Hey, my bro is having similar issues on all 1.13 snapshots in singleplayer. when he loads the singleplayer world, he gets sooo slow until he eventually freezes. he has the same specs as me and i can run it just fine, so idk what the issue is. can anyone here tell me what an issue could be?
PS: He can run multiplayer or my lan worlds just fine. not his worlds though.
maybe the world has "corrupted files" on it for the 1.13 worlds. if so that can cause it, or maybe he has some unusual glitch causing it, maybe his specs are the same but have been damaged or overused and his disk could be fragmented, maybe the all-located memory for the game is different, the causes are basically endless.
I had memory issues in 1.13-pre2 which ground the game to a screaming halt after a few hours of play - increasing the amount of RAM available turned out to be a (very) short term solution - and it died again shortly after. Going back to pre1 'fixed' it - I haven't seen any issues with pre3. If you haven't already, give pre3 a try and see if that helps.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/7/2014
Posts:
41
Member Details
It's not just your computer. I can't remember the last time I had this much lag in Minecraft single player.
I have noticed it gets worse around underwater magma blocks, and the associated bubble columns, even causing crashes sometimes if in large numbers like in underwater ravines.
The minecraft 1.13 snapshots have been very laggy, there supposedly fixed it in pre-2 or 3. Well, the official release is out, so try it. Hopefully the lag is gone!
I'd like to weigh in a little bit. I play on the Nintendo Switch currently and before Aquatic was released I had a perfectly smooth lag free time. After the release(full release of bedrock and aquatic) I'm noticing random very annoying frame freezes and it often makes me feel like a creeper is about to explode right behind me. I don't know for sure if it's bedrock and aquatic together or just one of them or whatnot, but it appears that whatever they have done to the coding has created a slight problem for me.
Now I know this has little to do with the PC, WIN10 or MACOS versions but maybe to some degree it does? I don't know but I'm not entirely convinced it isn't a result of some of the new mechanics in the recent update.
Now I know this has little to do with the PC, WIN10 or MACOS versions but maybe to some degree it does? I don't know but I'm not entirely convinced it isn't a result of some of the new mechanics in the recent update.
As far as I know, all other versions that are not end-of-life besides the PC Java version are all Bedrock (this would include the Windows 10 version, PE, etc., etc.)? It may be related more to the update itself, which has supposedly dragged performance down at least for the Java version. It almost seems to be a trend that any time optimization is done, the performance drops very heavily. 1.3, 1.7, and 1.8 also supposedly brought optimizations and/or performance increases, and rather sizeable performance decreases were seen on each of those versions instead.
There are known bugs in the snapshots and pre-releases that are causing large drops in performance. Hopefully those will get ironed out before the final release.
Wait, are those... are those actually the minimum and recommended now for Minecraft!? That's insane, and Mojang is going to hurt themselves if they keep this up. The 1.x GHz and low 2.x GHz Core i3s (and even less!) are going to be a big portion of your average notebook user these days. It's understandable for a 1.1 GHz Celeron to not play the game too well (especially since those usually worse integrated graphics), but to need a decently fast Core i3 as MINIMUM!?
It makes me wonder where my ancient Core i5 2500K would sit, because that makes it looks like it'd barely cut it, but here I am playing with a render distance of 32 absolutely perfectly (haven't tried 1.13 yet and now I'm not sure I want to, as 1.7 and 1.8 cutting my performance already put me off). Also, my even worse Core i3 4010U in my laptop (a measly... 1.6GHz? 1.7GHz? I forget) plays the game as well as my desktop believe it or not, albeit it at a render distance of 12 and a much lower resolution of course.
Either they are admitting that this next version is going to be THAT much more performance hungry, or they simply don't have much hardware knowledge and that's simply the lowest end thing they tested it on themselves. It's understandable for hardware needs to go up in a game being developed as long as this, and of course they won't test with super old hardware (like mine), but it's still scary to see how much the requirements jump up with this game. Hopefully it's simply because it's still in pre-release and these high hardware jumps don't get reflected in the final release.
The current system requirements are actually very low end. An i5 2500k is much stronger than the minimum. Older, but still stronger.
If you are using a notebook to play games, you are basically setting yourself up for failure. They are not designed for games at all. They specifically prioritize power efficiency, so their CPUs are underpowered, they use slower hard drives, etc.
The jump in spec requirements is not unreasonable at all. Basically any run-of-the-mill computers on the market right now will have no problems playing Minecraft. The OP has a computer that is AT LEAST 8 years old AND was low end at the time is was bought, so naturally, performance is go0ing to be an issue.
The jump in spec requirements is not unreasonable at all. Basically any run-of-the-mill computers on the market right now will have no problems playing Minecraft. The OP has a computer that is AT LEAST 8 years old AND was low end at the time is was bought, so naturally, performance is go0ing to be an issue.
Then explain how I've made my "own" version with hundreds of new features, even 1.13 features, yet it runs far better than current vanilla versions and even better than 1.6.4 (the version it is "based" on, or rather, when it diverged from the vanilla branch as I don't see it as a mod anymore but its own version); for example, it takes literally one second or less for the game to start up or load an existing world, and generating a new world is 5 times faster despite more complex world generation; average server tick time is on the order of 1-2 milliseconds (2-4% of the allotted time) and memory usage is around 256 MB (allocated by the JVM, not used). The size of the modded Minecraft jar file is also only about a third of 1.13's due to Mojang adding so much unnecessary junk to the code, which began in 1.8 (which by itself increased the size by nearly 50% over 1.7.10), as I explained here (as sp614x described 1.8's renderer "an over-engineered monster full of factories, builders, bakeries, baked items, managers, dispatchers, states, enums and layers"; which applies to the rest of the game as well).
Or that the developer of Fastcraft has surpassed Bedrock in performance, without any of the latter's sacrifices, such as a reduced ticking range (imagine a render distance of 256 chunks, with every one of those quarter million chunks being actively ticked and rendered in full detail - over 62 times more chunks than 32 chunk render distance!).
I think it is perfectly valid to criticize Mojang over how the demands of the game have increased in recent years.
Then explain how I've made my "own" version with hundreds of new features, even 1.13 features, yet it runs far better than current vanilla versions and even better than 1.6.4 (the version it is "based" on, or rather, when it diverged from the vanilla branch as I don't see it as a mod anymore but its own version); for example, it takes literally one second or less for the game to start up or load an existing world, and generating a new world is 5 times faster despite more complex world generation; average server tick time is on the order of 1-2 milliseconds (2-4% of the allotted time) and memory usage is around 256 MB (allocated by the JVM, not used). The size of the modded Minecraft jar file is also only about a third of 1.13's due to Mojang adding so much unnecessary junk to the code, which began in 1.8 (which by itself increased the size by nearly 50% over 1.7.10), as I explained here (as sp614x described 1.8's renderer "an over-engineered monster full of factories, builders, bakeries, baked items, managers, dispatchers, states, enums and layers"; which applies to the rest of the game as well).
Or that the developer of Fastcraft has surpassed Bedrock in performance, without any of the latter's sacrifices, such as a reduced ticking range (imagine a render distance of 256 chunks, with every one of those quarter million chunks being actively ticked and rendered in full detail - over 62 times more chunks than 32 chunk render distance!).
I think it is perfectly valid to criticize Mojang over how the demands of the game have increased in recent years.
Don't bother. People like echonite, flanigomik, and Ashreon are among a minority for whom the game is miraculously running smoothly. They are convinced their machines are the norm.
Hopefully, if/when Mojang wakes up, gets their act together, and fixes the optimization issues they've introduced, the game won't become unplayable on their computers... that would certainly be unfortunate now wouldn't it?
Or that the developer of Fastcraft has surpassed Bedrock in performance, without any of the latter's sacrifices, such as a reduced ticking range (imagine a render distance of 256 chunks, with every one of those quarter million chunks being actively ticked and rendered in full detail - over 62 times more chunks than 32 chunk render distance!).
Woah... what is Fastcraft? So many new things still in the Minecraft community.
maybe the world has "corrupted files" on it for the 1.13 worlds. if so that can cause it, or maybe he has some unusual glitch causing it, maybe his specs are the same but have been damaged or overused and his disk could be fragmented, maybe the all-located memory for the game is different, the causes are basically endless.
I had memory issues in 1.13-pre2 which ground the game to a screaming halt after a few hours of play - increasing the amount of RAM available turned out to be a (very) short term solution - and it died again shortly after. Going back to pre1 'fixed' it - I haven't seen any issues with pre3. If you haven't already, give pre3 a try and see if that helps.
http://dexanddad.com - Minecraft fun with the boy
It's not just your computer. I can't remember the last time I had this much lag in Minecraft single player.
I have noticed it gets worse around underwater magma blocks, and the associated bubble columns, even causing crashes sometimes if in large numbers like in underwater ravines.
The minecraft 1.13 snapshots have been very laggy, there supposedly fixed it in pre-2 or 3. Well, the official release is out, so try it. Hopefully the lag is gone!
I'd like to weigh in a little bit. I play on the Nintendo Switch currently and before Aquatic was released I had a perfectly smooth lag free time. After the release(full release of bedrock and aquatic) I'm noticing random very annoying frame freezes and it often makes me feel like a creeper is about to explode right behind me. I don't know for sure if it's bedrock and aquatic together or just one of them or whatnot, but it appears that whatever they have done to the coding has created a slight problem for me.
Now I know this has little to do with the PC, WIN10 or MACOS versions but maybe to some degree it does? I don't know but I'm not entirely convinced it isn't a result of some of the new mechanics in the recent update.
As far as I know, all other versions that are not end-of-life besides the PC Java version are all Bedrock (this would include the Windows 10 version, PE, etc., etc.)? It may be related more to the update itself, which has supposedly dragged performance down at least for the Java version. It almost seems to be a trend that any time optimization is done, the performance drops very heavily. 1.3, 1.7, and 1.8 also supposedly brought optimizations and/or performance increases, and rather sizeable performance decreases were seen on each of those versions instead.
Yeah, they did absolutely nothing to iron it out.
The current system requirements are actually very low end. An i5 2500k is much stronger than the minimum. Older, but still stronger.
If you are using a notebook to play games, you are basically setting yourself up for failure. They are not designed for games at all. They specifically prioritize power efficiency, so their CPUs are underpowered, they use slower hard drives, etc.
The jump in spec requirements is not unreasonable at all. Basically any run-of-the-mill computers on the market right now will have no problems playing Minecraft. The OP has a computer that is AT LEAST 8 years old AND was low end at the time is was bought, so naturally, performance is go0ing to be an issue.
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
Then explain how I've made my "own" version with hundreds of new features, even 1.13 features, yet it runs far better than current vanilla versions and even better than 1.6.4 (the version it is "based" on, or rather, when it diverged from the vanilla branch as I don't see it as a mod anymore but its own version); for example, it takes literally one second or less for the game to start up or load an existing world, and generating a new world is 5 times faster despite more complex world generation; average server tick time is on the order of 1-2 milliseconds (2-4% of the allotted time) and memory usage is around 256 MB (allocated by the JVM, not used). The size of the modded Minecraft jar file is also only about a third of 1.13's due to Mojang adding so much unnecessary junk to the code, which began in 1.8 (which by itself increased the size by nearly 50% over 1.7.10), as I explained here (as sp614x described 1.8's renderer "an over-engineered monster full of factories, builders, bakeries, baked items, managers, dispatchers, states, enums and layers"; which applies to the rest of the game as well).
Or that the developer of Fastcraft has surpassed Bedrock in performance, without any of the latter's sacrifices, such as a reduced ticking range (imagine a render distance of 256 chunks, with every one of those quarter million chunks being actively ticked and rendered in full detail - over 62 times more chunks than 32 chunk render distance!).
I think it is perfectly valid to criticize Mojang over how the demands of the game have increased in recent years.
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?
Don't bother. People like echonite, flanigomik, and Ashreon are among a minority for whom the game is miraculously running smoothly. They are convinced their machines are the norm.
Hopefully, if/when Mojang wakes up, gets their act together, and fixes the optimization issues they've introduced, the game won't become unplayable on their computers... that would certainly be unfortunate now wouldn't it?
Woah... what is Fastcraft? So many new things still in the Minecraft community.