From what I recall from one of their Directs, Digital Foundry corroborated another outlet's finding that ultra settings (and I think specifically ultra shadows) are unoptimized. Tons of weird frame time jittering, and like a 15% drop in FPS compared to AMD. So, if you have shadows turned to High or lower, that'll explain it. Otherwise, what they're saying is an AMD equivalent would be getting 70-80 fps in your case.
On Reddit, I was mainly subscribed to a few niche subreddits. By reddit's standards, that's still like 100k subscribers. But over here, even though there might be 1000 people subscribed to those same niche communities, the 90-9-1 rule still applies. Either the community has one super-spammy power user trying to boost life into the community, or there's just no one actually posting anything.
I'm getting enough of a fix to stay on Lemmy and wade out the peace and quiet, but I do long for the engagement of 50k+ users on a truly niche topic. My willingness to stay on Lemmy has been helped by me starting to re-utilize off-site forums specifically to those niches. But I can totally understand how it just feels dead to a lot of the Reddit exodus.
I finally broke the shackles of Baldurs Gate 3, and now I'm playing... Split screen Baldurs Gate 3 with my wife! It's genuinely just so good...
The traditionalist in me absolutely hates the idea of having weighted randomness to the output of quality - I would much prefer a guarantee of quality.
The engineer in me loves the idea of creating a mini factory that recycles low quality parts to create higher quality parts, and abstracting it to essentially give me a guarantee of quality.
On the fence, but leaning towards approving of the idea.
Excellent point. The initial intent of my squabble wasn't trying to deny that counter-examples exist, just that when comparing 100 houses to 100 apartments, that there seemed to be losses in living space for the apartment (law of averages and whatnot).
I had made another comment on that /c/FuckCars thread that calculated that if all of the homes had 1-car garages (which is not uncommon for a lot of dense low-density suburbs), then the homes would be 1740 SqFt with the garage / 1500 SqFt Livable, and the apartments would be 1009 SqFt livable. So a 33% loss of livable space in the image with what I would consider a reasonable assumption.
I mean, I'm not going to ask you to doxx yourself, but I'm extremely curious to know where you're seeing these homes that are, as you describe them, like 150 SqFt of livable area (10x10 studio + 5x8 bathroom) with an attached 3 car garage.
Edit: And to clarify, the 1500 was pulled out of an anecdotal average. My observations while shopping for homes here in the US have been; 2 bed / 1 bath, could be as small as 800 SqFt, but it's cramped. Whereas in middle-class suburbia, it's not uncommon to see 2500+ SqFt homes.
True, but what I'm saying is that there are losses in livable square footage represented in the apartment. A home's SqFt excludes the garage, so a 1500 SqFt home is actually 1740 SqFt with a 1-car garage. I.e. a 1-car garage only takes up 14% of the area underneath a roof of a 1500 Livable-SqFt house. Yet, the represented apartment has lost 42%.
That implies that if the the houses in the picture are 1500 livable square feet, then the apartments are 1009 livable square feet; a ⅓ loss in livable area.
Apartment Complex = 58 Homes' worth of area including garage (1,740 × 58 = 100,920 SqFt)
100,920 / 100 apartments = 1,009 SqFt per apartment
For that to be true, you'd have a 2-car garage attached to at most 400 SqFt of living space...
Or in other words, for a home with a reasonable 1500 SqFt of living space, you'd need at least an 8 car garage...
@MrMusAddict
@lemmy.world