All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
  • 0

    posted a message on ¿Por qué tan mal optimizado? // Why so bad optimized?
    Quote from Miles323»

    Not really.

    Why? Overwacht. Modern game. . .Run fast on low graph PC's. Obviously not on 60FPS, but 30 or 25 are aceptable. MC for windows 10 runs better only because it's made in a graphic engine.


    25-30 FPS is in no way acceptable to me, which is what killed the game (newer versions anyway) for me when 1.8 came out, and even in 1.7 (as well as all newer versions, until I got a new computer last year) I had some weird issue where it hitched every 10th frame (always every 10th frame regardless of any settings, even the FPS limit and even running external programs to cause lag), causing the effective FPS to be that much lower (here is an old screenshot with Optifine's lagometer enabled; it may say 58 FPS but it looked like 1/10th of that).

    Also, most games are in no way comparable to Minecraft - does Overwatch do anything underneath all those fancy textures? Does it have to render millions of blocks (or run culling code so as to not crash your computer by trying to render every single face)? No? For some idea of just what Minecraft has to do in order to render just 10 chunk render distance, the minimum required due to a bug with mob (de)spawning, there are 441 (21x21) chunks loaded, each with as many as 65536 blocks (16128 for a world height of 63; e.g. open ocean) and 393216 (96768) faces. If the game tried to render every face of every block the GPU would have to render as many as 173 (42.7) million faces - even with 16x16 textures that's 44.4 billion texels (a texel being a pixel of the texture, each having 256 pixels/texels) - a GeForce GTX 1080 (a very high-end GPU) can process 257 billion per second so that's a mere 5.8 FPS.

    This can be reduced to about 1292 (704) per chunk by removing all faces which are occluded by another block, leaving only 256 on the tops and bottom of each chunk plus the sides of the outermost chunks, for a reduction of up to 300-fold, but that requires checking every single block to see if it is occluded. Even a chunk with terrain, trees, caves, structures, etc, is going to have most of the block faces occluded and the game performs an additional culling step to cull 16x16x16 chunk sections which are not visible but that requires even more checks to determine this - and all of that extra checking is dumped onto the CPU, partly explaining why the game is so reliant on a good CPU.

    Then add in all the block updates, entity movement, and so on which occur constantly. Bedrock actually only updates chunks within 4 chunks of the player (81 chunks) while Java updates all chunks within render distance (i.e. 441 chunks for 10 chunk render distance*. Entities are only active if a 5x5 chunk area around them is loaded so they are processed within 289 chunks):
    But Java actually has things going on in all of those chunks, Bedrock just SHOWs you the chunks, if you are more than 4 chunks away everything deactivates.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/72uvsx/max_render_distance_java_vs_bedrock/dnluua3/

    *In 1.3.1-1.6.4 the internal server used a fixed view distance of 10 but a chunk update radius of only 7 so only about half the loaded chunks (225/441) were being updated, which may explain why some people saw worse performance after 1.8(?) made the chunk update radius equal to the view (and since 1.7.4 render) distance. Also, I've noticed that in newer versions the area of chunks the player generates is not a perfect square but often has random single chunks along the sides, suggesting that blocks that update next to unloaded chunks force them to load - the chunk update radius should be at least 1 less than the view distance to avoid this (similar to how the entity update radius is 2 less).

    Also, it is a bit misleading to say that Java Minecraft does not have its own game engine - all games run on a engine of some sort, whether it is based on a customized version of a "standard" engine or a homemade one (as in the case of Java; Bedrock probably uses its own as well). However, Java does depend on 3rd party libraries (LWJGL) to provide an interface to the GPU/OpenGL and this can be where some the issues lie; among other things, LWJGL 2 is ancient and has long been superseded by LWJGL 3; unfortunately they are so different (not even backwards compatible) that a huge rewrite is needed in order to convert over instead of simply updating the library).
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on A bit of an enchantment problem here...

    In case you are wondering it is possible to make a nearly-maxed out sword by combining books starting at level 1 of each enchantment (minus Sweeping Edge, but you could add it as a level 3 book; it did not exist yet as of the time of the post below) - including combining 16 Sharpness I books to get Sharpness V - but you have to do this in just the right order and it is rather expensive:

    It is in fact possible to make a perfect sword with lots and lots of level 1 books (Sharpness 5, Knockback 2, Fire Aspect 2, Looting 3, Unbreaking 3, Mending). it costs 151 total levels, and takes 29 books.

    http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/2716494-help-pls-i-have-a-book-with-sharpness-5-mending?comment=15

    [note - the prior work penalty on the sword still allows for one more operation; adding a book with Sweeping Edge III (not made from combining!) will cost 31 + 6 = 37 levels for a grand total of 188 levels spent]


    However, I do not recommend doing that at all; you'll likely spend a lot less XP (the 151 level cost is a bit misleading since spending 3 levels when you are at level 3 costs far less XP than if you were at level 30 but it is still significant) if you go with an already enchanted sword (just make sure it will get Sharpness before enchanting it) and use books to add any additional enchantments, preferably already with higher levels (e.g. one which already has Sharpness IV instead of combining 8x Sharpness I) (IMO, being able to indefinitely use a maxed-out sword or other item is OP and this is one thing that is wrong with Mending besides obsoleting mining for resources for gear; for comparison, prior to 1.8 you could simply rename an item to keep the the penalty at 2 levels but you had to pay a lot for durability and enchantments, so you had to make wise choices as to what you wanted; e.g. a Sharpness V, Knockback II, Unbreaking III diamond sword is already too expensive to repair unless you use slightly damaged swords or individual diamonds).

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on What are your thoughts on Minecraft?

    To say that Minecraft is the game that I've played the most is a huge understatement - I've played it for around three to four hours per day pretty much every day for more than four and a half years with no signs of slacking off (in fact, in my last world, played earlier this year, I averaged more time per session than any other world I have stats for)... that comes up to around 5,750 hours - 240 days - of time spent playing this one game, including 121 in my first world and a combined 174 days when including several other worlds I have statistics for, plus additional worlds (on some days I spent my normal playtime working on mods but that time pretty much counts since it was spent on the game in some way). It is also pretty much the only game that I've played during that time - a remarkable testament to how addicting I find the game to be.

    As far as the evolution goes, they made a big mistake in 1.7; for some reason they significantly took away from a major part of the game and still have done nothing whatsoever to let use customize it despite it being very easy to do (there is even a world type that lets you customize things that Customized cannot - but so much for people who do not want a Superflat world). Not that it has affected me that much; I am perfectly happy with playing a 4+ year old version plus my own tweaks to improve the game experience - I think that the ability to easily downgrade and mod the game are some of the most notable features of the game (most games do not let you downgrade and any mods must be purchased as limited add-ons).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on My thoughts on 1.13's new Default Resource Pack, and Minecraft's evolution in general.
    Quote from YMbrothers»

    Those people who hates changes (and closure of ability to hack-2-win. Haha) just like additions.

    I can't see why people are hating changes at all. (Unlike the old days...)


    Imagine if your playstyle was entirely based around exploring the underground and then Mojang comes along and removes more than half of the content.

    Yes, that actually happened in 1.7; cave systems became 2.8 times smaller (as well as 2.8 times less size variation, and more when you consider overlap between cave systems; they were made twice as common but there are less caves overall and this also reduces variation; the larger the size range is and the rarer they are the more varied they get) and mineshafts and dungeons both became 2.5 times rarer. I'm not the only one who was put off by those changes, as this remark from a PM shows:
    I did look at a few 1.7 seeds, and to me it is a joke how much smaller the caves are - what were they thinking. Without your old cave gen mod I would find it very difficult to get enjoyment out of this game in 1.8.

    And that is exactly how I feel, to the point where I have never updated past 1.6.4 and never will (not likely or may but will), plus I have more than 121 days of my life invested in a world which I do not want to be disrupted by world generation changes. Use mods to revert them? Heh, why not just use the same version instead? Mojang actually adds underground content as well as customization in 1.14 or whatever? I have already done that myself with mods, and, of course, this is only possible on the Java edition so I'll never play anything else even if I did update:
    Which of these maps show the most variation?

    1.6.4:


    1.7+


    TMCW (my own mod):


    Here is a close-up of the upper-right; the map shown above was also created after I deleted all chunks without torches to only show what I actually explored:


    Sure, it is possible to have a cave system that is large even by 1.6.4 standards generate in 1.7+ but I only found this by searching through millions of seeds with a program I wrote and it is the exception, not the rule (the only seeds that generate a world that is much different overall from any others are due to a bug and do not generate a normal-looking world), so once I finished exploring it there isn't anything else interesting to find (it would take a week at the most for me to explore even a cave system of this size; in fact, recently I did just that in my 1.6.4 world):

    This is a to scale comparison of the largest known cave system in 1.7+ (square map in lower right, which measures 1616x1616 blocks) to all of what I've explored in my first world (6400x5680 blocks; I made this map after deleting all chunks without torches in them so this only shows what I've actually explored, hence the ragged edges):


    This is an animated sequence of my progress in exploring a network of caves (near the lower-left of the map above) that is about 50% larger (in terms of the number of caves) than the largest known cave system in 1.7+ - it only took 7 play sessions to explore all of it:
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on How can I get animals to spawn on my jungle island? I'm trying to get a parrot to spawn.
    Quote from darylprater»

    So after another day of not finding a parrot I've come to the conclusion that they're something wrong with the map on my game. Maybe it was generated too long ago. I filled my jungle with about 200 torches and that caused ocelots to spawn like crazy. I must have killed about 20 ocelots today. This proves there's nothing wrong with the passive creature limit. But I can't get a single cow or chicken to spawn let alone a parrot.


    So parrots will spawn in old jungles, but not too old like mine. That's a shame, I guess ill build on to my nether transportation system and look for a new jungle.


    Remember, ocelots spawn under hostile mob spawn rules so they do not prove anything (but they do count towards the passive mob cap so you do want to get rid of them). Also, world age has nothing to do with why they are not spawning; there is no "version" for a biome or chunk and the only difference between pre-1.7 and 1.7+ jungles is that the latter have Jungle Edge and other variants not present before (I believe all variants count for parrot spawning, similar to how emeralds spawn in any variant of Extreme Hills) while the former have small lake-like river biomes (these do not count as jungle and can be distinguished as vegetation-free spots with a different grass color even when they do not have water):
    1.6.4 jungle (same back to 1.2.1):


    1.7-1.12 jungle; note the lack of small river biomes (also absent from swamps) and the addition of Jungle Edge:


    You also mentioned killing squid, which are an entirely separate class of mobs of their own so they do not fill up the passive mob cap, same for bats. As mentioned before, it is most likely that the passive mob cap is full because of mobs in the spawn chunks and/or the area you are trying to spawn them in; the best way to prevent them from spawning in the spawn chunks and elsewhere around the area you are trying to spawn them would be to get rid of all grass, as otherwise it would be very difficult to clear the area and get away before the game spawns more (they only spawn once every 20 seconds but there is one spawn attempt per chunk and the game only checks the cap one time per cycle; this also means that considerably more than 10 animals can spawn, most dramatically seen with squid in oceans, where a hundred or more can spawn at once despite cap of only 5).
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on Did the version selection option split up the community?

    As somebody who has never updated past 1.6.4 (link in signature) and has probably spent less than 3-4 hours in total on newer versions (an average play session; by "never updated" I mean normal gameplay) I don't see how this has really affected the community as much as, say, all the new Minecraft editions; for the most part 1.6.4 is the same game as 1.12.2 and the gameplay is mostly the same (if I mention some game mechanic most will know what I'm talking about; likewise, much of what I know about how something works in 1.6.4 applies to the latest version), just with some new features and some old ones removed; the differences would mainly affect multiplayer since you have to use a specific version to play on a server (which are mainly about minigames these days, which are less affected by version changes) and I've never played multiplayer, and singleplayer is more popular in general.

    Also, while I have made a mod that adds in some newer features, much of my playtime, and playstyle, has been in what is essentially vanilla 1.6.4 (a few minor mods) simply because those newer features are not "must-haves" for me (aside from Mending, and only because Mojang removed the feature where renaming an item would keep its cost from increasing, so they more or less cancel out) and I would not use them even if they were in the game by default (as it is I don't use many features present in 1.6.4, such as redstone (not counting basic railways or a button by a door), or horses; much of what I do when playing could be done in Classic, the first version to have caves, mobs, ores, tools, and Survival mode; not that that means that I'd prefer that version over the latest versions since there are other features that I would not want to give up).

    I also get a very strong impression that I am the exception, not the norm; for example, consider how unknown my namesake mod is despite having been around for over three and a half years with semi-regular updates - 7 results on Google? Even those sites that love to steal and repost mods have ignored it (it adds in some newer features and there is a semi-popular mod for 1.7.10 (20,700 results) that adds 1.8+ features to that version so this likely shows just how few still play 1.6.4; 1.7.10 is mainly still popular due to mods and even then many mods, including big ones, are being updated so its days are numbered. Yes, some people still play even older versions, like 1.2.5 for Tekkit Classic, but they are very rare.

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on How to rejuvenate singleplayer survival?

    I do not consider most of the Survival aspect to be building and being creative; after all, that is what Creative mode is for (not that you can't build in Survival).

    Also, the OP said that they had trouble finding caves, not that they did not want any caves, which IMO are 99% of the entire game (originally named Cave Game and now Minecraft, suggesting that mining is a big part of the game), although my playstyle probably isn't very interesting, and while I've made mods that enhance this aspect of the game (vanilla 1.6.4 vs TMCWv4 vs vanilla 1.7+) and much more the only one I've made for recent versions simply restores the underground generation in 1.6.4 (I recently released an update for 1.12.2 which also optionally lets you make mineshafts as common as they used to be; all you have to do is make a Customized world with dungeon chance set to 16 and you'll very closely get what 1.6.4 had; in fact, 1.6.4 cave seeds are fully compatible. Of course, there is a catch with this as well since it is not a Forge mod so it is harder to install and possibly incompatible with other mods).

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on My skelleton spawner only spawns one at a time

    The overall mob cap does not affect mob spawners so you do not need to worry about them at all unless they are within 4 blocks of the spawner, which is certainly not the case here (the screenshot shows 4 blocks to each side), plus they must be of the same type of mob (i.e. a skeleton and zombie spawner next to each other would spawn up to 6 of each within the 9x9x9 area, not 6 total), so I highly doubt that anybody has ever had an issue with nearby mobs preventing a spawner from working properly, even in older versions (with +/-4 blocks of spawnable area around the spawner you'd need only 2 blocks of space inside the spawner room in order to have one block of spawnable area outside a one block thick wall).

    Of course, that does not account for any issues with the spawner setup itself, such as mobs getting caught up so they take more than 10 seconds to leave the area (the minimum time between spawn attempts); have you actually seen it spawning mobs while active, or are you just counting mobs that funnel down? At the optimal spawn rate you should average one mob every 6 seconds (4 mobs per pack, one pack every 25 (10-40) seconds); they may only be coming down one at a time due to the funneling system.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on How can I get animals to spawn on my jungle island? I'm trying to get a parrot to spawn.
    Quote from ShelLuser»


    That's incorrect. Best it does is spread out the FPS load but it doesn't unload the spawn chunks. Proof of concept is my redstone world. I have this option turned on and had to cope with a contraption which had issues due to chunks unloading as such I moved it onto the spawn chunks. Well, it doesn't matter anymore where I am in the world, I can even be 10k blocks out, but this contraption never unloads.


    Well, I have not used it on any newer versions (or even ever used anything that depends on spawn chunks being loaded so it would never affect me unless having hundreds of chests/tile entities in the spawn chunks could cause lag) but everybody else - including the creator of Optifine - claims that it unloads spawn chunks:
    Spawn chunk don't load when go away

    sp614x commented on Aug 13, 2016
    Options -> Video Settings -> Performance -> Smooth World -> OFF

    https://github.com/sp614x/optifine/issues/240


    Note that prior to 1.8(?) Smooth World had a very different function, which is what you might be thinking of:
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on How can I get animals to spawn on my jungle island? I'm trying to get a parrot to spawn.
    Quote from DuhDerp»


    Hold on a sec. Aren't there a minimum amount of chunks kept loaded regardless of render distance (I believe this comes up when we talk about hostile mobs and how the render-distance bug works)? If that's the case, why aren't passive mobs that have already spawned that happen to be in lazy chunks not similarly counted toward the cap?


    Passive mobs do count towards the cap but since they do not despawn (in most cases) they do not cause the issue that hostile mobs suffer from - in other words, hostile mobs in the outer chunks never despawn since entities are not processed unless a 5x5 chunk area around them is loaded, but are still counted towards the mob cap, and this is what causes them to appear to stop spawning, but if you fly around you'll come across mobs, including zombies and skeletons long after they should have burned during the day.

    The effective active area for mobs is 2 chunks less than the render distance, except for very low render distances since this would mean that they could only be active in the center chunk on 2 chunk render distance, but it is certainly less than the minimum of 10 required for proper despawning (in 1.6.4 and older versions the internal server's view distance was always set to 10 regardless of render distance. Not sure about 1.7.2, which cannot render more than 8 chunks due to a bug but the mob spawning issue was first reported in singleplayer in 1.7.4, but since much earlier for multiplayer since you can change the view distance (the bug tracker only goes back to 1.4.2 since that was when they created it but I wouldn't be surprised if it went back to Beta or earlier).
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Does anyone have Treecapitator mod for 1.7.3?

    I'm pretty sure that "1.7.3" refers to Beta 1.7.3, not release 1.7.3, which never had any mods for it because it was only a short-lived pre-release that was released as 1.7.4.

    Also, the precursor to Treecapitator was Timber!, but unfortunately it appears that it is no longer available as the creator took it down (link).

    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Allowing modders to distribute their work for free if they want to.
    Quote from Herb_»

    The system actively checks for modifications, and will not work if it detects that it has been changed.

    This is also true for Java:
    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // Ooh. Shiny.
    Time: 10/8/17 10:41 PM
    Description: Exception in server tick loop
    java.lang.SecurityException: SHA-256 digest error for aza.class
    at sun.security.util.ManifestEntryVerifier.verify(ManifestEntryVerifier.java:218)
    at java.util.jar.JarVerifier.processEntry(JarVerifier.java:241)
    at java.util.jar.JarVerifier.update(JarVerifier.java:228)
    at java.util.jar.JarVerifier$VerifierStream.read(JarVerifier.java:482)
    at sun.misc.Resource.getBytes(Resource.java:124)
    at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:450)
    at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:73)
    at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:367)
    at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:361)
    at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
    at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:360)
    at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:424)
    at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:308)
    at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:357)
    at aym.c(SourceFile:77)
    at oo.n(SourceFile:741)
    at oo.(SourceFile:130)
    at chd.a(SourceFile:98)
    at chd.j(SourceFile:130)
    at net.minecraft.server.MinecraftServer.run(SourceFile:434)
    at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)

    That's what happens if I install a mod I made without deleting META-INF, which contains checksums for every single file in the jar as well as the jar as a whole. Even with META-INF deleted the launcher will redownload an intact jar file unless you edit the json file to remove the download URL:
    Couldn't get hash for 1.12.2_oldcaves jar from https://s3.amazonaws.com/Minecraft.Download/versions/1.12.2_oldcaves/1.12.2_oldcaves.jar.sha1: HTTP 403: Forbidden
    Have local file C:/Users\\AppData\Roaming\.minecraft\versions\1.12.2_oldcaves/1.12.2_oldcaves.jar but don't know what size or hash it should be. Have to assume it's good.

    Not only that, they obfuscate the code so you can't just decompile it; you have to deobfuscate it into readable, recompileable code, which also must be reobfuscated in order to work, which is the reason why you can't run a mod for 1.11 on 1.12 (or even 1.12.2, though some simpler mods can take advantage of Forge's deobfuscation) even if they made no changes to the code it depends on (and MCP did not decide to change a variable name) - and the main reason for obfuscation is to make it harder to tamper with it:
    In software development, obfuscation is the deliberate act of creating source or machine code that is difficult for humans to understand. Like obfuscation in natural language, it may use needlessly roundabout expressions to compose statements. Programmers may deliberately obfuscate code to conceal its purpose (security through obscurity) or its logic or implicit values embedded in it, primarily, in order to prevent tampering, deter reverse engineering, or even as a puzzle or recreational challenge for someone reading the source code.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation_(software)

    In other words, modding is technically not supported in Java, otherwise, why would they go through all this trouble?

    As for Bedrock, I don't see why console rules must apply to the game when you use it on a PC or mobile device - those rules are specific to consoles and forbid any sort of tampering, not just modifying a game on them. People have made mods for Windows 10 Edition, despite others claiming that it was not possible or illegal (although it is far more difficult since C++ can't be easily decompiled into original source).
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate TNT World Seed! - can your computer survive?

    The preset still works if you change the numerical block IDs to names; they removed them in 1.8 and changed the format so it starts with 3 and uses "*" instead of "x" to specify the number of layers:

    3;minecraft:bedrock,64*minecraft:tnt;1

    Also, I'd suggest using fewer layers to start with; there is no way any computer can handle 64 layers of TNT exploding infinitely (or at least within render distance; even 2 chunk render distance loads 409600 TNT blocks. Note that in the version current when this thread was started (up to 1.6.4) the internal server always used a 10 chunk view distance, or 7.2 million TNT loaded, which I doubt any computer can handle, even one layer (112896 TNT) gives me an out of memory crash, though I can allocate only 1 GB of RAM).

    Posted in: Customised Worlds
  • 0

    posted a message on How can I get animals to spawn on my jungle island? I'm trying to get a parrot to spawn.

    If your farm is only 70 blocks away and has that many animals about all you can do is set your render distance to 2 chunks, which means that chunks will only be loaded up to 48 blocks away (the chunk you are in plus 2 more so if you are on one side of the center chunk you'll load 32 blocks in one direction and 48 in the opposite direction). Note that a low render distance causes issues with hostile mob spawning but this is because they cannot despawn unless at least a 5x5 chunk area around them is loaded, but all entities in loaded chunks count towards the cap, which is not an issue with passive mobs since they do not despawn (which happens to be all that is loaded on 2 chunk render distance. The game may load more chunks that are not rendered because this means that only entities within the chunk you are in should be active but that is not the case). This is also a good way to repopulate an area where all the passive mobs were killed since on average a pack of 4 mobs spawns every 10 chunks during world generation, or 10 mobs every 25 chunks (world generation spawning ignores the mob cap so it can be greatly exceeded).

    Ocelots are also a problem because they spawn under the hostile mob cap but count to the passive mob cap; they are only prevented from building up indefinitely because they randomly despawn after a couple minutes and have a low spawn chance and even then I've seen the entity count exceed 300 in jungles where I've explored/lit up all the caves so the hostile mob cap is not reached (in other biomes in explored areas I see 20-100 entities during the day, which mostly reflects passive mobs as well as bats and squid). You can stop them from spawning though if you fill up the hostile mob cap; e.g. spawn 70+ zombies with a zombie spawner (there is likely a spawner of some sort somewhere below the jungle, especially if it was generated before 1.7, where there is an average of one dungeon every 40-45 chunks and, depending on your distance from 0,0, even more cave spider spawners. Since then spawners of both types are around 2.5 times less common). Note that nametagging mobs so they do not despawn also makes them no longer count towards the mob cap.

    Also, if you have Optifine enabling "smooth world" (video settings, performance) will unload the spawn chunks so they are not an issue.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.6.4 and below caves for 1.12.2 mod. (Forge)
    Quote from csb987»

    I had a play around with this - changing those values does get pretty close to 1.6.4 cave gen.


    Here's an imgur album if anyone's interested: https://imgur.com/a/R3AVC


    A better way to compare them is to use a mapping tool like Unmined, which lets you easily compare them over large distances (from your screenshots it appears that there are more caves in vanilla 1.12); here is a comparison between 1.6.4, 1.12.2, and 1.12.2 with 1.6.4 cave generation, using the seed "-123775873255737467" - caves are not just similar but identical, aside from where surface features like water are different, and ignoring things like springs and ores:

    Of note, you can also easily make mineshafts more common by changing the default value of a field in MapGenMineshaft from 0.004 to 0.01 and most mineshafts will be exactly the same, aside from those in mesas and under oceans (the latter just cut off where they would intersect water):

    (in this example I used an actual world I've been playing on for comparison, the ares shown was generated in 1.5.1 so in all that time they have not changed the structure of mineshafts; indeed, it should work all the way back to 1.4.2, when they changed the mineshaft spawn algorithm to use nextDouble instead of nextInt so it was easier to customize their frequency in Superflat)

    In addition, while ravines are slightly different this is only because they changed a value from 128 to 256 within the method that generates a ravine (generateRavine in MapGenRavine in 1.6.4); the value in question is near the start of the method and is the end index of a for loop (apparently changed since terrain could now reach y=255, however, the ceilings of the highest ravines never go above y=90 so this can safely be changed without messing them up).

    By changing all of these it is possible to almost perfectly replicate the underground in 1.6.4, aside from the locations of minor features and dungeons, which will also be half as common unless you double their chance from 8 to 16 in Customized (similar to ravines they changed their altitude range from 128 to 256 but did not change their count so they only have half the chance of generating below sea level, where the majority of caves are; in fact, caves never even start above y=126 and dungeons require a cave of some sort to generate so there was little point to doing that; I suspect Mojang just changed a bunch of values from 128 to 256; the same changes caused some other bugs like mushrooms generating on top of the Nether, which had been specifically coded not to generate above y=127 in that dimension in an older version).
    Posted in: Requests / Ideas For Mods
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.