I have a very high-end computer that I built myself so I've never actually had problems with lag and what not. I looked at the way Minecraft loaded the world and found it could be way more efficient with some better coding. The idea of it trying to load a 16x16x128 area every time you move within a certain distance of "the area" in question drags down computing speed drastically, I think in the future update Jeb should recode Minecraft to simply load layers at a time making it easier on low performance computers. Example: Instead of loading a certain amount of chunks depending on render distance I think Minecraft should load a 1x8x128 (the x128 being sky limit) depending on how close you get to it. I know from experience how much of a CPU hit Minecraft can be my old Intel i5 2.1 ghz laptop used to crash and burn when loading new chunks. I think a re-code of the rendering is in need!
or maybe, it could split the chunks in half, so there is an upper section of the chunk, and a lower section. no need for those mining to suffer lag from the surface, and no need for surface dwellers to suffer any lag from cave systems.
Vertical chunks have been suggested before. There are two problems with this particular one:
1x8 on the X and Z axis is much too little and doesn't make sense, it would be like viewing a straight line, and would be impossible diagonally. Additionally, 8 blocks is an incredibly small radius, too small to be of any use.
If I understood the height portion correctly, this doesn't really change much and may actually make it impossible to use underground contraptions such as redstone traps, either in front of someone else's base or in an adventure map.
Most of the recent additions have been performance related, and you can always turn the graphics to their lowest. There are even plans to add yet another option to graphics that you can disable, making it faster, including particles, fancy graphics, smooth lighting, ect. If none of these work, there's always mods for performance issues (for the life of me, I can't remember the name, dammit), the only reason they aren't vanilla is because most computers are able to run Minecraft just fine with most graphics at their highest, so it's a waste of file space like adding WorldEdit would be. And if that all fails, if everything there fails, it's time to get a new computer or stop playing Minecraft on a Notebook computer (I've actually done this, it runs, but not even close to that of a real computer or laptop).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[quote=Badgerz]You have to keep in mind that people are stupid.
[quote=Catelite]Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it broken or pointless. >_<
Vertical chunks have been suggested before. There are two problems with this particular one:
1x8 on the X and Z axis is much too little and doesn't make sense, it would be like viewing a straight line, and would be impossible diagonally. Additionally, 8 blocks is an incredibly small radius, too small to be of any use.
If I understood the height portion correctly, this doesn't really change much and may actually make it impossible to use underground contraptions such as redstone traps, either in front of someone else's base or in an adventure map.
im not sure what you mean about the 1x8 on the x and z axis, and how would it stop traps from working? (not arguing my point, just curious :3)
im not sure what you mean about the 1x8 on the x and z axis, and how would it stop traps from working? (not arguing my point, just curious :3)
Well, it's simple. The game is like a giant 3D coordinate grid: you have three axes, X for going left/right, Y for going up/down, and Z for going forward/backward. If the loaded Y height is 128 as you said, then you're left with the X and Z, so one must be 1 block, the other must be 8, thus making a straight line of loaded terrain (the rest being blocked by fog, as that's how finite chunk loading works without you just standing on a piece of dirt in the middle of space).
Thus, 1(block on the X axis)x8(blocks on the Z axis)x128(blocks on the Y axis).
As for the height, I just misread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[quote=Badgerz]You have to keep in mind that people are stupid.
[quote=Catelite]Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it broken or pointless. >_<
You have to realize that the game uses chunks for improved efficiency. Because the maps are modifiable, theres a degree of overhead needed to manage and store the individual block data. Too much overhead, and it slows everything down. Too little overhead and you lose scalability.
If you reduced the chunk size to 1x8 "layers", the game would be spending all its time sorting through overhead and waiting on disk I/O for the constant read operations. The more granular approach may boost very short render distances, but it would hurt normal distances, and absolutely murder longer distance ones.
It would also increase save file sizes since your inserting 3 additional coordinate values every 8 blocks of map data. Low scale its not a big deal... but when you scale up, it turns into a lot of redundant information.
So when its all said and done, your just trading one set of problems for another.
edit:100 posts
- 1x8 on the X and Z axis is much too little and doesn't make sense, it would be like viewing a straight line, and would be impossible diagonally. Additionally, 8 blocks is an incredibly small radius, too small to be of any use.
- If I understood the height portion correctly, this doesn't really change much and may actually make it impossible to use underground contraptions such as redstone traps, either in front of someone else's base or in an adventure map.
Most of the recent additions have been performance related, and you can always turn the graphics to their lowest. There are even plans to add yet another option to graphics that you can disable, making it faster, including particles, fancy graphics, smooth lighting, ect. If none of these work, there's always mods for performance issues (for the life of me, I can't remember the name, dammit), the only reason they aren't vanilla is because most computers are able to run Minecraft just fine with most graphics at their highest, so it's a waste of file space like adding WorldEdit would be. And if that all fails, if everything there fails, it's time to get a new computer or stop playing Minecraft on a Notebook computer (I've actually done this, it runs, but not even close to that of a real computer or laptop).[quote=Badgerz]You have to keep in mind that people are stupid.
[quote=Catelite]Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it broken or pointless. >_<
im not sure what you mean about the 1x8 on the x and z axis, and how would it stop traps from working? (not arguing my point, just curious :3)
Well, it's simple. The game is like a giant 3D coordinate grid: you have three axes, X for going left/right, Y for going up/down, and Z for going forward/backward. If the loaded Y height is 128 as you said, then you're left with the X and Z, so one must be 1 block, the other must be 8, thus making a straight line of loaded terrain (the rest being blocked by fog, as that's how finite chunk loading works without you just standing on a piece of dirt in the middle of space).
Thus, 1(block on the X axis)x8(blocks on the Z axis)x128(blocks on the Y axis).
As for the height, I just misread.
[quote=Badgerz]You have to keep in mind that people are stupid.
[quote=Catelite]Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it broken or pointless. >_<
If you reduced the chunk size to 1x8 "layers", the game would be spending all its time sorting through overhead and waiting on disk I/O for the constant read operations. The more granular approach may boost very short render distances, but it would hurt normal distances, and absolutely murder longer distance ones.
It would also increase save file sizes since your inserting 3 additional coordinate values every 8 blocks of map data. Low scale its not a big deal... but when you scale up, it turns into a lot of redundant information.
So when its all said and done, your just trading one set of problems for another.