Fuel Tank Sizes.

[FarrSide]

Hi all .
How about a larger range of fuel tanks for our ships?
At the moment we have Five sizes. 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 ton fuel tanks. I feel that the gap between 16 and 32 ton lacks flexibility. One or two additional tank sizes in between 16 & 32 ton could be made available. For example either, 24 and 28 ton tanks or a 26 ton tank would improve flexibility our ship builds.
What do you think?
Fly Safe
07
FarrSide

 

[Micha]

What I think is that fitting a smaller fuel-tank should allow the newly-freed-up space to at least be used for cargo racks.

Or even better just get rid of the "core-internals" vs "optional-internals" thing and just don't allow exiting the outfitter unless a ship has had all "essential" modules installed. And depending on ship, you're forced to install at least a size-X of a particular essential to keep things balanced.

 

[varonica]

Hi all .
How about a larger range of fuel tanks for our ships?
At the moment we have Five sizes. 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 ton fuel tanks. I feel that the gap between 16 and 32 ton lacks flexibility. One or two additional tank sizes in between 16 & 32 ton could be made available. For example either, 24 and 28 ton tanks or a 26 ton tank would improve flexibility our ship builds.
What do you think?
Fly Safe
07
FarrSide

A 24 or 28 ton fuel tank will take up exactly the same amount of space as a 32 ton and they are the same weight, you could just fill your 32 ton with 28 or 24 tons of fuel if it's FSD range you are thinking of. As for putting a 24 ton in a 32 ton slot and using the rest for cargo, surely this is just another way to ask for slot splitting? You basically get a 24 and 8 capacity slots out of a 32, probably not going to happen.

 

[MBaldelli]

Hi all .
How about a larger range of fuel tanks for our ships?
At the moment we have Five sizes. 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 ton fuel tanks. I feel that the gap between 16 and 32 ton lacks flexibility. One or two additional tank sizes in between 16 & 32 ton could be made available. For example either, 24 and 28 ton tanks or a 26 ton tank would improve flexibility our ship builds.
What do you think?
Fly Safe
07
FarrSide

I get the distinct impression this is one of the hold-overs from the original games of the 80s as these numbers seem to correspond with coding and not something that has since been changed. Surprised this hasn't been handled sooner though.

 

[Iskariot]

What I think is that fitting a smaller fuel-tank should allow the newly-freed-up space to at least be used for cargo racks.

That would be cool.

We also need a solution for scanners.
On big ships I have to fit size one scanners in a size 3 and 4 slot.
It is a horrendous waste of space.
I would like to be able to fit multiple scanners in a size 3 slot.
Or big ships should get at least one or two extra size one slots.
Or perhaps we should get dedicated scanner slots

 

[Micha]

That would be cool.

We also need a solution for scanners.
On big ships I have to fit size one scanners in a size 3 and 4 slot.
It is a horrendous waste of space.
I would like to be able to fit multiple scanners in a size 3 slot.
Or big ships should get at least one or two extra size one slots.
Or perhaps we should get dedicated scanner slots

While I abhor the whole "slot" idea and think the whole ship outfitting should be rethought (but that is getting well off-topic here), my suggestion for just using the freed up space for cargo means that while yes, it is "slot splitting" it's very restricted and thus shouldn't affect the balance too much.

Alternatively, instead of different fuel-tank sizes just give us an interface for partial refueling. Set a particular tonnage as the maximum level you want to fly with for now, and the route-plotter, fuel-scoop, and station outfitting takes it into account.