Okay so we are limited to a 1000x1000 world, and Nether as well right? I posted this earlier but I wanted more thoughts on the idea
1)Make a normal 1000x1000 world
2)Make portal to Nether
3)Go into Nether
4)walk a few blocks, make another portal
5)Go through that second portal
6)Come out in an entirely new 1000x1000 area
Would that work? Then again, he may have plans to expand the 1000block limit for future updates. I have no idea.
My experience in trying to go outside of bounds via minecart ramp or portal is that you just get stuck. You can't move, can't jump, can't dig, can't do anything. With luck, you'll end up in water where you can eventually drown....
Actually, this is a brilliant compromise to the limited world size, it's all in finding the correct model to utilize it. Wouldn't even need a step through the Nether to pull it off. More like a system of linear waypoint gates that cycle as you build them. Would need a loading screen to dump previous world from memory and load in the new one, but beyond that, it's a matter of implementation, essentially like switching to a new map entirely, minus the need to quit to menu and adding a system or ability to construct a special chest that allows shared stashing across maps. Only real hang-up would be on the MP side, like sleeping, it would have to be that all players must make the switch to the new map, or none do.
It wouldn't be an easy concept to implement, but it's far from impossible. There's a great idea, here, but sadly I doubt it would happen.
It's more like having separate worlds, but linking them together. I don't think RAM would be an issue
no no no, ram is were the temporary internet files or offline temporary files are stored. the xbox isn't a computer so it doesn't need much of it, the RAM has nothing to do with the game. The processor/video card and motherboard are the main components that run the game not the RAM
Back on topic, I think what you guys are trying to describe is exactly how the Nether works now, right? I think it actually dumps the Overworld out and replaces it with the Nether when you enter the portal - the reason behind the loading screen. Not really sure, though, considering you can be the "server" and players can be in the Nether and outside of it simultaneously...... anyway, the whole thing is wild technical speculation....
Actually, this is a brilliant compromise to the limited world size, it's all in finding the correct model to utilize it. Wouldn't even need a step through the Nether to pull it off. More like a system of linear waypoint gates that cycle as you build them. Would need a loading screen to dump previous world from memory and load in the new one, but beyond that, it's a matter of implementation, essentially like switching to a new map entirely, minus the need to quit to menu and adding a system or ability to construct a special chest that allows shared stashing across maps. Only real hang-up would be on the MP side, like sleeping, it would have to be that all players must make the switch to the new map, or none do.
It wouldn't be an easy concept to implement, but it's far from impossible. There's a great idea, here, but sadly I doubt it would happen.
Pretty much this. Note that you wouldn't need to enter the Nether to cause such a transition either as it could be attained by hitting the edge of the map and asking for a confirmation before loading the next section. You could also include the requirement of having all current players within a set number of blocks from one another. As the map currently has four sides, this would allow for 4 new transitions. In an ideal world the number of transtions would be inifinite but for simplicity you could use a 3x3 grid with wrapping worlds so if you exit through the northern portion of the maps enough you eventually reappear from the south of first.
The XBOX can only handle so much unlike the PC which can upgrade its RAM. So, im not sure this would work
RAM shouldn't be the reason anyways. Minecraft on the PC can run on 256MB and 512MB of RAM smoothly and effortlessly without any problems at all.
I'm pretty sure the reason that worlds aren't bigger has to do with how the Xbox saves and loads it's memory. It's not as dynamic as a PC in that department.
Hmm, wonder on that point. The console really has no issues with streaming massively massive, extremely-detailed high-polycount worlds in many games, so I don't think the on-board memory should be an issue, especially with how well-optimized MC seems to be on 360. Considering the initial world data amounts to a few kb for each chunk, that stops making sense very quickly.
It seems much, much more likely to do with the save-file limitations than anything else. I imagine a 1024x1024 world was found to be the optimal size where you could accommodate an optimum number of chunks, and be able to apply a change to every block and come near a max data file size without exceeding it, which I understand XBLA titles have, apparently? I mean, that still allows for 10MM+ potential edits to track, which I imagine could become an awfully large file over time.
Back on topic, I think what you guys are trying to describe is exactly how the Nether works now, right? I think it actually dumps the Overworld out and replaces it with the Nether when you enter the portal - the reason behind the loading screen. Not really sure, though, considering you can be the "server" and players can be in the Nether and outside of it simultaneously...... anyway, the whole thing is wild technical speculation....
I don't want to get way off topic here, but stating that "games run on the processor and video card" is horrendously misguided. RAM is a definite bottleneck as it contains not only the game engine but also the rest of the kernel/API/Xbox features like voice/etc. Limitations on RAM will create a serious issue even if you're kicking a 4G GDDR4 video card.
For a scenario example, consider that the logic for updating blocks is absolutely not stored in video RAM or somehow jammed into the processor - it's stored in traditional RAM. In the event that the game has to cache render lists in and out of RAM and video RAM there would be horrible slowdown. In the event that the pipeline simply can't keep up with the number of updates (both in video RAM as well as logical in primary) you'd end up with horrible slowdown.
MineCraft on the PC makes great use of OpenGL and it's features - many features that roughly don't translate to the DirectX API used on the Xbox. It's quite possible the methods they used for accelerating (for example, the relationship of a chunk to an OpenGL display list) the PC version were simply not relevant to the Xbox port.
So there you have a ton of reasons why "moar video RAM make game good" is fundamentally wrong.
Highly doubtful anyone has liquidated an entire 1000x1000x256 world already.
So would you rather spend hundreds of hours in a world in order to liquidate it before having to abandon it entirely due to having no further resources to utilize? The flaw is apparent, while this solution may not be ideal it is still a step in the right direction. I had posted another idea that would allow players to repurpose crafted materials due to having a finite supply. Also note that most optimal mining technique do not search every square but merely expose a majority of them. What all of this means is that having a limited world is a flaw for this game regardless of how many squares a player has uncovered.
The new height limit of 256 wasn't added until official release 1.2
Oh, right. I was wondering why the clouds were so low....
It is 1024, but I think you can only use ~1000.... When I run to the edge of the world there's generally water or ice for several blocks. I assumed they made a big border to try to prevent you from getting stuck out there - which you still can if water pushes you, a minecart launches you, etc.
no no no, ram is were the temporary internet files or offline temporary files are stored. the xbox isn't a computer so it doesn't need much of it, the RAM has nothing to do with the game. The processor/video card and motherboard are the main components that run the game not the RAM
this is so wrong on so many levels, you may want to look up RAM on wikipedia =)
I don't want to get way off topic here, but stating that "games run on the processor and video card" is horrendously misguided. RAM is a definite bottleneck as it contains not only the game engine but also the rest of the kernel/API/Xbox features like voice/etc. Limitations on RAM will create a serious issue even if you're kicking a 4G GDDR4 video card.
For a scenario example, consider that the logic for updating blocks is absolutely not stored in video RAM or somehow jammed into the processor - it's stored in traditional RAM. In the event that the game has to cache render lists in and out of RAM and video RAM there would be horrible slowdown. In the event that the pipeline simply can't keep up with the number of updates (both in video RAM as well as logical in primary) you'd end up with horrible slowdown.
MineCraft on the PC makes great use of OpenGL and it's features - many features that roughly don't translate to the DirectX API used on the Xbox. It's quite possible the methods they used for accelerating (for example, the relationship of a chunk to an OpenGL display list) the PC version were simply not relevant to the Xbox port.
So there you have a ton of reasons why "moar video RAM make game good" is fundamentally wrong.
I haven't found a single disc and I doubt the OP has, either. I'm pretty sure they're in here because we have the jukebox, ya?
Highly doubtful anyone has liquidated an entire 1000x1000x256 world already.
the hieght limit is not to 256 in Beta versions ( which is what minecraft xbox 360 is in). just saying [:)]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the Vonzilla, rogue enderman, destined to walk the Overworld forever...
Uhh...How about:
1)Make whatever you want on the overworld
2)run out of space
3)Continue expansion on the Nether
4)Run out of space again but finish
5)???
6)PROFIT
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1)Make a normal 1000x1000 world
2)Make portal to Nether
3)Go into Nether
4)walk a few blocks, make another portal
5)Go through that second portal
6)Come out in an entirely new 1000x1000 area
Would that work? Then again, he may have plans to expand the 1000block limit for future updates. I have no idea.
.... otherwise, you have to reload.
It's more like having separate worlds, but linking them together. I don't think RAM would be an issue
It wouldn't be an easy concept to implement, but it's far from impossible. There's a great idea, here, but sadly I doubt it would happen.
Um, no. Just no.....
Back on topic, I think what you guys are trying to describe is exactly how the Nether works now, right? I think it actually dumps the Overworld out and replaces it with the Nether when you enter the portal - the reason behind the loading screen. Not really sure, though, considering you can be the "server" and players can be in the Nether and outside of it simultaneously...... anyway, the whole thing is wild technical speculation....
Pretty much this. Note that you wouldn't need to enter the Nether to cause such a transition either as it could be attained by hitting the edge of the map and asking for a confirmation before loading the next section. You could also include the requirement of having all current players within a set number of blocks from one another. As the map currently has four sides, this would allow for 4 new transitions. In an ideal world the number of transtions would be inifinite but for simplicity you could use a 3x3 grid with wrapping worlds so if you exit through the northern portion of the maps enough you eventually reappear from the south of first.
I'm pretty sure the reason that worlds aren't bigger has to do with how the Xbox saves and loads it's memory. It's not as dynamic as a PC in that department.
It seems much, much more likely to do with the save-file limitations than anything else. I imagine a 1024x1024 world was found to be the optimal size where you could accommodate an optimum number of chunks, and be able to apply a change to every block and come near a max data file size without exceeding it, which I understand XBLA titles have, apparently? I mean, that still allows for 10MM+ potential edits to track, which I imagine could become an awfully large file over time.
Just speculating.
Complex? No. Oversimplified and incorrect? Yes.
I don't want to get way off topic here, but stating that "games run on the processor and video card" is horrendously misguided. RAM is a definite bottleneck as it contains not only the game engine but also the rest of the kernel/API/Xbox features like voice/etc. Limitations on RAM will create a serious issue even if you're kicking a 4G GDDR4 video card.
For a scenario example, consider that the logic for updating blocks is absolutely not stored in video RAM or somehow jammed into the processor - it's stored in traditional RAM. In the event that the game has to cache render lists in and out of RAM and video RAM there would be horrible slowdown. In the event that the pipeline simply can't keep up with the number of updates (both in video RAM as well as logical in primary) you'd end up with horrible slowdown.
MineCraft on the PC makes great use of OpenGL and it's features - many features that roughly don't translate to the DirectX API used on the Xbox. It's quite possible the methods they used for accelerating (for example, the relationship of a chunk to an OpenGL display list) the PC version were simply not relevant to the Xbox port.
So there you have a ton of reasons why "moar video RAM make game good" is fundamentally wrong.
I haven't found a single disc and I doubt the OP has, either. I'm pretty sure they're in here because we have the jukebox, ya?
Highly doubtful anyone has liquidated an entire 1000x1000x256 world already.
So would you rather spend hundreds of hours in a world in order to liquidate it before having to abandon it entirely due to having no further resources to utilize? The flaw is apparent, while this solution may not be ideal it is still a step in the right direction. I had posted another idea that would allow players to repurpose crafted materials due to having a finite supply. Also note that most optimal mining technique do not search every square but merely expose a majority of them. What all of this means is that having a limited world is a flaw for this game regardless of how many squares a player has uncovered.
The new height limit of 256 wasn't added until official release 1.2
Oh, right. I was wondering why the clouds were so low....
It is 1024, but I think you can only use ~1000.... When I run to the edge of the world there's generally water or ice for several blocks. I assumed they made a big border to try to prevent you from getting stuck out there - which you still can if water pushes you, a minecart launches you, etc.
1)Make whatever you want on the overworld
2)run out of space
3)Continue expansion on the Nether
4)Run out of space again but finish
5)???
6)PROFIT