Another game to look into is “Empyrion - Galactic Survival”. At first, they had a Minecraft-like storage system. In one of the later updates, they added a weight/volume system for storage. In it, each item has a volume and weight, and so does each storage space, including the player inventory. So, for example, if a large oxygen tank has a volume of 100 units*, and your player can hold up to 1850 units, you can't carry more than 18 large oxygen tanks even though you have free inventory slots. On the other hand, if an iron plate has 1 unit of volume, you can fill your inventory with iron plates and still have free volume left.

*I'm not sure what units they are using, but it doesn't matter anyway ? Note that the player inventory has an unrealistically large storage limit, for gameplay reasons.

This seems like just another limitation on inventory space, but it has an interesting consequence. There are items in the game (large machines) that are larger than the player inventory. So you can't pick them up by yourself. For this reason, the game has a storage networking system, where you can access storage containers remotely without using your inventory. So you would have to use a networked storage container to pick up and store the large machine.

The important thing to note is that many players did not like this feature, even though it is more realistic. They found it too limited, especially after getting used to playing without it. At the moment, the feature is optional, so players can choose if they want to play with it or without it. It is turned off by default, but chances are that will change once it is balanced properly.

What you need to ask yourself when thinking about something like this is why you are doing it. “Because it's more realistic” is usually not the right answer, if that realism only makes things tedious and boring. The question is not “should I do realism or fun” but “can I do realism that is fun”. If a more realistic but limited system can make the player make interesting choices or makes for interesting gameplay, then go for it. If it makes the game "just as boring/tedious as the real world", then it's not a good feature.

1024 said:

The question is not “should I do realism or fun” but “can I do realism that is fun”.

No, the question is “how can I make this more fun by making it less realistic”. Reality is the baseline. Your job, as game designer, is to improve on that. Because I've already got reality. I exist in it. If that's all I wanted, then I wouldn't need games at all.

When looking for examples, you can also take a look at the excellent game “Eco” ("Eco : global survival" on goggle if “Eco” doesn't yield anything)

Eco uses a hybrid system where some items are weight-based, usually small items and processed materials. Whereas raw materials are entirely volume-based and cannot be compressed in the least.

Logistics and transportation is an integral part of the game, so any “pain points” are actually part of the game balance and part of how you help have an economy (by having players able to transport stuff for money etc…).

But simultaneously, the finicky issue of having to organize your materials physically is alleviated by the Stockpile. An item that you place on the ground and will, in a 5x5x5 meters area, automatically organize your materials when you put them into said stockpile.

This way, all your raw materials have the same volume in the world at all times, and you need to transport them and store them. But when they reach the stockpile, they stay neatly organized and stacked.