I was wondering about the possibility of texture packs causing lag/fps loss. I asked about it and it seemed that no one knew for sure whether texture packs MUST induce lag. I realize that adding extra features not found in vanilla (ex: Adding animations to things that aren't vanilla animated (glowstone), 32x textures) may cause lag. But what about simply tinting a textures? (ex: bluer diamond armour vs reg diamond armour)
Summary:
Changing the vanilla texture to another 16x texture likely will most likely not induce lag. As long as there are NO additional features.
Method:
I created a special superflat map using a preset. No structures, no bonus chest, day/night cycle off, peaceful, closed all non essential programs (so only had minecraft open), used a focal point (I did not move my character and kept them looking at the tiny x on the sign), turned off in-game music and sound.
I tested the map by leaving the game running for 3 minutes. During the last 10s, I recorded the minimum and maximum FPS.
I used a special texture pack (painterly pack). I removed all textures aside from the diamond texture.
The default texture testing map:
The textured testing map (Same map, diff texture):
Results and conservative conclusion:
The default texture pack had FPS that ranged from 95 - 96.
The texture pack had FPS that ranged from 95 - 96.
At least for diamond blocks on minecraft 1.6.2, retexturing them with a extremely basic 16x texture pack, is very unlikely to decrease FPS.
My computer specs + other info:
Minecraft 1.6.2, mac book air early 2014, 8gb ram, Intel HD Graphics 5000 1536 MB, Java Version 8 Update 25, os x maverick. Using optifine + forge. No additional mods.
Interpretation: on a different computer, perhaps there will be different results. I personally expect that the same general trend will apply.
Hm? I've never heard anyone claim that texture packs always cause lag.
Any 16x pack without additional features (CTM, animations, etc.) should perform identically to vanilla. In most cases it should take a lot of such features to make a noticeable difference.
I think yours is probably more accurate. I did my tests in the spawn of a MP server I found, with excessively powerful hardware, and also I never went through the texture packs to check for MCPatcher features.
That said, the packs I used can be taken as representative as the generic 16x, 32x etc pack people would use in practice, because I used the top downloads from Curse. While the fairest 16x pack should have the same performance as Default, by using a pack you're very likely to introduce extra features and animations which must be taken into account when tested from a practical standpoint. Also, using a pack can only keep your FPS the same or decrease it, most likely being the latter, so I'd recommend to anyone who asks to use Default.
My testing wasn't a response to yours However, it was an inspiration. I do agree that many 16x texture packs will cause an fps decrease, because they likely use additional features.
This is most useful for ppl who have very low fps, cause every frame makes a difference for them. (It's not terribly useful for me to know cause my frames are mostly fine)
Summary:
Changing the vanilla texture to another 16x texture likely will most likely not induce lag. As long as there are NO additional features.
Method:
I tested the map by leaving the game running for 3 minutes. During the last 10s, I recorded the minimum and maximum FPS.
I used a special texture pack (painterly pack). I removed all textures aside from the diamond texture.
The default texture testing map:
The textured testing map (Same map, diff texture):
Results and conservative conclusion:
The texture pack had FPS that ranged from 95 - 96.
At least for diamond blocks on minecraft 1.6.2, retexturing them with a extremely basic 16x texture pack, is very unlikely to decrease FPS.
My computer specs + other info:
Interpretation: on a different computer, perhaps there will be different results. I personally expect that the same general trend will apply.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAny 16x pack without additional features (CTM, animations, etc.) should perform identically to vanilla. In most cases it should take a lot of such features to make a noticeable difference.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI think yours is probably more accurate. I did my tests in the spawn of a MP server I found, with excessively powerful hardware, and also I never went through the texture packs to check for MCPatcher features.
That said, the packs I used can be taken as representative as the generic 16x, 32x etc pack people would use in practice, because I used the top downloads from Curse. While the fairest 16x pack should have the same performance as Default, by using a pack you're very likely to introduce extra features and animations which must be taken into account when tested from a practical standpoint. Also, using a pack can only keep your FPS the same or decrease it, most likely being the latter, so I'd recommend to anyone who asks to use Default.
I think more testing will be required
My testing wasn't a response to yours
This is most useful for ppl who have very low fps, cause every frame makes a difference for them. (It's not terribly useful for me to know cause my frames are mostly fine)