The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/17/2011
Posts:
115
Member Details
I ran tests on this myself, to get a more accurate numbers. I had no means to record, but I have gathered the data over 100 separate tests. Even tested other block spacing: 1 block, 4 block, and even 5 block. All in the name of science. 100 tests for each.
3 block spacing versus 2 block spacing:
There is a 38% increase in the amount of work to do 2 block spacing. Over 100 tests, I can confirm that it is accurate.
You gain only an average of 5% in material gain. The amount of effort, and the amount gained back, is not worth the extra 38% increase in work. That increase, with minimal return, actually decreases the efficiency, by a large margin, by comparison.
3 block spacing versus 4 block spacing:
You are doing roughly 23% more work with the 3 block spacing, than the 4 block spacing. A material gain increase of 33% actually makes it worth the extra work. Not a surprise.3 block spacing versus 5 block spacing:
with 3 block spacing you have an increase of 33% work load by comparison. However, an increase of 53% in material gain. Not a surprise.
3 block spacing versus 1 block spacing:
To do 1 block spacing, you increase your work by 50%. You only have a material gain of 6%. Making 1 block spacing less efficient than 2 block spacing. No surprise there.
Over all, the most efficient branch mining style, is to leave 3 blocks between each tunnel.
I even tested 2 block height, and 3 block height as well. You have a 5% increase in material gain, and roughly a 10% increase in work. So I say that it is worth it personally.
3 blocks between each tunnel, with 3 blocks in height, after multiple tests, I have found to be the most efficient method for mining minerals.
I thought it was settled that the most efficient method is 11-block spacing for the passageways and 1-block high pokeholes spaced two blocks apart along each passage?
The Wiki claims that the most efficient spacing is 6 or more blocks between tunnels (or a tunnel spacing of 7 or more blocks), at which point about 1.7% of all blocks mined (probably not counting other ores mined from the walls) is diamond ore:
A maximum efficiency is reached at a spacing of around 6 blocks (that is, 6 solid blocks left in-between the tunnels). At this spacing, efficiency is about 0.017, corresponding to 1.7% of blocks removed being a diamond. At this spacing, the tunnels effectively become independent of each other and so, statistically speaking, the chance of encountering an ore are maximized because there is no chance the ore has been removed by an adjacent tunnel. Above a spacing of 6, efficiency does not increase greatly because ore collection rate is simply a function of the distribution of ores within the level.
This comes out to about one diamond ore every 59 blocks mined, or about 4.3 diamonds per iron pickaxe and 26.5 per diamond pickaxe (x2.2 if Fortune III is used; even without Fortune you'll use only about 1/9 of your mined diamonds on new pickaxes, which can be reduced further if Unbreaking is used, for as many as 233 diamonds per pickaxe).
This is likely the result of several factors; you can find diamond ore that is hidden behind another vein, veins can get up to 6 blocks long in the case of coal (a good reason to always mine everything you find), and there is always one vein of diamond ore in a given 16x16 block area offset by half a chunk in both directions (the game actually ores with such an offset within a 2x2 chunk area when all such chunks have been generated so they can span chunk boundaries without worrying about loading extra chunks, same for other small features).
You can also just dig a single 1x2 tunnel, which is basically the same thing as parallel tunnels with a very large spacing; the major disadvantage of this is the distance you'll cover.
Also, here is a thread that covered the most efficient ways to mine diamond, including the addition of 1x1 pokeholes in the ceiling, which expose more blocks per block mined than a 1x2 tunnel does (in both of these cases they used a computer program to do the work with a very large area used; in-game you'll get a lot of variation in the amount of diamond found in any given mine unless it is extremely large. I'm not sure how large but when I did my own tests to see how much ore is exposed by caves I saw variation even across thousands of chunks, and even the relative amounts of iron and coal, which should not be affected by the altitude distribution of caves in an area, that I find vary quite a bit from play session to play session).
In my own experience I've found about half as much diamond (1/120 blocks) using a spacing of 3 blocks, which I've always used but may consider a wider spacing in the future given what the Wiki says (part of my lower diamond yield is because I play on modded worlds where you want to mine standing on solid bedrock (a single layer at y=0), which reduces the yield, and I have not started a vanilla world for years so I have no comparison, either way, it won't be as high as a 6+ block spacing).
When I branch mine, I also like to collect a lot cobblestone to make stone bricks and slabs for building, so in my own survival worlds I don't care if I get the "best" tunnel spacing. I make my main tunnel 3x3 and put branch tunnels every 3rd block. Not only do I never miss out on any goodies, but I also collect loads and loads of cobblestone, and other building materials. Using an enchanted diamond pick with mending I don't worry about breaking tools either.
In my early days I was constantly running out of cobblestone (stone bricks, stone slabs) for building, and it was annoying. So now I keep as many chests full of cobblestone as I can find room for.
Why don't you use Silk Touch if take stone primarily for stone bricks and slabs?
Because coal. Silk Touch is great when you know what you want to get, but it's far more practical from a storage perspective to smelt as needed. I still try to enforce some limits on myself, however, so if I hit my self-imposed cap on cobble then any more after I'll just turn into smooth stone, then stone brick, and so forth.
I guess I'm not aware of a play style wherein storage space is any sort of limiting factor. I carry two maxed-out picks, one with Fortune III and the other with Silk Touch. I avoid coal, redstone and lapis I have so much of it, but if I decide to take it, I switch to my Fortune pick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
I keep the f3 in my ender chest. Having the non-silk pick is also handy for the odd time you need some cobble (to make a furnace, or whatever).
I use it just often enough to keep it in my actual inventory and not in a shulker/ender chest. The only max-enchant diamond tool I keep with me, but in a chest, is a Fortune III shovel. I hate taking flint when I don't want it.
It's more efficient to poke holes sideways every few blocks, but it's far easier and more practical to just keep digging in a straight line.
I agree wholeheartedly. Branch mine in the way you like. If you hate the method branch mining you're using, every block will be a pain. The most important thing is that you've made the chore as relaxing and enjoyable as possible.
OK, now I feel really stupid! It just never occurred to me to use silk touch on stone! DOH!
Okay, you're banned from the Minecrafts now.
Attached, because my image host couldn't be bothered to function correctly, is an image of my 1000-block-long branch mine. I started digging it Jan. 30, 2015, I believe. It has a 3x5 main shaft with three blocks of space between branches. Also, it has one-by shafts on each side running parallel with the main shaft. That way, I didn't have to count how many blocks long the branches were. I just dug until I hit the side-runner tunnel.
I don't recall how often it has powered rails, but far more than required to maintain top speed. You'd think I'd have ridden a mine cart from one side to the other for the achievement or advancement, but no, I never have. Ha!
I doubt I've used it at all since the end of 2015 or early 2016. There's a plaque at the far end of it that tells the date, but I'm not flying there right now . . . Actually that sounds fun . . .
. . . Wow. Rocketing down there in about 30 seconds or so was fun. This is why I don't use horses or minecarts any longer. The elytra is more than transportation; it's a whole new way of playing.
I finished the main shaft Feb. 3, 2015. I believe I dug it mainly with a Silk Touch, Efficiency IV, Unbreaking III pick, but at the time, back in PCMC 1.8.9, I always carried three picks with me.
Clearly, I don't care about the "efficiency" of such a large main shaft. I now have a very nice tunnel that I was always glad to see upon my return from subterranean adventures. The side the torches are on indicate the direction to return home.
Ore wasn't all I sought. Castle Midgard was built from the stone unearthed by that branch mine:
ATTACHMENTS
2017-09-14_13.46.05
2017-09-14_14.04.17
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
I ran tests on this myself, to get a more accurate numbers. I had no means to record, but I have gathered the data over 100 separate tests. Even tested other block spacing: 1 block, 4 block, and even 5 block. All in the name of science. 100 tests for each.
3 block spacing versus 2 block spacing:
There is a 38% increase in the amount of work to do 2 block spacing. Over 100 tests, I can confirm that it is accurate.
You gain only an average of 5% in material gain. The amount of effort, and the amount gained back, is not worth the extra 38% increase in work. That increase, with minimal return, actually decreases the efficiency, by a large margin, by comparison.
3 block spacing versus 4 block spacing:
You are doing roughly 23% more work with the 3 block spacing, than the 4 block spacing. A material gain increase of 33% actually makes it worth the extra work. Not a surprise.3 block spacing versus 5 block spacing:
with 3 block spacing you have an increase of 33% work load by comparison. However, an increase of 53% in material gain. Not a surprise.
3 block spacing versus 1 block spacing:
To do 1 block spacing, you increase your work by 50%. You only have a material gain of 6%. Making 1 block spacing less efficient than 2 block spacing. No surprise there.
Over all, the most efficient branch mining style, is to leave 3 blocks between each tunnel.
I even tested 2 block height, and 3 block height as well. You have a 5% increase in material gain, and roughly a 10% increase in work. So I say that it is worth it personally.
3 blocks between each tunnel, with 3 blocks in height, after multiple tests, I have found to be the most efficient method for mining minerals.
TMC's keyboard is about to get a beating.
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
I thought it was settled that the most efficient method is 11-block spacing for the passageways and 1-block high pokeholes spaced two blocks apart along each passage?
The Wiki claims that the most efficient spacing is 6 or more blocks between tunnels (or a tunnel spacing of 7 or more blocks), at which point about 1.7% of all blocks mined (probably not counting other ores mined from the walls) is diamond ore:
This comes out to about one diamond ore every 59 blocks mined, or about 4.3 diamonds per iron pickaxe and 26.5 per diamond pickaxe (x2.2 if Fortune III is used; even without Fortune you'll use only about 1/9 of your mined diamonds on new pickaxes, which can be reduced further if Unbreaking is used, for as many as 233 diamonds per pickaxe).
This is likely the result of several factors; you can find diamond ore that is hidden behind another vein, veins can get up to 6 blocks long in the case of coal (a good reason to always mine everything you find), and there is always one vein of diamond ore in a given 16x16 block area offset by half a chunk in both directions (the game actually ores with such an offset within a 2x2 chunk area when all such chunks have been generated so they can span chunk boundaries without worrying about loading extra chunks, same for other small features).
You can also just dig a single 1x2 tunnel, which is basically the same thing as parallel tunnels with a very large spacing; the major disadvantage of this is the distance you'll cover.
Also, here is a thread that covered the most efficient ways to mine diamond, including the addition of 1x1 pokeholes in the ceiling, which expose more blocks per block mined than a 1x2 tunnel does (in both of these cases they used a computer program to do the work with a very large area used; in-game you'll get a lot of variation in the amount of diamond found in any given mine unless it is extremely large. I'm not sure how large but when I did my own tests to see how much ore is exposed by caves I saw variation even across thousands of chunks, and even the relative amounts of iron and coal, which should not be affected by the altitude distribution of caves in an area, that I find vary quite a bit from play session to play session).
In my own experience I've found about half as much diamond (1/120 blocks) using a spacing of 3 blocks, which I've always used but may consider a wider spacing in the future given what the Wiki says (part of my lower diamond yield is because I play on modded worlds where you want to mine standing on solid bedrock (a single layer at y=0), which reduces the yield, and I have not started a vanilla world for years so I have no comparison, either way, it won't be as high as a 6+ block spacing).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
When I branch mine, I also like to collect a lot cobblestone to make stone bricks and slabs for building, so in my own survival worlds I don't care if I get the "best" tunnel spacing. I make my main tunnel 3x3 and put branch tunnels every 3rd block. Not only do I never miss out on any goodies, but I also collect loads and loads of cobblestone, and other building materials. Using an enchanted diamond pick with mending I don't worry about breaking tools either.
In my early days I was constantly running out of cobblestone (stone bricks, stone slabs) for building, and it was annoying. So now I keep as many chests full of cobblestone as I can find room for.
Why don't you use Silk Touch if take stone primarily for stone bricks and slabs?
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
Because coal. Silk Touch is great when you know what you want to get, but it's far more practical from a storage perspective to smelt as needed. I still try to enforce some limits on myself, however, so if I hit my self-imposed cap on cobble then any more after I'll just turn into smooth stone, then stone brick, and so forth.
I guess I'm not aware of a play style wherein storage space is any sort of limiting factor. I carry two maxed-out picks, one with Fortune III and the other with Silk Touch. I avoid coal, redstone and lapis I have so much of it, but if I decide to take it, I switch to my Fortune pick.
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures
OK, now I feel really stupid! It just never occurred to me to use silk touch on stone! DOH!
I use it just often enough to keep it in my actual inventory and not in a shulker/ender chest. The only max-enchant diamond tool I keep with me, but in a chest, is a Fortune III shovel. I hate taking flint when I don't want it.
I agree wholeheartedly. Branch mine in the way you like. If you hate the method branch mining you're using, every block will be a pain. The most important thing is that you've made the chore as relaxing and enjoyable as possible.
Okay, you're banned from the Minecrafts now.
Attached, because my image host couldn't be bothered to function correctly, is an image of my 1000-block-long branch mine. I started digging it Jan. 30, 2015, I believe. It has a 3x5 main shaft with three blocks of space between branches. Also, it has one-by shafts on each side running parallel with the main shaft. That way, I didn't have to count how many blocks long the branches were. I just dug until I hit the side-runner tunnel.
I don't recall how often it has powered rails, but far more than required to maintain top speed. You'd think I'd have ridden a mine cart from one side to the other for the achievement or advancement, but no, I never have. Ha!
I doubt I've used it at all since the end of 2015 or early 2016. There's a plaque at the far end of it that tells the date, but I'm not flying there right now . . . Actually that sounds fun . . .
. . . Wow. Rocketing down there in about 30 seconds or so was fun. This is why I don't use horses or minecarts any longer. The elytra is more than transportation; it's a whole new way of playing.
I finished the main shaft Feb. 3, 2015. I believe I dug it mainly with a Silk Touch, Efficiency IV, Unbreaking III pick, but at the time, back in PCMC 1.8.9, I always carried three picks with me.
Clearly, I don't care about the "efficiency" of such a large main shaft. I now have a very nice tunnel that I was always glad to see upon my return from subterranean adventures. The side the torches are on indicate the direction to return home.
Ore wasn't all I sought. Castle Midgard was built from the stone unearthed by that branch mine:
My short story-like journals; quick-and-easy reads:
My Quest for Elytra Complete! (Pic Intense, End-Game Spoilers)
[Journal & Pics] After a Year and a Half, I Finally Found a Jungle
FrozenCore: Hardcore Death; 3/20/15 to 5/3/15; Eight Weeks on a Frozen World in Pictures