• 0

    posted a message on Sticky pistons and slime blocks

    You have to increase the delay between the pistons. MCPE pistons are slower than PC pistons, so you need to give each set enough time to retract. I'll try to recreate the setup and see if I can get it to work.

    Posted in: MCPE: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Very active Realm! Help us expand our borders! -Hard Survival- *Update!*

    Name (GT): Mistahtokyo

    Location (timezone): US EST (-5:00)

    How long you've been playing Minecraft: I've been playing since Beta 1.3 so early 2011


    How often you play: 4 days a week on average, a decent couple of hours on those days

    Why you want to join: I want to try and build survival-friendly redstone farms, hopefully collaborating with others to do so.

    How you'd contribute: Building public use farms of reasonably large scale.


    Skills/Specialties: Redstone, landscaping, decent building experience.


    Age: 22

    Posted in: MCWIN10: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New Realm - Need Survivors

    I'd love to join and hopefully collaborate with some members to figure out some redstone devices (been trying to recreate as close to a working log farm as possible in Windows 10 edition). I'm 22 years old, from Florida.
    Gamertag is Mistahtokyo

    Posted in: MCWIN10: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I need Redstone creations Ideas Please

    A triple piston extender that has the redstone flush with the pushed block at the end. Need it to start even considering log farms in MCPE/Windows 10.

    Posted in: MCPE: Show Your Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on 13w36 discussion- New features and bugs!
    Quote from DougFantastic

    I don't know if anyone has reported on this already, but the dungeons have been massively expanded too. We stumbled accross a huge network of tunnels with mossy bricks, jail cells and even a library.

    I was running Dokucraft for some of it, and switched to original to get a better idea of what vanilla would look like. Creative mode is on so that we could zip through the biomes and see what was new.

    Could this be a new feature of 1.7, or just amplified?



    This is your first post, so I'm not sure if you're trolling or just new. Assuming the latter, this has been a feature for quite a long time. It's called a stronghold. Generally three spawn per world. Each has an unfinished end portal that, when finished, leads you to the end dimension.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Restriction Free Nether Portal Blocks
    Support. No foreseeable negatives and plenty of positive/creative uses.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on links to wiki and mcforums in options
    I'm with shiny here. Having links to third party sources from in-game could open up potential security risks. People could distribute modified jars/alter the link paths to scam sites asking you for your user name and password, or worse. It's also worth noting that The forums/wiki are community, not developer, run. They may be approved/endorsed, but Mojang doesn't own them (pretty sure Curse own the forums). So again, third party source. If you're that lazy, set up a link shortcut on your desktop or taskbar. You can then go to any site you want in seconds.

    Edit: don't forget that account security was already compromised once with migrated accounts. I'm not too fond of trusting Mojang to handle web-related things.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Multiple level types
    From a GUI point this could be achieved pretty much exactly like resource packs; A list of generation "modifiers" on the left, then you select the ones you want into a list on the right. You could maybe have their order in the list affect the priority, too (in case you want large biomes to take priority over amplified terrain).

    From a coding perspective, this could probably get real messy/complicated real fast.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Better Village Spawning.
    Villages are a mix of static and "dynamic" objects. The static objects are the houses, the wells, crop fields, etc. These have a set shape that, in order to generate properly, cannot conform to the shape of the land. The only way they adjust is by picking a point in the land and "attaching to it (note this is the structure for the implementation, but terrain generates so randomly and the hierarchy is so poorly designed that sometimes houses will break). In this regard, the structure itself cannot change, only slide up or down to fit the land, roughly. This limits the houses in that they cannot be too big because one side may line up with the terrain, but the opposite side may not. Houses also have no way of detecting what "proper/suitable" terrain is. It doesn't know if there's a sheer cliff drop/wall one block in front of the door, so long as the house is mostly okay. Detecting this could be possible, but it would probably increase chunk generation times and lead to less houses placed (since there's usually not much "perfect land".
    As for the dynamic stuff, that's the roads. Essentially it's the same thing as houses, but it replaces to topmost layer of grass with gravel (gravel will always fall to accommodate the landscape, hence why it's used).

    What we have is a very modular system designed to fit in as many places as possible. This means that it'll never truly fit in one area (except superflat), but it'll do "well enough" in many areas. You could generate entire villages with terrain as part of the village, or prefabbed villages, but then you lose the variety, the conforming to the shape of the land, and you'll probably have more visible seams where the "village land" ends.

    So while it'd be nice to have this, I doubt it can be easily improved.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Has the Far render distance been scaled back yet again?
    The edge of the blue area in my second screenshot is where I imagine the chunks should load up to, but that's not happening. The reason 1.6.2 had the fog so close for far, btw, was that the fog is basically a flat wall that is always perpendicular to the player's view point. The loaded chunks, however, for a square. So if you match the fog with the chunk render edge, you'll see the blue area there instead of land blending properly into fog. Some chunks have to be sacrificed (still being rendered, but hidden by fog) in order to have to fog properly blend with the terrain.
    Two ways to fix this:
    One (harder method) would be to change the shape of the fog wall so it's cylindrical, not flat. This would keep an even consistency in the blending no matter how the player is rotated.
    Two (this could be blended with one for best results) would be to load the chunks in a hexagonal shape, instead of a square. This frees up resources wasted by the normally hidden corner chunks.

    As for why they reduced the draw distance itself, no idea. This is a snapshot, however, so it could be a last ditch effort to increase performance so testers can focus on biome issues. Incidentally, this is probably why many people have incorrectly assumed that 1.7 has better performance.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on One problems I noticed
    I think it's supposed to resemble rocky outcropping/barren hillsides. Most mountains don't have perfect grass cover all the way to their peak, hell, many don't have any grass cover near the middle/top. Granted, it doesn't look that good in Minecraft, but I'm just trying to give you some of the reasoning the developers may have applied.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Get Rid of Mountains or Make them Realistic
    This isn't a matter of preference. The engine simply cannot, in it's current state, support a vertical height of 4000 blocks. Most systems struggle with Amplified (strong systems don't, but it definitely takes a chunk out of their memory reserves). That is for only 256 blocks. Having almost 16 times that height would utterly destroy performance. To even attempt to load such a thing would require a system like the cubic chunks. Even then, mountains would be pointless since Minecraft doesn't not have any current way of handling distant land rendering. It's either a fully loaded chunk/cube or nothing, meaning if you're at the top and look down, the land will cut off after the render limit and you'll simply be floating on a random peak.
    Again, the system isn't like this by choice. It's simply limited in it's very design. Hell even if Mojang tried this I doubt Java could even handle all the memory needed without crashing, forget about the computer being able to.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Has the Far render distance been scaled back yet again?
    Here's a link to a two-image album showing a clearer comparison. A wide angle (from the ground) shot shows how many chunks are affected. From this angle, it's apparent that the fog itself has changed, being pushed back extremely far, if not mostly removed. I recommend sharing this topic/images via Twitter or making a bug report in Mojira, since both of those have a higher chance of being noticed by a dev. This could be a result of them rewriting the rendering engine, not sure.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Misa's Realistic Texture Pack (UPDATED 1JUL13)
    Misa, are you aware of the new biome coloring changes. something about height being a factor. There's more info here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/1lx3vr/grass_color_now_changes_with_elevation_how/
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 1

    posted a message on Has the Far render distance been scaled back yet again?
    Instead of posting comparisons between normal and far, why don't you guys set up a test? Stand in the same spot in a map generated in an early jar, say 1.8. Take a screenshot, then repeat from the same spot in subsequent jars.
    Now the thing that stands out to me is that you guys are highly likely using Optifine. It seems like it because of the way the fog is pushed back, but no additional chunks are rendered. that's a feature from Optifine.
    Another thing to note is the comparison screens are taken from poor angles. Fly up and get a large overhead shot where you can clearly see if more CHUNKS are being loaded. That'll be the telling factor.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.