the game is terribly blanced. AKA not at all. They're working on rebalancing everything for 1.0, I hope it'll make sense.

As a side note, the terrible balance hurts the gaming experience right now, but in hindsight, it paid off for Squad to wait for scope completion before making a balancing pass in earnest. If they had spent time balancing during alpha, then most of that work would have gone out the window as soon as they decided to overhaul aerodynamics.

[klgraham1013]

As a side note, the terrible balance hurts the gaming experience right now, but in hindsight, it paid off for Squad to wait for scope completion before making a balancing pass in earnest. If they had spent time balancing during alpha, then most of that work would have gone out the window as soon as they decided to overhaul aerodynamics.

I'd argue aerodynamics should have been dealt with long ago. I also don't think the first real balance pass should be part of the release update, but, then, I'm not a developer.

[CaptRobau]

i agree, hopefully the 1.0 rebalance will make all parts scale similarly to each other. And as for the 48-7s, i think most of the community knows very well that its overpowered, or well maybee not overpowered, but it makes many lower engines redundant, its better then the radial one, beats 909, ect.

The latter definition is often the definition of overpowered.

[SaturnV]

Weight/size, full/dry weight, efficiency, many of them need tweaking. I doubt that Squad can cover all of them in one patch. They will miss something, they always do.

[Xaver]

Maybe the motors of the gyro-thing in the big sas is more efficient xD

Edited February 13, 2015 by Xaver

[Renegrade]

As a side note, the terrible balance hurts the gaming experience right now, but in hindsight, it paid off for Squad to wait for scope completion before making a balancing pass in earnest. If they had spent time balancing during alpha, then most of that work would have gone out the window as soon as they decided to overhaul aerodynamics.

True, but Mr Space Bard's point is valid too. And I'd also like to add, if they were constantly revising stats throughout development, people would be used to it by now, instead of shocked.

(Even though I've desired this kind of rebalance for a long time, I'm actually shocked too - that it's happening at all, that is. I'm shocked, shocked I say! )

[magnemoe]

Maybe the motors of the gyro-thing in the big sas is more efficient xD

Yes, however I guess the power usage would stay pretty much the same, however an larger reaction wheel should have more torque for weight than an small as you can have larger wheels.

Else will larger tanks typical have more volume for weight than small, somewhat balanced in that they also need thicker walls to let you put more stuff on top of them.