Xenominer is designed directly for Xbox, everything has been designed to work with C++/C#
Minecraft was originally designed to work on a Java platform and was ported over to C++/C#.
I'm assuming that this port and the fact that it was originally developed for java on the PC (Plenty of Memory and HDD space to use) its going to cause issues, unless of course you are willing to wait for them to completely rewrite the engine.
THIS!!!^^^
Comparing other games to Minecraft is a classic example of apples and oranges and no basis for outright calling the developer a liar. They have been straight with everyone, but some people just don't like their truthful answer... so they just keep hammering away at them... and this thread gets longer and longer. To those that absolutely just can't live without a bigger world I say... Please feel free to be be happier and go play Minecraft on the PC. It's still a great game on both platforms.
I think that the map size might be too small and I was wondering who else thought this and who thought that it was okay and why you think that it is good/bad. Also any thing else about this.
THE CURRENT WORLD SIZE IS
1MAP = 64x64 CHUNKS = 1024x1024 BLOCKS
Also please keep in mind that Minecraft for Xbox is still pretty new and you shouldn't expect changes like this to happen very soon much less in the next update.
Minecraft only renders a small section of the world at any given point, and the xbox is no different, so it is not being limited by hardware. Minecraft is actually being ported I think. Also other games have infinite worlds too, and Minecraft worlds don't exactly take up a lot of memory either. Also I they said that they will add most of the features from the PC version, but about a year behind.
PLEASE RESPOND ON HOW THIS AFFECTS YOU
What the Problem is
Definitely possible
If there is any official word please tell us.
I think it would be nice if they increased the sky limit. The world size is okay for now especially since a bigger world I'm sure would load slower on Xbox.
World size is a huge issue. We have to worry about not getting a special generated structure because of it. All of those people who think that Xboxes hardware is garbage, they are wrong. 512 Mb of ram is already more than enough ram. People can mod their Xbox to play Minecraft PC without any frame rate problems. I have 36 mods running on my PC version of the game. I have the magic launcher, and I gave it 512 Mb of ram, and it was fine. If anything, it is that Microsoft has strict rules against how big save files can be, but indie games have different rules because they are so small in size. Maybe 4J could work it out with Microsoft by making a DLC that is only available to people who have more that 20 Gb of hard drive space. Sorry about the people this would leave out, but it would have to be that way.
... If anything, it is that Microsoft has strict rules against how big save files can be, but indie games have different rules because they are so small in size. Maybe 4J could work it out with Microsoft by making a DLC that is only available to people who have more that 20 Gb of hard drive space. Sorry about the people this would leave out, but it would have to be that way.
Dead wrong. Save file size has nothing to do with it. Xbox is trying to do the same thing as the PC, but with 1/8th the memory, so something has to give- and it's world size. Xbox only has 512 mb ram, and per Burns, they're already 'using all of it'. Running the game in limited ram is the problem. There's only so much ram for the OS, the game, sound files (there's 50mb right there), etc.. You could play for days straight without saving, so why does "save game file size" have anything to do with it?
Wrong bro, they community demands something and that's it. MC on xbox is an ongoing project as on the PC 4J and Mojang want to know what people think about the game and what they whish in the future.
Telling those whishes isn't to offend somebody.
If the enginge is crap, then they gotta rework it. Looke at "Total Miner" or "Xenominer" (again). They programmed a new engine to save RAM and to make bigger world possible.
The Total Miner update hasn't been released so far, I got to admit.
It's possible for small indie developers and it has to be possible for a million dollar company. I love the xbox version, but some things are bothering me and at the top of the list is the world size.....
It's your opinion and you're entitled to it... but while you're so busy beating your head against a brick wall trying to abuse people into giving you what they say is impossible just because you want it... I'll be happily playing Minecraft on the XBox. You could, perhaps, be happier playing the game on the PC.
no mate, you don't understand me and the rest of the people who want bigger worlds. I don't like to play on a PC. Playing on PC is crap if you ain't got good equipment and just uncomfortable furniture. Playing in the living room is why I love consoles.
Actually, I think the Xbox version is the better one for me, because it's easier and better to play, but I still miss some features....
Asking for a feature means not running against a brick wall. It's just a wish from the community.
You need to respect this, as I respect your opinion.
I know the Xbox is limited, it's just a pretty ancient kind of thing nowadays, but it's possible to offer bigger world. It hasn't to be endless, but a little bigger would be great.
Tell me, why Indie game developers are able to find ways to offer these vast worlds? And 4J can't do anything? Man, that's quite hard to understand......
I will continue to play MC, because it's a great game so far, but hey, it's an ongoing project and 4J expect to get feedback from the community.
There will be many new features coming in the future and who knows, maybe someday a slightly bigger world.
See ya,
Goover
One of the major limiting factors right now is that 4j wants to keep to 60fps and 4-player split screen. Without these I believe a bit more could be pushed out of the 360, but these features are here to stay
agree with you 100%.
4-playersplitscreen should be an option. It would be great if we could choose to play without it, but with bigger worlds than.
Sounds pretty easy to me.
Except that 4JSteve came onto this forum months ago and stated that even completely eliminating splitscreen mode would make little or no different in giving them the ability to increase the world size
You speak to me about respect - but because of your theorizing on the issue, you're not showing any respect for the information coming directly from the developers of the Xbox version of the game. Any programmer outside of 4J does not have enough information about how THIS game is programmed in order to make an informed assessment as to what can and cannot be done specifically about world size. The ONLY group of people in a position to know have said repeatedly that world size cannot be increased, period.
One of the major limiting factors right now is that 4j wants to keep to 60fps and 4-player split screen. Without these I believe a bit more could be pushed out of the 360, but these features are here to stay
... except there are already almost as many complaints here about issues related to graphics lag offline (aka fps drops) as there are about world size. Also, when I watch videos made by players on the PC, I hear frequent comments about how badly the PC version lags. Many of those comments come from people like Paul Soares, Jr., who most likely have pretty high quality PCs for gaming since they spend so much time making gaming videos. Considering how picky gamers can be over some things, I don't think dropping this game much below 4J's 60 fps target in order to increase world size by, perhaps, a few blocks in each direction is a really "good" option either.
Splitscreen mode is one major feature that makes the game on the XBox of interest to families. It eliminates the need to buy multiple systems to have individual family members play together. In addition, as stated previously, even eliminating it also apparently won't make as major difference as some people like to speculate it would.
Agreed!
Bloodied, pulped, cooked into a new horse, and beaten again... Holy.... well, you all get that point.
LOCK, PLEASE.
Except if this thread dies, or is locked, there will just be a new one. Would you rather have a new thread talking about this every day or two, or would you rather just have this one?
Except if this thread dies, or is locked, there will just be a new one. Would you rather have a new thread talking about this every day or two, or would you rather just have this one?
It's been talked about daily for 8 months straight and you still don't think the developers know about it by now?
"Bigger worlds" won't do a thing- they'll still be considered "too little". Nothing will satisfy some of you guys unless you have infinite worlds- and that ain't happening with this xbox (or maybe even the next).
What, you guys figure that if you keep hammering away at this long enough it will happen?
People who nag are tuned out, not in.
My opinion is that a huge part of why Minecraft as a game is so successful is the idea of a limitless infinite world of endless possibilities. Therefore it needs to be a (near enough) limitless world. By joining maps with portals or whatever other means.
A large part of the success of Minecraft on the XBox is also it's appeal to families... some with very young children who find it easier to manipulate the controller than a keyboard and mouse. Forfeiting splitscreen, as suggested by some above, would not increase the size of the world even enough to be significant and much of the game's appeal for families would be lost in the process. Without splitscreen, those families would have to purchase 4 computers to do what they can now do with just 1 XBox and 4 controllers. The proposal to increase world size by eliminating splitscreen is a "lose-lose" one for those reasons.
Your suggestion of linked map files has also been discussed to death, and 4J have said that those won't work with Minecraft on the XBox either (Ref: Minecon 2102).
Rehashing these old ideas doesn't bring anyone any closer to actually resolving the problem... it just creates an environment of constant complaining about the situation. After 8 months of hearing the complaints, 4J KNOW the problem; and I'm sure that they are still looking for a way to bring larger worlds to us. However, accept that they have seriously looked into all of the suggestions that have been offered up so far and discounted them for various reasons.
In the interim, for those people who absolutely cannot live without "infinite" Minecraft worlds, please do yourself a favor (and us) and enjoy the game while playing it in ON THE PC. I'm OK enjoying MCXBLA with a world that is a "limited" size; and from several of the comments above, many others here are OK with it as well. It's not crime to enjoy it on either system with whatever limitations each of those systems may or may not have.
who wants infinite worlds well who doesnt but with this limited map we can host pvp servers were players dont wander off and to never see each other again we can host large map hunger games without having to put up glass walls if you say you run out of resources i doubt it cause u dont mind up every block now do you....this topic has been discussed a long time but new ideas should still be welcomed i for one wouldnt want to see infinite worlds first i would like to see chunck loading first resolved as once you die all chunks need to be reloaded and its hard sometimes to play on multiplayer maps maybe after that seeing a small increase on ppl that can join one world and then in the future looking into infinite worlds with large server hosting like in pc
Except if this thread dies, or is locked, there will just be a new one. Would you rather have a new thread talking about this every day or two, or would you rather just have this one?
I'd rather the thick-skulled people that can't wrap their minds around 512mb of RAM read up on some of 4J's tweets/videos/conferences/etc..
The only question I've ever had on this subject, after learning about Xbox's RAM issue, is why can indie games have much larger worlds while Minecraft cannot. An indie game is not allowed the same update size, etc., So how can a game like CastleminerZ, with somewhat similar content to Minecraft, have a (much) bigger world? My guess is that Minecraft originated from PC, so it's harder to write into a Xbox. But, I haven't seen a solid answer to this.
I'd rather the thick-skulled people that can't wrap their minds around 512mb of RAM read up on some of 4J's tweets/videos/conferences/etc..
The only question I've ever had on this subject, after learning about Xbox's RAM issue, is why can indie games have much larger worlds while Minecraft cannot. An indie game is not allowed the same update size, etc., So how can a game like CastleminerZ, with somewhat similar content to Minecraft, have a (much) bigger world? My guess is that Minecraft originated from PC, so it's harder to write into a Xbox. But, I haven't seen a solid answer to this.
I think the solid answer to your question is that they just aren't the same game. When you're trying to consider how much RAM a game is actually using, you have to consider the game holistically (as an complete entity) and not just pull out one element (world size) and say: "Well this game has a larger world why can't this DIFFERENT game also have as large a world." It's a classic example of trying to compare an apple to an orange and saying: "Why can't an apple have bigger seeds like an orange?"
So, yes, part of the issue may involve how Minecraft was originally written in Java. Another part may be how the random worlds are generated. Another part may be the number of active mobs and the growing trees and the rain and the lightning and the brewing and the enchanting and the stuff that still remains to be added. Another part might be how the drop-in, drop-out splitscreen works.
Sure, changing some of this might gain you a little bit of RAM here and there; but how many things do you have to change about Minecraft before you gain enough RAM to make an even remotely significant increase in world size? (Only 4J can answer that question.) Then, you have to ask the question, how many things can you change about Minecraft in order to get those gains before it's simply no longer Minecraft?
Also another thing to consider when comparing games like up said... How the game in general loads and saves things. Minecraft does have quite a bit in memory, and does unload a few things from it to efficiently provide for other parts of the game that run constantly. In a game like CMZ, the whole concept is based around moving and fighting, not really building anything that will stay put for very long. So it would be constantly unloading things from memory if not deleting what was done. Sure you could say minecraft can possibly do the same, but it already does to some degree on the PC. This is not the pc though, and even if was we would be experiencing more lag then actually needed in multiplayer. As if we didn't have enough of that already.
But on another note both games are just different to the core, even the way the engine works in each, is different. There really is not much in the way of terrain in CMZ either, also the blocks are fewer too, so has less types of blocks to keep track of, if not other elements to the game. I guess some people really do not understand how complex a simple game like minecraft actually is. O_o
I am one to own both pc and xbox versions, and to this day consider them as different games that came from the same original model. Things in the future may change, but that is the future, so until that time comes when this game gets outdated, then we could have those worlds...lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My First World, always getting back to is a pleasure I enjoy with each new update that brings in more things to add in.
Tell me, why Indie game developers are able to find ways to offer these vast worlds? And 4J can't do anything? Man, that's quite hard to understand......
Never understood why some people find it difficult to understand something so obvious. Go play one of the voxel-based sandbox indie games, then come back to Minecraft. If you can't see why Minecraft hogs more resources, slap yourself in the face repeatedly. I have yet to see one of these indie games with biomes, anything similar to redstone, or the wide range of mobs that make Minecraft unique.
The fact of the matter is that the 360 could handle much larger worlds, if 4J was to sacrifice such smooth drop-in split-screen multiplayer. This is a key selling point that really separates MCXBLA from it's PC native counterpart, so don't expect it to be going anywhere soon. If you haven't noticed, unrendered chunks are still partially loaded in the console's on-board memory. When you completely explore a world, all 2,916 chunks are being held in RAM. Granted they don't take up as much space as the rendered areas, chunk for chunk, but that is still a LOT for the hardware to manage.
It's been talked about daily for 8 months straight and you still don't think the developers know about it by now?
"Bigger worlds" won't do a thing- they'll still be considered "too little". Nothing will satisfy some of you guys unless you have infinite worlds- and that ain't happening with this xbox (or maybe even the next).
What, you guys figure that if you keep hammering away at this long enough it will happen?
People who nag are tuned out, not in.
I'm not saying anything about about the world size right now... Just that if this thread goes away, there will be another to replace it
I think world size could stand to be a little bit bigger but I don't feel like it needs to be infinite like the PC version. I like the intimate setting and a slightly larger map would work out just fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
XBL: ThaPhantom07
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
THIS!!!^^^
Comparing other games to Minecraft is a classic example of apples and oranges and no basis for outright calling the developer a liar. They have been straight with everyone, but some people just don't like their truthful answer... so they just keep hammering away at them... and this thread gets longer and longer. To those that absolutely just can't live without a bigger world I say... Please feel free to be be happier and go play Minecraft on the PC. It's still a great game on both platforms.
I think it would be nice if they increased the sky limit. The world size is okay for now especially since a bigger world I'm sure would load slower on Xbox.
Dead wrong. Save file size has nothing to do with it. Xbox is trying to do the same thing as the PC, but with 1/8th the memory, so something has to give- and it's world size. Xbox only has 512 mb ram, and per Burns, they're already 'using all of it'. Running the game in limited ram is the problem. There's only so much ram for the OS, the game, sound files (there's 50mb right there), etc.. You could play for days straight without saving, so why does "save game file size" have anything to do with it?
This file size myth should just go away.
It's your opinion and you're entitled to it... but while you're so busy beating your head against a brick wall trying to abuse people into giving you what they say is impossible just because you want it... I'll be happily playing Minecraft on the XBox. You could, perhaps, be happier playing the game on the PC.
One of the major limiting factors right now is that 4j wants to keep to 60fps and 4-player split screen. Without these I believe a bit more could be pushed out of the 360, but these features are here to stay
Except that 4JSteve came onto this forum months ago and stated that even completely eliminating splitscreen mode would make little or no different in giving them the ability to increase the world size
You speak to me about respect - but because of your theorizing on the issue, you're not showing any respect for the information coming directly from the developers of the Xbox version of the game. Any programmer outside of 4J does not have enough information about how THIS game is programmed in order to make an informed assessment as to what can and cannot be done specifically about world size. The ONLY group of people in a position to know have said repeatedly that world size cannot be increased, period.
... except there are already almost as many complaints here about issues related to graphics lag offline (aka fps drops) as there are about world size. Also, when I watch videos made by players on the PC, I hear frequent comments about how badly the PC version lags. Many of those comments come from people like Paul Soares, Jr., who most likely have pretty high quality PCs for gaming since they spend so much time making gaming videos. Considering how picky gamers can be over some things, I don't think dropping this game much below 4J's 60 fps target in order to increase world size by, perhaps, a few blocks in each direction is a really "good" option either.
Splitscreen mode is one major feature that makes the game on the XBox of interest to families. It eliminates the need to buy multiple systems to have individual family members play together. In addition, as stated previously, even eliminating it also apparently won't make as major difference as some people like to speculate it would.
Please let this thread die.
Please.
Agreed!
Bloodied, pulped, cooked into a new horse, and beaten again... Holy.... well, you all get that point.
LOCK, PLEASE.
Except if this thread dies, or is locked, there will just be a new one. Would you rather have a new thread talking about this every day or two, or would you rather just have this one?
It's been talked about daily for 8 months straight and you still don't think the developers know about it by now?
"Bigger worlds" won't do a thing- they'll still be considered "too little". Nothing will satisfy some of you guys unless you have infinite worlds- and that ain't happening with this xbox (or maybe even the next).
What, you guys figure that if you keep hammering away at this long enough it will happen?
People who nag are tuned out, not in.
A large part of the success of Minecraft on the XBox is also it's appeal to families... some with very young children who find it easier to manipulate the controller than a keyboard and mouse. Forfeiting splitscreen, as suggested by some above, would not increase the size of the world even enough to be significant and much of the game's appeal for families would be lost in the process. Without splitscreen, those families would have to purchase 4 computers to do what they can now do with just 1 XBox and 4 controllers. The proposal to increase world size by eliminating splitscreen is a "lose-lose" one for those reasons.
Your suggestion of linked map files has also been discussed to death, and 4J have said that those won't work with Minecraft on the XBox either (Ref: Minecon 2102).
Rehashing these old ideas doesn't bring anyone any closer to actually resolving the problem... it just creates an environment of constant complaining about the situation. After 8 months of hearing the complaints, 4J KNOW the problem; and I'm sure that they are still looking for a way to bring larger worlds to us. However, accept that they have seriously looked into all of the suggestions that have been offered up so far and discounted them for various reasons.
In the interim, for those people who absolutely cannot live without "infinite" Minecraft worlds, please do yourself a favor (and us) and enjoy the game while playing it in ON THE PC. I'm OK enjoying MCXBLA with a world that is a "limited" size; and from several of the comments above, many others here are OK with it as well. It's not crime to enjoy it on either system with whatever limitations each of those systems may or may not have.
I'd rather the thick-skulled people that can't wrap their minds around 512mb of RAM read up on some of 4J's tweets/videos/conferences/etc..
The only question I've ever had on this subject, after learning about Xbox's RAM issue, is why can indie games have much larger worlds while Minecraft cannot. An indie game is not allowed the same update size, etc., So how can a game like CastleminerZ, with somewhat similar content to Minecraft, have a (much) bigger world? My guess is that Minecraft originated from PC, so it's harder to write into a Xbox. But, I haven't seen a solid answer to this.
I think the solid answer to your question is that they just aren't the same game. When you're trying to consider how much RAM a game is actually using, you have to consider the game holistically (as an complete entity) and not just pull out one element (world size) and say: "Well this game has a larger world why can't this DIFFERENT game also have as large a world." It's a classic example of trying to compare an apple to an orange and saying: "Why can't an apple have bigger seeds like an orange?"
So, yes, part of the issue may involve how Minecraft was originally written in Java. Another part may be how the random worlds are generated. Another part may be the number of active mobs and the growing trees and the rain and the lightning and the brewing and the enchanting and the stuff that still remains to be added. Another part might be how the drop-in, drop-out splitscreen works.
Sure, changing some of this might gain you a little bit of RAM here and there; but how many things do you have to change about Minecraft before you gain enough RAM to make an even remotely significant increase in world size? (Only 4J can answer that question.) Then, you have to ask the question, how many things can you change about Minecraft in order to get those gains before it's simply no longer Minecraft?
But on another note both games are just different to the core, even the way the engine works in each, is different. There really is not much in the way of terrain in CMZ either, also the blocks are fewer too, so has less types of blocks to keep track of, if not other elements to the game. I guess some people really do not understand how complex a simple game like minecraft actually is. O_o
I am one to own both pc and xbox versions, and to this day consider them as different games that came from the same original model. Things in the future may change, but that is the future, so until that time comes when this game gets outdated, then we could have those worlds...lol
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffNever understood why some people find it difficult to understand something so obvious. Go play one of the voxel-based sandbox indie games, then come back to Minecraft. If you can't see why Minecraft hogs more resources, slap yourself in the face repeatedly. I have yet to see one of these indie games with biomes, anything similar to redstone, or the wide range of mobs that make Minecraft unique.
The fact of the matter is that the 360 could handle much larger worlds, if 4J was to sacrifice such smooth drop-in split-screen multiplayer. This is a key selling point that really separates MCXBLA from it's PC native counterpart, so don't expect it to be going anywhere soon. If you haven't noticed, unrendered chunks are still partially loaded in the console's on-board memory. When you completely explore a world, all 2,916 chunks are being held in RAM. Granted they don't take up as much space as the rendered areas, chunk for chunk, but that is still a LOT for the hardware to manage.
I'm not saying anything about about the world size right now... Just that if this thread goes away, there will be another to replace it