Latest News Article

[Hwen123]

I got doku 23x32 texture pack and the game freezes for 5 seconds every 10-20 seconds. Is this because of the texture pack or something else?

[Steves]

No, it won't affect lag but it might harm your frame rate.

[robly18]

Yes. 32x32 texture packs mean 4 times as many pixels for the game to render.
@guy above me
-looks at your sig-
>_>

[CAPSLOCK]

If flowing water animation is drawn pixel by pixel, it can cause lag. This is what the MC patcher says, but i have yet to see any lag as a result of this

[Crysyn]

This is correct

Steves said:

No, it won't affect lag but it might harm your frame rate.

These are wrong (in the strict sense)

robly18 said:

Yes. 32x32 texture packs mean 4 times as many pixels for the game to render.
@guy above me
-looks at your sig-
>_>

CAPSLOCK said:

If flowing water animation is drawn pixel by pixel, it can cause lag. This is what the MC patcher says, but i have yet to see any lag as a result of this

Using the larger texture packs, or the flowing water animation given by CAPSLOCK, will indeed slow the speed at which minecraft runs, but this will not cause NETWORK lag directly. If your framerate gets low enough, since it is directly tied to the speed at which minecraft is running, it can eventually make YOU appear to lag to the server (we are talking <4FPS rates though).

So, Large texture packs will lower your FPS, but not your network latency, the latter of which is where Lag comes from.

[The Vault Dweller]

I haven't noticed a change since I started using a 32x pack. Which is good so I can keep looking at nice stuff.

[Irodu]

I actually get better FPS with a 64x64 pack than i do with a 32x32 pack.

It really depends on what your computer can handle.

[Xardov]

Yes, it can, because it has to load many more pixels.

[Necronus]

Try the LG photo HD texture pack and then ask that. They lower FPS based on your computer, which causes lag. So...yes, they do.

[Xeros612]

Lag is questionable.

Framerate? Yes. It has to render a higher resolution texture on everything, and depending on the pack's options, there may be effects that will require more resources.

[Nbord]

Oh, stop bitching. In the general use of the word, less frames per second = lag.

Yes.

[CAPSLOCK]

Nbord said:

Oh, stop bitching. In the general use of the word, less frames per second = lag.

Yes.

I like you

[Xeros612]

Nbord said:

Oh, stop bitching. In the general use of the word, less frames per second = lag.

Yes.

Who's bitching? Also, if by "general use of the word" you mean "the way it's used by people ignorant of the actual definition", the sure.

[Irodu]

Xeros612 said:

Nbord said:

Oh, stop bitching. In the general use of the word, less frames per second = lag.

Yes.

Who's bitching? Also, if by "general use of the word" you mean "the way it's used by people ignorant of the actual definition", the sure.

I always put it to people this way.

I you went out on the street and asked 1million different people what lag ment in a video game, the majority of the people would describe lower fps as lag.

The same thing with the Cracker vs Hacker argument. It really doesn't matter what the true definition is, the only one that matter is the most popular definition is.

Trying to explain the difference to ignorant people does no good. If they really cared, they would learn the difference, but since they don't care, it doesn't matter.

Words change their definition all the time. At one time, a certain 3 letter word that begins with G and ends with Y used to mean, having or showing a merry, lively mood.
Now if you say the word to anyone, the only thing they will think about is the current most popular derogatory use of the word.

The only definition of any word that matters is the most popular one.

[Chadsweb]

I've mostly noticed my FPS dropping slightly with higher resolution packs whenever there are lots of particles on screen, or running water. Especially when you get to the x128 packs, just the poof of smoke from a dead pig is enough to kick down my FPS a whole lot.

[gregfox]

I only notice a difference with 64x and over. At 128x it starts to be annoying and I haven't even tried 256x (not really into hi res anyway)

[SirLogiC]

Irodu said:

I you went out on the street and asked 1million different people what lag ment in a video game, the majority of the people would describe lower fps as lag.

While that definition may be ok you run into problems. If you rang up tech support complaining about lag they will try to troubleshoot network/Internet connection info, because lag by definition is the time from when you send a packet to when you receive a response. Of course if you weren't aware of this then you will end up with very poor quality help until the tech guy manages to figure out you actually meant low FPS.

It's not really the use of the word. It is that you are giving it two meanings in a similar context but with very different definitions.

[Echo51]

Try with, and then try without. You know got your answer

[Nucco]

I had a laptop that ran ~30FPS with or without a 64x texture pack.  I installed a 256x texturepack on my good computer and still didn't notice a difference.  I think it's safe to say that if you have a really crappy computer then it may minutely affect your FPS.

[Voratius]

I have never seen a 23x32 texture pack,so I assume it is a mistake.

Some texture packs actually increase my performance,64x64 doubles it,while 128x128 quadruples it,while 256x256 crashes me.