I know maps aren't gonna be infinite in size like the PC version. I just refuse to believe that we have this tiny map just because of Xbox's 512mb RAM limitation.
If that were the case then why can a laptop with 512mb of RAM and a sh***y integrated video card that's 4+ y/o run minecraft decently?
Don't get me wrong, 4J's done an awesome job so far, and with all the upcoming updates the game is no doubt just gonna get better. But sooner or later, one way or another, something has to be done about this tiny world map. At least that's what i think.
How are new biome's supposed to fit on these tiny maps after the 1.8 update if the current biome's aren't even as diverse as they should be because of this space limitation. Not to mention resources etc.
Either way, I'll be enjoying minecraft XBLA with or without larger maps, I just don't believe that the current world size is all the xbox can pull off. Especially with some proper optimization.
No news yet. It doesn't have to do with RAM limitations, it has to do with hard drive space. XBLA games can only be so big(I do not know what the limit is though).
No news yet. It doesn't have to do with RAM limitations, it has to do with hard drive space. XBLA games can only be so big(I do not know what the limit is though).
My mistake then, i heard an awefull lot about this apparent RAM issue and i just couldn't believe it.
No news yet. It doesn't have to do with RAM limitations, it has to do with hard drive space. XBLA games can only be so big(I do not know what the limit is though).
If that's the only issue couldn't Microsoft just make us agree to some sort of legal document that says we understand that taking the update means the game will take up significantly more memory?
Wait now that I think about it if the memory thing is true does that mean you can only create so many worlds? has anyone reached this limit?
My point is when creating a world you could always decide the demensions of the worlds. And if you create bigger world you simply can't create as many worlds.
Wait now that I think about it if the memory thing is true does that mean you can only create so many worlds? has anyone reached this limit?
My point is when creating a world you could always decide the demensions of the worlds. And if you create bigger world you simply can't create as many worlds.
Havn't reached any limit yet, i think i've got about 5-6 worlds.
Actually, it would be awesome to have the option to choose your world size before you create it. I wonder why they didn't do that yet.
I keep telling people this .. but here goes.. (again)
The world size is limited by one thing : the save game file size. (RAM limits render distance mostly)
Under the XBLA Technical Requirement Specifications, the maximum save game file size was originally 64Meg (yes Meg). This is due to original Xbox Core owners not having a HDD, but having to save games to a memory card.
I don't have access to the current TRS, so if someone could look that up, and let us know, we could get some idea how big the world could be.
Again :
1. Game file size (limited by M$) limits the code and texture files etc.. (not an issue with Minecraft)
2. RAM limits the amount of the current world that the Xbox can render on the screen (which is why you can only see 128 blocks away on XBox, and on 'Far' on the PC you can see 256 blocks ...)
3. SAVE-game file size (limited by M$) limits how much data can be used to describe the world and so limits how big it can be.
Most games include a pre-designed world/levels in the game files and only save item/location data in the save-game file. Minecraft cannot do this.
If Microsoft were to change the rules, so that an XBLA game could act differently if it detected a HDD then you could have PC-sized worlds (given space on the HDD - mine's nearly full!)
4J never said they couldn't. Don't you think if they knew that already they'd tell us we wouldn't be getting bigger worlds? I mean they did say they'd look into it and they didn't say that it's impossible to do. I just keep thinking about that because everytime someone asked about adding something from PC to Xbox they'd just say "we're not going to do that" or "we can't do that on the xbox version". If they answered questions like that already why didn't they answer the larger world question in the same manner? I believe they can make it happen. I've had some friends of mine who are in video game design and computer programming say that it could be done for the xbox and they could work around certain save file issues. So can it happen? yes. Will it happen?....Hopefully
The problem isn't entirely ram size. Its mostly 4 player splitscreen. They want you to be able to have all 4 players playing anywhere in the world without lag. Sucks too because I can't even use splitscreen .
The problem isn't entirely ram size. Its mostly 4 player splitscreen. They want you to be able to have all 4 players playing anywhere in the world without lag. Sucks too because I can't even use splitscreen .
No, it's Microsoft putting limits on the file sizes.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
California
Join Date:
6/15/2012
Posts:
42
Member Details
Can someone tell me where the save files of my worlds are stored on the PC version? This thread got me thinking and I went to check where the files were. From the games initial download I only have the exe to start the game, searched the computer but nothing with keyword minecraft comes up. So, does that mean it is purposefully hidden somewhere?
Can someone tell me where the save files of my worlds are stored on the PC version? This thread got me thinking and I went to check where the files were. From the games initial download I only have the exe to start the game, searched the computer but nothing with keyword minecraft comes up. So, does that mean it is purposefully hidden somewhere?
C:\Users\(Your user here)\AppData\Roaming\.minecraft\saves
thats a really, really good point. if every gold account has cloud, they should be able to increase the save size. the only unhappy people would be those without gold and a hdd. but who really cares about them, anyway XD
Beckoner: have we ever gotten confirmation that the save game file size is the reason that the world size limitation?
I mean, it certainly seems plausable, but I've also seen speculation that it has something to do with memory limitations and 4-player split screen mode.
(In the interest of accuracy, the XBox map is actually only 864 x 864, not 1024 x 1024 as originally advertised. This doesn't change the essense of the discussion, however.)
Beckoner: have we ever gotten confirmation that the save game file size is the reason that the world size limitation?
No, and nearly everything anyone says about file size limits is wrong.
150M used to be the limit of a whole XBLIG game. Not the save files, but the whole game. That has since been raised, not to mention it's completely irrelevant - Minecraft is not an XBLIG (Xbox Live Indie Game) it is an XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) game. There are a massive number of differences on how these types of games work.
The only thing remotely accurate that someone has said was when McAngusYoung mentioned Microsoft's suggesting that XBLA and XBLIG developers keep their save files well below 64M to fit on the old memory cards when they were still selling the Xbox Arcade Editions (read: no hdd version). That's true - but since then, there has been no other "guidelines" (and the < 64M was never a "hard" limit from what I understand - and it seems at least one developer made 50M saves that were catted together to skirt the limit). This, of course, isn't really useful anymore as they don't even sell the "no hdd" versions of Xbox anymore. There is a fixed 2G limit of a file container on the 360 (this is a filesystem restriction - no single file can be larger than 2G).
I personally believe the caching/loading thing that Smiffy mentions (and I ended up in some huge discussion about it previously). That makes much more sense than most of the topics brought up. Remember, PC players don't care if it takes 10 minutes to load a game - they might gripe, but they'll generally get over it and do something else while it loads. Console players will froth at the mouth and destroy things if it takes that long...... It's a quality expectation thing.
Before anyone even attempts to say it again, you CANNOT run Minecraft on a PC with 256M of RAM with a server holding 8+ players at 720p (1280x720 at 60fps). You can't - it's not possible in any way. 256M of RAM is the minimum required RAM for Linux (much less Windows) and you still have to allocate enough RAM to the client and server Java processes. 256M will not do it. Ever. It's pure garbage to even attempt to say otherwise - even if you did pull it off through patching the server and client jars, your multiplayer world would end up so corrupted it wouldn't even be useful.
Even with cloud saves, you still have to cache the save locally before uploading - that doesn't necessarily increase the size limit and certainly hurts the performance. Cloud saves are not worth discussing and probably irrelevant to the entire issue.
I've asked a few people to take the couple of minutes required to see how much space the game itself and the individual saves take, especially if you've got one of those worlds where you've nearly flattened the whole thing to bedrock. But no one seems to want to bother to do that, and instead they keep pushing around this rumor that save files are limited to 65,536 bytes or other nonsense.
Well maybe such a feature as when creating world. "Pick world size" "Dedicate HDD space"
So you could for example pick "512 MB" for world size"
As it saves locally it would only need to be the host with the world size.
that's a good idea and I'd be willing to dedicate HDD space to enlarge a world or two and when I'm done i could delete those worlds and start again. Seems plausible but I'm not a video game designer or computer programmer I just know that by talking to a few Game devs and PC programmers they told me it could be done but MS has to approve
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If that were the case then why can a laptop with 512mb of RAM and a sh***y integrated video card that's 4+ y/o run minecraft decently?
Don't get me wrong, 4J's done an awesome job so far, and with all the upcoming updates the game is no doubt just gonna get better. But sooner or later, one way or another, something has to be done about this tiny world map. At least that's what i think.
How are new biome's supposed to fit on these tiny maps after the 1.8 update if the current biome's aren't even as diverse as they should be because of this space limitation. Not to mention resources etc.
Either way, I'll be enjoying minecraft XBLA with or without larger maps, I just don't believe that the current world size is all the xbox can pull off. Especially with some proper optimization.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffMy mistake then, i heard an awefull lot about this apparent RAM issue and i just couldn't believe it.
If that's the only issue couldn't Microsoft just make us agree to some sort of legal document that says we understand that taking the update means the game will take up significantly more memory?
My point is when creating a world you could always decide the demensions of the worlds. And if you create bigger world you simply can't create as many worlds.
Havn't reached any limit yet, i think i've got about 5-6 worlds.
Actually, it would be awesome to have the option to choose your world size before you create it. I wonder why they didn't do that yet.
4J never said they couldn't. Don't you think if they knew that already they'd tell us we wouldn't be getting bigger worlds? I mean they did say they'd look into it and they didn't say that it's impossible to do. I just keep thinking about that because everytime someone asked about adding something from PC to Xbox they'd just say "we're not going to do that" or "we can't do that on the xbox version". If they answered questions like that already why didn't they answer the larger world question in the same manner? I believe they can make it happen. I've had some friends of mine who are in video game design and computer programming say that it could be done for the xbox and they could work around certain save file issues. So can it happen? yes. Will it happen?....Hopefully
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
No, it's Microsoft putting limits on the file sizes.
C:\Users\(Your user here)\AppData\Roaming\.minecraft\saves
assuming you're using w7
I mean, it certainly seems plausable, but I've also seen speculation that it has something to do with memory limitations and 4-player split screen mode.
(In the interest of accuracy, the XBox map is actually only 864 x 864, not 1024 x 1024 as originally advertised. This doesn't change the essense of the discussion, however.)
No, and nearly everything anyone says about file size limits is wrong.
150M used to be the limit of a whole XBLIG game. Not the save files, but the whole game. That has since been raised, not to mention it's completely irrelevant - Minecraft is not an XBLIG (Xbox Live Indie Game) it is an XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) game. There are a massive number of differences on how these types of games work.
The only thing remotely accurate that someone has said was when McAngusYoung mentioned Microsoft's suggesting that XBLA and XBLIG developers keep their save files well below 64M to fit on the old memory cards when they were still selling the Xbox Arcade Editions (read: no hdd version). That's true - but since then, there has been no other "guidelines" (and the < 64M was never a "hard" limit from what I understand - and it seems at least one developer made 50M saves that were catted together to skirt the limit). This, of course, isn't really useful anymore as they don't even sell the "no hdd" versions of Xbox anymore. There is a fixed 2G limit of a file container on the 360 (this is a filesystem restriction - no single file can be larger than 2G).
I personally believe the caching/loading thing that Smiffy mentions (and I ended up in some huge discussion about it previously). That makes much more sense than most of the topics brought up. Remember, PC players don't care if it takes 10 minutes to load a game - they might gripe, but they'll generally get over it and do something else while it loads. Console players will froth at the mouth and destroy things if it takes that long...... It's a quality expectation thing.
Before anyone even attempts to say it again, you CANNOT run Minecraft on a PC with 256M of RAM with a server holding 8+ players at 720p (1280x720 at 60fps). You can't - it's not possible in any way. 256M of RAM is the minimum required RAM for Linux (much less Windows) and you still have to allocate enough RAM to the client and server Java processes. 256M will not do it. Ever. It's pure garbage to even attempt to say otherwise - even if you did pull it off through patching the server and client jars, your multiplayer world would end up so corrupted it wouldn't even be useful.
Even with cloud saves, you still have to cache the save locally before uploading - that doesn't necessarily increase the size limit and certainly hurts the performance. Cloud saves are not worth discussing and probably irrelevant to the entire issue.
I've asked a few people to take the couple of minutes required to see how much space the game itself and the individual saves take, especially if you've got one of those worlds where you've nearly flattened the whole thing to bedrock. But no one seems to want to bother to do that, and instead they keep pushing around this rumor that save files are limited to 65,536 bytes or other nonsense.
that's a good idea and I'd be willing to dedicate HDD space to enlarge a world or two and when I'm done i could delete those worlds and start again. Seems plausible but I'm not a video game designer or computer programmer I just know that by talking to a few Game devs and PC programmers they told me it could be done but MS has to approve