• 0

    posted a message on Adding enchantment books to enchanted items

    Enchantments like Fortune and Silk Touch are mutually exclusive; it is impossible to add both to the same item (you can with commands but there is no point, Silk Touch overrides Fortune unless the block doesn't work with it), otherwise, they have a maximum level, such as Efficiency V, Fortune III, Silk Touch (I), Mending (I), Unbreaking III, or, does it say "too expensive"? That means you worked on and/or repaired it too many times and to avoid this you need to put Mending on it (after making a new pickaxe); the anvil is very finicky about how you combine enchantments, with each "level up" adding one working to the item and once it reaches 6 it is too expensive for any further work of any kind (except renaming, and no, if you've heard it reduces the cost that hasn't worked since Java 1.8 and the equivalent of Bedrock, if ever outside of Legacy Console Edition, where I know it used to work).

    Also, instead of adding enchantments one by one combine them; if you combine Efficiency I books in pairs until you get Efficiency V you've only done 4 operations despite actually doing 15; you'd want to add such a book after one with a lower amount of workings (that is, a book with 3 workings added to an item results in an item with 4 workings, then add the 4 working book and it now has 5, which would be true no matter how many previous workings the item had, up to 4. See this thread, in particular, the last reply, for more details. No, I don't recommend combining level 1 books, this just shows that you can effectively perform dozens of anvil operations despite a seemingly low cap of 6 workings, ideally you start with max-level books from the enchantment table, trading, or loot, and an item which was already enchanted by one of these means).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.21 Pre-Release Canidate 4 Fire Protection and Blast Protection Enchant Nerfs
    Quote from Staricle»
    In terms of reducing damage, Feather Falling IV is more effective than Fire Protection IV,

    Per piece, but all enchantments are subject to the same cap; Protection IV has 4 EPF per piece, Fire/Blast/Projectile Protection have 8 EPF, and Feather Falling has 12 EPF, while the sum of all pieces is capped at 20, including e.g. 3 pieces with Protection and one with Fire/Blast/Projectile Protection, or two with Protection and one with Feather Falling (or just two pieces since it isn't mutually exclusive, which is where I think the biggest difference lies):

    When a player or mob wearing armor is subjected to damage, the EPFs of all applicable enchantments are added together, capped at 20, and then damage reduction is cappedEPF / 25, giving a maximum reduction of 20⁄25 (80%) at EPF 20.

    Because of the caps in the calculation, it is possible to achieve maximum protection against specific types of damage with just three pieces of armor. For example, two pieces of armor with Blast Protection IV (EPF 8 each) and a single piece with Protection IV (EPF 4) would give a total EPF of 20 versus explosions. Any additional EPF would be wasted against explosions (but might be useful against other types of damage, if applicable).


    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Thorns enchantment upgrade
    Quote from ActuallyS8N»

    If the piece chosen is full, you'd gain the xp like normal.

    This was changed in 1.16 so the game will only attempt to repair items that are damaged, significantly buffing it (people used to remove their armor in order to repair a single item but you no longer need to do that):

    1.16 20w06a Mending now repairs only items that are damaged instead of picking items at random.


    Also, Thorns does stack across multiple pieces but the total damage is capped at 4:
    Multiple worn armor items with the Thorns enchantment do stack. Each piece confers an independent chance to deal damage to the attacker as described above. The total amount of damage that can be dealt this way is capped at 4

    Items with Thorns III Probability of max. damage 4 Average damage dealt
    1 11.25% 1.125
    2 28.83% 1.997
    3 46.33% 2.637
    4 61.18% 3.09


    Also, I personally think the durability penalty is too high; 3 durability lost per reflected attack? No thanks (it used to be even worse, an automatic 1 additional durability for 2 or 4 lost). I changed it to only one in my mod, along with halving the enchantment cost (from 8 to 4 per level, this matters a lot more with the pre-1.8 anvil system since you must always pay this cost when doing anything to an item, including repairing it with the anvil, which can be done indefinitely but Thorns III adding 24 levels means that e.g. Protection IV, Thorns III, Unbreaking III costs at least 40 levels to work on (above the 39 level limit; dropping Unbreaking, which is something else that needs buffing, say, working on armor in the same way it does on tools (4x the uses still means a full set of armor loses 1 durability cross each piece), reduces the cost to 31 levels, plus up to 5 for the actual repair, and a prior work penalty of 2 (fixed if renamed) for a repair cost of 38 levels, just for two enchantments* With my changes the base cost with Unbreaking is 30 levels when including the cost of Mending (8 levels, which is twice that of 1.9, which seems odd for such a powerful enchantment; Infinity and Silk Touch also cost 8 levels. The cost without changing the cost of Thorns would be 42 levels, the same as vanilla when a penalty of 2 (from renaming) is added).

    *Of course, I think that (and implemented it this way) Mending should work like repairing used to, with the original anvil mechanics, balancing out extremely enchanted gear (impossible or difficult to repair, while less enchanted items are cheaper) and the need to collect resources (an extremely unpopular activity for a game called "mine"craft, not helped by Mojang's own ideas for a "cave update"; "Is iron ore more common in 1.0, than in modern versions?" Yes, and it isn't even close; I've mined over a thousand iron in a single sitting on multiple occasions, with my all-time record being 1,700 iron and 6,200 ore mined in less than 6 hours). Also, firework boosting was added in the same update, 16w50a, that made Mending and Infinity mutually exclusive... I wonder why (this silly restriction otherwise makes no sense, a simple fix would be to make arrows transfer momentum from the direction they hit from, so from in front in this case as you flew into it, knocking you back instead of forward. Sort of like how they removed the ability to put Silk Touch on shears just because of an exploit that was ironically fixed by making them lose durability when breaking any block. Also, I love one of the replies there, "People with Silk Touch shears left from 1.8 don't matter much since those shears will lose durability and break soon enough." Well, just put Mending on them, heh).

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Minecraft wolf not spawning naturally (Possible bug)
    Here's the problem. Water temples came in 1.8. Terrain generation pretty radically changed between 1.6 and 1.7. Meaning what was (deep) oceans in 1.7 and later was maybe not ocean at all in 1.6. So if you had a 1.6 or older world, these temples would plop themselves under deserts, forests, swamps, mountains, etc., etc. I had an entire world pre-generated (to avoid the 1.6 to 1.7 chunk walls) and went through a nightmare over this one particular thing. Granted, I was probably not a typical case there, but there's a lot of reasons like that why adding stuff to existing chunks shouldn't, and doesn't, happen often in a game like this.

    The value you refer to ("inhabited time") was added in 1.6 so this wouldn't normally be an issue, except around the edges of explored areas (e.g. an inhabited time map of one of my worlds, I'll note that much of it is still rather low, with green being around 1/4 the maximum for regional difficulty, but still way more than enough to inhibit ocean monuments, as 1/4 of the max is 12.5 hours), and areas explored before 1.6 (hence the large region of lower inhabited time near the center and to the north of it, variations elsewhere, especially to the east, represent changes to view distance and chunk loading). Either way, I still find it odd that Mojang even did this, and as far as I can see this remains the only such case (the generation of terrain below y=0 being considerably different since that is more like the generation of new chunks if they extended downwards).
    Bedrock works a bit differently here to my understanding.

    Bedrock is basically like Beta 1.7.3 and earlier; passive mobs despawn just like hostile mobs unless you interact with them and while the mob cap is still low (4 per 9x9 chunk area, which is another major difference from any version of Java Edition, which simply count all loaded entities and only scale the mob cap with the number of spawning chunks loaded across multiple players) you constantly have new mobs spawning. I'm guessing that the behavior seen in newer versions of Java is intended to make the player breed animals, while at the same time providing easy access to them in newly generated worlds (I never had issues finding the necessary animals within the biome I spawned in, or right next to it, and with the small biome sizes present in 1.6.4).

    There is at least one passive mob that breaks the rule; ocelots, which were added to the hostile mob spawn list for some reason, almost as if to ensure they spawn in existing chunks, yet they were added at the same time as jungles (I'll note this was also poorly thought out in another way; I've seen upwards of hundreds within even 8 chunk render distance in jungles where I explored everything underground, preventing hostile mobs from spawning, since they count towards the passive mob cap; my solution to this was to give them their own mob cap). An even stranger decision was to make untamed wolves despawn after at least 2 minutes (same as ocelots) in 1.6, after which I never saw one again until I reverted the change (as Mojang did in 1.10).
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on TheMasterCaver's World (version 5.10 / 10th anniversary update)

    I've already found another cave even larger than the last one, with a volume of about 150,000 blocks, and yet another, still unexplored, that is probably larger still, if not even more than just a simple large cave:

    440 19 776 (type: 2, length: 387, width: 37, volume: 150646)

    This is the same view as the previous but with the render distance increased and fog turned off (I actually only increased it by 1 chunk but fog obscures the last 20% or so of the render distance, so 8 chunks is more like 100 blocks):

    The abundance of granite in the walls is indicative of having reached the Cherry Grove I found while looking for a biome with rubies; this is the first time I actually explored within one, and they are one of several biomes which swap stone with a 1.8 stone variant (granite is the dominant block with deposits of granite replaced with stone):

    If that seem large, I came across this right to the south, under the Cherry Grove I found while looking for a biome with rubies, and it definitely looks a lot bigger than anything I've found so far; a cave with such a varied structure is likely one of the largest variants, or possibly part of something much larger, a "giant cave region", given the huge mushrooms scattered about, although they could just be the normal ones that occasionally generate underground:

    I also found a large ravine for only the second time, slightly larger than the first, with a volume of 35,000 blocks, with at least 4 other ravines intersecting it, including a triple intersection within the first cave (I actually thought there was another since one of the ravines loops around on itself and the middle was covered by the cave), and another ravine which appears to be similar in size to the largest of the first three, visible in the lower-right (I haven't fully explored it yet, a 5th ravine intersects it though):

    424 17 824 (type: 2, length: 176, width: 13, depth: 34, volume: 34598)

    Here is an underground rendering of the entire world; I've almost reached the Rocky Mountains where I collected rubies, at the end of a 4th ravine which intersects the three shown above (at the farthest right of the main explored area):

    Also, I encountered a couple "mega slimes" in the swamp, which have a size of 8 or twice that of a large slime, and have 64 health, deal 8 damage, jump much higher and further, and split into 2-4 large slimes; these are a biome-specific mob variant found in swamps (surface and underground) and giant cave regions (underground):

    Speaking of slimes, they split into magma cubes when they die in lava, so they are occasionally seen in caves (they also spawn in place of slimes in Volcanic Wastelands, including on the surface):

    Also, I've decided to make a secondary base to the south (around 0, 1024) before continuing to explore the area as I've nearly reached the southern boundary of the current map (z=1024); this may be a bit earlier than what I've usually done but the changes to map centering means there is no longer such a well-defined boundary around my main base (previously I explored the entire map centered around it / 0,0, which is up to +/- 512 but now there are 4 maps, going up to +/- 1024 centered on the same area).

    For the same reason +/- 1536 (previously the boundary of a 3x3 map area) is no longer such a hard limit (now +/- 2048 or 4x4 maps), which may thus lead me to explore further out than usual (I'll note that, as in my first world, oceans will likely become a limiting factor at some point; only the area within about 750-1000 blocks is guaranteed to be land, otherwise large continents generate as they do in vanilla, plus a mix of smaller landmasses which bring the percentage of ocean down from about 75% to 65% / land up from 25% to 35%).

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on Corrupted world

    It sound like for some reason whatever you used to move the files over split them into separate parts (did you use some backup utility or manually copy the files yourself? The latter is what I do, right-click and send to compressed/zipped folder, all at once, then unzip in the new location), perhaps because of a file size limit.

    You will need to merge the contents of the two files (I suspect the region folder in the first file, which has all the other necessary files needed by the world, is either empty or only has a few files and the rest are in the second file; "DIM1" stores files for the End so you want to be sure to include that as well if you have anything there); the lack of entities is because they are stored in the "entities" folder (for some reason Mojang split up the save files into literally dozens of individual files and folders, older versions simply stored everything in region files. This only seems to cause more issues than anything it might have solved, e.g. being able to delete entities without a 3rd party tool but making saves much more complex, IDK, just one of many things about Mojang that completely confuses me, ever since release 1.8).

    Here is a page describing what should be present in a fully intact world (some might not be present if you never created them):


    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Corrupted world

    Exactly which files did you copy over? The entire world folder (I've seen people who thought that the entire world was in level.dat, a few KB file which only stores some general information like the seed and your inventory, a full world will be at minimum megabytes in size). Also, you loaded it in the same or newer version, including any mods? Downgrading (either to an older version or removing mods) is the main cause of chunks being reset; are there any errors in the game output? You could also upload a copy of the original world here (not the one you already loaded on the new drive, which is too far gone since the game would have overwritten any previous chunk data) so somebody may be able to look at it (there should otherwise be no issue transferring saves to a new drive, just like how you can download a map from the Internet and play it).

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 1

    posted a message on Prefferd way of releasing mods that use MCP for older versions?

    Distributing a modded jar file is not allowed by the EULA:

    Any Mods you create for Minecraft: Java Edition from scratch belong to you (including pre-run Mods and in-memory Mods) and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money / try to make money from them and so long as you don’t distribute Modded Versions of the game. Remember that a Mod means something that is your original work and that does not contain a substantial part of our code or content. You only own what you created; you do not own our code or content.


    The key words here are "does not contain a substantial part of our code or content", which would apply to a whole working jar file (or "modded version") but not a relatively small patch that must be combined with an unmodified jar to get a working modded copy (such a method of modding would fall under "pre-run mods", mods which were already applied to Mojang's files, as opposed to "in-memory mods", which is how mods that use a mod loader work, applied to the game after it has been loaded in memory). Obviously, what "substantial" means is up to speculation but I've never seen any such mods, other than clearly illegal cracked clients, get taken down (e.g. a thread questioning the legality of Et Futurum, a mod for 1.7.10 which backports many features from newer versions by copying and altering the sources to make them work with 1.7.10; said mod continues to be regularly updated to this day (obviously, this by itself doesn't mean anything but I've never seen any issues raised by anybody who had their mod taken down or received a DMCA).

    MCP itself has its own terms on what you can do; the biggest one may be the one regarding releasing any source code, whether they just mean unmodified vanilla code or what you modified or only code that is 100% yours is unknown but I generally haven't made any of my sources public for this reason (I've seen plenty of other mods with source that is clearly copied from vanilla, if not the original class):
    You are allowed to:
    - Use MCP to decompile the Minecraft client and server jar files.
    - Use the decompiled source code to create mods for Minecraft.
    - Recompile modified versions of Minecraft.
    - Reobfuscate the classes of your mod for Minecraft.

    You are NOT allowed to:
    - Use MCP to do anything that violated Mojangs terms of use for Minecraft.
    - Release Minecraft versions or modifications that allow you to play without having bought Minecraft from Mojang.
    - Release modified or unmodified versions of MCP anywhere.
    - Use any of MCPs scripts, tools or data files without explicit written permission.
    - Make money with anything based on MCP (excluding Minecraft mods created by using MCP).
    - Use MCP to create clients that are used for griefing or exploiting server bugs.
    - Release the decompiled source code of Minecraft in any way.

    (I'll note that the part about "[Make money with] Minecraft mods created by using MCP" is wrong as the EULA, or at least the current one since this was written in 2013, clearly states that you can't make any money off of mods. Actually, the EULA from back then said the same thing as the current one).

    As far as distributing such mods, I distribute my own by distributing the files that MCP places in the "reobf" folder after running the "reobfuscate.bat" file, which contains all the modified and new class files (if it contains any unmodified files then you likely did something like change the type of a field or method; I've deleted upwards of 200 vanilla class files to avoid this, as well as possible errors due to referencing the wrong classes, and keep the number of files/recompilation time down). I also distribute a json file which has been modified to change the version "id" and remove the download URL for the client jar (otherwise the launcher will overwrite the modified jar with a clean copy). Installation is pretty much the same as in the old days; make a copy of the 1.6.4 folder in .minecraft\versions, rename it and the jar inside, replace 1.6.4.json with the one I provide, open the jar with an archive tool, add the files in the "mod" folder of the download and delete META-INF:

    Here is the download for my namesake mod, you can browse through it online without downloading anything:


    I'll note that I try to avoid directly modifying vanilla classes as much as possible, which is why there are so many files with the name of something from vanilla (e.g. instead of simply modifying "BlockAnvil" "BlockAnvilTMCW" extends the original class to add a 4th damage state and fix issues with collision boxes and use custom falling sand code, and add custom mechanics unique to the mod). Other classes may completely replace the original because I modified pretty much the whole class, even classes I didn't replace/override are usually extensively modified, e.g. the "World" class, which has 75% of its original lines modified in some way, others, like "RenderBlocks", were turned into a "wrapper" that redirects to my own code so I don't need to change every reference to it (to say that TMCW is a very invasive mod is putting it lightly, a lot of core code has been completely rewritten, along with many of my own methods added to support new functionality. This leads to the biggest issue with such mods and why they are looked down upon, mod compatibility (Optifine is infamous in the modding community for this reason), though in my case I don't care since I'm the main audience of my mods and don't use any other mods, though I have people pressure me to add features like Too Many Items, mipmapping and even shaders (and from where? I've seen others want to integrate Optifine into their MCP mod / custom client but its creator has a strict copyright about distributing it, same for TMI even if the developer hasn't been active in years).

    Posted in: Modification Development
  • 1

    posted a message on Weird 1-color-screen bug

    Unfortunately, I don't know of any standalone mods that specifically fix this issue, other than one I made myself (I'm actually the person, with the help of another, that actually found the fix), and that one is only for 1.6.4 and is a non-Forge mod, with potentially more incompatibility issues (I don't have the ability to make a Forge mod or the modding tools for 1.7.10). There was another mod, "ArcahicFix" which used to include the fix but they removed it because "CoreTweaks was better". You could still try an older version of ArcahicFix, 0.7.0, although they note that it caused issues with another mod (like CoreTweaks it makes many other changes across the board to fix various issues. It may be possible to configure them to disable problematic fixes but I don't have any experience with them; TileEntity (another poster here) knows more about these sort of issues):


    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.21 Pre-Release Canidate 4 Fire Protection and Blast Protection Enchant Nerfs
    Quote from chaptmc»

    Blast Protection on Bedrock Edition does have a cap of 80% reduction of explosive damage compared to Java's current 60% (and soon to basically be 15% per armor piece with Blast Protection IV),

    You are misunderstanding things - as far as I've been able to determine there was no change to the actual damage reduction, only the "bonus" side-effects of reduced knockback from explosions and reduced burn time. as mentioned several times before, the knockback reduction of Blast Protection was bugged and never worked at all (with legitimately obtainable armor) until 1.19.4, yet it was often recommended to have it precisely because of the increased damage reduction from explosions (creepers knocking you down to as little as half a heart with only Protection IV, then the fall damage from the knockback finishes you off; even if this was not reduced by Blast Protection, or even increased (though Feather Falling reaches the EPF cap with only 2x Protection IV) you'd take far less damage from the explosion itself).

    It'd also be really weird and outright bugged if they actually did cap the EPF to 15 (60%) when wearing Fire or Blast Protection - that would actually give less protection from fire and explosions than full Protection IV (16 EPF / 64%)! The only reason Protection even has a lower "cap" is simply because each piece only provides 4 EPF (Blast/Fire/Projectile Protection have 8 EPF, Feather Falling has 12; only these can reach the actual cap of 20).

    Also, Bedrock still use the old armor mechanics from before 1.9, when the maximum randomized protection capped out at 96% with no armor penetration:

    This feature is exclusive to Bedrock Edition.

    For example, a full suit of diamond armor reduces damage from attacks by 80%—if each piece of armor also had a Protection IV enchantment (EPF 5 each), the enchantments would further reduce damage by 40% to 80% each time, for a total damage reduction of 88% to 96% (i.e., 80%, plus 40%-80% of the remaining 20%).


    This also shows just how significant armor penetration even is - the minimum guaranteed protection of 88% in Bedrock is higher than the protection you get with even max protection netherite in Java 1.9+ against a point-blank creeper explosion on Hard (in this case 64 damage is reduced to 7.7 to 2.56 in Bedrock/before 1.9; on Java Edition 1.9+ 64 damage penetrates 12.8 armor points, leaving you with 7.2 (basically leather armor on Bedrock/before 1.9) or 28.8% damage reduction, of which enchantments reduce the 71.2% that gets through by 80% for a total damage reduction of 85.76% or 9.11 damage taken; this represents over 3.5 times less protection in modern Java Edition than the best case in Bedrock/older versions - not to be taken lightly at all, a charged creeper deals twice as much damage, yet you could still take barely half that of a normal creeper in modern JE!).

    Also, if you only took half a heart from even a charged creeper then something is wrong with armor on Bedrock, or you were on Easy (they do as much damage as a normal creeper on Normal) or "point blank" meant "walked up to me before stopping and exploding" (my definition is "make a 1x1 hole in the ground and jump in it with the creeper, standing as close to its center as possible"). Another weird quirk is that any non-air non-liquid block, even a block like tall grass or snow layers, negates virtually all explosion damage (I remember summoning a creeper with some crazy high explosion power in 1.7 and I took almost no damage despite exploding next to me and leaving a massive crater because it (or I) was in tall grass, with no armor at all).

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.21 Pre-Release Canidate 4 Fire Protection and Blast Protection Enchant Nerfs
    Quote from Staricle»

    A helmet enchanted with Blast Protection used to be a great idea as damage from creeper explosions will be greatly reduced, but since that reduction is essentially nerfed, Protection is definitely the way to go.

    As far as I can tell, Blast Protection still is very useful - again, the only way to reach the maximum of 80% damage reduction is to use a specialized form of Protection and there is a HUGE difference (nearly 2-fold) between the maximum of 64% from regular Protection and 80% from the others and all they nerfed was their side-effects of reduced burn time and knockback (I haven't seen anything to indicate that they now only reduce damage by up to 64% / 16 EPF instead of 80% / 20 EPF).

    For another example of how useful the specialized Protection enchantments are, a creeper deals up to 64 damage on Hard; this will penetrate diamond armor to the maximum of 80% of original armor points (64 / (2 + totalToughness / 4) = -16 armor points), so armor itself only reduces damage by 16%; full Protection IV increases this to about 70%, with 19.2 damage taken. With one piece changed to Blast Protection IV the damage reduction is increased to 83.2% and you take 10.75 damage, and you might take another point or two of damage from fall damage (as noted in a comment on this bug report they barely survived in full Protection IV but died from fall damage, remember that only until very recently (1.19.4) Blast Protection had no effect at all on knockback (while only reported since 1.16 this bug had been present since it was added*), yet many players still used it due to its direct protective effects.

    *Source code from 1.6.4; the bug is that they handle the reduction as an integer, rounded down; it can only ever reach 1 if the level of Blast Protection is 7 or more (par1 is the proximity to the explosion, as well as how much knockback is applied, and ranges from 0-1):

    public static double func_92092_a(Entity par0Entity, double par1)
        int var3 = EnchantmentHelper.getMaxEnchantmentLevel(Enchantment.blastProtection.effectId, par0Entity.getLastActiveItems());
        if (var3 > 0) par1 -= (double)MathHelper.floor_double(par1 * (double)((float)var3 * 0.15F));
        return par1;

    This shows the proper (and much simpler and easier to read) way to calculate it (I still only check the max level on any single piece but I could easily replace "getMaxEnchantmentLevel" with a method that returns the sum of all pieces and clamp it to 4, then e.g. 2x Blast Protection II would be the same as 1x Blast Protection IV; Mojang instead changed the factor from 0.15 to 0.0375):
    public double applyBlastProtectionModifier(double knockback)
        int level = CustomEnchantmentHelper.getMaxEnchantmentLevel(Enchantment.blastProtection, this.getLastActiveItems());
        return knockback - knockback * (double)level * 0.15D;

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.21 Pre-Release Canidate 4 Fire Protection and Blast Protection Enchant Nerfs

    Having one piece of Fire Protection IV (otherwise Protection IV) does still reduce fire damage by 80% instead of the maximum of 64% from four pieces of Protection, which is a major difference (you take 20% vs 36% of damage, a difference of 1.8-fold. Prior to 1.9 the difference was a lot less since reaching the max EPF for a specialized form of Protection only increased the minimum randomized protection from 40% to 52% (both up to 80%); that is to say, in 1.6.4 you are only guaranteed to survive a 44 block fall (52%) while since 1.9 you can consistently survive 103 blocks (80%), and 58 blocks in full Protection IV. Similar differences apply to fire damage, and just being on fire isn't really that bad when not only does the damage get reduced by even regular Protection but you can far out-regenerate it - try playing in 1.6.4 where you barely regenerate at all; one major takeaway I get from watching other play on my mod (which doesn't alter any of these mechanics) is just how much harder the old food regeneration system makes the game compared to modern versions, of course, I've never played newer versions so I'm used to it).

    Of course, potions of Fire Resistance make the existence of Fire Protection a moot point as they confer total immunity to fire (if anything were being nerfed it would be them yet they have only buffed them over the years, e.g. increasing visibility in lava) and I've never intentionally used any specialized form of Protection aside from Feather Falling, the only one which is compatible with Protection, even going so far as to reject the "junk" helmets (mob drops) I enchant for 1 level if they get something else (or were already enchanted).

    I even buffed them themself by making Protection IV reduce damage by a fixed 60% (which is a bit worse than the average of 40-80%, which is closer to 1.9's 64% since effective protection is nonlinear) and specialized enchantments reduce damage by 75% (close to the average of 52-80%, which is actually 52-100% before being capped, the major change being the much higher minimum), and reducing the per-level cost of Blast Protection from 4 to 2, or from 16 to 8 for level IV (this cost is added to the cost to perform any anvil operation, including repairs, so it has a major impact, precluding the ability to indefinitely repair more highly enchanted items), and fixed a bug with the knockback reduction (before Mojang fixed it in 1.19.4).

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on Weird 1-color-screen bug

    This is caused by a latent bug in these versions which was only recently revealed after a graphics driver update (Intel); in order to fix it you can install CoreTweaks:


    Alternatively, and a better solution if available, is to make sure the game is running on the high-performance NVIDIA GPU if you have one (AMD may also work but again recent drivers have their own issues with old versions; NVIDIA has also generally had the best performance on these versions):


    It is also possible to downgrade drivers but the last known working drivers for both Intel and AMD are now 2-3 years old and may cause issues with newer software (in particular, AMD's recent drivers significantly improved the performance of OpenGL applications, including modern versions of Minecraft).

    Posted in: Java Edition Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Sky Update Suggestion

    Simply making chunks taller won't have any significant impact on resource usage unless there are actual blocks in the extended area; since 1.2 chunks have been split into 16x16x16 sections or "sub chunks" (fun fact: while it doubled the height limit from 128 to 256 1.2 is the most lightweight version of the game because not only do chunks generally use less resources (the average height would be 5-6 sections instead of always 8, except in the Nether; most of the End would be 0, plus a bit of additional data for the entire chunk column in any case) but it was still using a true singleplayer model so the world is only loaded once, instead of twice, on an internal server and client (of course, versions before 1.3.1 did come with their own issues, namely, only using a single thread but 1.2 still had the lowest overall CPU and memory requirements, not that say, 1.6.4 really needs much, either, a few hundred MB for a max-height Superflat world at 16 chunks, and I played on modded worlds with up to 3 times the original ground depth and caves on a computer from the mid-2000s, Amplified wasn't an issue either*).

    *The impact of doubling the ground depth in vanilla 1.6.4 and Amplified in 1.7.2 on said computer (not really visible in memory usage since most of what you see isn't live memory, especially with the default garbage collector on older 32 bit versions of Java, which just let it pile up to 100% before performing a full GC); triple the depth didn't make much of a difference either (one reason for the lack of an impact on FPS is occlusion culling, which is removing almost twice as many hidden sections in the double height screenshot):


    "Double Height Terrain":

    Amplified (remember, this was a computer from the mid-2000s, already way obsolete by the standards of 2013, and 8 chunk render distance was still considered "normal" as the game even called it until they simply used the number of chunks in 1.7, and even modern versions still default to 12 chunks, approximately what the old "far" was. I actually had this set to 16 chunks but a bug in 1.7 limited it to loading 8 (this still has some impact since the game has to sort through 4 times the render sections, a shown by the "C:" value):

    This is a better "beefy" computer test since there is so much more to render, yet I never had issues with such biomes, except with Fancy leaves (again, memory usage is meaningless since it is just rising all the way to 100% before dropping to a more normal level, newer screenshots use a proper garbage collector which keeps it down):

    Also, more content doesn't have to mean more resource usage as this comparison between vanilla 1.6.1 and TMCW, which adds up to a thousand features (500+ blocks and items, 100+ biomes, dozens of mobs, enchantments, structures, etc, plus many changes to game mechanics and other changes and additions not so easily visible as "features") shows, the only reason modern versions use more is because of how they are coded, same for most mods (all that really impacts the game is the number of blocks / sections and entities loaded):
    Vanilla 1.6.1:

    TMCW at the same settings; a Plains biome will have less sections loaded (the "lc" value of 95 means that there are 6 sections loaded, both show the same value but the former is from the top of a village house while here you can see that I'm lower than a lot of the treetops):

    Also, this is a max-height (256 high) Superflat world at 16 chunks, which is still able to run within only 512 MB, hardly "beefy" when Amplified, probably even in 1.18+, averages much lower, and my current computer would have been something one could get back in 2013, if high-end by the standards of most players who seem to use decade+ old or the cheapest and lowest end systems available (I'll also note that this is not any ordinary world but has all normal features except for surface features, this includes normal passive mob spawning, with 383 loaded, and cave generation, hence the 71 hostile mobs present, features unique to TMCW):

    The biggest issue with adding anything in the sky is the effect on light propagation, i.e. shadows, where sky light is assumed to be emitted from the world height limit (actually, the lowest block that doesn't block light, but effectively the same thing) so anything substantial would have to be fully transparent to light.

    Adding actual constellations wouldn't be an issue for lower render distances, which currently has no effect whatsoever on the skybox (older versions would hide the sun/moon/etc on low render distances but this was more of an optimization than any technical issue, I only had to remove a single check to make them always visible), although this wouldn't work that well with the way the stars currently move, which in itself is good enough for navigation (i.e. they move towards the west and otherwise are fixed in place relative to the player, unlike how clouds are relative to the terrain).

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Pls Fix Trapdoor

    That's odd if it's shifting to ingots. It's better of course, but now it's not going to be consistent with iron.

    Iron uses ingots though, the only unusual thing is that its recipe is 2x2 instead of 2x3, presumably because they didn't want to change the recipe for iron bars (which could maybe instead be changed to nuggets and give 2 instead of 16; not only is this slightly cheaper, 3 vs 3.375 nuggets each, but you waste less from crafting up to 15 more than needed, which is one reason why things like stonecutters were added (which can also give one stair per block). If that is too cheap even just one per 6 nuggets would give you 13.5 per iron block):


    (the new Wiki still seems to be missing a lot of information, which is why I used the old one)

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