At first, I was about to wonder why I didn't have a reply here, as I confused this with a similar thread about ranking the versions of order.
It's hard though to list an absolute best version. New versions have added a lot I enjoy, from the massive variety added by the biome additions to 1.7 and the incredible purpose expansion to the End in 1.9, down to the small features they all add, which is way too many to list. In this regard, new versions are the best.
However, I've also experienced many painful things as the game updated, to anti-aliasing breaking in 1.7 (thank goodness there's a workaround or I'd never have updated past 1.6), the climate system and overly reduced ocean size (they needed reduced but not nearly that much) leading to awful and homogenized worlds with 1.7, the reduced cave sizes in 1.7 (noticing a trend?), performance degradation in 1.7, 1.8 (1.8 is for me the WORST versions ever due to this even worse than 1.7), and now again with 1.13, old data being overwritten by new features (looking at you again, 1.8, with water temples plopping themselves down UNDERGROUND beneath forests...), and the constant need to change resource packs every few versions to keep them how I want because they can't settle on a structure for them it seems (half the reason I procrastinate to update, so I guess if actions speak louder than words, the new features aren't enough for me).
I'm surprised at all of the "1.7.x is the best due to mods" replies, as I specifically remember when 1.7 was new and everyone preferred prior versions for the same exact reason. I remember the Better Grass and Leaves mod I very much enjoyed made 1.7 make my game seem so sterile until someone else just recreated a new mod largely based on it called Better Foliage (best mod ever; thank you however made this!). There was a split with 1.2.5 (and prior) and 1.3 with mods as well. It just takes them time to catch up after big change updates I guess.
Overall, I'd say the framework of the game (from Beta 1.8?) up until 1.6.4 was the best for me, and I'm glad the core of my world was generated with terrain from this era, but the new biomes and features are hard to overlook, making it hard to choose one version as the best. The new disadvantages are awful, but it'd be hard to go back to, say, 1.6.4. It's great the game updates at all; don't get me wrong, but it's very messy.
Started at 1.7.10 and now on 1.11.2 Really like some of the newer features but can't say they are super great versus earlier. May upgrade to 1.12 soon, but not sure about whether I'm gonna like 1.13. Some features sound rather weird.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/3/2018
Posts:
51
Member Details
I started playing on console on what would probably be the equivalent of 1.4, (or 1.5, it was so long ago that I cant remember anymore) but it is VERY hard to choose an absolute favorite. Many of the things I like from old versions aren't in new ones, and vice versa.
Honestly though, it was 1.7.2 and 1.6 that I had to choose between. 1.6 had this nostalgic feeling I couldn't get over, and had infinite oceans sometimes, but 1.7.2 had so many new biomes and items and such that I literally thought couldn't choose, and thus just wouldn't post.
But then it hit me, 1.6 was the clear winner.
Sure 1.7.2 had new biomes and such, but honestly, oceans absolutely chock-full of nothing but mushroom islands (and the very occasional large island with a lot of biomes (actually the premise for my 1.6 survival world ) ) tied it with 1.7.2, but the real tiebreaker was that the extreme hills in 1.7.2 were way more simple and less, floating-island-huge-overhang-y. So i'd say 1.6 for sure.
1.7.10 because it has the most pvp potential, as it's the last version with true block hitting. I also get smooth fps on 1.7.10 at 2k frames, and also there are many mods for the version. There also hasn't been a true release of an optifine for the latest version, which is arguably the best mod. 1.7.10 requires consistent skill, while 1.9+ pvp requires technical.
Anything before 1.3 which introduced integrated server singleplayer. Basically, playing singleplayer is the same as playing multiplayer (it's running a server on your machine), except that it's not "Open to LAN". This sucks for slower computers, especially when playing in biomes such as jungles in the new versions*.
I really hate this. I want to play alone in my world lag free, why isn't there a choice?
*newer versions introduce more content, which is great!, but more stuff being loaded and calculated puts more stress on your system.
Alpha 1.1.2_01, because is simple and fun, his clear grass terrain is awesome and his caves too.
Sadly nowadays there are no public servers (and if there are, they are like 1 or 2).
1.7.10. I almost exclusively play this version because there are a large number of mods available for it. A close second is 1.9, which adds mending and all that. I don't really like anything after 1.9.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I post pretty rarely nowadays. Gosh, I wish this place weren't so... empty...
1.7.10. I almost exclusively play this version because there are a large number of mods available for it. A close second is 1.9, which adds mending and all that. I don't really like anything after 1.9.
As far as I'm concerned Mending is just a replacement for the ability to simply rename an item on the anvil to keep the prior work penalty down, so there isn't really much reason to like 1.9 because of it (I did add my own version to TMCW but it is literally a replacement for renaming (simply renaming an item is a bit too cheap, plus part of the purpose of TMCW is to show my ideas of how vanilla features could have been done), keeping the requirement to repair items with the anvil and costs based on how good they are; I've never seen why people need gear with like 6 enchantments on one item, which are unrepairable. 1.9's Mending is also generally cheaper than repairing prior to 1.8 but I've never needed XP farms as I easily get several times the XP that I need from normal gameplay, even with the more expensive gear in TMCW, including the cost of Mending itself).
From a game play perspective, the 1.8 and 1.9 updates made the game's tech tree much easier to climb. With school and work and a life I could never have been bothered to spend so much time grinding for xp for enchantments and mining for diamonds. The new experience system in 1.8 and mending in 1.9 allowed the player to get end game gear in less time. Plenty of people find that to be an issue, which I understand. It was an extreme status symbol on servers to have fully enchanted diamond gear. But again, having to spend less time on enchants and resource collection allows me more time to work on other projects around my base. Despite this, I don't have a "favorite" update, as I just update when new versions come out.
If they spent an update focusing on bringing back life into older features and fixed many of the game's problems instead of distracting the community with more bells and whistles though, that'd become my favorite update in a heartbeat.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/4/2012
Posts:
55
Location:
it is a mystery
Member Details
i really enjoyed the quaintness of minecraft when it was a passion project during it's alpha, it totes felt more charming if more frustrating than the updates released today. these are only my personal preferences, the newest updates are def more fun to newcomers than recommending an obsolete version
Anything before 1.3 which introduced integrated server singleplayer. Basically, playing singleplayer is the same as playing multiplayer (it's running a server on your machine), except that it's not "Open to LAN". This sucks for slower computers, especially when playing in biomes such as jungles in the new versions*.
I really hate this. I want to play alone in my world lag free, why isn't there a choice?
*newer versions introduce more content, which is great!, but more stuff being loaded and calculated puts more stress on your system.
While 1.3 did make performance suffer due to the reasons you mentioned, it wasn't that bad, especially compared to how bad 1.7, 1.8, and now again 1.13 have dropped performance. A lot of the stigma with 1.3 seemed to be from adjusting to the new behaviors (and bugs) of the multi-player, now single-player, mode and not just because of the performance drop, which again in retrospect wasn't that bad.
At least 1.3 dropped performance for one of the best features ever added to the game, but the other three notable versions to drop performance did so for no reason at all; it was caused purely by code changes only (not the features), which is really unfortunate for someone like me who is liking the sound of the new updates, but also thinking of NOT updating to or past 1.13 because they just keep dropping performance every few versions because they make the coding WORSE as far as performance goes.
Try something like 1.6.4 and you should see performance shouldn't be that bad. To be honest though, even my laptop, which is rather weak (and even older now) plays up to version 1.12 just fine. It's probably largely people who want to play with high render distances that suffer most from these performance drops every few versions.
While 1.3 did make performance suffer due to the reasons you mentioned, it wasn't that bad, especially compared to how bad 1.7, 1.8, and now again 1.13 have dropped performance. A lot of the stigma with 1.3 seemed to be from adjusting to the new behaviors (and bugs) of the multi-player, now single-player, mode and not just because of the performance drop, which again in retrospect wasn't that bad.
At least 1.3 dropped performance for one of the best features ever added to the game, but the other three notable versions to drop performance did so for no reason at all; it was caused purely by code changes only (not the features), which is really unfortunate for someone like me who is liking the sound of the new updates, but also thinking of NOT updating to or past 1.13 because they just keep dropping performance every few versions because they make the coding WORSE as far as performance goes.
Try something like 1.6.4 and you should see performance shouldn't be that bad. To be honest though, even my laptop, which is rather weak (and even older now) plays up to version 1.12 just fine. It's probably largely people who want to play with high render distances that suffer most from these performance drops every few versions.
In my experience 1.3+ performs better than older versions, specifically, microstutter, as the game had to calculate everything on a single thread so each game tick (20/second) caused a drop in FPS at that rate, especially if the game was doing anything more intensive, such as terrain generation, plus Beta 1.7.3 (at least) had the "lag spike of death" when I ran it due to autosaving (fun fact: Optifine's "autosave" option actually does nothing at all, at least in 1.6.4, as I decompiled Optifine and could find nothing in the game itself that used the value of the setting, and the internal server saves once every 45 seconds regardless of what it is set to - I'm betting it is a relic from the pre-1.3 days).
This thread even mentions that performance on multi-core systems would likely be improved since the game could now actually use more than one core and server-side lag wouldn't affect FPS (mind that single-core systems were likely still prevalent to a degree back then), and I'd very much rather have stable FPS over the symptoms of server lag, which I rarely see anyway (typical tick times for vanilla 1.6.4 are on the order of 5 ms; TMCWv5 runs at around half that, leaving plenty of time for more intensive tasks; even generating terrain by flying around in Creative only pushes it up to around 10 ms, still only 20% of the maximum tick time without lag; of course, that is averaged over 100 ticks and generating 21 chunks on a view distance of 10 takes around 220 ms over a single tick but server lag spikes are not as apparent as a drop in FPS, and I never see any "can't keep up" messages, which occur when the server falls behind by more than 2 seconds, either over a single tick or cumulatively, except for the zombie pathfinding bug, but I fixed that myself years ago, long before Mojang decided it was fully fixed in 1.9.3/4, or teleporting to an ungenerated area).
The main cost mentioned was increased memory usage, mainly due to the fact that the client and server load the same chunks twice, but it still isn't very high (100-200 MB for 1.6.4; Mojang's programming practices have significantly increased memory usage since 1.8 though, especially object allocation rates, and the server-client model does compound this, which is likely why sp614x compared 1.8 to pre-1.3 versions, but the values for 1.6.4 are not much different from their numbers).
Also, one thing to note when comparing versions before and after 1.3 is that 1.3-1.6 hardcoded the internal server view distance to 10 chunks and chunk ticking radius to 7 chunks (example for 1.6.4; snow only accumulates in active chunks around the player, as seen on the right), meaning that lower render distances will perform worse and higher will perform better; likewise, "Far" render distance (16 chunks) will perform worse in 1.7.4 and later due to loading/rendering 2.5 times as many chunks and ticking nearly 5 times as many chunks. It also seems that in 1.9 and later the update radius is a circle with a radius of 128 blocks from the player to the center of active chunks, which is smaller than the square radius in pre-1.7.4, and may be why some see better performance (in my experience server lag is a bigger issue than FPS in newer versions).
Most of my perceptions come from that of a player using very far render distances. It's also interesting I didn't seem to notice performance improve much from 1.2.5 to 1.3, especially with the render distance drop (I used "far" in 1.2.5) and because I was on a multi-core system at the time. I simply recall that the drop seemed to be near non-existent or at the most rather minimal for me (especially compared to the ones 1.7, 1.8, and 1.13 have brought me), but maybe my impression was mostly left by understanding how it affected most others. I remember seeing lots of posts on it back then, and again, a bigger part of the complaints seemed to address the new behaviors of the new version (notably, sync issues seemed to be common and were probably just labeled as "lag").
I started using OptiFine probably around version 1.6 or so, and I can't remember what render distance I used as it was counted in block numbers back then, but probably something that equated to around 24 chunks, and I had a constant 60 FPS and the performance ALWAYS felt consistent no matter what. This was the last version the immediately prior statement applied to, sadly. With 1.7, even with OptiFine, performance felt worse, and I avoided 1.7 until version 1.7.4 and OptiFine's release for it. I was saddened how anti-aliasing was ineffective now unless changing a setting now (though thank goodness for that), and I remember settling on a render distance of 24 to 28 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti at the time) by the latter versions of 1.7 with 1.7.10, but it still felt worse (not consistent always, like was the case with 1.6.4), but was at least mostly smooth and very playable at far render distances, so I was happy. At the maximum of 32 it was just a bit too low on the frame rate, but I was close to attaining it. With 1.8's release, I had to drop the render distance to 22 or so and it again still performed worse than the immediately prior version with a higher render distance. I specifically remember the snapshot version that removed "Advanced OpenGL" as where the trouble started, and I also remember 1.8 for being the version that started the cause of the "15+ seconds of insane lag when entering the nether" which persists for me to this day. Around this time, my video card died and I got a weaker GTX 650 that was meant to be temporary, but I stayed with for years because every GTX 970 I tried had an awful issue with coil whine.
Finally got my current GeForce GTX 1060 a year and a half back or so now, and now play the 1.10.2 version at a render distance of 32 to 34 or so. I can probably go a bit higher, but performance starts tapering off for minimal returns visually (though 64 render distance looks nice). Frame rate is usually 50+ (normally 60 capped), but there's still occasional feelings of slight lag.
When I tried 1.13, a render distance of 32 caused the world to take 5+ minutes to load, chunk loading just flat out seemed to pause for 10 or 15+ seconds at a time randomly, and frame rate was in the 30s once it was done. At this point I'm simply tired of them degrading performance due to code/rendering/whatever changes every few versions that have nothing to do with the new features. I don't understand why they are being done, but I'm no coder either. I really enjoy the new features of 1.13 and the looks of beyond, but I'm also about ready to do what you did and not go past a version (1.12). Since my world is largely 1.6 terrain at it's core region (where I spend 99%+ of my time), I already miss some of the new things anyway.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/18/2013
Posts:
60
Minecraft:
Prosetos
Member Details
I just played the latest snapshot 19w02a. Its just getting ridiculous with villages having bails of wheat everywhere and even more chests with goodies. Im starting to think best version of minecraft was when there were no villages. The game not only has made ot so easy you dont even need to mine anymore, now you dont need to make food.. ever. Whats the point of playing if everything is done for you?
Since villages have always existsed in minecraft, ill go with the versions that started the presets caves of chaos and water world, v1.7. Those give the game an actual challenege and villages do not exist there, well they kinda exist in caves of chaos they are just not easy to get to.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/18/2013
Posts:
60
Minecraft:
Prosetos
Member Details
Ok Im changing my vote. Going to say 1.9, mainly because of Elytra and giving the end a purpose to explore. But I of course would love to pick and choose features. Basically any content added that improves playable possibilities, redstone update is best example. And remove features that makes the game easier (most current updates like adding of ocean ruins and improved villages with more chests and wheat bails). Those things are ok when you first see them but they become eye sores and just scale up the loot found by just walking/swimming around. Im ok with ocean ruins/shipwrecks if they were more rare.
I'm going to take the diplomatic route.
Each version has it's upside for me.
But having played so long in newer versions, going back to 1.8 and earlier just feel wrong to me.
And I'd miss the shulker boxes some fierce.
At first, I was about to wonder why I didn't have a reply here, as I confused this with a similar thread about ranking the versions of order.
It's hard though to list an absolute best version. New versions have added a lot I enjoy, from the massive variety added by the biome additions to 1.7 and the incredible purpose expansion to the End in 1.9, down to the small features they all add, which is way too many to list. In this regard, new versions are the best.
However, I've also experienced many painful things as the game updated, to anti-aliasing breaking in 1.7 (thank goodness there's a workaround or I'd never have updated past 1.6), the climate system and overly reduced ocean size (they needed reduced but not nearly that much) leading to awful and homogenized worlds with 1.7, the reduced cave sizes in 1.7 (noticing a trend?), performance degradation in 1.7, 1.8 (1.8 is for me the WORST versions ever due to this even worse than 1.7), and now again with 1.13, old data being overwritten by new features (looking at you again, 1.8, with water temples plopping themselves down UNDERGROUND beneath forests...), and the constant need to change resource packs every few versions to keep them how I want because they can't settle on a structure for them it seems (half the reason I procrastinate to update, so I guess if actions speak louder than words, the new features aren't enough for me).
I'm surprised at all of the "1.7.x is the best due to mods" replies, as I specifically remember when 1.7 was new and everyone preferred prior versions for the same exact reason. I remember the Better Grass and Leaves mod I very much enjoyed made 1.7 make my game seem so sterile until someone else just recreated a new mod largely based on it called Better Foliage (best mod ever; thank you however made this!). There was a split with 1.2.5 (and prior) and 1.3 with mods as well. It just takes them time to catch up after big change updates I guess.
Overall, I'd say the framework of the game (from Beta 1.8?) up until 1.6.4 was the best for me, and I'm glad the core of my world was generated with terrain from this era, but the new biomes and features are hard to overlook, making it hard to choose one version as the best. The new disadvantages are awful, but it'd be hard to go back to, say, 1.6.4. It's great the game updates at all; don't get me wrong, but it's very messy.
Started at 1.7.10 and now on 1.11.2 Really like some of the newer features but can't say they are super great versus earlier. May upgrade to 1.12 soon, but not sure about whether I'm gonna like 1.13. Some features sound rather weird.
I play basically straight vanilla.
Learn something new each day
I started playing on console on what would probably be the equivalent of 1.4, (or 1.5, it was so long ago that I cant remember anymore) but it is VERY hard to choose an absolute favorite. Many of the things I like from old versions aren't in new ones, and vice versa.
Honestly though, it was 1.7.2 and 1.6 that I had to choose between. 1.6 had this nostalgic feeling I couldn't get over, and had infinite oceans sometimes, but 1.7.2 had so many new biomes and items and such that I literally thought couldn't choose, and thus just wouldn't post.
But then it hit me, 1.6 was the clear winner.
Sure 1.7.2 had new biomes and such, but honestly, oceans absolutely chock-full of nothing but mushroom islands (and the very occasional large island with a lot of biomes (actually the premise for my 1.6 survival world ) ) tied it with 1.7.2, but the real tiebreaker was that the extreme hills in 1.7.2 were way more simple and less, floating-island-huge-overhang-y. So i'd say 1.6 for sure.
To mine or not to mine, that is the question!
1.7.10 because it has the most pvp potential, as it's the last version with true block hitting. I also get smooth fps on 1.7.10 at 2k frames, and also there are many mods for the version. There also hasn't been a true release of an optifine for the latest version, which is arguably the best mod. 1.7.10 requires consistent skill, while 1.9+ pvp requires technical.
Anything before 1.3 which introduced integrated server singleplayer. Basically, playing singleplayer is the same as playing multiplayer (it's running a server on your machine), except that it's not "Open to LAN". This sucks for slower computers, especially when playing in biomes such as jungles in the new versions*.
I really hate this. I want to play alone in my world lag free, why isn't there a choice?
*newer versions introduce more content, which is great!, but more stuff being loaded and calculated puts more stress on your system.
lolcats are still funny
Alpha 1.1.2_01, because is simple and fun, his clear grass terrain is awesome and his caves too.
Sadly nowadays there are no public servers (and if there are, they are like 1 or 2).
1.7.10. I almost exclusively play this version because there are a large number of mods available for it. A close second is 1.9, which adds mending and all that. I don't really like anything after 1.9.
I post pretty rarely nowadays. Gosh, I wish this place weren't so... empty...
As far as I'm concerned Mending is just a replacement for the ability to simply rename an item on the anvil to keep the prior work penalty down, so there isn't really much reason to like 1.9 because of it (I did add my own version to TMCW but it is literally a replacement for renaming (simply renaming an item is a bit too cheap, plus part of the purpose of TMCW is to show my ideas of how vanilla features could have been done), keeping the requirement to repair items with the anvil and costs based on how good they are; I've never seen why people need gear with like 6 enchantments on one item, which are unrepairable. 1.9's Mending is also generally cheaper than repairing prior to 1.8 but I've never needed XP farms as I easily get several times the XP that I need from normal gameplay, even with the more expensive gear in TMCW, including the cost of Mending itself).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
From a game play perspective, the 1.8 and 1.9 updates made the game's tech tree much easier to climb. With school and work and a life I could never have been bothered to spend so much time grinding for xp for enchantments and mining for diamonds. The new experience system in 1.8 and mending in 1.9 allowed the player to get end game gear in less time. Plenty of people find that to be an issue, which I understand. It was an extreme status symbol on servers to have fully enchanted diamond gear. But again, having to spend less time on enchants and resource collection allows me more time to work on other projects around my base. Despite this, I don't have a "favorite" update, as I just update when new versions come out.
If they spent an update focusing on bringing back life into older features and fixed many of the game's problems instead of distracting the community with more bells and whistles though, that'd become my favorite update in a heartbeat.
i really enjoyed the quaintness of minecraft when it was a passion project during it's alpha, it totes felt more charming if more frustrating than the updates released today. these are only my personal preferences, the newest updates are def more fun to newcomers than recommending an obsolete version
While 1.3 did make performance suffer due to the reasons you mentioned, it wasn't that bad, especially compared to how bad 1.7, 1.8, and now again 1.13 have dropped performance. A lot of the stigma with 1.3 seemed to be from adjusting to the new behaviors (and bugs) of the multi-player, now single-player, mode and not just because of the performance drop, which again in retrospect wasn't that bad.
At least 1.3 dropped performance for one of the best features ever added to the game, but the other three notable versions to drop performance did so for no reason at all; it was caused purely by code changes only (not the features), which is really unfortunate for someone like me who is liking the sound of the new updates, but also thinking of NOT updating to or past 1.13 because they just keep dropping performance every few versions because they make the coding WORSE as far as performance goes.
Try something like 1.6.4 and you should see performance shouldn't be that bad. To be honest though, even my laptop, which is rather weak (and even older now) plays up to version 1.12 just fine. It's probably largely people who want to play with high render distances that suffer most from these performance drops every few versions.
In my experience 1.3+ performs better than older versions, specifically, microstutter, as the game had to calculate everything on a single thread so each game tick (20/second) caused a drop in FPS at that rate, especially if the game was doing anything more intensive, such as terrain generation, plus Beta 1.7.3 (at least) had the "lag spike of death" when I ran it due to autosaving (fun fact: Optifine's "autosave" option actually does nothing at all, at least in 1.6.4, as I decompiled Optifine and could find nothing in the game itself that used the value of the setting, and the internal server saves once every 45 seconds regardless of what it is set to - I'm betting it is a relic from the pre-1.3 days).
This thread even mentions that performance on multi-core systems would likely be improved since the game could now actually use more than one core and server-side lag wouldn't affect FPS (mind that single-core systems were likely still prevalent to a degree back then), and I'd very much rather have stable FPS over the symptoms of server lag, which I rarely see anyway (typical tick times for vanilla 1.6.4 are on the order of 5 ms; TMCWv5 runs at around half that, leaving plenty of time for more intensive tasks; even generating terrain by flying around in Creative only pushes it up to around 10 ms, still only 20% of the maximum tick time without lag; of course, that is averaged over 100 ticks and generating 21 chunks on a view distance of 10 takes around 220 ms over a single tick but server lag spikes are not as apparent as a drop in FPS, and I never see any "can't keep up" messages, which occur when the server falls behind by more than 2 seconds, either over a single tick or cumulatively, except for the zombie pathfinding bug, but I fixed that myself years ago, long before Mojang decided it was fully fixed in 1.9.3/4, or teleporting to an ungenerated area).
The main cost mentioned was increased memory usage, mainly due to the fact that the client and server load the same chunks twice, but it still isn't very high (100-200 MB for 1.6.4; Mojang's programming practices have significantly increased memory usage since 1.8 though, especially object allocation rates, and the server-client model does compound this, which is likely why sp614x compared 1.8 to pre-1.3 versions, but the values for 1.6.4 are not much different from their numbers).
Also, one thing to note when comparing versions before and after 1.3 is that 1.3-1.6 hardcoded the internal server view distance to 10 chunks and chunk ticking radius to 7 chunks (example for 1.6.4; snow only accumulates in active chunks around the player, as seen on the right), meaning that lower render distances will perform worse and higher will perform better; likewise, "Far" render distance (16 chunks) will perform worse in 1.7.4 and later due to loading/rendering 2.5 times as many chunks and ticking nearly 5 times as many chunks. It also seems that in 1.9 and later the update radius is a circle with a radius of 128 blocks from the player to the center of active chunks, which is smaller than the square radius in pre-1.7.4, and may be why some see better performance (in my experience server lag is a bigger issue than FPS in newer versions).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Ah, interesting information, and thanks for that.
Most of my perceptions come from that of a player using very far render distances. It's also interesting I didn't seem to notice performance improve much from 1.2.5 to 1.3, especially with the render distance drop (I used "far" in 1.2.5) and because I was on a multi-core system at the time. I simply recall that the drop seemed to be near non-existent or at the most rather minimal for me (especially compared to the ones 1.7, 1.8, and 1.13 have brought me), but maybe my impression was mostly left by understanding how it affected most others. I remember seeing lots of posts on it back then, and again, a bigger part of the complaints seemed to address the new behaviors of the new version (notably, sync issues seemed to be common and were probably just labeled as "lag").
I started using OptiFine probably around version 1.6 or so, and I can't remember what render distance I used as it was counted in block numbers back then, but probably something that equated to around 24 chunks, and I had a constant 60 FPS and the performance ALWAYS felt consistent no matter what. This was the last version the immediately prior statement applied to, sadly. With 1.7, even with OptiFine, performance felt worse, and I avoided 1.7 until version 1.7.4 and OptiFine's release for it. I was saddened how anti-aliasing was ineffective now unless changing a setting now (though thank goodness for that), and I remember settling on a render distance of 24 to 28 (GeForce GTX 560 Ti at the time) by the latter versions of 1.7 with 1.7.10, but it still felt worse (not consistent always, like was the case with 1.6.4), but was at least mostly smooth and very playable at far render distances, so I was happy. At the maximum of 32 it was just a bit too low on the frame rate, but I was close to attaining it. With 1.8's release, I had to drop the render distance to 22 or so and it again still performed worse than the immediately prior version with a higher render distance. I specifically remember the snapshot version that removed "Advanced OpenGL" as where the trouble started, and I also remember 1.8 for being the version that started the cause of the "15+ seconds of insane lag when entering the nether" which persists for me to this day. Around this time, my video card died and I got a weaker GTX 650 that was meant to be temporary, but I stayed with for years because every GTX 970 I tried had an awful issue with coil whine.
Finally got my current GeForce GTX 1060 a year and a half back or so now, and now play the 1.10.2 version at a render distance of 32 to 34 or so. I can probably go a bit higher, but performance starts tapering off for minimal returns visually (though 64 render distance looks nice). Frame rate is usually 50+ (normally 60 capped), but there's still occasional feelings of slight lag.
When I tried 1.13, a render distance of 32 caused the world to take 5+ minutes to load, chunk loading just flat out seemed to pause for 10 or 15+ seconds at a time randomly, and frame rate was in the 30s once it was done. At this point I'm simply tired of them degrading performance due to code/rendering/whatever changes every few versions that have nothing to do with the new features. I don't understand why they are being done, but I'm no coder either. I really enjoy the new features of 1.13 and the looks of beyond, but I'm also about ready to do what you did and not go past a version (1.12). Since my world is largely 1.6 terrain at it's core region (where I spend 99%+ of my time), I already miss some of the new things anyway.
I would definetly say 1.5.2
Basically because it has everything Markus Intended the game to be, 1.4 wasnt finished, and 1.6 was too much
1.6... I hate the world generator after 1.6. Even though I usually play in the latest version.
I don't even play Minecraft much anymore yet here I am on the Minecraft forums for some reason...
Latest stable. >.> Thread ( , though, ) not updated
and more bugs
I just played the latest snapshot 19w02a. Its just getting ridiculous with villages having bails of wheat everywhere and even more chests with goodies. Im starting to think best version of minecraft was when there were no villages. The game not only has made ot so easy you dont even need to mine anymore, now you dont need to make food.. ever. Whats the point of playing if everything is done for you?
Since villages have always existsed in minecraft, ill go with the versions that started the presets caves of chaos and water world, v1.7. Those give the game an actual challenege and villages do not exist there, well they kinda exist in caves of chaos they are just not easy to get to.
Ok Im changing my vote. Going to say 1.9, mainly because of Elytra and giving the end a purpose to explore. But I of course would love to pick and choose features. Basically any content added that improves playable possibilities, redstone update is best example. And remove features that makes the game easier (most current updates like adding of ocean ruins and improved villages with more chests and wheat bails). Those things are ok when you first see them but they become eye sores and just scale up the loot found by just walking/swimming around. Im ok with ocean ruins/shipwrecks if they were more rare.