Why not have three options:
- I agree with the voice
- I don't agree with not having a non voice
- I agree (not) with having a voice but not really
dillekant
joined 1 year ago
Gert er sterm derk.
If you look at the list of large sail boats, you'll notice they are smaller than the Pyxis Ocean, and even most of those are "sail assist". ie: They're steam or motor boats with sails as an extra thing. The aim of modern "sail" and "wind powered" boats is to go much larger than sailboats.
One option is to go into government. If you've put effort in already into alternative materials and sustainable practises, then you probably already know what the blockers are to adoption. Asking for regulations on housing efficiency and materials choice can improve the situation greatly.
If Rambo The Video Game (2014) was made with the tech of today, it would look much better while costing the devs the same amount of time.
I don't think this is quite correct. A while back devs were talking about a AAApocalypse. Basically as budgets keep on growing, having a game make its money back is exceedingly hard. This is why today's games need all sorts of monetisation, are always sequels, have low-risk game mechanics, and ship in half broken states. Regardless of the industry basically abandoning novel game engines to focus on Unreal (which is also a bad thing for other reasons), game production times are increasing, and the reason is that while some of the time is amortised, the greater graphical fidelity makes the lower fidelity work stand out. I believe an "indie" or even AA game could look better today for the same amount of effort than 10 years ago, but not a AAA game.
For example, you could not build Baldur's Gate 3 in Unreal. This is an unhealthy state for the industry to be in.
It's from a tweet. It's earnest. You can google the quote to get more context.
Funny how people are all "free market" until the market gives an outcome they don't like. In this case we should remove whatever regulation exempts this sort of behavior by feed lots. If you want to pollute you must pay.
"I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I'm not kidding"
I would say it's not magic. It's still building a city and replacing nature, and probably using a lot of carbon to do it. The benefit is that it puts much of that nature back afterwards.
It also doesn't necessarily work everywhere. There might be bushfire concerns or dangerous animals to worry about.
The 80 kph rule of thumb is actually part of the design parameters of most regular cars. They are built to be most fuel efficient at 80 (or probably more accurately aerodynamic designed for 80).
I was using exponential colloquially (and fair cop given its usage during Covid), but I think you're just using cubic as a rough guide also due to air resistance. I'd note there are no extra gears at the higher speeds, so you're probably less efficient on the tyres etc.
The faster you go above 80 you use exponentially more energy. Invest in public transport you knobs.
The Series S and X are extremely similar hardware wise. Games really just need to scale to fit the two targets. The real issue is that the games and game makers which MS owns largely use a lot more CPU power, which doesn't really scale down as easily as GPU power. Having a PC game maker act like a console game maker is the real gap in skillset, not the dual targets.