What I mean is, is there ever going to be infinitely large open worlds like the PC, or will MCX360 players forever be trapped within a 1024 x 1024 box? Has 4J already said something about this? If so, please enlighten me. It's been nearly a year, and Iw as hoping eventually they would integrate it. I've heard something about the Xbox's RAM not being able to handle it, but there exist Indie clones on XBL Arcade that have seemingly infinite worlds, such as CastleMiner Z and Xenominer, how come they have much larger worlds and with no framerate issues or lag?
Probably not. The xbox can barely handle the game as is right now if you play in split screen. That's why there's limit to mobs and items. Unless they do some major changes there probably won't be inf dev or even bigger worlds (Correct me if im wrong)
I still don't understand how it could be a matter of the xbox's capacity to have a larger world. As I've mentioned before, CastleMiner Z has seemingly infinite worlds and there are mobs constantly spawning, there's zombies, skeletons, and dragons al over the place and it has an HD texture pack, all with multiplayer. So how come the Xbox can handle that game but not Minecraft with InfDev?
How come apples don't taste like oranges... they're both fruit aren't they? The answer is because those clones aren't Minecraft. They do some things differently from Minecraft and their developers have made different choices on how they use the availabe resources (RAM and processing power) of the Xbox. However, in that mix are very likely some things that they don't do that Minecraft does; because if they did absolutely everything Minecraft does, then my question for you is why don't you just play the clones and not play Minecraft at all?
To answer your question then... I don't think infinite worlds will ever be put into Minecraft on the Xbox 360. Personally, I don't see much use for them either. If sacrificing infinite worlds allows Minecraft to run better on the Xbox 360 and allows them to put more of the "stuff" into the game that IS important to me, then I'm quite happy to do without infinite worlds forever.
However, in that mix are very likely some things that they don't do that Minecraft does; because if they did absolutely everything Minecraft does, then my question for you is why don't you just play the clones and not play Minecraft at all?
I had a feeling this question was going to come up, and I'm glad you asked. Minecraft will, of course, always be number one, and while the Minecraft rip-offs do have certain features that Minecraft doesn't, none of them even come close to it, most of them don't even have flowing water or passive mobs. I would never be able to choose one of them over Minecraft. InfDev is not an absolute necessity for me, I just think it would be nice to have.
The TLDR version: "I honestly think we will never see infinite worlds on the Xbox 360 Minecraft; perhaps on a 720 version."
The full Monty version:
These are just my own opinions and guesses. The only hard facts in this diatribe is the quoted text from Microsoft. I have no solid facts to back these up beyond my own observations and that quote.
Just following the current x360mc dev we can see early on a decision was made at the very core of the X360 MC code to limit world size to ease coding efforts and create a quicker to market product. However, this design decision has hampered later development effort by creating an artificial limitation not normally found in the MC code. Further the continued drifting of the code to add new stuff while not working on revisiting this core makes the separation and eventual code and testing efforts much more extreme to the point of likely requiring a full redesign.
I have to question any related wiki that doesn't understand most computerized operating systems advanced enough to run any version of Minecraft can make use of virtual memory if programmed for it.
As such the following in the wiki is rather odd:
Quote from minecraftwiki.net Xbox_360_Edition#Differences_from_PC_edition »
Unlike the PC version, each world in the Xbox 360 Edition is currently limited to 864 by 864 blocks. Because the outer-most block is unusable on each side of the map, it is effectively 862 by 862 blocks that can be used. It is expected, but unknown if the world size will be increased along with the updates that will bring the Xbox 360 Edition up to date with the PC version. The PC uses virtual memory which allows to swap chunks in and out of memory, drastically increasing the size of the map. It is unknown if the Xbox has the capability of doing such.
Even further one must realise that right in the Microsoft Xbox 360 SDK\Documentation\SDK Documentation under Kernel Memory overview we can find the following:
Quote from Microsoft Xbox 360 SDK Documentation - Kernel Memory Overview - Virtual Memory »
With virtual memory, there is a translation layer between memory addresses used by the game title and the physical RAM that those addresses represent. Titles can address up to 4 GB of virtual memory by using 32-bit linear addresses.
On either an Xbox 360 retail console or an XDK, the 512 MB of available physical RAM is mapped into that 4-GB address space in chunks of either 4 KB or 64 KB. These chunks are called pages.
I am not saying infinite worlds are not possible. I am saying that the likely way in which X360MC was coded will make them very likely to never be implemented. There are wiki articles describing how to use HDD space and swapping as virtual memory and streaming content and acting as though that type of programming is not possible on the X360 and only on the PC but this is not the case. Many games make use of the Storage device, the ability to cache and the ability to stream data to get around the Xbox 360 memory limits and create larger more dynamic worlds than will fit within the confined memory spaces of the Xbox 360. The real question would be how was X360MC designed, can it be easily recoded to be better at memory swaps and streaming and using virtual memory to increase world size?
Given the current claims about why we do not have infinite worlds and the fact that the PC version can create infinite worlds on Windows XP/Vista/7 when only 512MB of physical RAM is present using virtual memory, that leads only the coding and design as reasons for a lack of infinite worlds.
With all of that I do not believe the coding and decision will be revisited to the level of effort that would be required for infinite worlds on the X360.
Just my views based on my opinions on how I have seen the development go for this project and others. Nothing stated above is fact beyond the Microsoft quoted text and even then are only facts so long as Microsoft says they are facts.
The TLDR version: "I honestly think we will never see infinite worlds on the Xbox 360 Minecraft; perhaps on a 720 version."
The full Monty version:
These are just my own opinions and guesses. The only hard facts in this diatribe is the quoted text from Microsoft. I have no solid facts to back these up beyond my own observations and that quote.
Just following the current x360mc dev we can see early on a decision was made at the very core of the X360 MC code to limit world size to ease coding efforts and create a quicker to market product. However, this design decision has hampered later development effort by creating an artificial limitation not normally found in the MC code. Further the continued drifting of the code to add new stuff while not working on revisiting this core makes the separation and eventual code and testing efforts much more extreme to the point of likely requiring a full redesign.
I have to question any related wiki that doesn't understand most computerized operating systems advanced enough to run any version of Minecraft can make use of virtual memory if programmed for it.
As such the following in the wiki is rather odd:
Even further one must realise that right in the Microsoft Xbox 360 SDK\Documentation\SDK Documentation under Kernel Memory overview we can find the following:
I am not saying infinite worlds are not possible. I am saying that the likely way in which X360MC was coded will make them very likely to never be implemented. There are wiki articles describing how to use HDD space and swapping as virtual memory and streaming content and acting as though that type of programming is not possible on the X360 and only on the PC but this is not the case. Many games make use of the Storage device, the ability to cache and the ability to stream data to get around the Xbox 360 memory limits and create larger more dynamic worlds than will fit within the confined memory spaces of the Xbox 360. The real question would be how was X360MC designed, can it be easily recoded to be better at memory swaps and streaming and using virtual memory to increase world size?
Given the current claims about why we do not have infinite worlds and the fact that the PC version can create infinite worlds on Windows XP/Vista/7 when only 512MB of physical RAM is present using virtual memory, that leads only the coding and design as reasons for a lack of infinite worlds.
With all of that I do not believe the coding and decision will be revisited to the level of effort that would be required for infinite worlds on the X360.
Just my views based on my opinions on how I have seen the development go for this project and others. Nothing stated above is fact beyond the Microsoft quoted text and even then are only facts so long as Microsoft says they are facts.
It is well know that many PCs far more powerful than the Xbox have difficulties running Minecraft PC and there are many complaints about how Minecraft PC lags plastered all over the internet. In many of the YouTube videos made on PC, the lag is completely evident. It seems to me that it's when people want to dis the Xbox version that they start to claim that Minecraft PC runs perfectly on PCs less powerful than the Xbox. I have a friend who has a PC that definitely has more than 512 mb of RAM. He experiences quite a bit of lag and he monitors his connection continuously and says that Minecraft on the PC transfers far more data continuously than any other game he plays. I have another friend who says that he also experiences quite a bit of lag while playing on the PC as well.
It is well know that many PCs farm more powerful than the Xbox have difficulties running Minecraft PC and there are many complaints about how Minecraft PC lags plastered all over the internet. In many of the YouTube videos made on PC, the lag is completely evident. It seems to me that it's when people want to dis the Xbox version that they start to claim that Minecraft PC runs perfectly on PCs less powerful than the Xbox. I have a friend who has a PC that definitely has more than 512 mb of RAM. He experiences quite a bit of lag and he monitors his connection continuously and says that Minecraft on the PC transfers far more data continuously than any other game he plays. I have another friend who says that he also experiences quite a bit of lag while playing on the PC as well.
I stand by everything I said. I never claimed either version to be better. Design decisions on a positive and negative side abound. To give an example a positive design decision that may impact the ability to give infinite worlds within a working code limit of performance versus the 360 architecture was the inclusion of split screen. I did not choose to argue which design decisions and why. I simply summarized the realistic expectation.
EDIT: I did call into conflict a wiki entry and common fallacy that the 360 doesn't support virtual memory.
I stand by everything I said. I never claimed either version to be better. Design decisions on a positive and negative side abound. To give an example a positive design decision that may impact the ability to give infinite worlds within a working code limit of performance versus the 360 architecture was the inclusion of split screen. I did not choose to argue which design decisions and why. I simply summarized the realistic expectation.
EDIT: I did call into conflict a wiki entry and common fallacy that the 360 doesn't support virtual memory.
I'm not arguing either whether or not the design decisions made were good or bad. I'm just saying that a common thing people bring up is that PC Minecraft runs on PCs with 512 mb of RAM and that this should mean that it should run on the Xbox with infinite worlds. In my experience, PC Minecraft doesn't run very well on a lot of PCs that have more than 512 mb of RAM. I personally do not know of a PC with 512 mb of RAM that is running Minecraft at all, let alone running it well. My PC is very old and even it has 1 GB of RAM and I would never ever consider even attempting to load Minecraft, let alone play it. My PC takes several breaks just running a video from my camera card and even more if I try to download one online through YouTube. Admittedly, there are probably a lot of adjustments I could make to my PC to improve it's performance, even without adding more RAM; but on the XBox we don't have those abilities. 4J made a call to limit the size of the world. That was their call to make. Some people don't like it; but I happen to like the smaller world size.
CPU, is a major factor, crappy CPU crappy FPS in MC, a good GPU will help out a lot also.
The graphics hardware & CPU on the Xbox are not crap, so they should be able to increase the world size, even if its double, I would be very happy with the latter.
I honestly hope we never get worlds anywhere near as big. I stopped playing the PC version because it was impossible to find what I was looking for, even when I was flying in creative mode. I generated 10-20 random worlds and even crashed the game a few times. Massive worlds on Xbox would be nothing more than infuriating. I would stop playing Minecraft all together if that happened.
If older survival worlds could gain mineshafts, strongholds and NPC's through a size increase adding new areas, then there's be a point. Otherwise there's no point.
I think they only chose this specific size because it had to be limited to something and its convenient to limit it to the size of craftable maps.
I had a 'Duh' moment while replying to another thread on the general discussion. Another reason we'll likely not see infinite worlds is due to an Xbox 360 certification requirement.
Quote from Microsoft Xbox 360 SDK Documentation -> Technical Certification Requirements »
TCR # 045 STR MU Support
Requirement Saved games must fit on an empty, formatted, 64-MB memory unit.
Remarks
Because 12 MB on the memory unit is reserved for system use, the amount of space available to a game on an empty, formatted MU is 52 MB.
Intent The smallest memory unit ever produced for Xbox 360 is 64 MB. A player should not have to purchase a larger MU in order to save a game.
I know I've got a few saves pushing that limit already. Perhaps that is the constraint.
EDIT: Realistically we'll not know why/if unless 4J tells us. All reasons put forth are nothing more than guesses and speculation.
castleminer z doesnt keep chunks loaded, minecraft has to to keep the redstone working and wheat/plants growing so keeps all chunks loaded, if it wasnt for that i would guess they could do it, but its not !! lol
mine isnt guess or speculation, its fact, just cause 4J didnt say it lol
That is just as much guess and speculation as any other answer. After all, if one were to compare to the PC version, then chunks being kept in memory after having been visited for the entire session could possibly be changed and if such then we should get infinite worlds. More discussion on memory and chunks loaded/unloaded can be found in the the thread: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1780494-chunks/
It was while writing the my post in that thread I had the 'Duh' moment about the save game size.
So...wait. You're telling me that all this time I was under the impression that worlds were 1024 x 1024...but it's actually 864 x 864?
Oh...man!
Oh man... Do you play Minecraft on the Xbox at all? If you walk to the edge of your world, what is the edge coordinate of the last block you can stand on? Probably 431 or -431 (or thereabouts), add 1 block for the actual edge that prevents you from going over and then multiply by 2. The usuable area of the world is 864 x 864. However, when you're standing on that edge on the surface, you still see ocean beyond you, so the visual size of the world is larger, so this may be what 1024 x 1024 refers to. The other possibility is that the reference includes the dimensions of both the nether and the end, which appear to be "outside" of the overworld, but to the computer are still part of the same world save.
At any rate, I think with the imminent announcement of the next generation Xbox, we are very unlikely to see a major rewrite of the Xbox 360 edition to enlarge world size. If it's coming at all, it will come on a next generation system.
Oh man... Do you play Minecraft on the Xbox at all? If you walk to the edge of your world, what is the edge coordinate of the last block you can stand on? Probably 431 or -431 (or thereabouts), add 1 block for the actual edge that prevents you from going over and then multiply by 2. The usuable area of the world is 864 x 864.
Yeah, I knew something was weird about the map co-ordinates. Never really paid that much attention to it.
That is just as much guess and speculation as any other answer. After all, if one were to compare to the PC version, then chunks being kept in memory after having been visited for the entire session could possibly be changed and if such then we should get infinite worlds. More discussion on memory and chunks loaded/unloaded can be found in the the thread: http://www.minecraft...1780494-chunks/
It was while writing the my post in that thread I had the 'Duh' moment about the save game size.
In regards to the OP's question, yes it is a guess at 4J's reasoning behind the limited world decision. But it is true that all chunks in an MCX360 world will remain partially loaded after they have been explored. Personally, I believe this is the limiting factor when assessing which operation is the most memory intensive. I also have suspicions that 4J's reason for these chunk loading mechanics is to maintain smooth drop-in drop-out splitscreen multiplayer. Redstone being operational over a long distance is just a bonus. Splitscreen is a huge selling point that sets MCX360 apart from every other version. It is not surprising they would make such a significant sacrifice.
To answer your question then... I don't think infinite worlds will ever be put into Minecraft on the Xbox 360. Personally, I don't see much use for them either. If sacrificing infinite worlds allows Minecraft to run better on the Xbox 360 and allows them to put more of the "stuff" into the game that IS important to me, then I'm quite happy to do without infinite worlds forever.
I had a feeling this question was going to come up, and I'm glad you asked. Minecraft will, of course, always be number one, and while the Minecraft rip-offs do have certain features that Minecraft doesn't, none of them even come close to it, most of them don't even have flowing water or passive mobs. I would never be able to choose one of them over Minecraft. InfDev is not an absolute necessity for me, I just think it would be nice to have.
The full Monty version:
These are just my own opinions and guesses. The only hard facts in this diatribe is the quoted text from Microsoft. I have no solid facts to back these up beyond my own observations and that quote.
Just following the current x360mc dev we can see early on a decision was made at the very core of the X360 MC code to limit world size to ease coding efforts and create a quicker to market product. However, this design decision has hampered later development effort by creating an artificial limitation not normally found in the MC code. Further the continued drifting of the code to add new stuff while not working on revisiting this core makes the separation and eventual code and testing efforts much more extreme to the point of likely requiring a full redesign.
I have to question any related wiki that doesn't understand most computerized operating systems advanced enough to run any version of Minecraft can make use of virtual memory if programmed for it.
As such the following in the wiki is rather odd:
Even further one must realise that right in the Microsoft Xbox 360 SDK\Documentation\SDK Documentation under Kernel Memory overview we can find the following:
I am not saying infinite worlds are not possible. I am saying that the likely way in which X360MC was coded will make them very likely to never be implemented. There are wiki articles describing how to use HDD space and swapping as virtual memory and streaming content and acting as though that type of programming is not possible on the X360 and only on the PC but this is not the case. Many games make use of the Storage device, the ability to cache and the ability to stream data to get around the Xbox 360 memory limits and create larger more dynamic worlds than will fit within the confined memory spaces of the Xbox 360. The real question would be how was X360MC designed, can it be easily recoded to be better at memory swaps and streaming and using virtual memory to increase world size?
Given the current claims about why we do not have infinite worlds and the fact that the PC version can create infinite worlds on Windows XP/Vista/7 when only 512MB of physical RAM is present using virtual memory, that leads only the coding and design as reasons for a lack of infinite worlds.
With all of that I do not believe the coding and decision will be revisited to the level of effort that would be required for infinite worlds on the X360.
Just my views based on my opinions on how I have seen the development go for this project and others. Nothing stated above is fact beyond the Microsoft quoted text and even then are only facts so long as Microsoft says they are facts.
It is well know that many PCs far more powerful than the Xbox have difficulties running Minecraft PC and there are many complaints about how Minecraft PC lags plastered all over the internet. In many of the YouTube videos made on PC, the lag is completely evident. It seems to me that it's when people want to dis the Xbox version that they start to claim that Minecraft PC runs perfectly on PCs less powerful than the Xbox. I have a friend who has a PC that definitely has more than 512 mb of RAM. He experiences quite a bit of lag and he monitors his connection continuously and says that Minecraft on the PC transfers far more data continuously than any other game he plays. I have another friend who says that he also experiences quite a bit of lag while playing on the PC as well.
EDIT: I did call into conflict a wiki entry and common fallacy that the 360 doesn't support virtual memory.
I'm not arguing either whether or not the design decisions made were good or bad. I'm just saying that a common thing people bring up is that PC Minecraft runs on PCs with 512 mb of RAM and that this should mean that it should run on the Xbox with infinite worlds. In my experience, PC Minecraft doesn't run very well on a lot of PCs that have more than 512 mb of RAM. I personally do not know of a PC with 512 mb of RAM that is running Minecraft at all, let alone running it well. My PC is very old and even it has 1 GB of RAM and I would never ever consider even attempting to load Minecraft, let alone play it. My PC takes several breaks just running a video from my camera card and even more if I try to download one online through YouTube. Admittedly, there are probably a lot of adjustments I could make to my PC to improve it's performance, even without adding more RAM; but on the XBox we don't have those abilities. 4J made a call to limit the size of the world. That was their call to make. Some people don't like it; but I happen to like the smaller world size.
The graphics hardware & CPU on the Xbox are not crap, so they should be able to increase the world size, even if its double, I would be very happy with the latter.
Both very good points.
I know I've got a few saves pushing that limit already. Perhaps that is the constraint.
EDIT: Realistically we'll not know why/if unless 4J tells us. All reasons put forth are nothing more than guesses and speculation.
That is just as much guess and speculation as any other answer. After all, if one were to compare to the PC version, then chunks being kept in memory after having been visited for the entire session could possibly be changed and if such then we should get infinite worlds. More discussion on memory and chunks loaded/unloaded can be found in the the thread: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1780494-chunks/
It was while writing the my post in that thread I had the 'Duh' moment about the save game size.
So...wait. You're telling me that all this time I was under the impression that worlds were 1024 x 1024...but it's actually 864 x 864?
Oh...man!
Oh man... Do you play Minecraft on the Xbox at all? If you walk to the edge of your world, what is the edge coordinate of the last block you can stand on? Probably 431 or -431 (or thereabouts), add 1 block for the actual edge that prevents you from going over and then multiply by 2. The usuable area of the world is 864 x 864. However, when you're standing on that edge on the surface, you still see ocean beyond you, so the visual size of the world is larger, so this may be what 1024 x 1024 refers to. The other possibility is that the reference includes the dimensions of both the nether and the end, which appear to be "outside" of the overworld, but to the computer are still part of the same world save.
At any rate, I think with the imminent announcement of the next generation Xbox, we are very unlikely to see a major rewrite of the Xbox 360 edition to enlarge world size. If it's coming at all, it will come on a next generation system.
Yeah, I knew something was weird about the map co-ordinates. Never really paid that much attention to it.
In regards to the OP's question, yes it is a guess at 4J's reasoning behind the limited world decision. But it is true that all chunks in an MCX360 world will remain partially loaded after they have been explored. Personally, I believe this is the limiting factor when assessing which operation is the most memory intensive. I also have suspicions that 4J's reason for these chunk loading mechanics is to maintain smooth drop-in drop-out splitscreen multiplayer. Redstone being operational over a long distance is just a bonus. Splitscreen is a huge selling point that sets MCX360 apart from every other version. It is not surprising they would make such a significant sacrifice.
The dev it for development.
Indent remember what inf is.