Minecraft Forums

I like the April Fools updates if we're talking vanilla. They do have server jars, by the way.

I know, don't get me started. I agree about Classic. I've started limiting my Java worlds manually to 864 by 864 just because I miss it.

Exactly. Balance. People don't want to put the work in. And there are no Creative videos anymore, so newer people might just only know Survival (Bedrock has no Hardcore) and Spectator. (I don't know.)

Everyone really loves Mending, don't they? I just want three (I'm fine with just the fishing rod though), and even then it's just because I'm planning on moving my Xbox 360 world to Bedrock / Java and I feel peer pressured.

Hi, I'm starting a Survival server on an April Fools snapshot.

Anyone can join, however, I need to turn it on manually first. It's off right now.

It's on 20w14infinite. I may switch the version at a later season, or make it a limited size world. If I do, I shall put an update here.

Server address: coldoutsideno.aternos.me:45797

If you'd like to join and for it to be on, please notify me.

I don't know about you, but I'm just not very excited about the trial chambers, even with the snapshot. Maybe I'm finally getting that 1.10 feeling everyone else got. I loved the Frostburn update.

I think I'm going to stick to 1.7 and 1.6 for now, and only the occasional 1.12 or 1.16 for if any of my favourite mods ever return from hibernation.

Also, that new bat looks weird and not like a bat, in my professional opinion as a vampire.

Quote from TheMasterCaver»

(this actually makes me the odd one out as I only play on a "real" computer, an increasing rarity, though the predicted "death of the desktop" is still a long way away)

It's not that PC gaming is becoming a rarity; to the contrary, Steam's numbers keep growing and they just hit 40 million concurrent users very recently. That doesn't include people playing many MMOs, League of Legends, Minecraft, Roblox, or the many other notably large games. Some of those games may lean a bit casual, but they're still PC games and not mobile ones. There's a lot of PC gamers out there.

Instead of PC gaming becoming a rarity, it's just that a newer part of the same market eventually emerged (mobile gaming) and is now larger than it.

Quote from 0864579»

Children and teenagers already make up half of China's population? It seems that the problem of aging, which has been a concern for a long time, has been overcome (laughter).

You'd be surprised at how many adults play the game, myself included, and many that are even twice as old or more (even some 80+, and not just because "my (grand)kids play it"):

https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/165021-am-i-the-oldest-minecraft-player

https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/2125268-what-do-you-think-about-old-people-playing

Mojang has claimed that the average player is 24 years old, which is younger than the average "gamer" in the U.S., which is claimed to be 35, with over half the population playing mobile games (this actually makes me the odd one out as I only play on a "real" computer, an increasing rarity, though the predicted "death of the desktop" is still a long way away):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_in_the_United_States#Demographics

That said, younger people are more likely to be posting on forums, as well as disliking how the game has changed, in part because they are changing a lot at their age, so such posts are going to be disproportionately from younger people.

Quote from 0864579»

Ten years ago, no one thought 《Minecraft》 was in danger.

Ten years ago everybody thought that Microsoft was going to kill the game:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/2h8gyc/why_does_everybody_think_microsoft_will_ruin/

This has also been going on for ages and ages; even today there are entire communities who think Beta 1.8 (2011) ruined the game, or the addition of features like Creative mode (long before ones like 1.9 combat):

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenAgeMinecraft/ (technically up to 1.2.5 but only after great reluctance, the majority will tell you it should be Beta 1.7.3)

Some go even further, Beta 1.3 ruined the game by adding beds since you can simply sleep to skip the night to avoid mobs (do they seriously enjoy having to wait 10 minutes every 10 minutes for the day to come?! "but you can just mine, etc" There is only so much you need to do, then it just becomes killing time. Conversely, 1.13 took the opposite approach, bad things happen if you don't sleep, annoying many players).

What's the point of putting in the effort to collect resources in Survival when Creative mode exists (or in my opinion, massive overpowered resource farms)?

https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/2244513-how-creative-and-cheats-ruined-the-game

Of course, all this posted by somebody who has never updated past 1.6.4 because of changes they don't like, and the ability to mod the game to be exactly as they want.

Either way, the game has grown perfectly fine, only a tiny minority of players object enough to quit playing, or actively complain about updates (you don't see me posting everywhere about how 1.7 and later updates ruined the game, as far as I'm concerned they are a different game so why even be concerned about changes? I do point them out but as part of discussions about them). There's even a widespread myth that the game "died" after 1.9 (early 2016) and was "revived" in 2019-20 but the data for monthly active players (sales, etc) shows no such thing:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/680139/minecraft-active-players-worldwide/


https://www.demandsage.com/minecraft-statistics/ (the data here is slightly different but both show the same general trend)

I managed to find the original BetterFurnaces Mod for 1.6.4 after many weeks of scouring old internet archives and looking through many old posts online and eventually i found a person who had made a blog post about that mod, and therefore the mod folder was preserved.



anyways heres the link to the ZIP: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4yyqhrvbvtsqr8ddx3azn/1.6.4-BetterFurnacesV4.0.1-tw.zip?rlkey=2jan7s41g7nmck6o04s5d2ypm&st=sueer50a&dl=1

all you need to do is click download in the top right of the dropbox page and then put it into the mods folder and boom it loads, also to somehow prove this mod works i am going to post a screenshot of the mod in my custom modpack working fine.

Quote from ActuallyS8N»

When it just becomes a cycle of "You say something, someone else disagrees, explains it in a way that makes sense, They say something, you disagree you explain it in a way that makes sense as well" it does in fact become pointless after things have been established beyond that.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude of me because I've tried to remain neutral, but "I've disagreed with you, and you've disagreed with me, and neither have changed their mind" does not equal "we're both equally correct". Now if you find it pointless to continue, fair. I can agree with that myself.

Quote from ActuallyS8N»

The Image was manipulated. Pointing out every oddity within it, is in fact pointless since it was explained already.

It was explained already specifically because those very things were pointed out, so that seems like a bit of an odd thing to say to me.

If you mean there's no point repeating it endlessly, yes, I do agree with that as stated above (though there's a bit of a distinction between endlessly repeating the same exact thing in circles, and delving further into it with more examples/details/whatnot though).

There's nothing unnecessary about questioning the issues with this image. Even if you want to solely attempt to answer the supposed main question of the thread, these are relevant things to ask since that image is pretty much the only thing given.

Look, the official versions are well known. So this supposed lost version? It does not exist as an official version. This shouldn't even be up for question. This means one of two things. Either it's a mod, or it's fake. The only thing provided for it is what appears to be a vanilla Minecraft image, but one with serious legitimacy issues. That's pretty suggestive. We see this all the time with all the "Herobrine" and other supernatural stories floating around that the people swear are real and is actually happening, but those of who know better don't get fooled by it.

Otherwise, yes, there's nothing more to say here unless more new information is provided. That's why I entertained the notion of asking them if they followed up on that advertisement as they said they would. Unsurprisingly to me, they didn't answer that question even though they posted after I asked it. That should seem odd to you for someone who is claiming to be seeking information on something.

Quote from Princess_Garnet»

Yeah, that's fair. It's the same with me. I'm just discussing for discussion sake and making an observation; that's all.

*shrugs*

The shrug here? This. This is an entire mood to be honest. I just don't know. It's like we're trying to over explain an explanation that needs no explanation. More work than is actually needed hehe.

Quote from Princess_Garnet»

I didn't zoom anything in though. I didn't even enlarge anything. That's literally presenting the quality of the original image in its original size.

What I did was crop (trim) parts of the image out. That's it. I did that because these forums will reduce the image size if it is larger than a certain size (it does this to fit them within the fixed post table width), so by cropping parts of the out, it makes it small enough so it prevents it from being scaled down.

So when i look at your cropped image and compare it to the original, yours seems to be bigger, and zoomed in. Whether you yourself did it intentionally or not, that's just how it looks. And I wasn't saying that as a bad thing. It actually did help to make what you were saying more noticeable to me. It does seem more pixelated but I'll chalk it up to render distance thing and poor quality when saved.

Now it seems someone is agreeing with what I said about it, but you and me are disagreeing on things. That's completely fine. We can't say one way or another who's right or wrong here, but something is off with the image, and further imagery and information from the OP would maybe be helpful.

Quote from Princess_Garnet»

That's not render distance related at all. Render distance just impacts where fog starts and where chunks begin to stop rendering. It doesn't drop quality of what you can see.

It does look like it is being obscured by fog to me; the trees next to it also show a degree of fogging, as would be expected if it were fog; the most blurred one appears to be further away, compounded by the overall blurriness from what looks like low quality JPEG compression (but why it it saved as a PNG?)

Admittedly, My eyesight isn't the best. However I did mention I don't care enough about this whole instance, and only thought it worth talking about. I've also mentioned I'm not looking into things all that much, again, because of how less interested in things I am.

My viewpoints and thought process on the images are clearly different than yours. The issues you're pointing out, seem to be explained by other self-experienced issues. The blurry spot you zoomed in on, to me, looked like a render issue as opposed to image manipulation. It looked faded, rather than blurry, almost as if the render distance was the issue.

Benefit of the doubt all around. I don't think OP intentionally did anything malicious, but the more clear-cut evidence that can be provided the better. Please keep providing it. It will help clarify everything in the end, and hopefully draw attention from the right people to further clarify any issues.

So it was a model change that explains the pickaxe after all.

There's still a number of other oddities. The two spots of clouds look geometrically wrong in orientation relative to one another. There's a questionable mismatch in quality (why is the entire landscape so blurry with a "paint duabs AI generative" look, while the HUD is this strange and inconsistent mix of "sharp and cleaner edges but blurry elements". The text is oddly clear for how bad the rest of the image looks. Same goes the "RPE" watermark .

I just ran my example photo through a "paint daubs" filter to give an example of what I mean by AI having a "paint daubs look" for those who don't know. Low effort AI commonly generates a look similar to this way because it's not as clean, clear, or precise on lines and consistency. The second one is the same thing but also saved as a JPG at 10% quality (very low).

Notice how the loss is quality isn't discriminating, meaning the blurriness is equally applying to the scene and HUD.

And even a JPG at 10% is somehow cleaner (besides the HUD) than your image.

Moving a file between drives won't change its quality. Manually saving it to a lower quality to save file size will... but I find that questionable when the savings are going to be slim and the image quality there is borderline unusable. Someone trying to squeeze every bit of space out of a single image isn't going to butcher quality that bad and then turn around and save it as a PNG. It all sounds unreasonably unlikely.

At the end of the day, you need to ask your brother, the supposed source of this, for any potential answers, because the image provided is no good. It's too poor of quality, and in my mind, fake.

You said you were going to follow up on the suggestion the first reply gave. Did you do that? If so, what did you find out?