My Minecraft has been lagging really bad lately. It's maximum FPS is around 35, where it used to be around 60. I was thinking of fixes for it. One of them was a good one, which I haven't seen suggested before.
The idea is to reduce the quality of blocks when they are at a distance. This can help eliminate unnecessarily detailed blocks that aren't noticed from a distance. The quality will look unchanged from far away. It would also lead to FPS increases. Here's an image I put together for a visual idea.
As I said earlier, the quality will look unchanged from a distance.
16 chunks away, the blocks will reduce their quality 4x less, so it's 8x8 pixels, if you are using the default texture pack. The game will automatically make the textures, so texture makers do not have to make separate textures. 32 chunks away, the block's detail goes down 4x more, so it is 4x4.
Now if you want to say "That will cause even more lag than there already is! It has to change the blocks over and over!", you're wrong. Animated blocks change their appearance 20 times per second. Think about all of the lava in the Nether that rendered all at once. Not much of a FPS drop. The changes in textures would be infrequent, since moving across a chunk takes a bit of time.
Also, of course, this will be optional, so that you can restore detailed textures any time, when needed.
It all depends on if the lag is based on texture quality. Try installing a 32 or 64 bit texture and see if it makes you lag more. If it does, then this is probably your solution.
It all depends on if the lag is based on texture quality. Try installing a 32 or 64 bit texture and see if it makes you lag more. If it does, then this is probably your solution.
This idea will become very helpful, especially with very detailed texture packs, like 256 bit. But even with the normal 16 bit, people still lag really badly.
hmmm i kindof like this idea but why not just use short rendering?
I am sure many people, including me, hate that ugly thick fog, that blocks everything. This idea is an alternative, that still allows you to see far, with minimal lag.
Hmmmm... Interesting lag fix, I hadn't thought of that.
Do you think there's a possibility that this fix could cause more lag, though? I the first thing I thought of was the argument you refute at the end (and well-done, I might add), but I always experience fps drop when I'm looking at large amounts of lava.
Hmmmm... Interesting lag fix, I hadn't thought of that.
Do you think there's a possibility that this fix could cause more lag, though? I the first thing I thought of was the argument you refute at the end (and well-done, I might add), but I always experience fps drop when I'm looking at large amounts of lava.
Does anyone else experience the same?
I think that is because it is the only block that is always animated besides a Portal Block. I'm sure the same thing would happen if you made a ton of Nether Portals all in one area. It would probably be worse actually, considering they also have opacity.
As for the OP, I like it but the numbers are wrong. The textures shown are normal, 16 chunks away, and 32 chunks away. The problem with that is in vanilla, the maximum number of chunks a player can load is is a 33x33 chunk grid with you in the center. That is 16 chunks to the north, 16 to the south, and 16 to both the east and west.
If you are familiar with the Pythagorean Theorem (a2+b2=c2), you can find the the very farthest chunk loaded would be at the corners of that grid like so:
a2+b2=c2
162+162=c2
256+256=c2
sqrt 512=c
c=22.62
So that makes the farthest loaded chunk actually appear to be about 23 chunks away, much lower than the numbers you gave in the OP. Therefore a more appropriate and accurate breakdown would be
Besides that clerical error, the concept is sound. Another idea would be to change the chunk loading to a circular grid instead of a square one. The current number of chunks loaded on far is the 33x33 square grid, or 1089 chunks (the chunk volume, if you will). If it was changed to a circular grid with a diameter of 33 (radius 16.5), then by finding the chunk volume of that circle (16.52*3.14) you only load 855 chunks. That means you load 22% less of area with no negative gameplay implications.
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!
The idea is to reduce the quality of blocks when they are at a distance. This can help eliminate unnecessarily detailed blocks that aren't noticed from a distance. The quality will look unchanged from far away. It would also lead to FPS increases. Here's an image I put together for a visual idea.
As I said earlier, the quality will look unchanged from a distance.
16 chunks away, the blocks will reduce their quality 4x less, so it's 8x8 pixels, if you are using the default texture pack. The game will automatically make the textures, so texture makers do not have to make separate textures. 32 chunks away, the block's detail goes down 4x more, so it is 4x4.
Now if you want to say "That will cause even more lag than there already is! It has to change the blocks over and over!", you're wrong. Animated blocks change their appearance 20 times per second. Think about all of the lava in the Nether that rendered all at once. Not much of a FPS drop. The changes in textures would be infrequent, since moving across a chunk takes a bit of time.
Also, of course, this will be optional, so that you can restore detailed textures any time, when needed.
Thoughts?
This idea will become very helpful, especially with very detailed texture packs, like 256 bit. But even with the normal 16 bit, people still lag really badly.
I am sure many people, including me, hate that ugly thick fog, that blocks everything. This idea is an alternative, that still allows you to see far, with minimal lag.
Do you think there's a possibility that this fix could cause more lag, though? I the first thing I thought of was the argument you refute at the end (and well-done, I might add), but I always experience fps drop when I'm looking at large amounts of lava.
Does anyone else experience the same?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorOr it could be added to the game in the Graphic Options menu, so everyone can use it but nobody has to.
I think that is because it is the only block that is always animated besides a Portal Block. I'm sure the same thing would happen if you made a ton of Nether Portals all in one area. It would probably be worse actually, considering they also have opacity.
As for the OP, I like it but the numbers are wrong. The textures shown are normal, 16 chunks away, and 32 chunks away. The problem with that is in vanilla, the maximum number of chunks a player can load is is a 33x33 chunk grid with you in the center. That is 16 chunks to the north, 16 to the south, and 16 to both the east and west.
If you are familiar with the Pythagorean Theorem (a2+b2=c2), you can find the the very farthest chunk loaded would be at the corners of that grid like so:
a2+b2=c2
162+162=c2
256+256=c2
sqrt 512=c
c=22.62
So that makes the farthest loaded chunk actually appear to be about 23 chunks away, much lower than the numbers you gave in the OP. Therefore a more appropriate and accurate breakdown would be
0-7 chunks away: Normal (16x16) textures
8-15 chunks away: 50% (8x8) textures
16-23 chunks away: 25% (4x4) textures
Besides that clerical error, the concept is sound. Another idea would be to change the chunk loading to a circular grid instead of a square one. The current number of chunks loaded on far is the 33x33 square grid, or 1089 chunks (the chunk volume, if you will). If it was changed to a circular grid with a diameter of 33 (radius 16.5), then by finding the chunk volume of that circle (16.52*3.14) you only load 855 chunks. That means you load 22% less of area with no negative gameplay implications.
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