Well, this makes no sense....
The new containers are cool and all, but the math isn't mathing...
If you’re thinking in game‑logic terms, two OG containers, having more storage space than the new ones might make sense. However, let's think about the real‑world geometry of the models.
The vanilla cargo container isn’t a cube internally. It’s a 7.5 m cube externally, but the actual body is an irregular octagonal prism: Each face is more or less a 5 m × 5 m flat section in the middle, with 1.25 m chamfered corners and edges. That cuts out a lot of internal space compared to a full cube.
The new industrial container, on the other hand, is a clean rectangular prism: 7.5 m × 7.5 m × 15 m.
Assuming a realistic 15 cm wall thickness, it ends up with about 762 m³ of usable internal volume.
The vanilla container’s octagonal interior (with the same wall thickness) comes out to about 356 m³.
So a single vanilla container has less than half the usable volume of the new one.
Even two vanilla containers together are still slightly smaller than one new industrial container.
Same footprint, but the new container has far more usable internal volume.
So 820,000.00L for the new one and 421,875.01L for the old one make no sense.
-------- Skippable part --------
Math:
New Industrial Cargo Container
External dimensions: 7.5 m × 7.5 m × 15 m
Assume wall thickness: 0.15 m
Internal dimensions:
7.5 − 0.3 = 7.2 m
7.5 − 0.3 = 7.2 m
15 − 0.3 = 14.7 m
Internal volume:
7.2 × 7.2 × 14.7 = 762.05 m³ (≈ 762 m³)
Vanilla Large Cargo Container
External height: 7.5 m
Face layout (one direction):
1.25 m chamfer + 5 m flat + 1.25 m chamfer = 7.5 m total
So the external cross‑section is a 7.5 m × 7.5 m square with four right‑triangle corners and 8 edges removed.
Area of external cross‑section:
Square area: 7.5 × 7.5 = 56.25 m²
Each corner triangle: (1.25 × 1.25) / 2 = 0.78 m²
Four corners: 4 × 0.78 = 3.12 m²
External octagonal area:
56.25 − 3.12 = 53.13 m²
Now subtract 0.15 m wall thickness.
Internal outer width:
7.5 − 0.3 = 7.2 m
Internal chamfer leg (each side):
1.25 − 0.15 = 1.10 m
Area of internal cross‑section:
Internal square area: 7.2 × 7.2 = 51.84 m²
Each internal corner triangle: (1.10 × 1.10) / 2 = 0.61 m²
Four corners: 4 × 0.61 = 2.42 m²
Internal octagonal area:
51.84 − 2.42 = 49.42 m²
Internal height:
7.5 − 0.3 = 7.2 m
Internal volume:
49.42 × 7.2 = 355.82 m³ (≈ 356 m³)
Comparison
One vanilla container:
≈ 356 m³
Two vanilla containers:
2 × 355.82 = 711.64 m³ (≈ 712 m³)
One new industrial container:
≈ 762 m³
-------- come back --------
Differences:
New vs one vanilla: 762 − 356 ≈ 406 m³ more (more than double)
New vs two vanilla: 762 − 712 ≈ 50 m³ more That's 7.1%
So even with identical wall thickness assumptions, a single vanilla container has less than half the usable volume of the new one, and two vanilla containers together still don’t quite match a single new industrial container.
Same footprint, massively more usable space.
So how large should the new containers be? Going with the 7.1% difference, the new containers should be 903,000 L, not 820,000 L. Round it to 900.000 L if you want, but fix it please!
But what do you all think? Let's geek in the comments.