512 MB, I believe. It has nothing to do with RAM though, PC version can run on less than that. The issue lies with Microsoft's ridiculous restrictions on the size of gamesave files.
(Thought I'd share this with you as well.)
how come i cant run minecraft on my 2gb ram desktop computer?
how come i cant run minecraft on my 2gb ram desktop computer?
That's weird how that happens. I play minecraft pc on my old dell latitude laptop with 1GB but when I downloaded it on my HP 4 GB laptop it studders and rants so I'm unable to play
how come i cant run minecraft on my 2gb ram desktop computer?
*facepalm*
Because a PC that comes with 2 GB RAM is not going to be a gaming PC. It's going to have a completely worthless GPU, probably some Intel family chipset, just like my computer does, which can barely handle Unity 3D games. Why does everyone say RAM is the problem for everything? Does anyone actually check their PC specs here?
People keep talking about "chunks" like it should be no problem loading and unloading them in memory to get larger (or infinite) worlds. It doesn't work that way on the xbox. It's like a hotel. People think that it only has to remember all the rooms on that floor. Move to another floor, forget the old rooms, and now remember the new rooms on the new floor.
Wrong.
It's trying to remember all the rooms (and changes to those rooms) on all the floors. Eventually you run out of "remembering space" (ram) if too many changes are made. For instance, doesn't it start lagging quite a bit (or even crash) if you have too many pistons? If it can't handle tracking 50 or 100 pistons, how can it handle tracking all the changes made in infinite worlds?
It's simple: to have MC as we know it on the xbox, something had to give. A design decision was made to sacrifice world size to have the rest of the MC experience.
Save file size has nothing to do with it.
What the file size is in ram that the xbox has to work with/on... does.
The problem with using "other" games as examples is that they are OTHER games. They're not Minecraft and don't have has much going inside the worlds as Minecraft does. Not only can every player change every block in the game, the game changes itself over time - trees, for example, grow... and the system has to keep track of all these changes in some temporary form until the file itself is permanently saved over just in case the player decides they want to exit without saving an keep none of it. Larger worlds are possible, but they would come at the expense of something else in the game.
We get that, and sure it was said in an interview, but let's all think for ourselves for a minute. On the PC version, chunks load 9 chunks in front of you while you're traveling towards them. They unload when you travel 18 chunks away from them, so you could have a total area of around 800-ish chunks. The Xbox version does something like this and keeps the rest of the map partially loaded:
That's over 700,000 chunks btw. Now, if they changed chunk loading to match the PC, where you can travel any distance with the same small amount of chunks loaded. Somebody please explain to me how that puts more stress on the system without throwing around some obscure link that explains nothing. Now that you consider PC's chunk loading puts less stress on the system, the only thing holding "infinite" worlds back is file size. Don't say CPU, 360's processor already runs at a decent speed of 3.2 GHz, and Minecraft only uses one core anyway. <--- Don't quote me on that, I read it on the forum, but it was from a reliable source.
EDIT: Maybe world size won't increase because they want to keep our unique chunk loading? Just a thought. That's the only thing I could possibly think of besides gamesave size, which is still at least part of the problem, no matter what the issue really is.
I'm just throwing my own speculations in the ring. That's what we're all doing, really. Some people just need to realize that's what their doing, and stop acting like they know everything. I have this problem as well.
People keep talking about "chunks" like it should be no problem loading and unloading them in memory to get larger (or infinite) worlds. It doesn't work that way on the xbox. It's like a hotel. People think that it only has to remember all the rooms on that floor. Move to another floor, forget the old rooms, and now remember the new rooms on the new floor.
Wrong.
It's trying to remember all the rooms (and changes to those rooms) on all the floors. Eventually you run out of "remembering space" (ram) if too many changes are made. For instance, doesn't it start lagging quite a bit (or even crash) if you have too many pistons? If it can't handle tracking 50 or 100 pistons, how can it handle tracking all the changes made in infinite worlds?
It's simple: to have MC as we know it on the xbox, something had to give. A design decision was made to sacrifice world size to have the rest of the MC experience.
Save file size has nothing to do with it.
What the file size is in ram that the xbox has to work with/on... does.
Now, if they changed chunk loading to match the PC, where you can travel any distance with the same small amount of chunks loaded. Somebody please explain to me how that puts more stress on the system without throwing around some obscure link that explains nothing. Now that you consider PC's chunk loading puts less stress on the system, the only thing holding "infinite" worlds back is file size. Don't say CPU, 360's processor already runs at a decent speed of 3.2 GHz, and Minecraft only uses one core anyway. <--- Don't quote me on that, I read it on the forum, but it was from a reliable source.
^^^ That's what I'm saying, IF, not that it's possible with the current mechanics. Honestly, I don't care for a larger world size, I'm just saying it's possible if changes are made.
We get that, and sure it was said in an interview, but let's all think for ourselves for a minute. On the PC version, chunks load 9 chunks in front of you while you're traveling towards them. They unload when you travel 18 chunks away from them, so you could have a total area of around 800-ish chunks. The Xbox version does something like this and keeps the rest of the map partially loaded:
That's over 700,000 chunks btw. Now, if they changed chunk loading to match the PC, where you can travel any distance with the same small amount of chunks loaded. Somebody please explain to me how that puts more stress on the system without throwing around some obscure link that explains nothing. Now that you consider PC's chunk loading puts less stress on the system, the only thing holding "infinite" worlds back is file size. Don't say CPU, 360's processor already runs at a decent speed of 3.2 GHz, and Minecraft only uses one core anyway. <--- Don't quote me on that, I read it on the forum, but it was from a reliable source.
EDIT: Maybe world size won't increase because they want to keep our unique chunk loading? Just a thought. That's the only thing I could possibly think of besides gamesave size, which is still at least part of the problem, no matter what the issue really is.
I'm just throwing my own speculations in the ring. That's what we're all doing, really. Some people just need to realize that's what their doing, and stop acting like they know everything. I have this problem as well.
The bigger question is not with the rendering and unrendering while walking. It's how does it completely unload the chunk AND keep track of unsaved changes to that chunk - not just the changes the players makes, but the changes the game makes (like trees growing) within, say, the spawn distance of 144 blocks in every direction? The OTHER games do not have all that other stuff going on. They have bits and pieces of it, but not ALL of it.
There has to be a temporary swap file going on somewhere; and over the course of the playing session, IT is probably the one that's getting too large for its britches for the XBox to handle. Then there is the question of the processing speed at which the system has to re-access the information from the temp file if the player moves back into that area. (Sorry for not being very technical, but I'm not a programmer.) Whether it''s RAM or processing speed or, more likely, some combination, of both and a bit more... it's still an issue of whether or not 4J can find different ways to write the code to circumvent the technical limitations of the XBox itself; and those limitations are NOT the same as the PCs. The LIVE network that drives the whole shebang also runs differently and uses up different resources than a PC based server network.
4J have said they are looking into it... and I believe them; but I don't think it's an easy task and I'm pretty confident it's not about some arbitrarily filesave limitation slapped on by Microsoft just to be miserable.
I thought they already said they were looking into ways to make the maps bigger? There is no way that its staying that small forever.I thought they already said they were looking into ways to make the maps bigger? There is no way that its staying that small forever.
I thought they already said they were looking into ways to make the maps bigger? There is no way that its staying that small forever.
They also said they were "looking into" adding breeding and enchanting to the 1.8.2 updates and we all know where that went. Don't presume the worlds are getting bigger; learn to deal with it or buy a PC. If they do get bigger, you can still be pleasantly surprised.
(NOTE: the rentable server issue is the key to world size. If we get rentable servers, they can increase the world size on those servers. This (whether we can get servers) is primarily a business and not a technical issue. They clearly know how to set up the code for such servers, the quesiton is the business arrangements with M$ necessary to authorize such)
The bigger question is not with the rendering and unrendering while walking. It's how does it completely unload the chunk AND keep track of unsaved changes to that chunk - not just the changes the players makes, but the changes the game makes (like trees growing) within, say, the spawn distance of 144 blocks in every direction? The OTHER games do not have all that other stuff going on. They have bits and pieces of it, but not ALL of it.
There has to be a temporary swap file going on somewhere; and over the course of the playing session, IT is probably the one that's getting too large for its britches for the XBox to handle. Then there is the question of the processing speed at which the system has to re-access the information from the temp file if the player moves back into that area. (Sorry for not being very technical, but I'm not a programmer.) Whether it''s RAM or processing speed or, more likely, some combination, of both and a bit more... it's still an issue of whether or not 4J can find different ways to write the code to circumvent the technical limitations of the XBox itself; and those limitations are NOT the same as the PCs. The LIVE network that drives the whole shebang also runs differently and uses up different resources than a PC based server network.
4J have said they are looking into it... and I believe them; but I don't think it's an easy task and I'm pretty confident it's not about some arbitrarily filesave limitation slapped on by Microsoft just to be miserable.
Honestly, none of us will ever know for the main limiting factor, for sure, unless someone at 4J spills the beans. But, like I've said before, I like to speculate and find errors in the ideas of others, as well as see people find errors in my own. It's fun to watch these theories grow.
Despite everything that's been said, most of what I know about the mechanics of Minecraft is hearsay, although with the way I tend to speak, it may sound like I'm stating a fact. Just keep in mind that, in this specific topic, nobody truly knows what they're talking about... yet, at least. One thing I do know is it's not the processor. Many people underestimate the power of 360's CPU based on the fact the rest of the hardware is so inferior. (This next part comes from what I know about MCPC.) Minecraft isn't much of a drain on processing power or RAM, it's more of a resource hog when it comes to the GPU. Who knows, maybe that's the real problem here. Perhaps those unsaved changes are stored in the GPU's internal memory. Makes sense, since games tend to crash when they actually run out of RAM space. Not sure what happens when you run out of memory in the GPU, maybe that's what causes the inventory bug and other strange glitches in worlds that have a ton of alteration. The worlds with several modern cities with skyscrapers and whatnot.
Because a PC that comes with 2 GB RAM is not going to be a gaming PC. It's going to have a completely worthless GPU, probably some Intel family chipset, just like my computer does, which can barely handle Unity 3D games. Why does everyone say RAM is the problem for everything? Does anyone actually check their PC specs here?
no my computer have dedicated video card.... kinda old though.... newer game cant run it.
We get that, and sure it was said in an interview, but let's all think for ourselves for a minute. On the PC version, chunks load 9 chunks in front of you while you're traveling towards them. They unload when you travel 18 chunks away from them, so you could have a total area of around 800-ish chunks. The Xbox version does something like this and keeps the rest of the map partially loaded:
That's over 700,000 chunks btw. Now, if they changed chunk loading to match the PC, where you can travel any distance with the same small amount of chunks loaded. Somebody please explain to me how that puts more stress on the system without throwing around some obscure link that explains nothing. Now that you consider PC's chunk loading puts less stress on the system, the only thing holding "infinite" worlds back is file size. Don't say CPU, 360's processor already runs at a decent speed of 3.2 GHz, and Minecraft only uses one core anyway. <--- Don't quote me on that, I read it on the forum, but it was from a reliable source.
EDIT: Maybe world size won't increase because they want to keep our unique chunk loading? Just a thought. That's the only thing I could possibly think of besides gamesave size, which is still at least part of the problem, no matter what the issue really is.
I'm just throwing my own speculations in the ring. That's what we're all doing, really. Some people just need to realize that's what their doing, and stop acting like they know everything. I have this problem as well.
Ah but then how can drop in drop out work for multiplay ? If the chunks where said other player appears arent loaded already then they would have to "load" them up but they dont they just drop in, so I am not sure the change to the way they work is the same thing.
iam sure its because of the 4 player splitscreen feature being able to run a bigger world with 4 people at 30 frames per second. if they remove that i think they could have bigger worlds.
Ah but then how can drop in drop out work for multiplay ? If the chunks where said other player appears arent loaded already then they would have to "load" them up but they dont they just drop in, so I am not sure the change to the way they work is the same thing.
Did you read the first part of my post or the link? I said the entire world remains partially loaded on the Xbox version. That is, after they are loaded the first time. I performed an extensive experiment on it (in the linked thread) so this I'm quite sure of. I'm saying, if it was changed, larger worlds wouldn't be such a big deal. That's just my theory.
iam sure its because of the 4 player splitscreen feature being able to run a bigger world with 4 people at 30 frames per second. if they remove that i think they could have bigger worlds.
This. Its all about the multiplayer. If it was single player only and no split screen the Xbox would have plenty of power for huge worlds.
iam sure its because of the 4 player splitscreen feature being able to run a bigger world with 4 people at 30 frames per second. if they remove that i think they could have bigger worlds.
This. Its all about the multiplayer. If it was single player only and no split screen the Xbox would have plenty of power for huge worlds.
Except that you're both wrong - (there have been so many threads on this subject it might be impossible to find the reference) 4JSteve specifically said that splitscreen play has almost nothing to do with world size.
With all the various things that they have said though would seem the only thing they havent said "isnt" the problem is the hard drive space, but thats hardly limited to the current amount.
iam sure its because of the 4 player splitscreen feature being able to run a bigger world with 4 people at 30 frames per second. if they remove that i think they could have bigger worlds.
Except that 4JSteve expressly posted on one of these threads some time ago that eliminating splitscreen would have little or no effect on whether or not they could increase world size.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's weird how that happens. I play minecraft pc on my old dell latitude laptop with 1GB but when I downloaded it on my HP 4 GB laptop it studders and rants so I'm unable to play
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff*facepalm*
Because a PC that comes with 2 GB RAM is not going to be a gaming PC. It's going to have a completely worthless GPU, probably some Intel family chipset, just like my computer does, which can barely handle Unity 3D games. Why does everyone say RAM is the problem for everything? Does anyone actually check their PC specs here?
Wrong.
It's trying to remember all the rooms (and changes to those rooms) on all the floors. Eventually you run out of "remembering space" (ram) if too many changes are made. For instance, doesn't it start lagging quite a bit (or even crash) if you have too many pistons? If it can't handle tracking 50 or 100 pistons, how can it handle tracking all the changes made in infinite worlds?
It's simple: to have MC as we know it on the xbox, something had to give. A design decision was made to sacrifice world size to have the rest of the MC experience.
Save file size has nothing to do with it.
What the file size is in ram that the xbox has to work with/on... does.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffWe get that, and sure it was said in an interview, but let's all think for ourselves for a minute. On the PC version, chunks load 9 chunks in front of you while you're traveling towards them. They unload when you travel 18 chunks away from them, so you could have a total area of around 800-ish chunks. The Xbox version does something like this and keeps the rest of the map partially loaded:
http://www.minecraft...-new-discovery/
That's over 700,000 chunks btw. Now, if they changed chunk loading to match the PC, where you can travel any distance with the same small amount of chunks loaded. Somebody please explain to me how that puts more stress on the system without throwing around some obscure link that explains nothing. Now that you consider PC's chunk loading puts less stress on the system, the only thing holding "infinite" worlds back is file size. Don't say CPU, 360's processor already runs at a decent speed of 3.2 GHz, and Minecraft only uses one core anyway. <--- Don't quote me on that, I read it on the forum, but it was from a reliable source.
EDIT: Maybe world size won't increase because they want to keep our unique chunk loading? Just a thought. That's the only thing I could possibly think of besides gamesave size, which is still at least part of the problem, no matter what the issue really is.
I'm just throwing my own speculations in the ring. That's what we're all doing, really. Some people just need to realize that's what their doing, and stop acting like they know everything. I have this problem as well.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff^^^ That's what I'm saying, IF, not that it's possible with the current mechanics. Honestly, I don't care for a larger world size, I'm just saying it's possible if changes are made.
1.8 is bringing me back...I just have to hope that the world size does not cause me to loose interest again.
The bigger question is not with the rendering and unrendering while walking. It's how does it completely unload the chunk AND keep track of unsaved changes to that chunk - not just the changes the players makes, but the changes the game makes (like trees growing) within, say, the spawn distance of 144 blocks in every direction? The OTHER games do not have all that other stuff going on. They have bits and pieces of it, but not ALL of it.
There has to be a temporary swap file going on somewhere; and over the course of the playing session, IT is probably the one that's getting too large for its britches for the XBox to handle. Then there is the question of the processing speed at which the system has to re-access the information from the temp file if the player moves back into that area. (Sorry for not being very technical, but I'm not a programmer.) Whether it''s RAM or processing speed or, more likely, some combination, of both and a bit more... it's still an issue of whether or not 4J can find different ways to write the code to circumvent the technical limitations of the XBox itself; and those limitations are NOT the same as the PCs. The LIVE network that drives the whole shebang also runs differently and uses up different resources than a PC based server network.
4J have said they are looking into it... and I believe them; but I don't think it's an easy task and I'm pretty confident it's not about some arbitrarily filesave limitation slapped on by Microsoft just to be miserable.
They also said they were "looking into" adding breeding and enchanting to the 1.8.2 updates and we all know where that went. Don't presume the worlds are getting bigger; learn to deal with it or buy a PC. If they do get bigger, you can still be pleasantly surprised.
(NOTE: the rentable server issue is the key to world size. If we get rentable servers, they can increase the world size on those servers. This (whether we can get servers) is primarily a business and not a technical issue. They clearly know how to set up the code for such servers, the quesiton is the business arrangements with M$ necessary to authorize such)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffHonestly, none of us will ever know for the main limiting factor, for sure, unless someone at 4J spills the beans. But, like I've said before, I like to speculate and find errors in the ideas of others, as well as see people find errors in my own. It's fun to watch these theories grow.
Despite everything that's been said, most of what I know about the mechanics of Minecraft is hearsay, although with the way I tend to speak, it may sound like I'm stating a fact. Just keep in mind that, in this specific topic, nobody truly knows what they're talking about... yet, at least. One thing I do know is it's not the processor. Many people underestimate the power of 360's CPU based on the fact the rest of the hardware is so inferior. (This next part comes from what I know about MCPC.) Minecraft isn't much of a drain on processing power or RAM, it's more of a resource hog when it comes to the GPU. Who knows, maybe that's the real problem here. Perhaps those unsaved changes are stored in the GPU's internal memory. Makes sense, since games tend to crash when they actually run out of RAM space. Not sure what happens when you run out of memory in the GPU, maybe that's what causes the inventory bug and other strange glitches in worlds that have a ton of alteration. The worlds with several modern cities with skyscrapers and whatnot.
Ah but then how can drop in drop out work for multiplay ? If the chunks where said other player appears arent loaded already then they would have to "load" them up but they dont they just drop in, so I am not sure the change to the way they work is the same thing.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThe biggest requirement for MCPC is a decent GPU. What kind of video card do you have?
Did you read the first part of my post or the link? I said the entire world remains partially loaded on the Xbox version. That is, after they are loaded the first time. I performed an extensive experiment on it (in the linked thread) so this I'm quite sure of. I'm saying, if it was changed, larger worlds wouldn't be such a big deal. That's just my theory.
This. Its all about the multiplayer. If it was single player only and no split screen the Xbox would have plenty of power for huge worlds.
Except that you're both wrong - (there have been so many threads on this subject it might be impossible to find the reference) 4JSteve specifically said that splitscreen play has almost nothing to do with world size.
Except that 4JSteve expressly posted on one of these threads some time ago that eliminating splitscreen would have little or no effect on whether or not they could increase world size.