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
  • 1

    posted a message on Number of pixels that can possibly be created in Minecraft (Minecraft numbers)

    How did you calculate this? If you take the number of pixels on a standard block, which is 1536 (6 sides with 16x16 = 256 pixels each) and allow every single color combination using RGBA (8 bits for each color plus 8 for transparency for a total of 32 bits; 2^32 = 4294967296) the resulting number is incalculable, at least on any standard calculator; I had to use this site to calculate it (enter 4294967296^1536) and when saved as a text file with spaces removed the size on disk was 14797 bytes (or that many digits).

    Even using plain RGB with no transparency, which gives 16777216 colors per pixel, I got a 11098 digit number, and if all 6 sides used the same texture, 1850 digits.


    As far as other numbers go, a while ago I made a thread which included calculations for the chances of the largest possible single cave system, which is around one per 8.8 x 10^52 chunks in 1.6.4 and 1.7 x 10^21 in 1.7; both of these are far in excess of the number of unique cave systems that can actually generate, which is about 19 trillion in 1.6.4 and 40 trillion in 1.7 (281 trillion * 1/15 chance per chunk in 1.6.4 and 1/7 in 1.7) so either very likely do not actually exist (in fact, there are 65536 times more worlds than possible unique cave systems and, assuming no overlap, only 20 worlds are required to exhaust every possible "chunk seed", which is also used to determine how most other aspects of world generation appear. This does not mean that you'll find the same things that often since chunks which match will not be in the same patterns). For comparison, every possible Minecraft world has about 2.6 x 10^32 chunks (not accounting for world type, which has no effect on caves or most other non-biome-specific features).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on TheMasterCaver's First World

    I found one of the densest cave systems that I've ever found, with a huge semi-open chamber in the center. Even the surface, where caves are usually less common, was a complete mess from all of the intersecting tunnels:


























    I analyzed the area around the cave system and found a total of 87 caves within a 3x3 chunk area, including a single chunk with 54 caves - the second highest that I've found in any cave system that I've analyzed (one other cave system had 54 while the most was 58; in theory as many as 156 caves can generate in a single chunk in 1.6.4. Even 1.7+ can have as many as 56 although both of these are virtually certain to not actually occur in any seed):

    Seed is -123775873255737467
    Center is -1920, 3024 (chunk -120, 189)
    Radius is 1 chunks (circular)
    Version used is <= 1.6.4

    Size 24 cave system at -1936, 3008; total number of caves: 32
    Size 1 cave system at -1904, 3008; total number of caves: 1
    Size 31 cave system at -1904, 3040; total number of caves: 54

    Number of cave systems: 3
    Initial number of caves: 56
    Total number of caves: 87
    Additional circular room caves: 31
    Number of small caves: 85; average width is 5.87
    Number of large caves: 2; average width is 11.79
    Number of circular rooms: 19; average width is 9.90
    Additional caves per circular room: 1.63
    Average caves per chunk: 9.666667 (9 chunks)

    Average altitude: 31.39
    Percentage of caves on layers 0 to 9: 26.44
    Percentage of caves on layers 10 to 19: 19.54
    Percentage of caves on layers 20 to 29: 14.94
    Percentage of caves on layers 30 to 39: 3.45
    Percentage of caves on layers 40 to 49: 5.75
    Percentage of caves on layers 50 to 59: 13.79
    Percentage of caves above layer 59: 16.09


    That said, in terms of overall size and density I've still yet to find a cave system that surpasses the one I found around -800, -1050 over four years ago, which has twice as many caves spread over about twice the area:






    Here is a series of renderings of the cave system; surface at night, below sea level, below layer 20, and y=11:


    Also, I explored the entire cave system in 3 hours and 50 minutes and mined a total of 3758 ore, including 47 diamonds; the total amount of ore is less than what I've found in other recent large cave systems in terms of ore found per individual cave/tunnel (about 43 each) due to the high density while I found about 3.5 times the average amount of diamond per session.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on What Happened Here?
    Quote from TheRealFanatic»

    Just a side note - I don't find the forums all that quiet or useless here. However, I DO also look in on reddit and also, PlanetMinecraft looks to have forums but I haven't explored them too much. I realize that, compared to many, I am a raw newbie. So perhaps things interest me, that no longer hold any appeal for others here. I do appreciate nearly all of the comments I find on the forums here. My own specific puzzle, lately, is why there isn't more discussion of some of the machine-specific aspects of the game.


    The forums used to be orders of magnitude more active; one look at the total number of posts in this section, then at the activity in recent days should tell you all; here is a list I made showing how posting rates in this section have declined over the years (ending around mid-October, the time I compiled this. 2011 represents the total and average since the forums were created in mid-June 2009 since I did not find any archived pages for 2009-2010):
    2011: 598122 (259898/year, 712/day)
    2012: 889659 (291537/year, 799/day)
    2013: 993015 (103356/year, 283/day)
    2014: 1138817 (145802/year, 399/day)
    2015: 1177298 (38481/year, 105/day)
    2016: 1196886 (19588/year, 53.7/day)
    2017: 1205090 (8204/year, 22.5/day)


    If you think the above is bad, since I compiled this there have been only 11.2 new posts per day in this section - that's a decline of over 98% from the annual average for 2012 - in other words, there used to be over 70 times more activity than there is now - averaged over an entire year (in other words, peaks were even higher, possibly over 100 times higher). You'd think that Minecraft was a long-dead game, not one that is supposedly selling millions of new copies and gaining millions of new (and total active) users per month (even as much as I am/was against the idea that the game is dying as so many others have claimed I have to wonder if Mojang/Microsoft are really telling the truth - after all, they have $2.5 billion at stake).

    The attitude of the forum admins doesn't help either; they seem to fully accept the decline as normal and try to explain it away as the game simply being old, players losing interest, or recipe books being added (less asking for help needed), etc, but as mentioned above the game is still doing very well in terms of sales and new users so even as old ones quit the userbase has remained stable or even increased. Why does nobody want to talk about what they have done in Survival anymore, even more so for Creative, or want to share their experiences? I've considered making a new modded world just to try to revitalize the forum (I have occasionally mentioned things I've done or found in my first world but much of what I do is not really interesting enough to mention it on a daily basis, and even my modded worlds are mostly about caving so I imagine they don't garner much interest, especially after I've made half a dozen or more worlds/journals which are all basically the same).
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on What Happened Here?

    That is almost definitely a chunk that regenerated; the reason why the trees are offset from the regenerated area has to do with the way the game populated chunks with features - the chunk-sized area features are centered in is offset by half a chunk to the south and east so they can cross chunk boundaries, and the area is only populated when a 2x2 chunk area around it has been loaded so features do not extend into nonexistent chunks (with bad results if they do; this also limits the maximum size of a single feature to 17x17 blocks or +/- 8 blocks from the center block, with larger structures generated in chunk-sized pieces). This is explained in more detail here. The lighting glitches are due to the game not updating block light from surrounding chunks after it regenerated.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on TheMasterCaver's First World

    I found a zombie in diamond armor today, one and a half months after the last one:




    Also, after a longer than usual play session (4 hours and 12 minutes) I reached a total of more than half a million iron ore mined (I did not intentionally play until I reached the goal; I did not check to see how much I'd mined until I stopped playing):












    I've also mined more than 11,000 diamond ore as of today, after surpassing 10,000 on August 17 (74 days ago), which represents an average of 13.5 per day (at this rate it would take about 815 days to mine the total, so this is mainly a product of the sheer amount of time I've spent caving, not efficiency; even with an above-average number of diamonds found today I averaged only 6.2 diamond ore per hour, 6.67 diamonds per hour including two from a mineshaft).

    Also, here are some screenshots of caves I explored as well as a before/after rendering of what I explored today; you can see that I finished exploring an area to the right (mainly a mineshaft, plus some caves and a ravine) before leaving that area and going to an area I'd previously marked to the northwest, where I finished exploring a cave system, then I went through a ravine going to the north with more caves leading from the northern end. Yet another ravine, not explored yet, is near the northern end of those caves:







    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on Is 1.13 trying to replace forge?

    Nah, as there's no Modding API yet. Once that is in, then Forge will be replaced.

    There likely never will be a "modding" API (which has never officially been called that) in the sense of an API like Forge - what it will be is what we already have to a large extent - ever seen what people can do with some command blocks (for example)? 1.13 is also adding data packs (basically like a "modpack" containing all the files used to change the game which is installed server-side and can be included with a world so they are automatically loaded when you open it - something that even Forge cannot do) and custom recipes; all we need is custom items and blocks (which are already possible to an extent).

    Regardless of how much they let you customize the game it will almost certainly be far more limited than Forge or directly modifying the code like I do (even Forge does not provide API hooks for everything, especially if you want to alter vanilla behavior, making you do stuff like manipulating bytecode or just replacing base classes anyway using "coremods", causing the compatibility issues Forge was designed to avoid, if not as problematic as non-Forge mods; since I primarily make my own mods for my own use I don't care about this).
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 3

    posted a message on A light level of 0 should be totally dark

    One of my biggest pet peeves is people posting screenshots taken in a dark cave which appear to be completely dark to me (or barely visible) yet they claim to clearly see something, or worse, videos that are unwatchable because you can't see anything; the ability to see in total darkness also renders torches unnecessary when caving, and while they can prevent mobs from spawning it doesn't matter if they spawn in areas you went through unless you go back and if you light up a cave system they will become concentrated in unlit areas, increasing the number of mobs you encounter (while exploring a large cave system the rate at which I encounter mobs peaks just before I completely light it up).

    While the brightness, contrast, and gamma settings for your monitor play a role (in particular, the default gamma used by Windows is far too high for me as I have to use its color calibration tool to set it as low as possible to get a "good" gamma according to its calibration image) the main issue is that the game was coded so that rendered brightness varies between 3-99%; worse, when the gamma adjustment is applied it is additionally scaled by another 3-99%, amplifying the effect of increasing gamma (note the last three lines in each code block, which multiply a value by 0.96 and add 0.03):


    float var4 = var2.getSunBrightness(1.0F) * 0.95F + 0.05F;
    float var5 = var2.provider.lightBrightnessTable[var3 / 16] * var4;
    float var6 = var2.provider.lightBrightnessTable[var3 % 16] * (this.torchFlickerX * 0.1F + 1.5F);
    
    if (var2.lastLightningBolt > 0)
    {
         var5 = var2.provider.lightBrightnessTable[var3 / 16];
    }
    
    float var7 = var5 * (var2.getSunBrightness(1.0F) * 0.65F + 0.35F);
    float var8 = var5 * (var2.getSunBrightness(1.0F) * 0.65F + 0.35F);
    float var11 = var6 * ((var6 * 0.6F + 0.4F) * 0.6F + 0.4F);
    float var12 = var6 * (var6 * var6 * 0.6F + 0.4F);
    float var13 = var7 + var6;
    float var14 = var8 + var11;
    float var15 = var5 + var12;
    var13 = var13 * 0.96F + 0.03F;
    var14 = var14 * 0.96F + 0.03F;
    var15 = var15 * 0.96F + 0.03F;
    
    
    
    var16 = this.mc.gameSettings.gammaSetting;
    var17 = 1.0F - var13;
    float var18 = 1.0F - var14;
    float var19 = 1.0F - var15;
    var17 = 1.0F - var17 * var17 * var17 * var17;
    var18 = 1.0F - var18 * var18 * var18 * var18;
    var19 = 1.0F - var19 * var19 * var19 * var19;
    var13 = var13 * (1.0F - var16) + var17 * var16;
    var14 = var14 * (1.0F - var16) + var18 * var16;
    var15 = var15 * (1.0F - var16) + var19 * var16;
    var13 = var13 * 0.96F + 0.03F;
    var14 = var14 * 0.96F + 0.03F;
    var15 = var15 * 0.96F + 0.03F;


    This should be changed to use a range of 0-100%, or very nearly so, then the "brightness" setting will work as intended, by changing the light level curve between 0 and 15 from nonlinear on Moody to linear on Bright, with light levels of 0 and 15 being unaffected, as initially intended when it was first added by Optifine (I do not know if Optifine's original version used the same code as vanilla currently does; current versions (1.6.4) of Optifine do not alter it):

    Minecraft uses non-linear light levels. The difference between level 0 and 1 is much smaller than the difference between level 14 and 15.

    On a good calibrated monitor which can show near-black colors the Minecraft night scenes are almost fully black (light level 4). On the other hand, not so good monitors which have problems with near black colors show the night scenes very good.

    The Brightness setting fixes the Minecraft light levels for properly calibrated monitors. Brightness 0% corresponds to default Minecraft light levels. Brightness 100% uses linear light levels, so the steps between all light levels are equal.

    http://optifog.blogspot.com/2011/05/version-1501f.html

    Here is a comparison between Moody and Bright in vanilla; on my monitor Moody looks completely dark except for some fog near the center while Bright barely shows the outlines of some blocks (I would not call this even close to visible enough to cave without torches):



    After modifying the brightness range from 3-99% to 0.3 to 99.6%* for both instances in the code shown above; the only things visible should be some fog near the center and mushrooms near the bottom (I can only (barely) see the latter on Bright in either vanilla or modified; fog is visible in all cases. According to GIMP most of the pixels in the second (Bright) screenshot have RGB values of 1,1,1 or less):





    Also, here is a version of the second screenshot (on Bright) that I enhanced with GIMP:


    Modified light levels with torches (Moody and Bright); the effect on nonzero light levels is minimal but torches are much more effective at visually lighting up an area up on Bright (and IMO the smoother light gradient looks much better):



    *Note that a range of 0-100% caused Night Vision to not work underwater, and possibly in other situations but that may be related to MC-58177, which as noted causes Night Vision to be bugged on Moody in vanilla, likely due to a too-low brightness, and should be fixed regardless, but a minimum brightness of 0.3% should appear be the same as 0%.

    Also, gamma should be internally limited to a range of 0-1 (0-100%) to prevent people from editing options.txt to get permanent "Night Vision" - if you want to see in the dark without torches use the Night Vision potion effect. This should have no effects on gameplay other than preventing cheating (unless mods are used) since mapmakers should use Night Vision instead of telling the player to increase gamma (I don't think anybody even does that anyway since you have to restart the game to change it to a value outside of the range set by the slider).

    Note: This suggestion does not apply to the Nether or End, which intentionally increase the minimum brightness so you can see without having to use torches, similar to how the Overworld still has a light level of 4 at night.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on What have you done recently?
    Quote from Sharpe103»

    In previous discussions about this, I've read it is a bug in OptiFine.

    This happens because Optifine reduces the light opacity of water blocks from 3 to 1 so it does not reduce light as quickly, and grass (as well as mycelium) blocks are hardcoded to only grow or survive under blocks with a light opacity of 2 or less, in addition to a light level of 4 or more (otherwise, it would grow underwater even in vanilla since a light opacity of 3 means that light level falls by 3 levels per block, so 4 blocks are needed to reduce it to less than 4):
    if (par1World.getBlockLightValue(par2, par3 + 1, par4) < 4 && Block.lightOpacity[par1World.getBlockId(par2, par3 + 1, par4)] > 2)
    {
         par1World.setBlock(par2, par3, par4, Block.dirt.blockID);
    }
    
    if (par1World.getBlockId(var7, var8, var9) == Block.dirt.blockID && par1World.getBlockLightValue(var7, var8 + 1, var9) >= 4 && Block.lightOpacity[var10] <= 2)
    {
         par1World.setBlock(var7, var8, var9, Block.grass.blockID);
    }

    The fix for this is pretty simple; I modified the code to specifically check for water and if it is a stationary source block it prevents grass from spreading or surviving (it can still spread/survive under water spreading from a source block as well as any type of flowing water block; the latter only exists for a brief moment (5 ticks or 0.25 seconds, the time it takes water to spread one block) as water actively spreads so there is little point in checking for it. For comparison, the time it takes for grass to die is the average time between block ticks, 68 seconds, while spreading is even slower (and more random) due to randomly choosing 4 blocks within a 3x3x5 area):
    if ((par1World.getBlockLightValue(par2, par3 + 1, par4) < 4 && Block.lightOpacity[var10] > 2) || (var10 == Block.waterStill.blockID && par1World.getBlockMetadata(par2, par3 + 1, par4) == 0))
    {
         par1World.setBlock(par2, par3, par4, Block.dirt.blockID);
    }
    
    if (par1World.getBlockId(var7, var8, var9) == Block.dirt.blockID && par1World.getBlockLightValue(var7, var8 + 1, var9) >= 4 && Block.lightOpacity[var10] <= 2 && (var10 != Block.waterStill.blockID || par1World.getBlockMetadata(var7, var8 + 1, var9) != 0))
    {
         par1World.setBlock(var7, var8, var9, Block.grass.blockID);
    }

    I do not know why sp614x has not bothered fixing this bug yet if it is that simple (based on this bug report they consider it to be invalid/WAI, not unlike like Mojang's stance on many bugs; despite the date this is a very old bug). I even added this fix to TMCW even though it only does anything when Optifine's clear water is used since I modified grass/mycelium anyway so they would not spread on coarse dirt and podzol (otherwise I'd need to make specially modified classes for my own use, and TMCW is mainly made for that reason anyway. The code I modified is not altered by Optifine so it is fully compatible regardless of the order of installation).
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on Is Minecraft's modding community dying?
    Quote from DhampireHEK»

    And getting bought out by Microsoft hasn't helped the issue. I know many modders were VERY unhappy about that. Honestly, most people are probably waiting for them to either add the API or waiting for Microsoft to change the code away from Java.


    The "mod" API will be nothing at all like modding as we currently know it; it will involve json files, commands, functions, resource packs, data packs (upcoming in 1.13), custom loot tables, custom recipes (also upcoming in 1.13) and so on - or in other words, it is already largely in the game. Mojang is unlikely to ever add a true modding API, as in making mods that use actual code (Java or whatever). Also, if they do move away from Java you can be sure that mods as we know it will die; how many mods, particularly complex ones, are there for PE? The legality of modding even the PC versions of Bedrock is also questionable.

    Here is an example of how easy it is to mod Java:
    By simply changing the 15 on line 7 to 40 and the 7 on line 18 to 15 you can perfectly replicate 1.6.4 cave generation in any newer version; this only takes me a few minutes to do and I do not even know much about bytecode, I can just see the calls to Random and the numbers corresponding to decompiled source (Java Decompiler, not MCP; I find the class by searching for particular code which matches that in MCP 1.6.4, which even works for versions back to InfDev; yes, the cave generator has not changed much since then!):


    Also, IMO when a mod makes significant changes to the game and adds features found in newer versions (either the same or equivalent) the exact version is irrelevant; can you guess what version this world was generated in?







    Nope, not 1.7 or later - 1.6.4, and it can hardly be called that when the world generation is as different as 1.7-1.12's is - and if I ever updated this mod (which has had occasional updates for 3+ years) to a newer version of the game it would not be any different; I'd replace the 1.7+ world generator with my own, not adapt my mod to it (a few biomes would change a bit, like mesas, which do not have red sand or variants other than plateau in my mod, but the features they have that are unique to my mod would not change); I'd also replace the 1.9 combat system with my own version (which preserves the ability to rapidly attack multiple mobs and swords block 50% of damage), replace Mending and revert the anvil mechanics to pre-1.8 (my Mending enchantment replaces renaming to keep the prior work penalty down), and so on. I'd even revert a bugfix or two (prior to 1.7 weapons lost durability when hitting a mob while damage immune and the previous damage was not less, which was fixed in 1.7; I consider this to be a deterrent to spam-clicking since you can make swords wear out 10x faster by doing so).

    Sure, you'd have many newer things that are not present in 1.6.4 but there are many mods which have added many of them, even mods designed to backport features to older versions (I have not added them mainly because I don't see much use for stained glass, or terracotta, etc and primarily make mods for my own use (for a mod of its complexity and lifetime TMCW is all but unknown; even mod-stealing sites have ignored it, nor it is listed on sites like modlist.mcf.li, and I know of only a few others who have used it); even the 1.8 stone types were just added for underground decoration and I made them require Silk Touch to drop themselves, otherwise they drop cobblestone (unpolished variants only) so they do not get in my way; this is another thing that would override vanilla mechanics if I updated it).
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on TheMasterCaver's First World

    I found yet another large cave system, larger than the last one:






































    Also, I found a very large cave, one of the largest single caves that I've found, although much of it was below lava level with a lava lake measuring about 50 blocks long and 20 blocks wide, almost right under my base:




    Here are renderings of the large cave system; large cave, along with other cave systems I recently explored; and everything that I've explored over the past month (within the current map, southwest of -1024,1024, excluding the area around the Mushroom Island, which was explored separately):




    Of particular interest the large cave system has the second highest density of caves within a 9x9 chunk area of any cave system that I've found, with 168 caves, second only to the large cave system at -800, -1050, which has 174 caves (216 within a 13x13 chunk area centered at -864, -1040, which is not the most for this area, which is 223 at -1184, 1696 followed by 221 at -64, -1680):

    Centered at -1472, 2752:
    Size 1 cave system at -1520, 2688; total number of caves: 1
    Size 11 cave system at -1504, 2704; total number of caves: 11
    Size 15 cave system at -1488, 2704; total number of caves: 25
    Size 9 cave system at -1536, 2720; total number of caves: 22
    Size 2 cave system at -1520, 2736; total number of caves: 2
    Size 17 cave system at -1472, 2736; total number of caves: 26
    Size 7 cave system at -1440, 2736; total number of caves: 7
    Size 6 cave system at -1408, 2736; total number of caves: 10
    Size 7 cave system at -1440, 2768; total number of caves: 9
    Size 20 cave system at -1440, 2784; total number of caves: 29
    Size 19 cave system at -1440, 2816; total number of caves: 26

    Number of cave systems: 11

    Initial number of caves: 114
    Total number of caves: 168
    Additional circular room caves: 54
    Number of small caves: 165; average width is 6.09
    Number of large caves: 3; average width is 13.08
    Number of circular rooms: 36; average width is 11.54
    Additional caves per circular room: 1.50
    Average caves per chunk: 2.074074 (81 chunks)

    Average altitude: 36.26
    Percentage of caves on layers 0 to 9: 19.64
    Percentage of caves on layers 10 to 19: 20.24
    Percentage of caves on layers 20 to 29: 11.31
    Percentage of caves on layers 30 to 39: 16.67
    Percentage of caves on layers 40 to 49: 4.76
    Percentage of caves on layers 50 to 59: 5.36
    Percentage of caves above layer 59: 22.02

    Centered at -816, -1040:
    Size 26 cave system at -816, -1104; total number of caves: 37
    Size 3 cave system at -784, -1104; total number of caves: 3
    Size 24 cave system at -832, -1072; total number of caves: 34
    Size 2 cave system at -768, -1072; total number of caves: 2
    Size 23 cave system at -816, -1056; total number of caves: 39
    Size 20 cave system at -800, -1024; total number of caves: 31
    Size 3 cave system at -784, -1024; total number of caves: 3
    Size 13 cave system at -800, -992; total number of caves: 18
    Size 4 cave system at -864, -976; total number of caves: 7

    Number of cave systems: 9

    Initial number of caves: 118
    Total number of caves: 174
    Additional circular room caves: 56
    Number of small caves: 171; average width is 6.04
    Number of large caves: 3; average width is 12.18
    Number of circular rooms: 33; average width is 10.38
    Additional caves per circular room: 1.70
    Average caves per chunk: 2.148148 (81 chunks)

    Average altitude: 31.25
    Percentage of caves on layers 0 to 9: 21.84
    Percentage of caves on layers 10 to 19: 22.99
    Percentage of caves on layers 20 to 29: 12.07
    Percentage of caves on layers 30 to 39: 10.92
    Percentage of caves on layers 40 to 49: 8.05
    Percentage of caves on layers 50 to 59: 6.90
    Percentage of caves above layer 59: 17.24

    Also, this is the previous large cave system that I found, centered at -1104, 2736:
    Size 4 cave system at -1152, 2672; total number of caves: 9
    Size 5 cave system at -1136, 2672; total number of caves: 13
    Size 27 cave system at -1120, 2672; total number of caves: 38
    Size 1 cave system at -1040, 2672; total number of caves: 1
    Size 7 cave system at -1152, 2688; total number of caves: 10
    Size 1 cave system at -1072, 2720; total number of caves: 1
    Size 16 cave system at -1104, 2752; total number of caves: 28
    Size 4 cave system at -1104, 2800; total number of caves: 7

    Number of cave systems: 8

    Initial number of caves: 65
    Total number of caves: 107
    Additional circular room caves: 42
    Number of small caves: 106; average width is 5.92
    Number of large caves: 1; average width is 10.04
    Number of circular rooms: 23; average width is 10.91
    Additional caves per circular room: 1.83
    Average caves per chunk: 1.3209877 (81 chunks)

    Average altitude: 28.79
    Percentage of caves on layers 0 to 9: 22.43
    Percentage of caves on layers 10 to 19: 22.43
    Percentage of caves on layers 20 to 29: 14.95
    Percentage of caves on layers 30 to 39: 13.08
    Percentage of caves on layers 40 to 49: 8.41
    Percentage of caves on layers 50 to 59: 10.28
    Percentage of caves above layer 59: 8.41


    Here is a comparison of all three cave systems, in the order listed above:
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.