Q: I've heard and read in a few places that some 16x texture packs are more laggy than the default vanilla texture pack. Is that really the case? Shouldn't one 16x be as laggy as another 16x? If anyone else has opinions, feel free to contribute :).
A: default texture pack likely less lag inducing than other texture packs. Potentially possible to have a texture pack that isn't more laggy.
Quick test I put together with 3 packs at each resolution (except for default and 7x) averaged over 5 samples a minute apart.
Quote from XSSheep»
It would still have to find and read the files from the texture pack location which would slow it down just a tad I'm guessing but it really shouldn't be a noticeable difference if you aren't adding in alternate textures, extra animated blocks, skyboxes, etc.
I've heard and read in a few places that some 16x texture packs are more laggy than the default vanilla texture pack. Is that really the case? Shouldn't one 16x be as laggy as another 16x?
As shadowforge said, the performance drop is mostly determined by how many MCPatcher features and animated textures the pack includes. (Also, stereo, long-length, or poorly optimized custom sounds could cause some drops as well).
Quick test I put together with 3 packs at each resolution (except for default and 7x) averaged over 5 samples a minute apart.
Interesting! Were you using MCPatcher or Optifine?
Odd that there's always a drop from the vanilla framerate... I guess that would confirm what SirTulip had heard.
As shadowforge said, the performance drop is mostly determined by how many MCPatcher features and animated textures the pack includes. (Also, stereo, long-length, or poorly optimized custom sounds could cause some drops as well).
Interesting! Were you using MCPatcher or Optifine?
Odd that there's always a drop from the vanilla framerate... I guess that would confirm what SirTulip had heard.
This was with Optifine because I think that anyone who this graph interests should be using Optifine anyway. The variance during my tests was larger than I'd like especially getting up to the larger resolutions where not all the packs were complete or used special features, but I think it's pretty clear that default is the best. I will have to do more tests later on a lower-end computer.
Thanks for the input guys! Theoretically, based on what you guys (shadow/Ringoster) said, if a texture pack adds in no additional sound file, uses no mcpatcher/animation features that vanilla doesn't use, would it cause a frame rate loss? Ex, If someone were to tint all vanilla textures slightly blue, would that cause any losses?
weeheehee; nice graph! And yeah prob anyone who utilizes this graph prob should use optifine
It would still have to find and read the files from the texture pack location which would slow it down just a tad I'm guessing but it really shouldn't be a noticeable difference if you aren't adding in alternate textures, extra animated blocks, skyboxes, etc.
It would still have to find and read the files from the texture pack location which would slow it down just a tad I'm guessing but it really shouldn't be a noticeable difference if you aren't adding in alternate textures, extra animated blocks, skyboxes, etc.
97% of teenagers would cry if they saw Justin Bieber on top of a tower about to jump. If your the 3% who is sitting there with popcorn screaming "DO A BACKFLIP", copy and paste this as your signature.
nintendo is this color
sega is this color
microsoft is this color
sony is this color
atari is this color
mojang is this color
apple is this color
It would still have to find and read the files from the texture pack location which would slow it down just a tad I'm guessing
No, that is taken care when the game loads up or you switch texture packs. Then the texture pack(s) is/are converted into a form that minecraft uses at runtime. Once you are playing the game there's no difference in how MC reads default or any other pack.
No, that is taken care when the game loads up or you switch texture packs. Then the texture pack(s) is/are converted into a form that minecraft uses at runtime. Once you are playing the game there's no difference in how MC reads default or any other pack.
Someone could probably find something in the source code/MCP, but in pretty much all games all textures are loaded into RAM first. This means the location on the disk should, in theory, make no difference because it all ends up in the same form.
Someone could probably find something in the source code/MCP, but in pretty much all games all textures are loaded into RAM first. This means the location on the disk should, in theory, make no difference because it all ends up in the same form.
Interesting... How would things such as models and a heap of alternate textures be handled? I assume they'd cause lower performance due to selecting which texture would be actually used on the block every time it's placed. I really have no idea though, this is just my best guess (as my previous answer was)
For item models, I have a theory that custom models will improve your performance, as long as they are handmade not one of those bitsy ones from Cubik. Reason being, the vanilla model generator will end up with 200-300 faces, per item, for a 16x texture. Just using a bow model I made, it has around 40 faces. In a scenario where dozens of people are holding the same item e.g. archer fight, that's a big improvement. This would give tangible benefits just like how changing dropped items from fancy (3D) to fast (2D plane) gives an FPS increase.
As for block models, I'd avoid changing things like cube because then the opposite effects would occur. Lesser used blocks like torches would probably be negligible.
Interesting... How would things such as models and a heap of alternate textures be handled? I assume they'd cause lower performance due to selecting which texture would be actually used on the block every time it's placed. I really have no idea though, this is just my best guess (as my previous answer was)
I've heard that alternative texture (connected textures?) take more processing power in minecraft. I do not have a source on me atm, but I could try to find where I heard that if you'd like.
For item models, I have a theory that custom models will improve your performance, as long as they are handmade not one of those bitsy ones from Cubik. Reason being, the vanilla model generator will end up with 200-300 faces, per item, for a 16x texture. Just using a bow model I made, it has around 40 faces. In a scenario where dozens of people are holding the same item e.g. archer fight, that's a big improvement. This would give tangible benefits just like how changing dropped items from fancy (3D) to fast (2D plane) gives an FPS increase.
As for block models, I'd avoid changing things like cube because then the opposite effects would occur. Lesser used blocks like torches would probably be negligible.
That makes sense. Do you have your custom model bow available for download? I'd totally be down to use it
I've heard that alternative texture (connected textures?) take more processing power in minecraft. I do not have a source on me atm, but I could try to find where I heard that if you'd like.
That makes sense. Do you have your custom model bow available for download? I'd totally be down to use it
A: default texture pack likely less lag inducing than other texture packs. Potentially possible to have a texture pack that isn't more laggy.
Quote from WeeHeeHee »
Quick test I put together with 3 packs at each resolution (except for default and 7x) averaged over 5 samples a minute apart.
Quote from XSSheep »
It would still have to find and read the files from the texture pack location which would slow it down just a tad I'm guessing but it really shouldn't be a noticeable difference if you aren't adding in alternate textures, extra animated blocks, skyboxes, etc.
Quick test I put together with 3 packs at each resolution (except for default and 7x) averaged over 5 samples a minute apart.
As shadowforge said, the performance drop is mostly determined by how many MCPatcher features and animated textures the pack includes. (Also, stereo, long-length, or poorly optimized custom sounds could cause some drops as well).
Interesting! Were you using MCPatcher or Optifine?
Odd that there's always a drop from the vanilla framerate... I guess that would confirm what SirTulip had heard.
This was with Optifine because I think that anyone who this graph interests should be using Optifine anyway. The variance during my tests was larger than I'd like especially getting up to the larger resolutions where not all the packs were complete or used special features, but I think it's pretty clear that default is the best. I will have to do more tests later on a lower-end computer.
Thanks for the input guys! Theoretically, based on what you guys (shadow/Ringoster) said, if a texture pack adds in no additional sound file, uses no mcpatcher/animation features that vanilla doesn't use, would it cause a frame rate loss? Ex, If someone were to tint all vanilla textures slightly blue, would that cause any losses?
weeheehee; nice graph! And yeah prob anyone who utilizes this graph prob should use optifine
Okay, makes sense. Thanks for the opinion!
97% of teenagers would cry if they saw Justin Bieber on top of a tower about to jump. If your the 3% who is sitting there with popcorn screaming "DO A BACKFLIP", copy and paste this as your signature.
nintendo is this color
sega is this color
microsoft is this color
sony is this color
atari is this color
mojang is this color
apple is this color
Interesting, have you done like (I think) WeeHeeHee has?
No, that is taken care when the game loads up or you switch texture packs. Then the texture pack(s) is/are converted into a form that minecraft uses at runtime. Once you are playing the game there's no difference in how MC reads default or any other pack.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
Not that I don't believe you, but source?
Someone could probably find something in the source code/MCP, but in pretty much all games all textures are loaded into RAM first. This means the location on the disk should, in theory, make no difference because it all ends up in the same form.
That makes sense.
As for block models, I'd avoid changing things like cube because then the opposite effects would occur. Lesser used blocks like torches would probably be negligible.
I've heard that alternative texture (connected textures?) take more processing power in minecraft. I do not have a source on me atm, but I could try to find where I heard that if you'd like.
That makes sense. Do you have your custom model bow available for download? I'd totally be down to use it
Yep just copy/past the textures/weeheehee/ folder and the bow_etc.json model files from here. http://weeheehee.com/#sheepvp-hd
Okay, i'll try it out! thanks
I just put it into a separate download. Try this. http://weeheehee.com/downloads/Shee-PvP HD Bow Addon.zip
Even bettr, thanks! I'm on my holiday break, so will be sometime before I try it out in game.