Alpha seafloor. It was capable of generating strange borders like this (I'm guessing it's a bug), but was for the most part aesthetically pleasing.
It's a beach! Yay! I love beaches! Unfortunately, back in Alpha, you had to tear them up to get sand, although if you harvest carefully it doesn't damage them to the point of looking bad.
An Alpha mountain. The generator would produce many square areas like this. That was one of its flaws.
The alpha generator could produce areas of varying tree density and height. This particular area is flat and barren.
A few more screenshots:
Here's the render of this world. Unlike the other renders I've posted, this one has not been resized at all.
Nice! The beach thing is really a bug.
NBXlite has fixbeaches flag to fix that, but the Alpha had that bug. What is interesting, it was "added" in some version. All Infdev versions I have don't have that glitch, while already having these beaches. Early Alphas don't have it too.
This bug existed until Beta 1.0. In Beta 1.0 Notch partially fixed it (It's not so noticeable anymore, but still noticeable), but broke deserts in a similar way instead. In Beta 1.4 he fixed deserts, but beaches were still glitched all the way until 1.8 where they were removed.
Edit: Maybe you should post the previous renders in this scale? Not as images, obviously, just as links.
What I think would be nicest is a combo of the three generations plus a little extra:
Alpha as the base
Beta for some of the extreme overhangs and awe-inspiring cliffs (alpha went high, but never THAT high)
Release for the realistic biome sizes
Extra to make oceans have more content, deserts more deserty, and biome transitions smoother.
What exactly do you mean by the 'base'? In other words, what is Beta missing over Alpha?
As for Release biome sizes being 'realistic', I disagree. Realistic biomes wouldn't be all approximately the same size and shape (as the current ones are.) Realistic sizes would also really be much larger (but less fun.) What we need is more random sizing of the present biomes, of course with a larger minimum size than Beta had. (Chunk-sized deserts are silly.)
What exactly do you mean by the 'base'? In other words, what is Beta missing over Alpha?
As for Release biome sizes being 'realistic', I disagree. Realistic biomes wouldn't be all approximately the same size and shape (as the current ones are.) Realistic sizes would also really be much larger (but less fun.) What we need is more random sizing of the present biomes, of course with a larger minimum size than Beta had. (Chunk-sized deserts are silly.)
Valid point. Instead of changing the minimum size, just move the bell curve over so they are often larger. I'd be fine if one out of every couple hundred deserts was a tiny one.
I may be wrong, but my experience with Beta is plenty of extreme overhangs, cliffs, etc. I like Beta for the mountain variety, but alpha for the total height variations wherever you are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Fermat »
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain.
[;/quote]
Valid point. Instead of changing the minimum size, just move the bell curve over so they are often larger. I'd be fine if one out of every couple hundred deserts was a tiny one.
Agree.
I may be wrong, but my experience with Beta is plenty of extreme overhangs, cliffs, etc.
True. In Beta mountains are as common as flat places, though the latter still exist.
I like Beta for the mountain variety, but alpha for the total height variations wherever you are.[/quo
In Alpha mountains are as varied as in Beta, though they are less common there, and in general terrain is more "peaceful". However, the grass color plays very large role here. If an Alpha world would use darker coloring, it would not be too different from Beta one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
True. In Beta mountains are as common as flat places, though the latter still exist.
In Alpha mountains are as varied as in Beta, though they are less common there, and in general terrain is more "peaceful". However, the grass color plays very large role here. If an Alpha world would use darker coloring, it would not be too different from Beta one.
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps because Alpha has even more variation, I think of it as having less because it has more plains... a little more interesting than Beta, which has some flat areas but not a ton of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Fermat »
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain.
[;/quote]
Certainly too many caves and ravines for my liking. You can't walk safely for a minute without almost falling to the center of the world. Too silly
I agree here. Also, there are so many that I can't mine normally without falling into the middle of a giant lava lake in a cave.
I also believe that there should be more hills and mountains and breathtaking stuff in ALL biomes (except plains and swamps, of course), not just extreme hills.
i want beta again i dont want better biomes i want beta world type i dont care for horses for carrot for iron golens for villagers for other things i want beta and alpha worlds again
i want beta again i dont want better biomes i want beta world type i dont care for horses for carrot for iron golens for villagers for other things i want beta and alpha worlds again
You're in the wrong topic. The OP explicitly said that he didn't want Beta generation all over again.
i want beta again i dont want better biomes i want beta world type i dont care for horses for carrot for iron golens for villagers for other things i want beta and alpha worlds again
You can downgrade if you want beta or alpha back (Or just use a mod).
The problem here isn't really that the terrain looks bad, there are some that actually looks good. The problem here is that it lacks variation.
The main reason for having Cubic Chunks is to reduce the lag we get from the current chunk system. If the chunk system were cubic instead of linear, it would mean your computer would only have to load what you can see. Right now with the current chunk system your computer loads everything you can see and everything below what you can see, (Everything underground.) It's really inefficient.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
-The Gods Of The Copybook Headings, by Rudyard Kipling.
They're almost always the same so there is no much point in living in them.
== Soon available as a mod! ==
Alpha seafloor. It was capable of generating strange borders like this (I'm guessing it's a bug), but was for the most part aesthetically pleasing.
It's a beach! Yay! I love beaches! Unfortunately, back in Alpha, you had to tear them up to get sand, although if you harvest carefully it doesn't damage them to the point of looking bad.
An Alpha mountain. The generator would produce many square areas like this. That was one of its flaws.
The alpha generator could produce areas of varying tree density and height. This particular area is flat and barren.
A few more screenshots:
Here's the render of this world. Unlike the other renders I've posted, this one has not been resized at all.
NBXlite has fixbeaches flag to fix that, but the Alpha had that bug. What is interesting, it was "added" in some version. All Infdev versions I have don't have that glitch, while already having these beaches. Early Alphas don't have it too.
This bug existed until Beta 1.0. In Beta 1.0 Notch partially fixed it (It's not so noticeable anymore, but still noticeable), but broke deserts in a similar way instead. In Beta 1.4 he fixed deserts, but beaches were still glitched all the way until 1.8 where they were removed.
Edit: Maybe you should post the previous renders in this scale? Not as images, obviously, just as links.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffAs for Release biome sizes being 'realistic', I disagree. Realistic biomes wouldn't be all approximately the same size and shape (as the current ones are.) Realistic sizes would also really be much larger (but less fun.) What we need is more random sizing of the present biomes, of course with a larger minimum size than Beta had. (Chunk-sized deserts are silly.)
Mostly moved on. May check back a few times a year.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffValid point. Instead of changing the minimum size, just move the bell curve over so they are often larger. I'd be fine if one out of every couple hundred deserts was a tiny one.
I may be wrong, but my experience with Beta is plenty of extreme overhangs, cliffs, etc. I like Beta for the mountain variety, but alpha for the total height variations wherever you are.
True. In Beta mountains are as common as flat places, though the latter still exist.
In Alpha mountains are as varied as in Beta, though they are less common there, and in general terrain is more "peaceful". However, the grass color plays very large role here. If an Alpha world would use darker coloring, it would not be too different from Beta one.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThanks for the clarification. Perhaps because Alpha has even more variation, I think of it as having less because it has more plains... a little more interesting than Beta, which has some flat areas but not a ton of them.
This is a big problem.
New(don't pay attention to the house): http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX39xNYgmXQ_BP6DMl2zcukFweG2qntkKTyFmlGE85Pw__8RUg
Beta: http://media-mcw.cursecdn.com/e/e2/Sand_beach_2.png
(Can't post as an image for some reason)
== Soon available as a mod! ==
I agree here. Also, there are so many that I can't mine normally without falling into the middle of a giant lava lake in a cave.
I also believe that there should be more hills and mountains and breathtaking stuff in ALL biomes (except plains and swamps, of course), not just extreme hills.
You're in the wrong topic. The OP explicitly said that he didn't want Beta generation all over again.
I did that at the beggining, but it said: ''You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community.''
You can downgrade if you want beta or alpha back (Or just use a mod).
== Soon available as a mod! ==
That still wouldn't bother me though
Hey everyone, I'm back!
The main reason for having Cubic Chunks is to reduce the lag we get from the current chunk system. If the chunk system were cubic instead of linear, it would mean your computer would only have to load what you can see. Right now with the current chunk system your computer loads everything you can see and everything below what you can see, (Everything underground.) It's really inefficient.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
-The Gods Of The Copybook Headings, by Rudyard Kipling.