If you're asking about the technicians's remix of the texture pack, then no, I don't use that (or mods besides OptiFine and Better Foliage).
- Registered Member
Member for 5 years, 7 months, and 20 days
Last active Sat, Dec, 9 2017 10:32:03
- 9 Followers
- 708 Total Posts
- 223 Thanks
Dec 9, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on Crafterra, my Survival World (Image Heavy & Download Available)Posted in: Screenshots
Oct 31, 2017Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
I personally use the forums less for two reasons.
1. I don't want to say I play less to imply I've moved on. To the contrary, this is one game I keep coming back to and still play a lot at times on and off. However, it's true I don't play as much as I did in 2012 to 2014. I also play other games more. The above post mentions 2012 to 2013 as a big drop off, and that's interesting but strange. The 1.2 to 1.3 change happened then, but that wasn't THAT controversial. Maybe just because it was around five years old at that point?
2. Main reason. I can't remember when, but the forums became bogged down. Advertisements went out of control, I think maybe the forum software changed (?), but regardless the forums are very slow to use for me and it wasn't when I first joined in 2012 (made a bit worse since Firefox as of late has become much slower for me since the multi-process update a couple or few months back, to the point the browser I've used for over 13 years and since before it's first official release might be something I also stop using, much as I don't want to). It all disrupts workflow sooooo much, and one of my posts is so slow to edit/maintain now and I've all but given up.
Also just came back to see a new account was required. Not "bothered" by it but it shouldn't be needed. Probably never going to use Twitch (actually, I can't as I have FBO disabled which prevents it from working). Guess some company merger is resulting in consolidation or something so whatever.
Sep 23, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on 100 chunks render distance in Minecraft PC versionPosted in: Mods Discussion
It's not really playable for me. With a Core i5 2500K 4GHz, 16 GB RAM, and GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, I get basically a constantly 19 FPS at a render distance of 64, and that's after giving it the few minutes to load all those chunks. That was with anti-aliasing disabled too, whereas usually I can use it at a render distance of 32 and mostly always stay at refresh rate.
There comes a point where an increasing amount of the further view you get becomes lost behind terrain in front of it (for example, and can only be seen at higher elevations). Also, that terrain appears distorted more and more, if that makes sense. What I mean is, say you have a large lake/small ocean that would extent from one land mass to another on a render distance of 32. On a render distance of 64, if that body of water was near the edge of your render distance, it'd take up such a small amount of screen estate that it's appear smaller, perhaps because in the real world we have a horizon due to the curvature of the globe, but it's another example of how it's a large trade-off for small gain past a point.
I did not, however, notice any anomalies with snow or terrain generating incorrectly.
I won't deny if I could use a higher render distance that I might (but there'd come a point I'd be happy with it and wouldn't go higher, maybe around 40-something), but 32 feels like a decent sweet spot for me.
Sep 22, 2017Posted in: Mods Discussion
Yes, that sounds about normal. With the same video card, I also had to turn the render distance down to something like 16 or so to have good frame rates, and that wasn't even at highest shader settings. I think it was basically medium-high, I can't remember, but looked like this.
It was surprising to me since at the time about a year ago the video card was still relatively new and higher end and still struggled with Minecraft shaders, which I remember my old GeForce GTX 560 Ti being able to run about as well. Minecraft performance has always been strange given the variable of a game it is, and shaders on top of it only that much more so (not disrespecting those who make shaders available at all as the work is appreciated).
Shaders are nice and all, especially for screenshots, but I think I might actually prefer without when it comes to playing day to day. I prefer being able to use higher render distance and anti-aliasing instead, and while the lighting looks nice in one way and definitely makes Minecraft look more advanced in terms of graphics, there's just something about it that I prefer but yet don't prefer. Even if it performed the same and worked with anti-aliasing, I think I might not use it.
Sep 22, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on 100 chunks render distance in Minecraft PC versionPosted in: Mods Discussion
I love all things pertaining to render distance. Now that the game has natively supported a render distance of 32 chunks for a long time now, I'm surprised OptiFine never pushed that further. There comes a point where you don't gain as much visibly (mostly you only will when at higher elevation) compared to the extra performance needed, so perhaps it wouldn't be practical to play with such a high render distance, but I'd still like to OptiFine push that to, say, 48 for those who want it and/or for screenshot purposes. A render distance of 32 was mostly unfeasible at it's introduction too.
I actually already use Forge for the one single mod (besides OptiFine) that I do use, but I'm still on version 1.10, so I'm not sure if this would work for me.
I discoverd 2 "bugs" and threre is something know that decrease Minecrafts performance especially at large render distances.
1. If you change the render distance, even if it is only one chunk the game reloads all chunks which can take over 15 minutes on 100 chunk render distance.
2. I created a new world at 100 chunk render distance, that means the game have to generate 205*205 > 40000 chunks, it taks the game far over 15 minutes to do that (I´m not sure if all chunks in the render distance are generated or only that in my field of view). BUT the taskmanger say there only 30% of my CPU power are used at all! So this can be over 3 times faster! Because this can be done on differend threads and processor cores easily.
Neither of these are necessarily bugs, especially the first one.
That is normal behavior on every render distance, but you notice it more because of the long time it takes to load chunks at higher render distances because the performance needed is exponential, not linear, for higher render distances. For reference, I can load into a world with a render distance of 32 and within (rough guessing here as I never timed it and it's variable) around half a minute or so, it's entirely loaded, but with a supposed render distance of 64, I would not expect it to happen in under a minute.
The second one is also simply because Minecraft is not perfectly multi-threaded, not even when generating and/or loading chunks (not necessarily a fault of Minecraft). I have an older now CPU with four cores/threads, and the majority of the time I have observed CPU utilization, it is mostly between that 25% and 50% use range. Clock speed and IPC are the things that drive Minecraft performance mostly, which is why a CPU with fewer, faster cores is the most ideal. The extra cores are mostly seldom, if at all, used.
Sep 13, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on [Help] Minecraft 1.7.10 with mods installed, fps down on an Intermediate LaptopPosted in: Modded Client Support
If I'm understanding correctly, you tried allocating a whole lot of RAM, but then are confused with low RAM use and low CPU use and think you've got performance unused? If so, this isn't quite correct.
Don't allocated any more than 2 GB to 4 GB unless you're using a LOT of mods and/or a large render distance, in which case you might need up to 4 GB. The situations which need more RAM than that allocated are likely very, very few and far between. Forcing more RAM allocation won't give you more performance anyway. RAM is simply something the game needs enough of to do what it needs to do. RAM amount does not increase performance. It is merely something that will REALLY hurt performance if there's not enough of.
As for the CPU, this one is different. For one, overall CPU utilization is not a good metric to determine CPU use. Most programs are not 100% perfect and will use 100% of every core and thread 100% of the time. It just doesn't happen. Minecraft is somewhat multi-threaded, but for the most part, it seems to rely on one core heavily, and a second less so maybe. I think the last time someone involved in game development was asked about this, they commented that three cores was all you'd need for optimal results. On my quad core PC, I often see between 25% and 50% (maybe sometimes near 60% at most) use most of the time which is what I base that off of, so a faster CPU per core (IPC + clock speed) is what will be best for Minecraft. Laptops often have lower clocked CPUs (less than 3 GHz).
That being said, I'm still confused as to your frame rate not changing between lowering Minecraft settings (this did include lowering render distance too?), but I'm also confused at that graphics running Crysis or whatever on Ultra too though. My laptop with a Core i3 4010U (1.7 GHz), 6 GB RAM, SSD, and Intel HD 4400 runs the game (version 1.10) decently-ish (would guess between 40 FPS and 60 FPS with v-sync but I never really monitored it) at medium-high settings with a render distance of 12. I don't use mods though besides Optifine, so have you tried without mods?
Sep 13, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on Is Intel HD Graphics is enough to have a lag free modded survival?Posted in: Discussion
Interesting. I've been through that menu before but never really looked too closely at most of it. At first I thought it was some new feature, since I'm a bit outdated, but you're right, there it was even for me.
I wonder what that does, and if it might help. Thanks for pointing it out anyway and telling about your experience with it though, so I'll try it the next time that other PC is used. I'm not expecting miracles anyway so if it doesn't do anything for me it's fine. It could just be I need more of a video card for that PC now with the settings and render distance I want.
Sep 11, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on Is Intel HD Graphics is enough to have a lag free modded survival?Posted in: Discussion
Render distance, fast/fancy graphics, fast render, fast math, and all the other stuff we can tweak via vanilla/optifine settings? Combined they don't really come close to the wreckage that Terrain animations does to Minecraft.
Can you elaborate? I remember versions 1.3, 1.7, and 1.8 all having severe performance impacts (1.7 and 1.8 especially were horrible), but when I went from 1.8 to 1.9, and then from 1.9 to 1.10 where I now am, I didn't notice anything.
The lag I still do notice is that initial horrible lag for about ten seconds when entering the Nether (started with 1.8 and even affects my faster PC) and my weaker PC only has issues with jungles, but strangely it seems to just be select ones, and only when looking at them (started with 1.7). I like to keep myself informed on performance impacts and changes, so what are the terrain animations and what did they do? I wonder if it might be worth trying to change on my weaker PC.
Sep 11, 2017Posted in: Discussion
Maybe, but it would be situational, and even then it would likely be minor. At least, when I got an SSD about four or five years back and used it for Minecraft, I don't recall there being that much of a difference. My laptop also has an SSD, but plays the game worse than my TV streaming PC does, which has no SSD (it's because it has better GPU performance and slightly better or comparable CPU performance). The CPU and GPU are way more important for Minecraft, and in your case the CPU is probably the bottleneck.
Sep 10, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on Crafterra, my Survival World (Image Heavy & Download Available)Posted in: Screenshots
It made it easier to do since part of the core region (which we spend almost all of the time in) is generated with 1.2.5 terrain so there's still plenty of others out there, just no more in my immediate main city now.
Not quite an update on the download or a video yet (still plan to bring them soon), but my excuse this time is I was still working on Minecraft, just on an entirely new location, perhaps our furthest away yet not counting areas in the 1.7+ terrain regions which are some 46,000+ blocks away and accessed through the nether. For this one we just set out with minimal stuff on foot and boats until we found a place.
Originally it started as just the single house (the pigs were held here), but one by one, it was added to, and now it stands finished as this very small village.
Here's a few others.
It's actually yet one of my favorites despite it's small size, and I love the combination of Dark Oak wood and Acacia. I went with practically entirely wood houses and design for everything (just some Brick in places like where fences are). This did make them resource heavy on those wood types but as it was a small village and I had them to spare, after I made the one house and loved it I decided to make a village of it. It even spawns ocelots pretty frequently in some areas, like where the Jungle has a clearing where it extends as a narrow band near the docks are. Of all the outposts, campgrounds with tents, etc., we set out and explored and set up, this is the second to be turned into a village (which reminds me, the other is years old and I never showed it and it's pretty close to the size of this one too).
Sep 8, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on Is Intel HD Graphics is enough to have a lag free modded survival?Posted in: Discussion
Intel HD graphics can refer to a wide range of graphics, of which have a wide performance spectrum. Without knowing what HD graphics you're asking about and also the resolution it needs to render at, we can only guess at performance. Typically, the better the CPU, the better the HD graphics it also has. Also, typically the lower end the laptop, the lower the resolution the display. Lastly, the newer ones tend to have faster ones as well (but this is not absolute, as a newer Celeron may still have slower graphics thatn a barely older Core i5, for example). With a Celeron, you're probably not looking at good graphics regardless, and then the CPU itself is also pretty much one of Intel's lowest offerings. If you keep the render distance and graphics settings lower, it should be modestly playable, but I can't say for once you start adding mods to the game.
There's nothing wrong with 4 GB of RAM when the game doesn't even need 1/8th of that, and if mods do need more it is because they are usually badly coded; my computer only has 3.2 GB of usable RAM (32 bit OS with 4 GB installed) and there is still plenty of free memory when playing, either with 512 MB or 1 GB allocated...[/img]
Using 32-bit is partly why your RAM use may be lower, and it is not directly comparable to 64-bit OS/Java scenarios (which is probably what most typical players these days will be dealing with), as is what I'm guessing to be a lower render distance. Render distance seems to be one of the bigger contributors to RAM use. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I can't even start the game with 1 GB of RAM allocated because it literally freezes as soon as I open the world with all RAM is use, and even with twice that, it loads fine but I'm near cap RAM allocation right at the start. I had to set it to 4 GB to be completely problem-free.
There's also the strange matter that the RAM use the game reports doesn't necessarily seem to be the whole of it, at least not for me. My PC has 16 GB of RAM, and with 4 GB allocated (and the game using less), I was yet once having issues of actually running out of RAM somehow with Minecraft supposedly taking up close to 10 GB despite that in game number reporting less than 4 GB. I don't know if that's some strange thing for just my sort of case or what, but I still believe in practice you want much more RAM on hand than what the game says it can run with regardless.
Sep 5, 2017Posted in: MCWIN10: Discussion
I'm also not sure about the non-Java versions, but I once had entity movement one and off type lag due to that very same cause (mobs would appear to be on stop and go but would actually be moving), but the odd part was, it only happened when I was hosting my world as a server so a second player could play. When playing that same world on LAN it didn't lag like that. That was versions ago (like I want to say 1.6 to 1.7 time frame) so I've no idea about now.
Anyway, when I had that issue, simply deleting the file does indeed help, albeit temporarily until the size of the file grew again.
Sep 4, 2017Princess_Garnet posted a message on So there's good news, and then REALLY concerning news...Posted in: Discussion
So it sounds like less of those things are limitations than I thought, but yeah, it also sounds like there's no point to put in the time, effort, and cost to change what I'd need to only lose my world and half my render distance for more performance, which wouldn't really be there because I already don't need it that often, and if I cut my render distance in half now it's even less of an issue than it already is. That being said, thank you for the answers, and even if it's just more performance and cross-platform play, there's no reason for me to change.
That's... more or less why I replied. I wasn't trying to argue which was better one way or the other, but just to give an example of why there could be reasons Java may be better for someone, as that one reply sort of incorrectly lumped us all under the same banner when everyone has their own reasons.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sep 6, 2013Posted in: News
My guess is that it's a notice that it might require more computing resources (a faster CPU namely, probably) and have lower performance on some lower end PCs.Quote from LuckydayZ
What does 'beefy computer' mean?
Sep 5, 2013While I'm still early in playing around with things, I've noticed a few things in particular.Posted in: News
1. The sound options reset every time the game is closed (maybe every time the world is closed; I haven't tested that, but it's at least every time the game is restarted).
2. I seem to get annoying stuttering while near a jungle biome, and what's odd is that my frame rate will still be rather high. I've had it varying between 77 FPS and 112 FPS and feel so stuttery that I'd have thought it was dropping to 30 FPS or lower. This may be something on my end, but my PC is more than capable, and I never had the issue before. It's not just on chunk generation either (though it's more pronounced then). I could pause it and let it load all around, and then reload the world, and after letting it settle, simply looking around is hitching a bit. The frame rate is high, but there's occasional and pronounced pauses, and it almost makes jungles something I have to shy from. Anyone else have stuttering exclusive to jungles?
3. I feared this when the tidbits about the new biome placement maps were being shown, but I wanted to reserve my opinion until I could see for myself. Because of the "more realistic" nature of how biomes are arranged, you have to walk forever to see a lot of variation. I spawned in a world and have walked for thousands of blocks (about 5,000 so far), and I've mostly just seen forests (regular, birch, and taiga only) with the ocassional extreme hill and plains biome. I only recently found a swamp and a jungle or two. Yes, it's more realistic, but we already had the large biomes world option for a more larger regional feel. It's fine if deserts are kept more away from snow, but still, this could us being toned down a bit IMO. We got rid of oceans because people hated going for thousands of blocks, and then this is the same thing (oddly, I didn't mind the oceans though, though I did agree they were excessive). Otherwise, I like the new generation.
4. I don't seem to be finding larger oak trees in forests anymore. I'm guessing they have their own forest now (?) like birch trees, but I'm one of those who believe the trees are too small in Minecraft. I'm not suggesting the small trees be removed, but the large oak trees mixed in gave it the needed (IMO) variety. I could just be missing them, or they are less common in some forests?
Overall though, this seems to be a great update.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.