Hey all, I have a suggestion for Jeb: cut out the drops floating, rotating, and shadows. Right now if there are a lot of drops then there is a lot of lag. If you simply removed the over-complicated code for making the drops float (which is useless), then Minecraft would run so much faster with drops. Just saying, it's a pointless waste of memory and should be removed.
~Cheers~
Lethman
Hey all, I have a suggestion for Jeb:
Jeb doesn't read the suggestion forums.
cut out the drops floating, rotating, and shadows.
Why? Would they be just be sitting on the ground, not doing anything at all?
This would totally ruin Jeb's career if he added it.
Right now if there are a lot of drops then there is a lot of lag.
Lag is part of the game whether you like it or not, and it's more client-side rather than the code itself.
If you simply removed the over-complicated code for making the drops float (which is useless),
Aesthetic features are never useless, especially since it has been in the game since it first came out.
then Minecraft would run so much faster with drops.
Items already stack on the ground, and also they despawn after 3000 ticks. (which is a short time)
If you're having that much problems with lag, then go get OptiFine or upgrade your computer.
Just saying, it's a pointless waste of memory and should be removed.
Just saying, this is a pointless thread and should be removed.
Hey all, I have a suggestion for Jeb:
Jeb doesn't read the suggestion forums.
cut out the drops floating, rotating, and shadows.
Why? Would they be just be sitting on the ground, not doing anything at all?
This would totally ruin Jeb's career if he added it.
Right now if there are a lot of drops then there is a lot of lag.
Lag is part of the game whether you like it or not, and it's more client-side rather than the code itself.
If you simply removed the over-complicated code for making the drops float (which is useless),
Aesthetic features are never useless, especially since it has been in the game since it first came out.
then Minecraft would run so much faster with drops.
Items already stack on the ground, and also they despawn after 3000 ticks. (which is a short time)
If you're having that much problems with lag, then go get OptiFine or upgrade your computer.
Just saying, it's a pointless waste of memory and should be removed.
Just saying, this is a pointless thread and should be removed.
While I agree with your point that I don't think it needs to be changed, you could not have been any more of an arrogant jerk even if you tried.
Why? Would they be just be sitting on the ground, not doing anything at all?
This would totally ruin Jeb's career if he added it.
I hope that was a hyperbole.
How in the world could changing a bouncing object ruin the game or his career? If people are going to flip tables over that, people need to seriously grow up. I'd be annoyed since I'm typically a very fast-paced player and not seeing an animated 2D sprite on the ground as opposed to a static one might cause me to overlook it, but the last thing I'd be doing is flooding the forums with complaints about it and I'd definitely not quit because a sprite doesn't dance for me.
Lag is part of the game whether you like it or not, and it's more client-side rather than the code itself.
Lag is an unintended side-effect of any resource intensive product. Professional developers can do a lot more than indie devs to reduce it, but they do make an effort to reduce lag whenever possible. This is the reason why we have various video settings and the recent change that allowed these sprites to stack in the first place.
Remember the old lighting system? It was removed both to improve aesthetics, AND performance.
Minecraft is extremely expensive when it comes to resources and has high system requirements when looking at general for-home PCs. This is not really an opinion - just look at the usage. For what it's worth, I run it just fine maxed out, but I have a good computer. Unless you're comparing Minecraft to tools engineers use, for example, which require absurd amounts of RAM that only 64bit OS's can support, among other resources, it's safe to say it's pretty heavy game to run. Running it on the lowest settings works wonders, but contrary to popular belief, not everyone has a fire-breathing computer. I will say that I think if someone cannot run Minecraft on the absolute lowest settings with a comfortable FPS, then they probably need to upgrade.
Aesthetic features are never useless, especially since it has been in the game since it first came out.
Aesthetic features are actually completely useless. A bouncing 2D sprite that's only about the quarter of an 8th of the size of a block serves no gameplay purpose. None whatsoever. Whether the sprite sparkled, bounced, or shot rainbows into the sky - Minecraft's functionality is the same. Gameplay is unchanged.
I'm not saying aesthetic features are bad or should be ignored, but when it boils down to it, if you had a choice between removing pretty sparkles as opposed to a game feature, any reasonable person would choose the sparkles. Nobody would play Minecraft if all of the blocks were gray, and I don't think those "pixel" texture packs are all that popular. Aesthetics are good, but they aren't useful when speaking gameplay.
The length of time it's been in the game is completely irrelevant. Things change, for the better and the worse. If there was a genuine reason why a feature from the original game, such as the sprite, should be altered, no good game designer is going to leave it in just because it's old.
Again, I agree that the bouncing sprite is a good thing and don't see any real reason to remove it. Your argument just missed the ball entirely.
--
All that being said, I'm fairly certain that even if the bounce were to be removed, your lag probably would not drastically improve. The issue is likely less with the animation and more with the fact that there are numerous objects rendered anyway.
Aesthetic features are actually completely useless.
Thus, by this logic, Minecraft should just be lists of numbers on a screen. All aesthetic features removed; as they are all pointless and useless.
Do you see how this works? Aesthetics are incredibly useful. Your statement is so wrong it's ridiculous.
Aesthetics aside, the lag shadows and rotation/hovering produce are so minimal that it's silly to remove them. It's the equivelant as dusting off your car to make it more light and therefore faster. The features are so incredibly tiny, it wouldn't cause any significant performance increase that would be remotely noticeable. You'd get, maybe on a good day, a single FPS increase.
The game is becoming more and more optimized every update. You'll get more performance increases out of those than you ever will by removing item drop animation.
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. >_<
Aesthetics aside, the lag shadows and rotation/hovering produce are so minimal that it's silly to remove them. It's the equivelant as dusting off your car to make it more light and therefore faster. The features are so incredibly tiny, it wouldn't cause any significant performance increase that would be remotely noticeable.
Allright, lets do some math here. IF minecraft uses floating point numbers for a drops rotation/floating (which I beleive it does) then just those 2 features is 8 bytes of data PER DROP (god forbid it uses doubles). now lets saw that there's a large expolsion, and many drops are created lets say 1,000. Right there 8*1000 = 8000, roughly 8 kilobytes of memory just to store were it is. Then add in processing: lighting, math, shadows, bounds calculations, pickup calculations etectera. It adds up quickly. Now, what if you simplified it: It just sits there. The bounds only need to be calculated once, lighing can be updated when the block it's sitting in changes, and the only thing left is pickup. Boom, performance increase, at a low cost too.
If you're having that much problems with lag, then go get OptiFine or upgrade your computer.
Actually, I'm not thinking for me, I'm thinking for laptop users. My computer is a beast.
By the sounds of it most of the complaints are from non-programmers who want their pretty sparkles. Geez, learn the value of a byte.
^
For 1000 items (which would require 18 completely double chests with each slot filled with a different type of item to be destroyed at once), 8KB is a very small amount of memory used up.
And everyone else would rather have pretty sparkles than for Jeb to remove a crucial aesthetic feature in the game, just to save a couple kilobytes of space.
Allright, lets do some math here. IF minecraft uses floating point numbers for a drops rotation/floating (which I beleive it does) then just those 2 features is 8 bytes of data PER DROP (god forbid it uses doubles). now lets saw that there's a large expolsion, and many drops are created lets say 1,000.
And there's your first problem. First of all, explosions destroy items. As a result, the larger the explosion, there's actually less items, because the explosion is exactly that; larger, engulfing a larger space and destroying more items.
Now, let's take the Wither explosion. That explosion is considered "large". After spawning one in hard mode in creative, I got exactly 137 dropped items of dirt. That's, by your calculations, only a little more than a kilobyte of data. Now, let's take it one step further; items currently stack with each other. This further lowers the number of dropped items on the ground at one time, thus further lowering the data used. You see? Removing shadows and rotation? Not so much helpful. There are thousand KB files on my netbook that run incredibly fast.
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. >_<
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
~Cheers~
Lethman
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhile I agree with your point that I don't think it needs to be changed, you could not have been any more of an arrogant jerk even if you tried.
I hope that was a hyperbole.
How in the world could changing a bouncing object ruin the game or his career? If people are going to flip tables over that, people need to seriously grow up. I'd be annoyed since I'm typically a very fast-paced player and not seeing an animated 2D sprite on the ground as opposed to a static one might cause me to overlook it, but the last thing I'd be doing is flooding the forums with complaints about it and I'd definitely not quit because a sprite doesn't dance for me.
Lag is an unintended side-effect of any resource intensive product. Professional developers can do a lot more than indie devs to reduce it, but they do make an effort to reduce lag whenever possible. This is the reason why we have various video settings and the recent change that allowed these sprites to stack in the first place.
Remember the old lighting system? It was removed both to improve aesthetics, AND performance.
Minecraft is extremely expensive when it comes to resources and has high system requirements when looking at general for-home PCs. This is not really an opinion - just look at the usage. For what it's worth, I run it just fine maxed out, but I have a good computer. Unless you're comparing Minecraft to tools engineers use, for example, which require absurd amounts of RAM that only 64bit OS's can support, among other resources, it's safe to say it's pretty heavy game to run. Running it on the lowest settings works wonders, but contrary to popular belief, not everyone has a fire-breathing computer. I will say that I think if someone cannot run Minecraft on the absolute lowest settings with a comfortable FPS, then they probably need to upgrade.
Aesthetic features are actually completely useless. A bouncing 2D sprite that's only about the quarter of an 8th of the size of a block serves no gameplay purpose. None whatsoever. Whether the sprite sparkled, bounced, or shot rainbows into the sky - Minecraft's functionality is the same. Gameplay is unchanged.
I'm not saying aesthetic features are bad or should be ignored, but when it boils down to it, if you had a choice between removing pretty sparkles as opposed to a game feature, any reasonable person would choose the sparkles. Nobody would play Minecraft if all of the blocks were gray, and I don't think those "pixel" texture packs are all that popular. Aesthetics are good, but they aren't useful when speaking gameplay.
The length of time it's been in the game is completely irrelevant. Things change, for the better and the worse. If there was a genuine reason why a feature from the original game, such as the sprite, should be altered, no good game designer is going to leave it in just because it's old.
Again, I agree that the bouncing sprite is a good thing and don't see any real reason to remove it. Your argument just missed the ball entirely.
--
All that being said, I'm fairly certain that even if the bounce were to be removed, your lag probably would not drastically improve. The issue is likely less with the animation and more with the fact that there are numerous objects rendered anyway.
Thus, by this logic, Minecraft should just be lists of numbers on a screen. All aesthetic features removed; as they are all pointless and useless.
Do you see how this works? Aesthetics are incredibly useful. Your statement is so wrong it's ridiculous.
Aesthetics aside, the lag shadows and rotation/hovering produce are so minimal that it's silly to remove them. It's the equivelant as dusting off your car to make it more light and therefore faster. The features are so incredibly tiny, it wouldn't cause any significant performance increase that would be remotely noticeable. You'd get, maybe on a good day, a single FPS increase.
The game is becoming more and more optimized every update. You'll get more performance increases out of those than you ever will by removing item drop animation.
[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. >_<
Allright, lets do some math here. IF minecraft uses floating point numbers for a drops rotation/floating (which I beleive it does) then just those 2 features is 8 bytes of data PER DROP (god forbid it uses doubles). now lets saw that there's a large expolsion, and many drops are created lets say 1,000. Right there 8*1000 = 8000, roughly 8 kilobytes of memory just to store were it is. Then add in processing: lighting, math, shadows, bounds calculations, pickup calculations etectera. It adds up quickly. Now, what if you simplified it: It just sits there. The bounds only need to be calculated once, lighing can be updated when the block it's sitting in changes, and the only thing left is pickup. Boom, performance increase, at a low cost too.
Actually, I'm not thinking for me, I'm thinking for laptop users. My computer is a beast.
By the sounds of it most of the complaints are from non-programmers who want their pretty sparkles. Geez, learn the value of a byte.
For 1000 items (which would require 18 completely double chests with each slot filled with a different type of item to be destroyed at once), 8KB is a very small amount of memory used up.
And everyone else would rather have pretty sparkles than for Jeb to remove a crucial aesthetic feature in the game, just to save a couple kilobytes of space.
And there's your first problem. First of all, explosions destroy items. As a result, the larger the explosion, there's actually less items, because the explosion is exactly that; larger, engulfing a larger space and destroying more items.
Now, let's take the Wither explosion. That explosion is considered "large". After spawning one in hard mode in creative, I got exactly 137 dropped items of dirt. That's, by your calculations, only a little more than a kilobyte of data. Now, let's take it one step further; items currently stack with each other. This further lowers the number of dropped items on the ground at one time, thus further lowering the data used. You see? Removing shadows and rotation? Not so much helpful. There are thousand KB files on my netbook that run incredibly fast.
[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. >_<