Well thanks to the help of Matteo the author of Realistico resource pack I have managed to work out the problems I was having rather fast. It seems that the render quality was a huge performance drain on the card without much of a noticeable difference in graphics quality. I'm still not really sure what the difference is. I tried turning from 2.0 to 1.0 over and over and really can't see any difference in quality however 2.0 is 14 FPS and 1.0 is 40 FPS. Hope this helps anyone else having issues with FPS performance!
There is now only one issue I really have with this shader pack which seems to be common among shader packs... When it's raining outside you get this effect of blur on the screen where I guess water droplets are hitting your "eyes" and it is a really annoying feature. Is there any way to turn this effect off? It is extremely unnatural and I'm not sure why developers think this is an accurate representation of real life as this effect does not happen in real life with or without eye protection.
Well thanks to the help of Matteo the author of Realistico resource pack I have managed to work out the problems I was having rather fast. It seems that the render quality was a huge performance drain on the card without much of a noticeable difference in graphics quality. I'm still not really sure what the difference is. I tried turning from 2.0 to 1.0 over and over and really can't see any difference in quality however 2.0 is 14 FPS and 1.0 is 40 FPS. Hope this helps anyone else having issues with FPS performance!
There is now only one issue I really have with this shader pack which seems to be common among shader packs... When it's raining outside you get this effect of blur on the screen where I guess water droplets are hitting your "eyes" and it is a really annoying feature. Is there any way to turn this effect off? It is extremely unnatural and I'm not sure why developers think this is an accurate representation of real life as this effect does not happen in real life with or without eye protection.
In the same menu that you choose the Render quality, Shadow Quality, etc, click on ''Shader Options..'', which is below those settings.
Then click on ''Weather'' and you'll see an option called ''Rain_Lense''. Turn that off.
Also, on a side note, you shouldn't be at that low of fps, with your listed hardware. I'm always sitting at 60-50, with an i7-6700, 24GB of DDR4 Ram and a GTX 970. I've even recorded a number of videos with Continuum, such as this one:
Try turning both the ''Render Quality and ''Shadow Quality'', to 1. You ought to easily cap at your monitor's refresh rate. Like you said, there's no noticeable difference between higher values and 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My current PC:
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
-snip- Also, on a side note, you shouldn't be at that low of fps, with your listed hardware. I'm always sitting at 60-50, with an i7-6700, 24GB of DDR4 Ram and a GTX 970. I've even recorded a number of videos with Continuum, such as this one:
Try turning both the ''Render Quality and ''Shadow Quality'', to 1. You ought to easily cap at your monitor's refresh rate. Like you said, there's no noticeable difference between higher values and 1.
Hmmm fair point, but he is running at 1440 and maybe running a high render distance. I run at the same resolution with the same GPUs, and at 16 render distance with a 256x pack and 1.8.9 Pre2 (With DoF re-enabled) I only average around 50-60fps.
So if he is pushing the render distance further, or running shadow multiplier at x2 or more, plus a 512x pack.... his FPS could be about right.
@Rashaka - What render distance are you running in-game??
Hmmm fair point, but he is running at 1440 and maybe running a high render distance. I run at the same resolution with the same GPUs, and at 16 render distance with a 256x pack and 1.8.9 Pre2 (With DoF re-enabled) I only average around 50-60fps.
So if he is pushing the render distance further, or running shadow multiplier at x2 or more, plus a 512x pack.... his FPS could be about right.
@Rashaka - What render distance are you running in-game??
My render distance is 15, and I am also using a 512 pack and my shadow quality is maxed out. However, just lowering the render to 1.0 got me back to 40's in FPS. Thanks for the feedback though but as I had said I got this figured out the same day with Matteo.
Also, thank you Quavelen for the options on the rain lens!
Hi Continuum team, I have a question for you. Using 1.8.9 Pre2 I would like to know if it's possible to Increase the brightness of Held Torches, but without making the light spread further???
At present with Continuum, increasing the Held Torch light brightness also makes the light radius greater, as a result, increasing the brightness to make held torches very bright and almost a little blinding up close when deep underground or in a totally dark voided area like it would be IRL, the light radius is huge and spreads to around 50 blocks or more.
So, is this possible for me to achieve with a little tweaking in the configs, or would this require some part of the code to be completely rewritten???
Exactly, consumer Ivy Bridge's do not support 128GB of RAM. Also, his other posts, asking for help because he's struggling to run a very basic little map mod even when it's on the lowest quality setting because his PC is maxed out and only has a small HDD
I smell a "Hey everyone look at me, look at all the money I have... look at me look at me..." kiddie post.
Exactly, consumer Ivy Bridge's do not support 128GB of RAM. Also, his other posts, asking for help because he's struggling to run a very basic little map mod even when it's on the lowest quality setting because his PC is maxed out and only has a small HDD
I smell a "Hey everyone look at me, look at all the money I have... look at me look at me..." kiddie post.
Yes, that processor specifically only supports up to 32GB of RAM. However, depending on the Motherboard's memory controller, it can support more. For example, the ASUS P9X79 Deluxe Motherboard can increase that to 64GB. They may have a motherboard that ups their limit all the way to 128GB; such as the ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition. It is not impossible, but yes. It's unlikely, in my eyes.
I didn't wish to ''call them out'' on their claim, so I simply accepted it and answered their question to the best of my abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My current PC:
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
Yes, that processor specifically only supports up to 32GB of RAM. However, depending on the Motherboard's memory controller, it can support more. For example, the ASUS P9X79 Deluxe Motherboard can increase that to 64GB. They may have a motherboard that ups their limit all the way to 128GB; such as the ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition. It is not impossible, but yes. It's unlikely, in my eyes.
I didn't wish to ''call them out'' on their claim, so I simply accepted it and answered their question to the best of my abilities.
Some Motherboards do support up to 128GB of RAM, but not one single consumer CPU physically does support that amount, the maximum is 64GB, and it's the CPU that dictates what will and will not run.
The 128GB support on some Mobos is simply because they are the enthusiast X79 and X99/v3 platforms, so they also support Xeons which in cases can use that amount.
I get what you mean though about "call them out". I dunno, I always call them out because I think if they are embarrassed at being found out, they might stop the stupid little games.... But I'm properly totally off the mark and it might even encourage them
Also, sorry forgive the info, I wanted to explain but I didn't want it to come across as know it all. Hope it didn't sound that way.
Some Motherboards do support up to 128GB of RAM, but not one single consumer CPU physically does support that amount, the maximum is 64GB, and it's the CPU that dictates what will and will not run.
The 128GB support on some Mobos is simply because they are the enthusiast X79 and X99/v3 platforms, so they also support Xeons which in cases can use that amount.
I get what you mean though about "call them out". I dunno, I always call them out because I think if they are embarrassed at being found out, they might stop the stupid little games.... But I'm properly totally off the mark and it might even encourage them
Also, sorry forgive the info, I wanted to explain but I didn't want it to come across as know it all. Hope it didn't sound that way.
Yes, that is all correct. The 3960x psychically does NOT support that much ram. It's literally impossible.
Is an MSI Radeon R9 280x Gaming 3GB GDDR5 good enough to be playable on a cluttered pc?
Well, it depends on a few things:
What resolution do you play at? 720p 1080p 1440p...etc.
How high you want your in-game render distance?
Texture/Resource Packs?
And above all, which version of Continuum you use.
Without that info, no one can really say.
Although I can give an example: Lets say you are running at 1080p or lower, you don't have a huge 512x texture pack and run at 8 render distance, you might get playable FPS with the medium preset version of 1.1.5, or maybe the High preset but properly below playable 60fps.
I play with Faithful & Lively default, along with a 1080p monitor (lg 22mp55) i play with far render distance normally.
Right, then with a R9 280x, I think you might be ok with the 1.1.5 Medium version, I think you should be able to achieve 60fps with that, but maybe not at 16 render distance, you may have to drop that slightly.
I just realised this. So was this a genuine post or a "Look at me, showing off" post???
Yes, I have nothing better to do with my day than to come to a tiny Minecraft forum to "show off" my computer stats to a bunch of people whom I do not know.....
I've just started up a brand new server as I haven't played in 2 years. I've been spending a lot of time building and trying to get all my settings correct for a flawless play experience and fancy graphics with all these new shader mods that didn't exist when I played before, or at least weren't known to me. I have recently started going out to explore the world on my server and I've noticed when I hang out around my home area that I easily get 40-50 FPS but when I go out and start to explore my FPS continually drops while moving from area to area. Once I return home it still hangs around 15 FPS and I have to completely shut down the game in order to clear it up and get back to 50 FPS. Any suggestions on this one? Feel like some sort of memory leak.
I've just started up a brand new server as I haven't played in 2 years. I've been spending a lot of time building and trying to get all my settings correct for a flawless play experience and fancy graphics with all these new shader mods that didn't exist when I played before, or at least weren't known to me. I have recently started going out to explore the world on my server and I've noticed when I hang out around my home area that I easily get 40-50 FPS but when I go out and start to explore my FPS continually drops while moving from area to area. Once I return home it still hangs around 15 FPS and I have to completely shut down the game in order to clear it up and get back to 50 FPS. Any suggestions on this one? Feel like some sort of memory leak.
No, that has never happened to me before. What is your JVM argument set to? Try changing it, to replicate this:
That's just the default arguments, with a triple -Xmx value and double on the -Xmn.
Also, do you use an SSD or a normal HDD? That could impact performance, especially if it is a slower HDD. On another note, the way MineCraft loads and unloads chunks has always been a bit on the laggy side. I haven't personally had any real fps issues with it, though. And with your listed hardware, you far exceed my system. So theoretically, you shouldn't be encountering any lag in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My current PC:
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
Well here is one problem that I see. Your executable is running 1.8.0_91. I attempted to update to that but mine is still running 1.8.0_25. I can't tell if it's the 32 bit or 64 bit. I know there was a thing back in like 1.6 minecraft where you had to have 64 bit java or you couldn't see further than 10 distance. Since I do not use a 64 bit browser the java installer doesn't like to auto install 64bit so I have to get it manually. It didn't seem to take the update when I did it though. Not really sure what's up with that.
My Xmx was only at 1, though minecraft F3 never reports it using more than about 500 mb. My Xmn was only at 128. What is the Xmn value related to?
I do run a full solid state drive system so I have no mechanical fixed drives.
Looks like I got the Java version thing worked out. For some reason it was using an older java version that was somehow installed into a minecraft folder in the program files directory. No idea why it was doing that. I pointed it to the one in the java directory and it's using the correct one now. Also if you are interested there is an 1.8.0_92 version now and it seems to be stable enough so far.
Well thanks to the help of Matteo the author of Realistico resource pack I have managed to work out the problems I was having rather fast. It seems that the render quality was a huge performance drain on the card without much of a noticeable difference in graphics quality. I'm still not really sure what the difference is. I tried turning from 2.0 to 1.0 over and over and really can't see any difference in quality however 2.0 is 14 FPS and 1.0 is 40 FPS. Hope this helps anyone else having issues with FPS performance!
There is now only one issue I really have with this shader pack which seems to be common among shader packs... When it's raining outside you get this effect of blur on the screen where I guess water droplets are hitting your "eyes" and it is a really annoying feature. Is there any way to turn this effect off? It is extremely unnatural and I'm not sure why developers think this is an accurate representation of real life as this effect does not happen in real life with or without eye protection.
In the same menu that you choose the Render quality, Shadow Quality, etc, click on ''Shader Options..'', which is below those settings.
Then click on ''Weather'' and you'll see an option called ''Rain_Lense''. Turn that off.
Also, on a side note, you shouldn't be at that low of fps, with your listed hardware. I'm always sitting at 60-50, with an i7-6700, 24GB of DDR4 Ram and a GTX 970. I've even recorded a number of videos with Continuum, such as this one:
Try turning both the ''Render Quality and ''Shadow Quality'', to 1. You ought to easily cap at your monitor's refresh rate. Like you said, there's no noticeable difference between higher values and 1.
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
Hmmm fair point, but he is running at 1440 and maybe running a high render distance. I run at the same resolution with the same GPUs, and at 16 render distance with a 256x pack and 1.8.9 Pre2 (With DoF re-enabled) I only average around 50-60fps.
So if he is pushing the render distance further, or running shadow multiplier at x2 or more, plus a 512x pack.... his FPS could be about right.
@Rashaka - What render distance are you running in-game??
My render distance is 15, and I am also using a 512 pack and my shadow quality is maxed out. However, just lowering the render to 1.0 got me back to 40's in FPS. Thanks for the feedback though but as I had said I got this figured out the same day with Matteo.
Also, thank you Quavelen for the options on the rain lens!
[Question]
Hi Continuum team, I have a question for you. Using 1.8.9 Pre2 I would like to know if it's possible to Increase the brightness of Held Torches, but without making the light spread further???
At present with Continuum, increasing the Held Torch light brightness also makes the light radius greater, as a result, increasing the brightness to make held torches very bright and almost a little blinding up close when deep underground or in a totally dark voided area like it would be IRL, the light radius is huge and spreads to around 50 blocks or more.
So, is this possible for me to achieve with a little tweaking in the configs, or would this require some part of the code to be completely rewritten???
Thanks, appreciate any help.
I just realised this. So was this a genuine post or a "Look at me, showing off" post???
I call ******** on the amount of ram you own. The i7 3960X is a great CPU but only the best xeons support 128GB of ram.
Look at the amount of ram it supports under "Memory Specifications"
Exactly, consumer Ivy Bridge's do not support 128GB of RAM. Also, his other posts, asking for help because he's struggling to run a very basic little map mod even when it's on the lowest quality setting because his PC is maxed out and only has a small HDD
I smell a "Hey everyone look at me, look at all the money I have... look at me look at me..." kiddie post.
Yes, that processor specifically only supports up to 32GB of RAM. However, depending on the Motherboard's memory controller, it can support more. For example, the ASUS P9X79 Deluxe Motherboard can increase that to 64GB. They may have a motherboard that ups their limit all the way to 128GB; such as the ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition. It is not impossible, but yes. It's unlikely, in my eyes.
I didn't wish to ''call them out'' on their claim, so I simply accepted it and answered their question to the best of my abilities.
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
Some Motherboards do support up to 128GB of RAM, but not one single consumer CPU physically does support that amount, the maximum is 64GB, and it's the CPU that dictates what will and will not run.
The 128GB support on some Mobos is simply because they are the enthusiast X79 and X99/v3 platforms, so they also support Xeons which in cases can use that amount.
I get what you mean though about "call them out". I dunno, I always call them out because I think if they are embarrassed at being found out, they might stop the stupid little games.... But I'm properly totally off the mark and it might even encourage them
Also, sorry forgive the info, I wanted to explain but I didn't want it to come across as know it all. Hope it didn't sound that way.
Yes, that is all correct. The 3960x psychically does NOT support that much ram. It's literally impossible.
Is an MSI Radeon R9 280x Gaming 3GB GDDR5 good enough to be playable on a cluttered pc?
Well, it depends on a few things:
Without that info, no one can really say.
Although I can give an example: Lets say you are running at 1080p or lower, you don't have a huge 512x texture pack and run at 8 render distance, you might get playable FPS with the medium preset version of 1.1.5, or maybe the High preset but properly below playable 60fps.
I play with Faithful & Lively default, along with a 1080p monitor (lg 22mp55) i play with far render distance normally.
Right, then with a R9 280x, I think you might be ok with the 1.1.5 Medium version, I think you should be able to achieve 60fps with that, but maybe not at 16 render distance, you may have to drop that slightly.
Yes, I have nothing better to do with my day than to come to a tiny Minecraft forum to "show off" my computer stats to a bunch of people whom I do not know.....
Has anyone else notice this anomaly?
I've just started up a brand new server as I haven't played in 2 years. I've been spending a lot of time building and trying to get all my settings correct for a flawless play experience and fancy graphics with all these new shader mods that didn't exist when I played before, or at least weren't known to me. I have recently started going out to explore the world on my server and I've noticed when I hang out around my home area that I easily get 40-50 FPS but when I go out and start to explore my FPS continually drops while moving from area to area. Once I return home it still hangs around 15 FPS and I have to completely shut down the game in order to clear it up and get back to 50 FPS. Any suggestions on this one? Feel like some sort of memory leak.
No, that has never happened to me before.
What is your JVM argument set to? Try changing it, to replicate this:
That's just the default arguments, with a triple -Xmx value and double on the -Xmn.
Also, do you use an SSD or a normal HDD? That could impact performance, especially if it is a slower HDD. On another note, the way MineCraft loads and unloads chunks has always been a bit on the laggy side. I haven't personally had any real fps issues with it, though. And with your listed hardware, you far exceed my system. So theoretically, you shouldn't be encountering any lag in the first place.
• Ryzen 9 3900x @4.2GHz
• 64GB DDR4 @3200MHz
• MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio
• 2TB NVMe SSD
• 6TB in HDD space
• Four monitors at 4k
Well here is one problem that I see. Your executable is running 1.8.0_91. I attempted to update to that but mine is still running 1.8.0_25. I can't tell if it's the 32 bit or 64 bit. I know there was a thing back in like 1.6 minecraft where you had to have 64 bit java or you couldn't see further than 10 distance. Since I do not use a 64 bit browser the java installer doesn't like to auto install 64bit so I have to get it manually. It didn't seem to take the update when I did it though. Not really sure what's up with that.
My Xmx was only at 1, though minecraft F3 never reports it using more than about 500 mb. My Xmn was only at 128. What is the Xmn value related to?
I do run a full solid state drive system so I have no mechanical fixed drives.
Looks like I got the Java version thing worked out. For some reason it was using an older java version that was somehow installed into a minecraft folder in the program files directory. No idea why it was doing that. I pointed it to the one in the java directory and it's using the correct one now. Also if you are interested there is an 1.8.0_92 version now and it seems to be stable enough so far.