The again, mods can fix that issue and even more; what sort of performance do you get on Bedrock? I've never played it so I have no idea how it would compared to my own modded versions but there is certainly no need for better performance even though my computer is far from high-end (in fact, my CPU was released in 2012, if a higher-end model, but still far below any modern CPU, particularly multithreaded performance, which TMCW wouldn't be able to take advantage of due to minimal multithreading, none at all for rendering):
I'd expect at least double the performance on a current high-end system, which would translate to around 400 FPS at 32 chunks and 160 FPS at 64 chunks if the difference between 8 and 16 continued (16 gets around 400 FPS or a 60% reduction) and there were no other bottlenecks (e.g. memory bandwidth; DDR4-3200 has twice the bandwidth of DDR3-1600 so this should be able to keep up; larger CPU caches also help).
Likewise, somebody made a mod that gives superior performance to Bedrock:
Another mod, Sodium, claims to achieve up to a 10x improvement in performance (the screenshot they show goes from 35 FPS in vanilla to 478 FPS with Sodium at 31 chunk render distance on pretty old hardware):
My computer is rather old and while my CPU used to be considered a high end desktop model, it isn't any longer and hasn't been for a long time. The reason I built this computer is to last a few generations for the games I play most so I wouldn't have to upgrade it in at least a decade, and I've had the hardware for nearly 6 years.
I'm using a desktop with an Intel core i7 4790k, 16gb of DDR3 and an Nvidia GTX 1660 as my main, and at 1440p resolution 16.9 aspect, I'm able to get a consistent 120+fps with 32 chunks render distance last time I tested it in a single player creative world while flying around to test chunk updates.
Unfortunately I cannot get this during survival play because I play on a realm on this particular world, and MC realms limits it to 10 chunks from what I read online, which I find to be ludicrous considering we're paying a subscription fee. I'd understand a hard limit of about 16, there's other people using the service too not just me, but 10 is absurd imo. That is why in the end I'm going to do a custom server again.
Yes, and TMC will back you up on this any day of the week since he singlehandedly fixed all the game's efficiency problems and glitches.
Java is still with much more PC-intuitive controls and motion, Bedrock makes me feel like I'm playing on an emulator for a console or touch device.
More power to him, I have no problem with TMC's preference to Java and I find it is quite impressive that he managed to mod it to get such good performance out of it and remove some of the known bugs, it does showcase his own mastery of programming if he made his own mods to do all this in combination with Optifine, somebody else's mod.
But I am not a programmer and I don't have the skills to do this so I'm stuck with bedrock edition to keep the game playable with reasonable render distances. It isn't just about eye-candy, either, I like to be able to see what biomes are ahead of me and so do players on my realm.
Imagine building a pirate ship in a body of water of what looked like an ocean, but it then turns out to be a lake surrounded by land mass a bit further on in your travels, you'd be gutted to find out you've just wasted your time building a ship intended to look like it is for sea travel when there isn't an ocean for thousands of blocks.
It may seem trivial but for an artistic builder who cares about their work, it does matter a great deal (obviously not as much as human life of course).
Having generous render distances of 512 blocks from the center can reduce this problem significantly.
As I said I am not a programmer, so I have no experience with game development. But it does baffle me how such a simple looking game can struggle to run on modern PC's, doesn't it use 16-bit textures by default? it would seem a game like this just shouldn't be having lag spikes at all on PC's that meet the requirements.
Yes, and TMC will back you up on this any day of the week since he singlehandedly fixed all the game's efficiency problems and glitches.
Java is still with much more PC-intuitive controls and motion, Bedrock makes me feel like I'm playing on an emulator for a console or touch device.
I wouldn't go so far to say that I fixed all the issues; for one, TMCW still uses no higher than OpenGL 1.5, released 18 years ago (only if you enable "Advanced OpenGL", Mojang's fancy name for occlusion queries), and the rendering functions it uses have been deprecated for years, with no support for more advanced rendering techniques, while since 1.8 the game uses VBOs, which have the potential to be faster and less dependent on differences between GPU brands and drivers (e.g. on NVIDIA display lists (used by older versions) can be faster), and even that doesn't come close to more modern rendering techniques, as used by Sodium - a 90% reduction in CPU usage is a huge improvement, especially since the CPU is typically the bottleneck:
A modern OpenGL rendering pipeline for chunk rendering that takes advantage of multi-draw techniques, allowing for a significant reduction in CPU overhead (~90%) when rendering the world. This can make a huge difference to frame rates for most computers that are not bottle-necked by the GPU or other components. Even if your GPU can't keep up, you'll experience much more stable frame times thanks to the CPU being able to work on other rendering tasks while it waits.
You can find more comparisons for various hardware configurations, such as...
Intel i5-7200U @ 2.5GHz / Intel HD 620 (37->69fps)
Intel i7-3770 @ 4.0GHz / GTX 970 (user-submitted) (27->152fps)
Intel i3-6100 / GTX 750 Ti (user-submitted) (10->102fps)
Intel i7-8700K @ 5.0GHz / RTX 2080 Ti (user-submitted) (87->368fps)
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 / RX 580 (user-submitted) (133->586fps)
Also, 1.8 uses its own occlusion culling method which is independent of the GPU/driver type; the "Advanced OpenGL" option in older versions often actually degrades performance on non-NVIDIA hardware (this Reddit post says that it reduces FPS by 2/3 on AMD; by contrast, my old computer got double the FPS when it was enabled and I currently see little difference, both on NVIDIA GPUs. The graphical issues mentioned were largely due to bugs in the game itself, which causes chunks to be erroneously hidden; of course, Mojang's implementation suffers from similar issues). Of course, there is also the support for multithreading in newer versions, ranging from rendering, mob AI, lighting, world generation, and more, so they have the potential to be much faster and more stable (I wouldn't expect MC-123584 to still be an issue if chunk rebuilds are multithreaded, which should also allow for consistent chunk update performance regardless of render distance or frame rate).
More power to him, I have no problem with TMC's preference to Java and I find it is quite impressive that he managed to mod it to get such good performance out of it and remove some of the known bugs, it does showcase his own mastery of programming if he made his own mods to do all this in combination with Optifine, somebody else's mod.
I don't even use Optifine anymore (I did previously modify it to implement fixes but you can't distribute a modified version of a mod unless the mod creator allows it) and while some of the features are similar they were not copied from Optifine, at least not directly (for example, "better grass", "better snow", and a zoom feature, along with render distance in chunks instead of "tiny"/"short"/"normal"/"far" and more settings for individual options. Many of these have also been added to later vanilla versions; 1.17 is even adding the ability to zoom, if with the use of an in-game item but still the same concept). Also, many of my fixes were actually taken from bug reports on Mojang's bug tracker and elsewhere; for example, this bug report shows how to fix one type of smooth lighting bug, while I fixed another smooth lighting bug with the help of this article (about 1/3 of the way down under "Details regarding meshing").
I did come up with some myself though, such as fixing the smooth lighting code to treat water as transparent (for some reason the material "water" is not set to be transparent, which is what causes the artifacts seen underwater), as well as only ignore opaque blocks, not blocks with a light level of 0 (the effect of this can be seen at the edges of lit areas, which have a sharp edge in vanilla, as it doesn't apply smoothing between light level 0 and higher levels). I also added smooth lighting to water itself, a feature that is currently exclusive to Bedrock, by looking at how it worked for other blocks.
As I said I am not a programmer, so I have no experience with game development. But it does baffle me how such a simple looking game can struggle to run on modern PC's, doesn't it use 16-bit textures by default? it would seem a game like this just shouldn't be having lag spikes at all on PC's that meet the requirements.
Just because the textures are only 16x16 (which is not 16 bit, they are full 32 bit RGB+alpha) doesn't mean anything when millions are being rendered at any one time in a fully dynamic world, as opposed to how many games are made, where you only have a thin surface rendered over a mostly or entirely static scene using pre-built models with no real depth to it (even a mountain is just a surface with no volume to it; while it is true that a mountain in Minecraft may effectively be hollow if there is nothing being rendered below the surface since blocks do not render faces adjacent to another full-cube block the game still needs to keep track of every single block, and rendering all the individual block faces is much more resource-intensive than rendering a few large planes (depending on how smooth you want the mountain to be; at the least, you can halve the rendered geometry by replacing each "|_" by a "\". There is also a penalty incurred by the need to check every block face for visibility).
As an illustration of how much geometry can impact rendering time, it takes about 24 times longer to render a chunk section filled with leaves on Fancy than the average terrain, which is mostly solid ground with around 256 faces rendered per section on average, with nearly all the difference occurring within OpenGL itself, which took up to 100 times longer (Java-side code took less than 3 times longer since most of the time is normally spent on checking for face visibility; the times shown are for a chunk update, not actually rendering it on the screen, which is impacted to a much lesser extent):
This is also by itself enough to drop frame rate down to 40 with just one chunk update per frame; fortunately, this situation won't happen under normal circumstances, though biomes with giant trees like Mega Forest can still cause issues on Fancy; to help with this I added a "fast" Fancy setting which culls the faces of leaf blocks more than 1 block from the outside of a cluster. Other mods that add giant trees have to cope with similar issues, especially in newer versions:
There are many technical hurdles in efficiently implementing such massive trees, especially due to differences between 1.7.10 and 1.12.2 in rendering. Even back in 1.7, EBXL conifer forests were borderline unplayable without fast graphics. By default, for rendering Conifer leaves Redwoods utilizes an optimization originally found in OptiLeaves to provide a halfway point between Fast Graphics and Fancy Graphics. The optimization is to cull inner faces of leaf blocks, like in Fast Graphics, but use the transparent leaf texture, like in Fancy Graphics.
This is also the basis for the idea in the following suggestion, which is to render chunks far away at a lower level of detail by merging blocks into larger cubes to reduce the number of faces being drawn (blocks like leaves could also be rendered as opaque; this screenshot was taken on Fanny but it is hard to tell from a distance):
Bedrock may even do something similar given the comment from FastCraft2 that it doesn't render everything at full detail at large distances (which isn't bad if it isn't that noticeable).
As I said I am not a programmer, so I have no experience with game development. But it does baffle me how such a simple looking game can struggle to run on modern PC's, doesn't it use 16-bit textures by default? it would seem a game like this just shouldn't be having lag spikes at all on PC's that meet the requirements.
It's not just graphics, it's also the sheer number of objects, object interactions, etc as TMC has explained in much more elaboration.
There's more to a game than the 'surface of things', much like your pirate ship in a lake vs a bay analogy.
It's not just graphics, it's also the sheer number of objects, object interactions, etc as TMC has explained in much more elaboration.
There's more to a game than the 'surface of things', much like your pirate ship in a lake vs a bay analogy.
Makes sense, DigitalFoundry did mention that Minecraft is deceptive in its appearance. But there is a lot more going on in the background and each block has to be prepared for placement, removal and animation when a player or mob interacts with them.
Here is another point towards Bedrock. Grindiness in Java. In Bedrock rarity of monster rare drops is nerfed i.e. mobs have and drop rare things more often, especially on hard mode. Today I for the first time ever in playing the game have got enough nautilus shells to make a conduit and enough damaged tridents to make a fully repaired one. In Java, this would take weeks if not months of drowned killing manually and even a fully auto farm would not work for the tridents since rare drops are nerfed by it.
Makes sense, DigitalFoundry did mention that Minecraft is deceptive in its appearance. But there is a lot more going on in the background and each block has to be prepared for placement, removal and animation when a player or mob interacts with them.
Here's another thing I found out this morning - fishing in Bedrock is WAY faster.
You know what, from now on I am only playing Bedrock for singleplayer games unless I'm looking for Java-exclusives. This gameplay is way easier and way faster, much less time spent grinding and I can actually get stuff done now, reasonably fast. I didn't realize that there was an upside to making Minecraft device friendly - it's like how Java bested the Cs.
Here's another thing I found out this morning - fishing in Bedrock is WAY faster.
You know what, from now on I am only playing Bedrock for singleplayer games unless I'm looking for Java-exclusives. This gameplay is way easier and way faster, much less time spent grinding and I can actually get stuff done now, reasonably fast. I didn't realize that there was an upside to making Minecraft device friendly - it's like how Java bested the Cs.
They should be the same imo, if fishing is faster in bedrock edition then it either Java version is too hard or bedrock is too easy, either way there is a difference between versions that needs correcting because otherwise Java players are at a disadvantage.
One thing I don't like about fishing though is the Curse books, they are useless in cooperative survival, especially the Curse of Vanishing ones, and while in PVP they may have some use to annoy other players, in PVE or even partial PVE they would suck. Some say you should use them on the Grindstone to extract XP but I figure that would be a waste of time as I never bother with it, I'd much rather get XP from mob grinders, battling naturally spawning monsters at night on topside or in caves, smelting/cooking items in furnaces, or animal breeding.
I consider the Curse books to be a pointless gimmick that almost nobody would even bother to use,
if this was Mojang's attempt at nerfing fishing, well, I can understand why they did it but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
Here's another thing I found out this morning - fishing in Bedrock is WAY faster.
You know what, from now on I am only playing Bedrock for singleplayer games unless I'm looking for Java-exclusives. This gameplay is way easier and way faster, much less time spent grinding and I can actually get stuff done now, reasonably fast. I didn't realize that there was an upside to making Minecraft device friendly - it's like how Java bested the Cs.
I rarely fish in Minecraft unless there is no other source of food.
I rarely fish in Minecraft unless there is no other source of food.
It's a great source of enchantments though, you do need patience but it is worth it because there's a lot of useful enchantments that can be grabbed such as Silk Touch which lets you pick up and move ores and glass around without breaking them.
I mainly use java, if I'm playing bedrock it's almost certainly because I'm playing with a friend on another platform. If I had to choose one, I'd probably stick with java, it's what I know and bedrock doesn't offer enough for me to switch. As far as a breakdown of why:
For Java:
Redstone is more consistent on java.
Mods/resource packs etc. are free. (I like the concept of the marketplace but I don't think it should be the only way to get user generated content)
More personally, all my worlds are on java and I don't really want to start over
Also, commands, I have a working knowledge of commands on java and I've heard they're more limited on bedrock
For Bedrock:
As others have discussed at length, bedrock is currently more performant than vanilla java.
Cross-play is a big one, it makes playing with your friends so much easier.
Again, personally, I like the simpler combat system better. Though I'm interested in seeing where the new combat system goes.
I mainly use java, if I'm playing bedrock it's almost certainly because I'm playing with a friend on another platform. If I had to choose one, I'd probably stick with java, it's what I know and bedrock doesn't offer enough for me to switch. As far as a breakdown of why:
For Java:
Redstone is more consistent on java.
Mods/resource packs etc. are free. (I like the concept of the marketplace but I don't think it should be the only way to get user generated content)
More personally, all my worlds are on java and I don't really want to start over
Also, commands, I have a working knowledge of commands on java and I've heard they're more limited on bedrock
For Bedrock:
As others have discussed at length, bedrock is currently more performant than vanilla java.
Cross-play is a big one, it makes playing with your friends so much easier.
Again, personally, I like the simpler combat system better. Though I'm interested in seeing where the new combat system goes.
Trident killers are cool
But bedrock edition doesn't have an official launcher system that lets you load and play an older version.
Bedrock edition is superior in some ways and in others it is terrible.
I like the crossplay features and honestly who wouldn't? it expands the number of people who can access your server so that's good, because it means your friend doesn't have to purchase a desktop PC just for the privilege of playing with you, instead they can play from their Switch or Xbox One/Series.
But I hope someday bedrock edition ends up with all the features Java version has, so people will have a truly sandbox experience and so people can play the game the way it should be, it is a game where you make your own adventure after all. I'm one of the people who strongly dislikes how Xbox Live mandates updates be forced on people, whether the change was related to bugs or if it is changing content because not all changes to the in game content are helpful.
My computer is rather old and while my CPU used to be considered a high end desktop model, it isn't any longer and hasn't been for a long time. The reason I built this computer is to last a few generations for the games I play most so I wouldn't have to upgrade it in at least a decade, and I've had the hardware for nearly 6 years.
I'm using a desktop with an Intel core i7 4790k, 16gb of DDR3 and an Nvidia GTX 1660 as my main, and at 1440p resolution 16.9 aspect, I'm able to get a consistent 120+fps with 32 chunks render distance last time I tested it in a single player creative world while flying around to test chunk updates.
Unfortunately I cannot get this during survival play because I play on a realm on this particular world, and MC realms limits it to 10 chunks from what I read online, which I find to be ludicrous considering we're paying a subscription fee. I'd understand a hard limit of about 16, there's other people using the service too not just me, but 10 is absurd imo. That is why in the end I'm going to do a custom server again.
What is the diffrence to java and bedrock? I play on java
More power to him, I have no problem with TMC's preference to Java and I find it is quite impressive that he managed to mod it to get such good performance out of it and remove some of the known bugs, it does showcase his own mastery of programming if he made his own mods to do all this in combination with Optifine, somebody else's mod.
But I am not a programmer and I don't have the skills to do this so I'm stuck with bedrock edition to keep the game playable with reasonable render distances. It isn't just about eye-candy, either, I like to be able to see what biomes are ahead of me and so do players on my realm.
Imagine building a pirate ship in a body of water of what looked like an ocean, but it then turns out to be a lake surrounded by land mass a bit further on in your travels, you'd be gutted to find out you've just wasted your time building a ship intended to look like it is for sea travel when there isn't an ocean for thousands of blocks.
It may seem trivial but for an artistic builder who cares about their work, it does matter a great deal (obviously not as much as human life of course).
Having generous render distances of 512 blocks from the center can reduce this problem significantly.
As I said I am not a programmer, so I have no experience with game development. But it does baffle me how such a simple looking game can struggle to run on modern PC's, doesn't it use 16-bit textures by default? it would seem a game like this just shouldn't be having lag spikes at all on PC's that meet the requirements.
I wouldn't go so far to say that I fixed all the issues; for one, TMCW still uses no higher than OpenGL 1.5, released 18 years ago (only if you enable "Advanced OpenGL", Mojang's fancy name for occlusion queries), and the rendering functions it uses have been deprecated for years, with no support for more advanced rendering techniques, while since 1.8 the game uses VBOs, which have the potential to be faster and less dependent on differences between GPU brands and drivers (e.g. on NVIDIA display lists (used by older versions) can be faster), and even that doesn't come close to more modern rendering techniques, as used by Sodium - a 90% reduction in CPU usage is a huge improvement, especially since the CPU is typically the bottleneck:
Also, 1.8 uses its own occlusion culling method which is independent of the GPU/driver type; the "Advanced OpenGL" option in older versions often actually degrades performance on non-NVIDIA hardware (this Reddit post says that it reduces FPS by 2/3 on AMD; by contrast, my old computer got double the FPS when it was enabled and I currently see little difference, both on NVIDIA GPUs. The graphical issues mentioned were largely due to bugs in the game itself, which causes chunks to be erroneously hidden; of course, Mojang's implementation suffers from similar issues). Of course, there is also the support for multithreading in newer versions, ranging from rendering, mob AI, lighting, world generation, and more, so they have the potential to be much faster and more stable (I wouldn't expect MC-123584 to still be an issue if chunk rebuilds are multithreaded, which should also allow for consistent chunk update performance regardless of render distance or frame rate).
I don't even use Optifine anymore (I did previously modify it to implement fixes but you can't distribute a modified version of a mod unless the mod creator allows it) and while some of the features are similar they were not copied from Optifine, at least not directly (for example, "better grass", "better snow", and a zoom feature, along with render distance in chunks instead of "tiny"/"short"/"normal"/"far" and more settings for individual options. Many of these have also been added to later vanilla versions; 1.17 is even adding the ability to zoom, if with the use of an in-game item but still the same concept). Also, many of my fixes were actually taken from bug reports on Mojang's bug tracker and elsewhere; for example, this bug report shows how to fix one type of smooth lighting bug, while I fixed another smooth lighting bug with the help of this article (about 1/3 of the way down under "Details regarding meshing").
I did come up with some myself though, such as fixing the smooth lighting code to treat water as transparent (for some reason the material "water" is not set to be transparent, which is what causes the artifacts seen underwater), as well as only ignore opaque blocks, not blocks with a light level of 0 (the effect of this can be seen at the edges of lit areas, which have a sharp edge in vanilla, as it doesn't apply smoothing between light level 0 and higher levels). I also added smooth lighting to water itself, a feature that is currently exclusive to Bedrock, by looking at how it worked for other blocks.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Just because the textures are only 16x16 (which is not 16 bit, they are full 32 bit RGB+alpha) doesn't mean anything when millions are being rendered at any one time in a fully dynamic world, as opposed to how many games are made, where you only have a thin surface rendered over a mostly or entirely static scene using pre-built models with no real depth to it (even a mountain is just a surface with no volume to it; while it is true that a mountain in Minecraft may effectively be hollow if there is nothing being rendered below the surface since blocks do not render faces adjacent to another full-cube block the game still needs to keep track of every single block, and rendering all the individual block faces is much more resource-intensive than rendering a few large planes (depending on how smooth you want the mountain to be; at the least, you can halve the rendered geometry by replacing each "|_" by a "\". There is also a penalty incurred by the need to check every block face for visibility).
As an illustration of how much geometry can impact rendering time, it takes about 24 times longer to render a chunk section filled with leaves on Fancy than the average terrain, which is mostly solid ground with around 256 faces rendered per section on average, with nearly all the difference occurring within OpenGL itself, which took up to 100 times longer (Java-side code took less than 3 times longer since most of the time is normally spent on checking for face visibility; the times shown are for a chunk update, not actually rendering it on the screen, which is impacted to a much lesser extent):
This is also by itself enough to drop frame rate down to 40 with just one chunk update per frame; fortunately, this situation won't happen under normal circumstances, though biomes with giant trees like Mega Forest can still cause issues on Fancy; to help with this I added a "fast" Fancy setting which culls the faces of leaf blocks more than 1 block from the outside of a cluster. Other mods that add giant trees have to cope with similar issues, especially in newer versions:
This is also the basis for the idea in the following suggestion, which is to render chunks far away at a lower level of detail by merging blocks into larger cubes to reduce the number of faces being drawn (blocks like leaves could also be rendered as opaque; this screenshot was taken on Fanny but it is hard to tell from a distance):
https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/suggestions/2996005-dynamic-lod-more-chunks-at-a-lower-price
Bedrock may even do something similar given the comment from FastCraft2 that it doesn't render everything at full detail at large distances (which isn't bad if it isn't that noticeable).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
It's not just graphics, it's also the sheer number of objects, object interactions, etc as TMC has explained in much more elaboration.
There's more to a game than the 'surface of things', much like your pirate ship in a lake vs a bay analogy.
Makes sense, DigitalFoundry did mention that Minecraft is deceptive in its appearance. But there is a lot more going on in the background and each block has to be prepared for placement, removal and animation when a player or mob interacts with them.
@Agtrigormortis
Here is another point towards Bedrock. Grindiness in Java. In Bedrock rarity of monster rare drops is nerfed i.e. mobs have and drop rare things more often, especially on hard mode. Today I for the first time ever in playing the game have got enough nautilus shells to make a conduit and enough damaged tridents to make a fully repaired one. In Java, this would take weeks if not months of drowned killing manually and even a fully auto farm would not work for the tridents since rare drops are nerfed by it.
Yes.
Here's another thing I found out this morning - fishing in Bedrock is WAY faster.
You know what, from now on I am only playing Bedrock for singleplayer games unless I'm looking for Java-exclusives. This gameplay is way easier and way faster, much less time spent grinding and I can actually get stuff done now, reasonably fast. I didn't realize that there was an upside to making Minecraft device friendly - it's like how Java bested the Cs.
They should be the same imo, if fishing is faster in bedrock edition then it either Java version is too hard or bedrock is too easy, either way there is a difference between versions that needs correcting because otherwise Java players are at a disadvantage.
One thing I don't like about fishing though is the Curse books, they are useless in cooperative survival, especially the Curse of Vanishing ones, and while in PVP they may have some use to annoy other players, in PVE or even partial PVE they would suck. Some say you should use them on the Grindstone to extract XP but I figure that would be a waste of time as I never bother with it, I'd much rather get XP from mob grinders, battling naturally spawning monsters at night on topside or in caves, smelting/cooking items in furnaces, or animal breeding.
I consider the Curse books to be a pointless gimmick that almost nobody would even bother to use,
if this was Mojang's attempt at nerfing fishing, well, I can understand why they did it but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
I rarely fish in Minecraft unless there is no other source of food.
My videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/robingravel
My cartoons: http://www.dailymotion.com/robin-gravel
Flash Animation (if your computer supports flash):
http://robingravel.byethost15.com/eflash.htm
Few flash movies have easter egg/extras
It's a great source of enchantments though, you do need patience but it is worth it because there's a lot of useful enchantments that can be grabbed such as Silk Touch which lets you pick up and move ores and glass around without breaking them.
I mainly use java, if I'm playing bedrock it's almost certainly because I'm playing with a friend on another platform. If I had to choose one, I'd probably stick with java, it's what I know and bedrock doesn't offer enough for me to switch. As far as a breakdown of why:
For Java:
For Bedrock:
But bedrock edition doesn't have an official launcher system that lets you load and play an older version.
Bedrock edition is superior in some ways and in others it is terrible.
I like the crossplay features and honestly who wouldn't? it expands the number of people who can access your server so that's good, because it means your friend doesn't have to purchase a desktop PC just for the privilege of playing with you, instead they can play from their Switch or Xbox One/Series.
But I hope someday bedrock edition ends up with all the features Java version has, so people will have a truly sandbox experience and so people can play the game the way it should be, it is a game where you make your own adventure after all. I'm one of the people who strongly dislikes how Xbox Live mandates updates be forced on people, whether the change was related to bugs or if it is changing content because not all changes to the in game content are helpful.
What?
So, they're the same, but not.
Just......, um...................