Help me understand this folks: I just fitted a 64 unit capacity fuel tank to my Annie, and my jump range was reduced, despite the fact that I had not added any extra fuel to it. I was previously able to jump nearly 50 LY, now the map won't plot a single jump greater than about 40 LY, and the further star system doesn't show up in my nav menu. What's going on? The tank by itself adds no weight and is empty.
Extra fuel tanks reduce jump range, even when empty?
- Thread starter nosleepdemon
- Start date
That seems like a bug. It should surely add mass when full, but I can't imagine it would add that much mass when empty. Perhaps the fuel is very lightweight and the tank itself is very massive? It's possible, but seems rough if that's the case.
Try comparing smaller size fuel tanks if you can, it'd be nice to see a graphable set of data for this.
Try comparing smaller size fuel tanks if you can, it'd be nice to see a graphable set of data for this.
I switched the tank for one with 8 units of capacity, and the star map says I can jump 50 LY, but on the nav menu, "Excessive Mass" is displayed next to the system name... This is rather confusing. I noticed this previously with my smuggling Asp - despite having a 35 LY jump range, adding an empty fuel tank would make the star map never plot a jump greater than 30 LY in distance...
It appears that the starmap is just flat out wrong, and incorrectly factors in the additional weight of fuel not stored on the ship. It also displays the max jump range wrong. I'm carrying 45 tons of cargo, and with no additional fuel can jump 46 LY (not 47, as indicated by the map). If I switch to a spare yet empty fuel tank, I can no longer plot the same route in a single jump even if I specify my cargo tonnage as 0. Setting FSD boost to greater than 0 allows me to plot the jump, and "Excessive Mass" does not display in the nav menu.
I've long suspected that there was something broken with how the starmap deals with ship mass when carrying fuel tanks. It's rather frustrating to have to limit my ship's fuel reserves just to get an efficient route plotted on the map.
It appears that the starmap is just flat out wrong, and incorrectly factors in the additional weight of fuel not stored on the ship. It also displays the max jump range wrong. I'm carrying 45 tons of cargo, and with no additional fuel can jump 46 LY (not 47, as indicated by the map). If I switch to a spare yet empty fuel tank, I can no longer plot the same route in a single jump even if I specify my cargo tonnage as 0. Setting FSD boost to greater than 0 allows me to plot the jump, and "Excessive Mass" does not display in the nav menu.
I've long suspected that there was something broken with how the starmap deals with ship mass when carrying fuel tanks. It's rather frustrating to have to limit my ship's fuel reserves just to get an efficient route plotted on the map.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that fuel tanks can (and are) filled using the fuel scoop during long trips how can the route plotting algorithm assume anything more than the range of the ship fully laden with fuel?
That was what I assumed it was doing, but the map behaves very oddly, and doesn't display my ship's minimum and maximum ranges properly. It would be good to have a total fuel slider on the starmap to account for varying fuel loads.
Question: So does that mean that a gas tank in a car when empty has no weight?
Answer: nope
I've had to replace a fuel pump in my truck once and I assure you that even after I siphon the fuel out the tank was quite heavy. So it's not too much of a stretch to think that a fuel tank, even an empty one, would alter your range.
Answer: nope
I've had to replace a fuel pump in my truck once and I assure you that even after I siphon the fuel out the tank was quite heavy. So it's not too much of a stretch to think that a fuel tank, even an empty one, would alter your range.
Last edited:
It's exactly as Robert said, though. Automatic route plotting assumes your maximum jump range when fully fueled. That said, 64T shouldn't be a difference of 10ly. Have you actually checked the values in outfitting with the tank on or off?
You can jump further than 40ly but route plotting is limited.
And about the navigation menu, that's always been limited to 20ly if I recall correctly. Otherwise, it'd be a huge list. It's not useful for long jump plotting. You can still use the galaxy map to plot single jumps to your maximum range.
The max fuel per jump is a limitation that prevents you jumping over a distance greater than x% of your total fuel reserve. I believe it's 50%.
Anyway, adding an extra fuel tank to an Anaconda isn't optimal if you want to plot routes and get the best jump range. I'd get a fuel scoop instead.
Not sure why this is relevant though. Fuel tanks don't have any weight without fuel in them, in the game. That's not what's causing the op's issue.
Last edited:
So I make bad references the point is (and I should have used this word instead of weight) it has mass even if empty unless your letting the fuel float freely around your ship. It's got mass because of the materials used to make the container be they steel aluminum or some future material. True it should not be enough to drastically change your range like that it should be more like tenths or hundredths of a lightyear.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
An empty extra tank should give the vessel the same range as when the extra tank was not fitted.
However, for the purposes of automatic route plotting, the game requires to assume that it is full - otherwise the route might not be able to be achieved if the player fuel scoops.
Plotter itself seems to note care about your fuel level, what so ever, but goes for shortest distance, as in with full tanks.
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
Fuel tanks don't weigh anything when there's no fuel in them you say...couple girls I know would just love hearing that before breakfast...
Bigger the tank, bigger the hit on range obviously...all down to personal preference what size tank ye fit but fer building anything with range, then it's one the first things I would think about as the fuel tank has a significant impact on range...more so than other modules ^^
Bigger the tank, bigger the hit on range obviously...all down to personal preference what size tank ye fit but fer building anything with range, then it's one the first things I would think about as the fuel tank has a significant impact on range...more so than other modules ^^
I was just saying that fuel tanks don't add mass and so this isn't what is causing the op's issue.
Yes, it maybe could have mass if FD designed them that way but it doesn't. It can be explained (like most things in this game) with a bit of handwavium. Whatever space the optional module fits into is just retrofitted in a way that allows it to store extra fuel. So no extra mass is added to the ship.
Last edited:
Personally I'd leave the second tank off and just take the biggest fuel scoop you can fit. It's really quick to fill up a tank and if your on a long journey you should not even have to stop for any real length of time to refuel as you can scoop enough just by scooping while lining up the next jump.
As noted, Nav computer assumes FULL tank for plotting. If you add more tanks, this drops the per-jump range down.
So if you want maximum per-jump range then actually go smaller tanks, not more of them. A lot of ships you can run with a half size tank and cover distance faster.
Reason? Faster to fill tank and with new routine used for system entry, "surfing" to top up, for the 10-15 seconds or so it takes to transit a star can be enough to fully tank up without needing a Godzilla scoop. So you can turn and burn and cover more distance in the same time period.
Given the longer witchspace time, less jumps with more scooping is actually faster, than occasional pit stops with endless jumping.
Either way, if you want to expedite travel, go a smaller tank and route using KGB FOAM or OBAFGKM for great success. I see so many explorers take extra tanks and I wonder how many more hours they spend transiting between points. I prefer to travel light and maximise my time doing things that don't involve 5 minutes at a star waiting for a refill.
So if you want maximum per-jump range then actually go smaller tanks, not more of them. A lot of ships you can run with a half size tank and cover distance faster.
Reason? Faster to fill tank and with new routine used for system entry, "surfing" to top up, for the 10-15 seconds or so it takes to transit a star can be enough to fully tank up without needing a Godzilla scoop. So you can turn and burn and cover more distance in the same time period.
Given the longer witchspace time, less jumps with more scooping is actually faster, than occasional pit stops with endless jumping.
Either way, if you want to expedite travel, go a smaller tank and route using KGB FOAM or OBAFGKM for great success. I see so many explorers take extra tanks and I wonder how many more hours they spend transiting between points. I prefer to travel light and maximise my time doing things that don't involve 5 minutes at a star waiting for a refill.
Last edited:
You say the map wont plot a single jump greater than 40LY? That doesn't sound right. No matter the size of your tank you can always plot single jumps using max range at current fuel load.
The max fuel weight/mass restriction only applies to multi jump route plotting.
I did eventually just take the tank off, which isn't a great solution since I'm heading far out to a place where I may not find scoopable stars easily. It would have been alright to keep if the starmap had actually allowed me to plot a single max range jump manually, without erroneously splitting the jump into two smaller jumps. But I'm not confident that the starmap would 'find' me a route from one star to another once I'm in deep space even if I could technically make the jump, given this behaviour. Maybe there's a way to just select the star I want from the starmap?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Ah, good old handwavium. The lazy mechanic, why bother with realism when FD can just sprinkle a bit of magic dust on it and say done :|
I garentee you if any one at FD had ever did any fuel tank work on their own car the fuel tanks in game would have had mass.
Although if you think about it they still might have mass to them it's just that they're less than a ton so they don't register talking like thousandths of a ton (.00x for visual representation)
Last edited: