My patience for Minecraft is, at this point, at it's very limit. I think Minecraft should have better graphics, because the 16x16 stand-in textures look absolutely awful, but let's not that discuss that. I think Minecraft should have an endgame that doesn't involve fake difficulty and "endermen everywhere!", but let's not discuss that. I think Minecraft should have fixed it's many, many obvious bugs before considering itself a finished product, but let's not discuss that. What I want to discuss is how Minecraft has completely and totally failed to create an optimized product.
This is not an uncommon concern.
The first sentence there is practically a joke.
"In some ways, Minecraft is not exactly 100%optimized in it's performance."
My computer can run Oblivion absolutely fine. I could have brought up maybe a dozen different games there (like Skyrim), but I brought up Oblivion because it's a 2006 game that, while not renowned for looking particularly good, is more graphically complex than Minecraft. It's insanely more graphically complex than Minecraft; anyone who says otherwise, claiming that's just an opinion, is lying to you. Plain and simple.
So why is it that when I tried out Minecraft 1.3 on the same computer, it fell to it's knees, stuttering at under 10 fps?
The first response, obviously, would be that Minecraft has to generate chunks of the world in real-time. I'm sure someone who has any kind of experience in programming could break down why this is a lot more performance-intensive. This explanation does not quite suffice to explain why I can no longer play Minecraft unless I am ready for the pacing of a slideshow, on a computer with a modest 4GB of ram.
So, what would be a good solution here?
Mojang needs to hire someone who actually knows what they are doing that can make Minecraft work. This would be similar to the solution that they used when they couldn't figure out how to make mobs path correctly, and they hired that nice fellow who made mobs walk in a straight line towards an area where they would not die instead of staying in the area where they would die.
Maybe it could be the guy who makes Optifine, who I'm sure everyone is missing right about now as he struggles to make Minecraft playable for anyone who doesn't have a solid-state drive (and probably even some of them, too). He earns what I can imagine is only a very small amount of money from ad revenue for his trouble, which is practically a crime considering everyone I know who plays Minecraft including myself has to use his mod.
Alternatively, Mojang could use the staff they already have to create something that is at least playable. Some quick-fixes that just come off the top of my head include not making everyone run a small server to play a single-player game for no reason, loading a considerable amount of world chunks before putting the player in the game (hopefully reducing the amount of time the player has to wait for the world to load), or consulting experienced programmers that (I hope) are present in the community that can suggest some other solutions for optimizing the game.
Barring that, we could have the entire Minecraft forum say "lol stop whining", and the mods can lock the thread like every other one that brings up Minecraft's problems. And you know what; that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, because I honestly don't know what I'd be losing by not being able to play this game. I could always downgrade to some other version if I really wanted to build something. The only real loss there would be that many people who payed for the game could no longer play it without Optifine; and that was true before this update, and will likely continue to be true provided Mojang doesn't take action to fix it. Oh well.
If I had to guess I would say you are over selling this quite a bit. Particularly the parts about speed and frame rate. You claim that Optifine has been around to "make Minecraft playable for anyone who doesn't have a solid-state drive (and probably even some of them, too)." I myself have never used Optifine, or at least never needed to. And while I do have a very powerful computer (I am one of those SSD users you are referring to), I was able to play Minecraft on very bad computers, and still can even after 1.3.1. At my work we are allowed to play games on the work computers during our lunch breaks. Those computers just recently got Windows 7 on them and use integrated graphics and only have 4 GB of RAM. They are also running on other hardware (HDDs, CPUs, and Mobos from the late XP or early Vista era. At max settings they get more than enough FPS (about 40-50). And on a related note, HDD/SSD speed has a negligible affect on performance. After switching from my old 400 GB HDD from my 10 year old desktop to my SSD (no other hardware changes at this time) I saw little to no performance changes.
The next thing that immediately pops up is the fact that you suggest that they revert the integration of server and client logic for no reason, in order to optimize the game. The folly of this logic, is that integrating the code is the FIRST step in any kind of optimization is to only use one set of code for the entire game. Things such as Optifine or rewriting the lighting or world generation engine is much more complicated when you have to write all the same code in two different ways, then make sure it all works together. While it has been slower for some people, many others have had performance increases. And this will only improve as with each update since Jeb took over we have seen bug fixes or attempts at performance increases, even if a minority does not experience it.
Preloading chunks would also do little to improve performance. Here is something that isn't too well known but the loading screen on many games is basically just a graphic that covers the window so you can't see the world loading in piece by piece in front of your eyes. Loading a preset amount of chunks before you are in the game would be negligible as well, and would be dependent on your GPU more than anything as all it would change is whether the elements are immediately being rendered. There might be other minor increases as well but once again it would be tiny
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
It's no surprise that Oblivion or even Skyrim would run better than Minecraft. As both games are C# and C++ while Minecraft's Java has a reputation of being very slow and sluggish. Not to mention Minecraft likes to render so many things that the player can't see, and even more so than the two aforementioned games. It's kind of like Team Fortress 2, where most effects take from the CPU rather than the graphics card, causing so much more performance hits than there really needs to be.
I don't agree with changing the 16x16 graphics though, as the graphic simplicity is what gives MC that special spark. Minecraft's 1.3.1 changelog mentions the performance fixes, but there are still a lot of problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey, you there. Yes, you! Are you thinking about posting a suggestion on the forums anytime soon? If so, please read this before doing so.
It's no surprise that Oblivion or even Skyrim would run better than Minecraft. As both games are C# and C++ while Minecraft's Java has a reputation of being very slow and sluggish. Not to mention Minecraft likes to render so many things that the player can't see, and even more so than the two aforementioned games. It's kind of like Team Fortress 2, where most effects take from the CPU rather than the graphics card, causing so much more performance hits than there really needs to be.
To add on to this, it's a lost cause to want them to re-write the game in a different language. Kind of obvious, but I've seen people suggest it before >_>
Other than that, the rendering engine is going to be re-written in 1.4, so that should hopefully be more optimized, and have less glitches like the current lighting glitches.
It's no surprise that Oblivion or even Skyrim would run better than Minecraft. As both games are C# and C++ while Minecraft's Java has a reputation of being very slow and sluggish. Not to mention Minecraft likes to render so many things that the player can't see, and even more so than the two aforementioned games. It's kind of like Team Fortress 2, where most effects take from the CPU rather than the graphics card, causing so much more performance hits than there really needs to be.
I don't agree with changing the 16x16 graphics though, as the graphic simplicity is what gives MC that special spark. Minecraft's 1.3.1 changelog mentions the performance fixes, but there are still a lot of problems.
I forgot the bit about the 16x16 graphics. I personally love them, much to the disdain of some of the MnM staff members that make texture packs lol.
A few things that could be done is making Minecraft use more than one core of your CPU. Currently Minecraft only uses one core, which SEVERELY limits the power that you could be getting. Also, if it relied on your GPU a bit more and rendered only ~5 blocks deep of what you see rather than just about everything in a 9x9 chunk radius (max settings) people would see a lot more performance. Hopefully that comes with future updates.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
I would support an official Minecraft HD texture pack that is part of the graphics in the game. But I don't think the whole game shoudl change. I love the way Minecraft looks.
Also as stated previously, Java is infamous for being terribly slow.
Changes that would make Minecraft "playable" for everyone would be incredibly drastic and possibly game ruining.
I myself don't have the best Minecraft experience. I have never been able to move around and see where I am going clearly unless I am on short or tiny render distance.
You called the current textures stand ins. That implies that they were originally meant to be replaced with a higher resolution. I don't quite think this is the case.
Also, threads will only be locked if the poster breaks a rule. You haven't done that here. The admins and mods aren't in on some "minecraft is perfect and dissent is illegal" conspiracy, or this section wouldn't even exist.
As for the idea itself, the next major update is supposed to be an optimization update from what I've heard, so lookit that, they're already working on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You have just started
To read the haiku that you
Just finished reading
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is not an uncommon concern.
The first sentence there is practically a joke.
"In some ways, Minecraft is not exactly 100% optimized in it's performance."
My computer can run Oblivion absolutely fine. I could have brought up maybe a dozen different games there (like Skyrim), but I brought up Oblivion because it's a 2006 game that, while not renowned for looking particularly good, is more graphically complex than Minecraft. It's insanely more graphically complex than Minecraft; anyone who says otherwise, claiming that's just an opinion, is lying to you. Plain and simple.
So why is it that when I tried out Minecraft 1.3 on the same computer, it fell to it's knees, stuttering at under 10 fps?
The first response, obviously, would be that Minecraft has to generate chunks of the world in real-time. I'm sure someone who has any kind of experience in programming could break down why this is a lot more performance-intensive. This explanation does not quite suffice to explain why I can no longer play Minecraft unless I am ready for the pacing of a slideshow, on a computer with a modest 4GB of ram.
So, what would be a good solution here?
Mojang needs to hire someone who actually knows what they are doing that can make Minecraft work. This would be similar to the solution that they used when they couldn't figure out how to make mobs path correctly, and they hired that nice fellow who made mobs walk in a straight line towards an area where they would not die instead of staying in the area where they would die.
Maybe it could be the guy who makes Optifine, who I'm sure everyone is missing right about now as he struggles to make Minecraft playable for anyone who doesn't have a solid-state drive (and probably even some of them, too). He earns what I can imagine is only a very small amount of money from ad revenue for his trouble, which is practically a crime considering everyone I know who plays Minecraft including myself has to use his mod.
Alternatively, Mojang could use the staff they already have to create something that is at least playable. Some quick-fixes that just come off the top of my head include not making everyone run a small server to play a single-player game for no reason, loading a considerable amount of world chunks before putting the player in the game (hopefully reducing the amount of time the player has to wait for the world to load), or consulting experienced programmers that (I hope) are present in the community that can suggest some other solutions for optimizing the game.
Barring that, we could have the entire Minecraft forum say "lol stop whining", and the mods can lock the thread like every other one that brings up Minecraft's problems. And you know what; that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, because I honestly don't know what I'd be losing by not being able to play this game. I could always downgrade to some other version if I really wanted to build something. The only real loss there would be that many people who payed for the game could no longer play it without Optifine; and that was true before this update, and will likely continue to be true provided Mojang doesn't take action to fix it. Oh well.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe next thing that immediately pops up is the fact that you suggest that they revert the integration of server and client logic for no reason, in order to optimize the game. The folly of this logic, is that integrating the code is the FIRST step in any kind of optimization is to only use one set of code for the entire game. Things such as Optifine or rewriting the lighting or world generation engine is much more complicated when you have to write all the same code in two different ways, then make sure it all works together. While it has been slower for some people, many others have had performance increases. And this will only improve as with each update since Jeb took over we have seen bug fixes or attempts at performance increases, even if a minority does not experience it.
Preloading chunks would also do little to improve performance. Here is something that isn't too well known but the loading screen on many games is basically just a graphic that covers the window so you can't see the world loading in piece by piece in front of your eyes. Loading a preset amount of chunks before you are in the game would be negligible as well, and would be dependent on your GPU more than anything as all it would change is whether the elements are immediately being rendered. There might be other minor increases as well but once again it would be tiny
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
I don't agree with changing the 16x16 graphics though, as the graphic simplicity is what gives MC that special spark. Minecraft's 1.3.1 changelog mentions the performance fixes, but there are still a lot of problems.
To add on to this, it's a lost cause to want them to re-write the game in a different language. Kind of obvious, but I've seen people suggest it before >_>
Other than that, the rendering engine is going to be re-written in 1.4, so that should hopefully be more optimized, and have less glitches like the current lighting glitches.
Profile pic by Cheshirette c:
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI forgot the bit about the 16x16 graphics. I personally love them, much to the disdain of some of the MnM staff members that make texture packs lol.
A few things that could be done is making Minecraft use more than one core of your CPU. Currently Minecraft only uses one core, which SEVERELY limits the power that you could be getting. Also, if it relied on your GPU a bit more and rendered only ~5 blocks deep of what you see rather than just about everything in a 9x9 chunk radius (max settings) people would see a lot more performance. Hopefully that comes with future updates.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
Also as stated previously, Java is infamous for being terribly slow.
Changes that would make Minecraft "playable" for everyone would be incredibly drastic and possibly game ruining.
I myself don't have the best Minecraft experience. I have never been able to move around and see where I am going clearly unless I am on short or tiny render distance.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1401777-earn-a-good-or-evil-reputation-with-the-villagers/
Click here if you support more interaction with the Villagers!
Also, threads will only be locked if the poster breaks a rule. You haven't done that here. The admins and mods aren't in on some "minecraft is perfect and dissent is illegal" conspiracy, or this section wouldn't even exist.
As for the idea itself, the next major update is supposed to be an optimization update from what I've heard, so lookit that, they're already working on it.
To read the haiku that you
Just finished reading