You're never going to see 95% efficiency doing that. You'll realistically lose around 20% or so from things like parasitic losses, AC-DC conversions, transmission losses, etc. And that's ignoring the energy needed to make the battery in the first.
Unfortunately this isn’t even a solvable problem. The fundamental limit of efficiency due hydrogen to electricity is about 50%. Physics and entropy prevent it from being any higher.
That's completely wrong. An electrolyzer is an electrochemical system. It has about the same level of efficiency as charging a battery. People are just regurgigating BEV propaganda here.
In reality, hydrogen is far more scalable than batteries. What people don't realize is that you will fail to capture all of your renewable energy with batteries. You end up with a lot of curtailed power. You actually have to use hydrogen for this, and in fact you'll have fewer solar panels in the long run.
Starfield heavily leans on procedural generation. It would be many times bigger if it didn't. BG3 has something like 170 hours of recorded dialogue. Cutting down means getting of features.
So no, there is no room for optimization here. These games are just going to be that big, period. People just need to accept that they will have to get giant SSDs in the future.
You aren't going to use these features on extremely old GPUs anyways. Most newer GPUs will have spare shader compute capacity that can be used for this purpose.
Also, all performance is based on compromise. It is often better to render at a lower resolution with all of the rendering features turned on, then use upscaling & frame generation to get back to the same resolution and FPS, than it is to render natively at the intended resolution and FPS. This is often a better use of existing resources even if you don't have extra power to spare.
People made the same claim about DLSS 3. But those generated frames are barely perceptible and certainly less noticeable than frame stutter. As long as FSR 3 works half-decently, it should be fine.
And the fact that it works on older GPUs include those from nVidia really shows that nVidia was just blocking the feature in order to sell more 4000 series GPUs.
They compromised their higher end system with their lower end system. It's time to admit they made a mistake here, and they are only now starting to fix it.
We've already established that the $300 box is not viable for much longer. And since it sold around 1/3 the numbers of the PS5, it didn't even work as advertised.
It has faster memory than the Series S. More importantly, it has more RAM. A few improvements here and there doesn't make the Series S a real next-gen console.
It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X. I think the problem is that they didn’t really think through what a console generational leap would actually consist of.
The Series S will become an ever bigger anchor going forward. Eventually, there will be 3rd party games that just choose not to bother with the Xbox at all because of the Series S.
Tech has become a scam in many areas. It's just doing the same thing as it always has been, just with an abusive corporate master. The goal is to scam the investor into funding bad ideas, or use that funding to undercut the competition. It is rarely about innovation anymore.
You're never going to see 95% efficiency doing that. You'll realistically lose around 20% or so from things like parasitic losses, AC-DC conversions, transmission losses, etc. And that's ignoring the energy needed to make the battery in the first.
That's completely wrong. An electrolyzer is an electrochemical system. It has about the same level of efficiency as charging a battery. People are just regurgigating BEV propaganda here.
In reality, hydrogen is far more scalable than batteries. What people don't realize is that you will fail to capture all of your renewable energy with batteries. You end up with a lot of curtailed power. You actually have to use hydrogen for this, and in fact you'll have fewer solar panels in the long run.