It is not a higher possibility now. Epic Games and People Can Fly have no more pull with Sony than Mojang and Microsoft, and Sony has already proven that they don't care what anyone else wants, not even their customers. See the Skyrim mods fiasco as reference. It is already assumed that most, if not all, cross platform developers are pushing for Sony to support crossplay, therefore this info is meaningless.
I'm not merely being a smart aleck here, I'm trying to make sure you don't get anyone's hopes up for no reason. These kind of negotiations happen a lot, and speculation like this usually ends in tears.
Baring any bugs, you shouldn't need to convert anything. The beta version should just silently update to the full release and all your worlds that you started during beta should still work fine.
Java is a low level language and has a lot of limitations. Developing a version in a higher level language....well.....check it out and see for yourself. I don't care for the furnace or chest interface, but the performance gains are pretty incredible.
Java is a slow lumbering dinosaur, but that doesn't make it a low level language. In fact, it's "everything is an object" approach makes it rather high level.
Also, just to clear up a major misconception: shaders are part of OpenGL. To the point that even code that doesn't use its own shaders gets rendered using shaders built into the graphics driver. The only reason this wouldn't be true is if you're still using a graphics card from 2001.
And GLSL is the programming language used to write shaders for OpenGL, so I would be rather surprised if these shaders weren't GLSL shaders.
When I tried using the path to the JRE version (which is inside of a bundle for some reason) Minecraft wouldn't even start. Thanks for adding the warning.
Only thing that's (Officially) been said on shaders is not that kind of shaders, but rather a technical kind that most of us don't know of unless we're into graphics. From what I understand, they're being implemented to boost performance with OpenGL (Or maybe just boost performance with everything). It should not change the look of the game at all.
They're actually the same kind of shaders. Shaders are just programs the GPU uses to determine what color should be on a particular part of a polygon*, with any GPU in the last seven years even a program that doesn't use shaders will be drawn using a default set of shaders that selects the colors in the same way that the GPU used to before shaders.
The difference between this and the shaders that your thinking of is that the ones your thinking of do more calculations with more data to make the image look better. This is what makes them slower than the default ones. This is especially true for shaders that calculate realistic lighting and shadows, as those are especially costly in both the number of calculations and the amount of data needing to be processed.
Minecraft updating to use explicit shaders will merely allow them to update to a new version of OpenGL that doesn't have to waste resources pretending to have a fixed function pipeline. It will also make modding in smarter shaders easier. It should still run on any potato released in the past seven years, at least. It will be faster in a lot of cases, and the same speed in the rest. Barring any odd bugs on a particular machine/driver.
Yea, I've been reading your other posts on the subject, and I've seen your performance tests, and really, everything points to the problem beginning in 14w30, probably with the lighting changes (although that snapshot also changed chunk sorting and added the advanced cave culling algorithm and threaded chunk rebuilding, so these might also be the culprit).
I saw people saying that the reduced GPU use was supposed to be beneficial, but like... that's only true up to a point; if a piece of software isn't using the full extent of your hardware and, instead, either overloads other components or simply refuses to function, then we have a problem. What good is having a lesser burden on my GPU if the game doesn't even work? Lol.
I haven't managed to find podzol forests but I experienced 2fps on an ocean while attempting to even enter a monument, so there's that. Also, for kicks, try making a customized ocean world preset and see how well that turns out (granted that's a lot of water, but still -- if it's there, it should theoretically work; it's not even amplified or anything, and I would think only the surface textures are animated, so it probably shouldn't lag as much as it does).
Actually, VBO's reduce CPU usage by sending the data to the card all at once instead of using a costly function call per vertex attribute. They don't have much effect on GPU usage at all aside from possibly reducing the amount of time it spends loading things from RAM. If the code is causing you lag in 1.8 it has nothing to do with the VBOs and everything to do with the fact that they just rewrote the entire renderer from scratch. It's probably a weird edge case issue that didn't show up in any of the official testing machines.
It seems a lot of people have horrible lags I see.
But did you guys try to do this?:
-put "VBO" on ( I think this is for multi-threaded rendering )
-put "Alternate Blocks" off ( no idea what it does, but it seems to eat a ton of fps )
-put "Render distance" lower
There is also some CPU tricks you can do, but I have no idea if it is against the law. ( if someone can explain the computer law thing via pm or so, it would be helpful. )
There is nothing illegal about overclocking your CPU, at least not in the US, but it will void your warrantee and can damage your machine if you don't have adequate cooling.
I have no lag anymore. Admittedly, I play with a 6 chunk render distance, but I used to get some lag at 4 chunks even with Optifine. So a stable 60FPS is a nice improvement, and I can only imagine how fast it'll be once Optifine comes out for 1.8. Maybe I can finally play 8 chunks with a stable 60FPS.
JoshuaCrotts, do you have VBO's turned on or off? Because it defaults to off, but turning it on is what removed the lag for me.
I used think the new enchanting system was OP, but the new anvils changes balance it.
My only problem with the new anvils are that naming items makes future repairs more expensive for no benefit, they should either add a bonus to naming items or stop naming from increasing the cost of repairs.
0
0
It is not a higher possibility now. Epic Games and People Can Fly have no more pull with Sony than Mojang and Microsoft, and Sony has already proven that they don't care what anyone else wants, not even their customers. See the Skyrim mods fiasco as reference. It is already assumed that most, if not all, cross platform developers are pushing for Sony to support crossplay, therefore this info is meaningless.
I'm not merely being a smart aleck here, I'm trying to make sure you don't get anyone's hopes up for no reason. These kind of negotiations happen a lot, and speculation like this usually ends in tears.
0
This isn't news until Sony says yes.
0
I'm getting a UUID warning on REV4, just FYI.
0
Baring any bugs, you shouldn't need to convert anything. The beta version should just silently update to the full release and all your worlds that you started during beta should still work fine.
0
Java is a slow lumbering dinosaur, but that doesn't make it a low level language. In fact, it's "everything is an object" approach makes it rather high level.
0
And GLSL is the programming language used to write shaders for OpenGL, so I would be rather surprised if these shaders weren't GLSL shaders.
0
0
1
They're actually the same kind of shaders. Shaders are just programs the GPU uses to determine what color should be on a particular part of a polygon*, with any GPU in the last seven years even a program that doesn't use shaders will be drawn using a default set of shaders that selects the colors in the same way that the GPU used to before shaders.
The difference between this and the shaders that your thinking of is that the ones your thinking of do more calculations with more data to make the image look better. This is what makes them slower than the default ones. This is especially true for shaders that calculate realistic lighting and shadows, as those are especially costly in both the number of calculations and the amount of data needing to be processed.
Minecraft updating to use explicit shaders will merely allow them to update to a new version of OpenGL that doesn't have to waste resources pretending to have a fixed function pipeline. It will also make modding in smarter shaders easier. It should still run on any potato released in the past seven years, at least. It will be faster in a lot of cases, and the same speed in the rest. Barring any odd bugs on a particular machine/driver.
*This has been slightly simplified.
0
Actually, VBO's reduce CPU usage by sending the data to the card all at once instead of using a costly function call per vertex attribute. They don't have much effect on GPU usage at all aside from possibly reducing the amount of time it spends loading things from RAM. If the code is causing you lag in 1.8 it has nothing to do with the VBOs and everything to do with the fact that they just rewrote the entire renderer from scratch. It's probably a weird edge case issue that didn't show up in any of the official testing machines.
0
There is nothing illegal about overclocking your CPU, at least not in the US, but it will void your warrantee and can damage your machine if you don't have adequate cooling.
0
JoshuaCrotts, do you have VBO's turned on or off? Because it defaults to off, but turning it on is what removed the lag for me.
0
0
My only problem with the new anvils are that naming items makes future repairs more expensive for no benefit, they should either add a bonus to naming items or stop naming from increasing the cost of repairs.