• 0

    posted a message on Is minecraft now unplayable, especially legacy?
    Quote from Jonosa»

    "pushed"? Memory still has a function, it isnt supposed to be used for nothing.


    We went over this though.

    You're approaching this from the angle of what you think it should or shouldn't use.

    I'm strictly dealing with the facts of what it is showing it needs.

    Nothing more to say. You can reject the reality and say it shouldn't need that, but it doesn't change things. Maybe it shouldn't, but it clearly does.

    Quote from Jonosa»

    And if it grows, but keeps a similar functionality, then it should reduce load on other hardware parts.


    Huh? Where do you get this idea?

    You can't reduce load on other parts of the PC because you increase use on another part. I mean, sometimes that is possible depending on the details but it's not the norm. You have a misunderstanding of hardware and how software interacts with it if that's your baseline expectation.

    Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying here.

    Quote from Jonosa»

    I still dont see how its so normal in your eyes that resources need to grow to do the same instruction.


    Because I'm not saying that, and I've been trying to get you to realize that distinction.

    I'm not, in any way, shape, or form addressing the conversation from the level of what something should or shouldn't need. That's neither here nor there.

    I'm addressing it from the angle of what it's showing it needs, based on your own description. You can refuse to accept the reality all you want, but you yourself are describing a scenario where a memory workload is pushing memory resources.

    I'm not sure what else you expect me to say there.

    Quote from Jonosa»

    8gb was overkill for my multitasking when i bought it, and i do the same interactions as then. And i never used anything else than windows 10 on it. Allocating 5gb was not an issue.


    Hardware doesn't remain equally capable forever. The fact that it was overkill for you once upon a time doesn't mean anything now. I want to repeat the obvious; you yourself are describing a scenario where you are lacking memory resources for the memory workload you are attempting to do. We can dance around that fact until the llamas come home but it's not going to change anything.

    16 GB was pretty overkill for me in 2011 when I got it too. That stopped being the case shy of a decade later. Stuff doesn't remain as capable as it once was forever. If you want to argue that angle, we should all go back to some kilobytes of RAM and limit ourselves to that then? After all, once upon a time, it was overkill too. You're asking the wider tech and software world to stop moving on because you "disapprove" of it.

    Having been on Windows 10 from the start doesn't mean you can ignore the trend that software needs go up. Windows 10 from whenever you started using it likely isn't the same as it is now. Web browsers aren't the same. Drivers aren't the same. It all adds up. And 8 GB just isn't a lot anymore. 5+ years ago, maybe.

    If you are allocating 5 GB to the JVM, that explains your problem. Windows itself will use a "not insignificant" chunk of 8 GB these days (about half, give or take). Minecraft, with 5 GB allocated, will actually use up to a lot more than 5 GB.

    *sigh*

    This is too apparent. You clearly need more memory for the workload you are attempting to run. Everything you describe indicates this. Alternatively, just... allocate 2 GB or less instead of 5 GB? Why are you allocating so much to an older version that likely doesn't need it anyway? This alone might go a long way to cutting back memory use.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft 1.19 Java

    Outside of certain video drivers causing issues with them, even much older versions still largely work fine (or even perfectly), so I don't think you have much to worry about with 1.19 losing its ability to be played well in the foreseeable future. It's still recent.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Adventures in Gaia (Hardcore)

    Beginning the next map, it's more open plains in the Southeast and some plateaus ahead.



    I continue me West to east to West sweeps that I've almost entirely done for this outing, and head along the Southern edge where it's still taiga in the Southwest.

    Looking ahead, there's definitely more of it to the North along the West of the map, but the underlying plateaus remain.



    I shift my travel rout and do a run North, and then back South. On my way back down, I look East towards the ridge shown in the first picture and this village was hiding around the corner of it.



    I head back East, following an "L" shape route for now, and run along the ridge shown in the first image. From the top, there's some interesting terrain, some of which is just barely visible if you look back at the first image.







    To the East, the ridge gradually descends, and we see here the cold region border again. It was running Northeast the last time it was spotted, but runs Northwest here, so it seems it was just curving out and then back in. That means the column of maps to the east should be mostly warmer climate and the cold region will be minimal.

    I continue my "L" shape and on the other side of that same ridge is even more cave openings.

    This outing has had a lot of this.



    I look North and there's some vast plains, with another ridge across it, and this one has an opening that can be seen from all the way over here.



    I'm noticing something only now! I noticed how exotic that looked from here, but (minor spoiler warning?) it ends up being disappointing when I get to it. I come across it from atop the ridge though. I'm noticing while posting this picture it extends all the way to ground and has a split in in the middle. So the reason it is disappointing is because I miss the bottom "half" when I go by it. Oh well.

    Back to the side we're on, there's still more caverns.



    I reach the corner (of my "L" shape) and head down the side of the ridge near the village, and notice this igloo I missed passing by before!



    I check, and it has a basement.



    The ladder down looks... unusually dark at the bottom? It's slightly concerning, but as I get near I figure out why.

    For whatever reason, it's flooded! Though, not entirely. Odd.



    I head North and it's back to the taiga forest, but the caves and craters remain an occurrence.



    At the very North, I look Northeast and... yes! I was waiting for these, finally!



    But knowing the cold region ends just belong it is slightly sad. I knew these were here (I did the maps to the North) but I didn't know they would end right after them.

    I head up the ridge on the other side of the plains and here's that "disappointing because I missed the other half right under my nose" cavern opening. Well, it was still interesting (and dangerous!) within.





    I'm standing on what is likely the "separator" and the other opening is just ahead of me in the second image above, but again, being partway up the ridge made it easy to miss.

    To the East, the cold border does yet another curve. There's another plains village in the distance on a map that's reserved for another day (probably the first one the way back down to the Southern region after being finished back in Rubyville).



    The remainder of the Northeast is the ice spikes spotted just a while ago.





    That concludes this outing, so I head North to Rubyville, which isn't terribly far from here.





    This is where I'll be for a while now.
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Rate my mob farm, house, and roller coaster!

    Needs a bigger picture to see the rest. You can use F2 to take a screenshot and then upload that to Imgur (or some other third part hosting site) and link it from there.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Is minecraft now unplayable, especially legacy?

    I mean precisely what I said, and none of this is meant to be disrespectful by the way, but it's seemingly as simple as I stated.

    Nothing you've shown is indicative that the game is unplayable because of its own sudden changes. Instead, everything you've described matches up with what happens when memory resources are being pushed.

    You mentioned the game was paging heavily. I'm not sure if this means your system was already at the point of all your RAM itself being used and the page file desperately being relied on to keep a session going, or if your commit charge simply went past your RAM capacity but you still had RAM available and you misunderstood that, as they are two separate things. Regardless, neither is an issue with the game, but you seemingly presumed the system was paging when it shouldn't be, and in response you disabled your page and it led to the very predictable result. That is, you attempted the same memory load with a lower commit limit, so now you started crashing once you hit it. Again, nothing to do with the game at all. Everything to do with "the commit limit is insufficient for the attempted memory load". 8 GB is not a of memory these days (I wouldn't allocate more than 2 GB or maybe 3 GB at all on an 8 GB system, and for older versions you probably only need half that at most). That's not to say 8 GB is insufficient for just the game (it's not, especially for older versions but even modern might be fine in moderation), but in 2024 and on modern Windows, with a disabled page file, I can easily believe the commit limit being hit with that amount.

    Been there, done that, and I learned from my mistake. While that's 1.10, it's also on 16 GB of memory and back when Windows didn't want as much for itself, and it still ran out. So yes, even on older versions, I can see the possibility of 8 GB under more memory hungry Windows versions proving close to too little sometimes.

    That's (likely) all that was ever going on here, and I tried to identify this earlier.

    The concept of software rot is another possibility that could explain "old versions getting worse", and that doesn't even need proven by you because there's already enough examples of it contributing to making older versions of the game less playable. But this one is usually showing up as newer video drivers not playing well with certain versions, and you're not describing that from what I see. Instead, you've entirely described what sounds like pushing the memory limits of your system.

    You can see in all of my videos above, by the way, the "in use" and "committed" values. They are the first and second values on the "memory" line respectively. In 1.20 versions these are both much higher simply because I'm allocating 8 GB to the game instead of 2 GB. But even between older versions you can see my overall memory use isn't terribly low to begin with. This game allocates a lot, especially if you give the JVM more memory, or play at higher render distances. It's not a problem that it does this. It's not the only thing that does this (basically everything does this). Don't misunderstand the commit charge going above RAM capacity as a problem with game "paging where it shouldn't" because it's not (an application can't choose to page or not page; it just sees memory space and instead Windows will manage what goes where based on various conditions).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Title Screen said my name

    This can happen! When it does, it always shows the name of the player you are, and not a random player's name, by the way. It uses code to pull your own name so you won't see anyone else's name, and no one else will see yours.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Adventures in Gaia (Hardcore)

    Time to head back out and pick up where we last were, and then from there, North to Rubyville. As a reminder, I won't be heading back here after this outing for the map. Instead, I'll be at Rubyville for the foreseeable future, and then will head back, do another area of four maps, and then there will be a map update. And then at that point, we'll almost be done with this Southern region. Sad!

    I don't use a map but I was just here, so let's see how well i guess (or fail at guessing) the spot to start.



    Not bad. I started a bit North, but moved South to the edge to start from there. And I found this circular cave room exposed to the surface here.

    As a warning, there's a lot of ocean and frozen ocean, so I'll be moving along fast, and basically showing what little notable things there are.

    I found a shipwreck somewhat early on.





    Then, an underwater temple elder guardian finds me! The debuff animation always frightens me simply because I never expect it.



    Not that it matters; I have ocean to do so I'll be doing my thing throughout it night it seems.

    The village off the shore at night was pretty and worth picturing, I thought.



    This creeper spawned on just about a single block of another shipwreck above water. I later check the shipwreck and it's not the half of the boat with the best treasure chest.



    Near the end of the map, I again come across the almost single chunk looking wild terrain. It's just almost exactly in the corner of the map so it makes for a good landmark.

    There's another shipwreck and, uh... there's always bears by them! Or horses. In my mind, these things were used by ancient civilizations transporting animals maybe!?

    These ones were guarding a diamond.





    Starting the next map with this as my marker.



    There's ocean ruins here, and this map is looking to be a lot of ocean too? At least for the Southern half?



    I decide to check this one, although I usually don't. It's rarer I find these anyway (compared to shipwrecks or something) since they're not often seen from above water.





    Well that wasn't worth the effort! At least none of the drowned had butt pokers. I wouldn't have even tried if that was the case.

    This is, uh... interesting place to wreck?



    I didn't check this one and I can't even remember why not. Especially because I can see here it's the back half (better half) of the boat. I don't think I was thinking of that at the time and didn't notice it.

    The North half of the map indeed shifts to land (yay!) and it also shifts to warmer climate here (more yay!?).



    But the warm climate is to the East and the border runs diagonally, so there's still cold region where I am. I find... *sigh* another shipwreck, this one turned sideways.





    To the North, the frozen ocean gives way to formal land finally. It's largely taiga and the terrain is a bit hilly, almost mountainous, with plateaus. I knew to expect that, at least along the Western bits.

    There's a cavern opening visible here (the purpose I took the picture) which I'll get a look at shortly when I go to pass by it again.



    Before that was this neat ravine. While ravines usually aren't my favorite, this one stood out because it also cuts into the side of a hill, and also has a larger cavern completely below it, with no floor!



    Just to the East is another surprising find. Area of caverns?





    This actually ended up being on another side of the plateau we saw a couple of images back, so it all likely leads to the save network of caves.

    Here's the other side, and lastly, the first one I spotted (coincidentally now the most underwhelming of the lot?).





    This concludes the second map (I said I'd move fast since 150% or so was ocean). The next update will be the next map and then the return to Rubyville for a while. I'll be caught up to where I am now then.
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Hello, I have a problem. I searched for the end portal and its structure. Haven't found both.

    What version are you playing in? And for clarity, while this is the Java forum, it is Java?


    There's (at least) three possible things that can cause this the ender pearl to seem like it's not leading to the stronghold.


    1. Version updates.


    2. The pear leads to, i think, the corner of a chunk, whereas the stairway (where the pearl leads) is typically offset a bit, like 3 or 4 blocks.


    3. In versions starting with 1.18, the underground was made deeper, and this additional layers were added below 0 as opposed to making sea level higher. This was done to keep sea level consistent for older worlds being updated. Sometimes the stronghold generates in these new underground layers below layer 0, but the ender pearl was seemingly never given a pass to its functionality in 1.18 and can't acknowledge that layers below 0 exist. This was honestly a huge oversight and it's a big shame it ever occured, and I'm not even sure if it's been addressed yet? If it's stopping around layer 0 (where stone turns to deep slate), presume the stronghold exists is below layer 0.


    Numbers 2 and 3 combined can make a stronghold hard to find. At least if you know the altitude, you can look around a few blocks in each direction and find it.


    Otherwise, I think the offset of where the pearl leads and where the stronghold is in relation to that might always be consistent? Like maybe it's always the same direction/number of blocks? If so, this can held speed up finding it if it happens to be below layer 0.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Is minecraft now unplayable, especially legacy?
    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    Still, that is just one data point from one user, lots of people have said the opposite...


    Yes, I'm just one data point. The most we can ever be is just one data point. I declared as much myself when showing my results. However, I do believe my results are roughly the expected results for the conditions.

    I didn't see you give any remarks about how my results seem wildly out of what would be expected either. You did the opposite and supported them by remarking that older versions were always that way in chunk loading/rendering performance. And I, probably along with most of us, already know that things were "always like this" since many of us have been playing since back then and can remember how things were (even if approximately and not exactly).

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    I certainly see no issues with slow chunk loading...


    You don't see any issues from it, perhaps because you play at a render distance of 8, and move slowly, much of the time underground? What you're asking of the game is a low bar to clear. It's no surprise if it's sufficient. It doesn't mean it isn't slower (much slower) despite that.

    Despite it being slower, you see results as satisfactory. I get the impression that because of that, you take complaints existing en masse today as meaning everything is just all around worse in every possible way.

    People complain. A lot. About everything. You have to learn how to differentiate things and not conflate them if you want to get anything meaningful out of those complaints. You can't just look at the landscape and see *performance complaints exist en masse* and then just use this collective existing to suggests whatever performance point you want to make. It doesn't work that way.

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    the Vsync bug aside, which is very easy to fix, and if you are bringing performance/bugfix mods into play that should be considered as well.


    I mostly did a vanilla to vanilla comparison, and I said as much. The OptiFine and Sodium results were just added to show what modern can achieve for those who weren't aware, and nothing more. You can ignore those two results entirely and it doesn't change the main thing I'm showing.

    And that particular issue isn't resolved only with performance enhancing modifications anyway so those don't need to be brought in (again, those were just a "this is what modern is capable of for those unaware"). It changes in vanilla between 1.7 and 1.8.

    How easy something is to fix is neither here nor there. The relevant bit is "how was it for the player base at large during those times". Fixing something well after the fact doesn't create a new timeline that retroactively fixes it for all the players back then.

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    Also, this entire thread was all about how some users have recently had drastic declines in performance and other issues on older versions, and even newer versions to a lesser extent, not just a comparison of performance between the two (in fact, they said older versions ran better for them until then):


    This entire thread was asking if older versions are unplayable, or otherwise getting worse (relative to the past). If something was becoming worse relative to the past, the concept of "software rot" would be the most likely explanation for it, and I answered saying as much.

    What else is there to say about that? The claim that older versions have gotten worse hasn't even been substantiated in this thread yet either. It's just been discussion and speculation, which is absolutely fine, but then please don't accuse me of going off track when I actually supplied data for something in a thread has been random discussion and speculation from the start.

    I already explained what is possibly going on in this case but the thread starter didn't want to hear it. They kept branding it as "that's something else" like it doesn't matter, despite the fact it might solely explain what is going on. Their own results even heavily imply it. They seemingly have a lack of memory resources to begin with, made it worse at one point, and then watched as things further trended in that direction overt time (because memory use tends to trend up over time). The entire claim is supported by "it didn't used to be this way" with no actual other information. Nothing. Well... there's an endless list of variables that can cause behavior or performance to change between point A and point B. You know more than I that old game versions don't change themselves, so the hardware and software environment around it is the only thing that can change it. Without seeing both the before and after results, and without knowing everything that changed between then and now, well... the only thing we can do is speculate. Otherwise, from where I sit, someone describing a scenario with symptoms of lack of memory and then it getting worse over time as memory needs trend up doesn't seem too far-fetched of an explanation to me.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Zeno's Improved Generation Journal

    I think it's more how major the change is and less how long you've been in it. In some ways, some 1.7 things feel "new". In other ways, pre-1.18 things feel "ancient". That's... strange.


    1.14 now feels old-ish, but 1.16 feels recent enough. Yet, if I stepped into a new world with an overworld from that version, my mind would probably categorize it as equally as old as, say, any version from the prior two terrain generation eras (meaning release to 1.16 itself). In other words, I'd (for a moment) feel like 1.16 belonged closer to, say, 1.0 instead of 1.18. Because 1.7 to 1.16 (1.17) had the same-ish terrain generation on the surface as 1.0 to 1.6, just with climate zones, so even though it's recent, 1.16 already feels so distant, because my mind puts anything with that terrain generation as equally as distant. That part, as you said, would result from me playing in 1.18+ so much.


    The release pacing being sporadic is certainly part of things too. Updates are, as a rule, further apart now (roughly once a year). There would sometimes be two or three updates a year long ago, but they would me much smaller updates, and sometimes collectively were still less of a change than one update is now. So updates tend to be more major in what they change now and I have to imagine that's relevant in making it feel this way.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on I have too many leftover resources, what do i do with them? (Cobblestone, Planks, and Logs)

    I will almost never discard wood, especially logs of any type. At worst, they are useful for sticks if it's a wood type I don't think I'll use much, and those are useful for torches, tools, fences, ladders, and many other things.


    Cobblestone, on the other hand, I'll eventually start discarding if I have too much of it and my storage reserves are pretty up there with whatever it can be used to make. I don't like building with it in its normal state (unless using a resource pack), but I do use it a lot in stone brick form, or other forms it can be made into (smooth stone, slabs, etc.). But eventually, yes, this one I do start discarding while mining late game.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Cut down on the caves?

    Don't apologize for having a difference preference!


    Though, yeah, if you're wanting a mod to have greater appeal, offering popular things helps and lacking support for them hurts.


    I get the impression your current mod is made more for yourself though, so it is what it is. I've always found it a bit disappointing that is isn't more... I guess accessible and up to modern standards is a good term? That isn't me saying you should do that (you should only make it what you want, and if that's more for yourself, that's fine). But you're a pretty classic figure in the community and talk about it a lot to this day, yet it remains more obscure and less accessible. Something that was, say, a Jar installer or a drop in Fabric mod (I know, impossible since it doesn't support 1.6) or something that was easier to set up with the modern launcher, skin, and game ecosystem, etc.; I'd be all over trying that.


    I know the launcher can be... iffy at times. I tried setting up Forge a while back specifically to try a 3D skin enhancement I once saw and... the launcher just "took" to it, even though it was showing up as in the directory. I checked like weeks or months later when setting up another version and by that time it finally had it registered, but I'd also lost interest to try what it was I originally wanted. Stuff like that just makes things harder with some of those older mods and amplify that by however many other things can slip up.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on For the purposes of archiving, which versions of the game on java would you get?

    Doesn't the launcher preventing you from playing without internet access now? That's what I've heard but I've never experienced it yet. The last time I was without internet access, it didn't disallow me from playing. The launcher took a bit longer to open and my skin didn't work, but the game launched and played fine. That was quite a while back though (but within the last year, maybe even half a year I think?) so maybe it's changed very recently.

    If it's for the purpose of playing without immediate access to download a version, just think of what versions you enjoy most and download those. There's no reason downloading a version others see importance in if you don't also enjoy it yourself.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Is minecraft now unplayable, especially legacy?

    Ohhhh-kay, those are some... suggestively shaped ravines, haha.

    That was a nice video though because it reminds me of the older times.

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    Every case of slow chunk "loading" in older versions and/or lower render distances is certainly not due to the actual generation of chunks but rendering them...


    I often use the term "chunk generating/rendering/loading" as a catch all for this reason. It doesn't really matter what particular part is slowing it down. The end result is slower regardless, and that's the relevant part.

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    Also, I consider a stable framerate to be more important than chunk rendering...


    Performance has multiple factors, not just one. It's a matter of preference how important a particular one is.

    So perhaps because it's not important to you, you seem to be willing to dismiss chunk loading speed as not a relevant metric of performance? If you play at a lower render distance and really only travel at slow pacing and largely underground, then yes, the slow performance of older versions here probably won't bother you. And that's fine if it doesn't matter to you. It's a different story when you play at larger render distances, or when you explore a lot, or when you use elytra, or... you get the idea. To some people, that factor matters, and sometimes greatly.

    Stable frame rates are also important, yes, but it's not an either-or situation. I'm not sure if you're suggesting modern versions can't ever achieve this because that's not true, especially if the measuring bar is such a low render distance. I've shown they can achieve things beyond what past versions would, so things only seem better overall (even if worse in some) in this regard.

    My videos show that this particular performance aspect can be done, and has since been done, many times faster, so how can you say it's anything but unnecessarily slower in those older versions? I don't like this narrative of only calling out modern versions as insufficient on everything and ignoring their improvements, while sweeping all of the issues of older versions (sometimes the same issues to a worse extent, and sometimes issues that later versions no longer have at all) under the rug.

    Please excuse me for "going off on a tangent" by trying to bring results and information to the thread instead of speculating until the llamas come home (though I do love the llamas).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Cut down on the caves?

    Hm, so it seems a few more than I knew of existed, but I'm still sort of surprised at how (relatively) uncommon this has been through the life of the game.


    Terrain generation, both above and under ground, seems to be something a lot of people have an opinion on, but yet won't go out of their way to create or use alternatives for. The mod scene will usually create something in response to the author's or player bases desires. Yet... where have they all been?


    I wonder if your mod would be more popular if it was more along the lines of "old caves in new words" only instead of a mod that makes other changes, and is tied to 1.6, and needs its own method to set up, and doesn't work with skins, and lacks modern quality of life options, and... you get the idea. There's probably interest for some of the changes you make (and that goes for myself!), but other parts probably hold people back. Like if you have forward-ported the old caves into 1.7 and beyond, and then kept doing that while a version was relevant and just continued, I wonder how popular that would have been (more interestingly, per version, but over its whole lifetime I imagine it'd have been popular)? I mean... 19,000 downloads for a version well, well after it was already out of favor seems like a lot to me!? Maybe I'm overestimating the potential, but... with those numbers, this late, there's no way that wouldn't have been a "hundreds of thousands for some versions" and "millions over the lifetime of all versions" popularity mod? Like it seems it would have very popular at any rate.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .