• 0

    posted a message on Is optifine dangerous for my pc/operating system?

    It never happened for me in versions prior to 1.8 though, and I played with Advanced OpenGL on. The anomalies I'm seeing only started with 1.8 and after.


    That first link you linked to (for versions prior to 1.8) seems to be a broader and/or different issue. They both may be occlusion culling issues but it claims "relogging fixes the issue" whereas the issue I am referring to is absolutely consistent. As in, if the visual anomaly occurs, it will ALWAYS occur unless the terrain between the viewing location and affected location is changed in a way to make it not happen. Relogging will not change this.


    As for OptiFine, the only issues I ever had with it was the old multi-core rendering issue in way older versions that needed an nVidia driver setting set a certain way, which would correct it. No idea if that's even still the case.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Terraforming a mushroom island
    Quote from Hexalobular»

    Water doesn't seem to convert mycelium any more (1.14.4)

    Not even 18 blocks deep and waiting several Minecraft days.


    Are you by chance using OptiFine? There's a setting (the exact one eludes me, but I think it has something to do with clear water) that basically makes water opaque. With it on, any grass can also spread to dirt near the shore underwater, so this may be preventing the water from degrading the mycelium to dirt.

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Do horses drown?

    I do notice some quirks with horses appearing when I play with other players on my world though LAN (this may extend to multiplayer but the extent of my multiplayer is LAN so I don't know). Either the horse appears, but the player riding it does not, or sometimes it's even the other way around. This usually tends to occur when a player comes within render distance on a horse already (as in, if we both mount the horse within range of one another, it typically works fine, but once someone leaves and re-enters, the result is random).


    I think maybe once or twice another player will have dismounted their horse (willingly) and then claim they can't see the horse, and have to leave the world then rejoin to see it (I would be able to see it though). But never has anyone been forcefully removed from one, outside of it occurring due to entering water that is too deep or something.


    Since single-player is multi-player without the extra players (that is, single-player runs a server that you connect to), I guess the same could happen there. I've just never had it happen when it's just me (and even when it happens, it's just them visually not showing sometimes; never been forcefully dismounted outside of trying to tame a wild one). Probably because it only seems to be a visual bug that occurs when involving leaving and/or entering render distance of another player, and in single player, you can't do that haha.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Do horses drown?

    In my experience, usually you will be dismounted from one once in water that's too deep (two or three blocks?) for them, and they will typically attempt to swim towards the closest shore (so crossing a wide river can be a pain as they keep trying to go backward). For it to have immediately disappeared is strange though.


    I do believe they can drown though (they can definitely suffocate in walls); another player in my world once lost their horse in a river. It had a ravine cutting under it with water flowing down, so I'm not entirely positive if it fell or drown, but I want to say the player retrieved the horse but lost it due to drowning attempting to get it back up. If they can't drown then I am remembering wrong and it must have fallen.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What version do you play?

    I play on 1.10.2 currently, so I will vote for that one.


    Why? No specific reason to the version itself. It is simply because any time an update requires changes, especially to resource packs (I'm not sure 1.11 did, but 1.12 did for my texture pack), procrastination sets in and I usually stay with a version for a few versions worth of time. That's because they change often (and this isn't a complaint; more the opposite as I have deep gratitude to those keeping the John Smith Legacy resource pack updated, maintained, and hosted), and I am picky about it staying as close to the same as always, so I usually download the latest version as a base, then invest time and such changing it back to how I wanted, which is more work for someone like me who doesn't know what changed, what was renamed, why something is looking different color-wise, etc. One version may have custom colors breaking (this was a big roadblock for 1.7 with me), another requires me to go and dig in and find all the ones causing connected or random textures to be forced on since OptiFine's option doesn't work since the base game now supports/uses it if it's there, another version changes biome colors, etc., etc., etc.


    Not only that, but while my list of mods isn't large, I always would at least wait for OptiFine, Forge, and Better Foliage to update as well. The game feels so sterile to me without that last mod, and likewise, I'm so glad someone put the time and effort into "remaking" that mod starting with 1.7 when Better Grass and Leaves didn't update past 1.6. I'm so grateful to a few in particular. Anyway, if it's something like 1.7, 1.8, or 1.13, all of which had huge performance penalties and sometimes other large changes (like massive resource pack overhauls), that goes more so.


    I wanted to update to 1.14, and was going to since performance is actually slightly better than 1.10 (1.13 was way worse), but I'm running into other issues. I feel like putting work into moving to 1.12 would be wasted in case I can overcome the issues I'm having with 1.14, and in the meantime I'm more interested in working on my builds/world, so... procrastination sets in and I'm "stuck" with 1.10 for now.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Is optifine dangerous for my pc/operating system?

    Interesting.


    The Advanced OpenGL setting in the older versions being turned on made a massive difference for me as well (nVidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti at the time). When that option later went away (starting with one of the snapshots for 1.8?), performance was better than were the option off, but worse than were it on.


    It also appears to have more visual anomalies, and when they occur, they are completely consistent. There's spots in my world where, if if I view it from a certain other spot and angle, nothing is simply rendered (and you see the sky/void in that spot). As mentioned, it's consistent, meaning if it happens toi a spot when viewed from a spot, it will always happen (unless something is changed to that portion of the world to make it not happen). It's fairly rare, and usually a small potion, but it's still a rather serious bug, especially during the times it's not minor. It started with 1.8 for me and persists to 1.10 (not sure if 1.13 or 1.14 will have fixed it).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Old, minecraft memories

    Things are different, yes, and some not as good, but overall it's not "bad", and I'd say much is actually better. If they can rid the latest versions of some of the technical issues and bugs (and keep performance decreases from repeating themselves, or better yet, improve it), then I feel like with 1.13 and 1.14 that Minecraft could actually be at another high point era. Time will tell.


    As someone who started in 1.2.5 (the same rough "era" that 1.6 was the end of), there are those who felt "that" era (beta 1.8 to release 1.x) was bad as well, and indeed some of the reasons given have some merit, even if I loved those versions then.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Chunks Repopulating En Masse Once Updating to 1.14
    Quote from Toadrunner»

    I’m sorry to say I don’t have an answer for you. Nevertheless may I ask how you generated the beautiful maps? I would love to have such a map of my world. I never got the hang of using the in-game maps, so if they are in-game ones I will have to figure them out.


    I use UnMined.

    Also, I didn't think to mention it, and I doubt it's causing it, but I probably should add it in case it is pertinent also. This actually didn't START occuring UNTIL I went to open the save in the map program, found out the outdated version I had didn't work with 1.13+, and had to downlad the updated versin. It was then that I noticed chunks with Red circles (don't know what this denotes) not filling in, as well as some with nothing at all (denotes essentially "no chunk information" as far as I know). I doubt this caused it, as the play sessions that weekend were mostly in newly generated chunks (getting new things), and on the final day I returned and after some time noticed this. So, the timing of the use of UnMined and the problem starting is likely coincidental.

    Quote from Palin»

    Unfortunately, as far as I know, this is not supported. I hope you have a backup, because the correct way to do this is upgrade from a 1.10.x to a 1.11.x, then to a 1.12.x and so on (usually you keep installing the latest available, meaning for instance 1.12.2 for the 1.12.x series).


    In your case, it seems that older chunk generated in older version get marked as invalid and deleted instead of converted to the new format, so they can be regenerated by the world generation code.


    That's where my guess was; that something was causing the game to flag chunks as "able to be regenerated". Why and/or how to stop it, if it is the case, is what I'd like to figure out and do.

    Thankfully, I do have a backup, and am safely back on 1.10.2 for now (I lost that weekend of progress though).

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    The storage of blocks themselves or the basic chunk format only saw very minimal changes between 1.2 and 1.12 (e.g. each section used 4096 bytes for block IDs, 2048 bytes each for metadata, sky light, and block light. 1.6 added "InhabitedTime", 1.7 added "LightPopulated", and 1.9 added "DataVersion" but in any case the lack of these tags shouldn't cause any issues; any chunk without a version tag can safely be assumed to have the same block format, with the only major difference in NBT being the change to named item IDs in 1.8).

    The only other thing I can think of is that 1.13+ uses the inhabited time of a chunk to determine if it should be kept (similar to the criteria for retrogenerating ocean monuments; inhabited time was only added in 1.6 so any older chunks will default to 0 when upgraded; for example, on this map of one of my worlds the area that was generated prior to 1.6 stands out as a region of low inhabited time). Even then, this sounds like a very poor decision on Mojang's part if this is indeed what they did (note that using MLG to load chunks won't work if this is the case since increasing inhabited time requires that a player be present and MLG simply changes the spawn area).


    Yeah, that is what I was, and am more so now, fearing/thinking, unfortunately. I've seen many others with old worlds mentioning playing in 1.14 and not mentioning such an issue, but... I must've in a very small percent that used this method (or similar) in which I have chunks with low or zero time spent in that might be leading to this happening. I think it may be why precisely, though. They did this with water temples when 1.8 came, which worked fine with 1.7 since it had the same terrain generation, but not with 1.6, which was a mere two versions prior, so it seems Mojang's "backwards compatibility" concern isn't that high and doesn't consider for any worlds with actual age to them (or, again, I'm a rare case due to not having time spent in many chunks). Is there any practical, easy way to adjust and/or edit in some form the "InhabitedTime" information? I feel like there should be but I'm not sure.


    Oh, and if that method of using MLG again WOULD work, I WOULD be willing to rid myself of the areas beyond my central area; one was already gotten rid of, another was essentially new (used that weekend to get new stuff, and used before that only once for the then-new as of 1.8 stone types), and the last does have some builds, but it's not much, and I would be willing to reset/lose it if it was the difference between staying on 1.12 at the most, or going beyond it.


    Right now, I guess my next attempt is to update one version at a time, and maybe not use UnMined too, and see what happens.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Favorite Versions of Minecraft

    Haha, I figured it probably wasn't real important given your play style, and yeah they (and Donkeys) don't have much pressing use, but I still really want them.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Is optifine dangerous for my pc/operating system?

    I've been using OptiFine for many, many, many years on my primary PC (GeForce GTX 560 Ti, GTS 650, and GTX 1060 6GB), my secondary PC (GeForce GT 430), a PC of a friend (GeForce GT 610, GT 240 [?], GT 740 [?]), my laptop (Intel onboard 4400 series), among others. As you can see, some I'm unsure of/forget exact model but there's been many across nearly half a dozen PCs and a number of users. I've yet to have it cause my operating system (or have any of the others mention to have had it cause it) to be unable to open a file. That sounds like a serious malware caused issue if anything.


    There's actually a setting that does (or at least, did) only work when on nVidia hardware (may work on AMD now too?), and that is the fancy fog option. So, it'd be surprising if it "wasn't meant for nVidia". When I play on my laptop (stays nearly consistent at 60 FPS, some momentary hitches aside), the thing that actually bothers me the most isn't the smaller resolution, or lower render distance, or even lack of anit-aliasing; it's the way the fog behaves relative to the edge.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Favorite Versions of Minecraft

    My favorite is the newest.


    While there's been many steps back in many versions, the collective of what it is today is usually better than any version in the past. I say that as someone crying that 1.14 isn't playing nice with my older (1.10) world, of which I won't part with, so I have to stay for now. The new villages, animals (llamas!), and everything are so lovely. Typically, so long as performance doesn't majorly go backwards, I like it.


    Some special mentions, though...


    1.2.5: I technically started on some beta version, whatever the demo version was at the time (1.3 or 1.5 I guess?), but this is where it was when I got the game. Exploring the then-modern game and having my world STILL comprise of this version as it's core make it memorable.


    1.3: Very next version and already getting a mention? So what did it do so well? It actually introduced performance drops (but not that bad, not for me anyway), render distance issues (which strangely I don't remembering being mentioned back then), and other bugs/issues from the single-player as we had it being done away with, in favor of it now just running a server and having just you connect to it, essentially. This gave us LAN though, which may not be much to most, but was everything to me. Also, vertical logs were lovely.


    1.6.x (4): Not quite so much the version itself as the fact that it was the last version before the radical collective changes of 1.7 and 1.8 (foreshadowing that neither will NOT be mentioned below as good versions), which dragged performance down, dragged it down again the very next version, also dragged it down worthy of mention again because traveling between dimensions now caused severe lag (only fixed within the last few versions somewhere), changed rendering (bugs of which exist to this day), issues with render distances, changed the underground in a game called MINEcraft, messed with pre-existing chunks (in the case of water temples, which should have been an obvious no-no), and caused all sorts of wait and work to needed to be done to texture packs, mods (many never updated), etc. To speak good of 1.16 itself, we did get horses, which these days feel almost staple, although they were seen as broken at the time, making minecarts and all that they entail (track networks, etc.) that much less useful.


    1.9: I really liked the End changes... (not sarcasm; it alone makes it worth mentioning)


    1.14: If I can figure out why it's causing chunks to repopulate (using post-1.7 terrain in a pre-1.7 area) in my world, then this will quite possibly be up there as one of, if not outright, my favorite(s). To be fair, many of the changes that I like it for aren't JUST from it, but from versions collectively anywhere between 1.10.2 (where I am currently) and 1.14, so it's more of a "I like the recent version the best", but there's a lot in especially both 1.14 and even 1.13 that made the game really exciting again. This is especially so since, for me at least, it seems to undo the performance drag-down of 1.13 (and can Mojang STOP DOING THIS!?). The immediate future looks nice, too.

    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    My playstyle and ability to make my own mods are also major factors; none of the features added in newer updates interest me enough to want to update


    You are missing out on llamas! I am missing out on them and it makes me cry.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Chunks Repopulating En Masse Once Updating to 1.14

    Going to bump this in the dire hopes that someone has a possible answer for this chunk re-population. This is preventing me from playing this world with 1.14, which I'd really like to do!

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Does Dual-Channel memory help in Minecraft?

    It likely would if you're being technical, but probably not by much, especially if discernible FPS differences are what you seek. Typically, for gaming or day to day work, dual channel offers very small increases, and less so for even higher amounts of channels. Theoretically, memory bandwidth is either doubled, tripled, or quadrupled (in the case of dual channel, triple channel, and quadruple channel, respectively), but the results almost never come close for most uses.


    That being said, it's a bit strange for me to imagine not having at least dual channel in this day and age, especially when there's so many modes like Flex and all that. I guess it's more common for some (even higher end) laptops to forgo it and use one module instead in two slot motherboards, in order to offer cheaper upgrade-ability later. Personally, if I have configured it, I'd have just done 2x 8GB or even 2x 16GB, but it shouldn't matter too much.

    Quote from Hidiety»

    Your memory will help with faster world generation, fps is largely based on your CPU. Minecraft is a very cpu dependent game. Your GPU helps too, but that becomes a larger factor with higher resolution texture packs and shaders.


    Higher render distances, too. I know the CPU is also needed for that, but still worth mentioning the GPU is as well. You can have a halfway decent CPU that itself is up for its end of the task, but if you're using and older low-end GPU or onboard, the render distance will hurt. I guess anti-aliasing/anisotropic filtering can be included, as I use those and a high render distance, but I don't use high resolution texture packs nor shaders.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Question on DIM1 folder

    I'm not sure about more recent Minecraft versions, but years ago (maybe with version 1.6 or 1.7 or so?), deleting that folder was seemingly a full reset on the End dimension, including the dragon (at least to some extent). I would delete that folder, and having been defeated, it would come back. It was possible to get more eggs and experience (the latter being what I was after) this way. I don't do this anymore, though, and it sounds like things have changed.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Stages of tree growth

    I've always felt like trees (and forests) could use a huge rework. The number of trees that have their canopy one or two (or even three) blocks is far too frequent, and these don't qualify as trees in my mind (at least grown ones). It makes forests poor and boring to navigate and play among since you're just trying to find a path through a maze of ground level tree canopies.


    Taiga, Mega Taiga, and jungle biomes (the latter two especially) are nice at not doing this, but that is only a few of the many forest types, and not all trees should be as tall as the ones in Mega taiga and Jungle biomes.


    That being said, the iconic little Minecraft tree is not something I'd expect to win over popular opinion to be changed, but I think if they handled it well, they could pull it off without really upsetting much of anyone. I'd at least like to see the variants with their canopy starting less than three blocks from the ground removed. Raise the maximum height they could be and/or introduce a middle tier of tree (between normal and the Great Oak). I think trees/forests would be vastly improved with those changes. For those who still want foliage larger than a single block bush, but smaller than the now-minimum tree of three trunk blocks tall, introduce a new sapling that essentially grows "large bushes". There's already a tree type somewhat like this, where it's "canopy" is more of a circular sphere that starts one trunk block off the ground. So the smallest possible tree wouldn't really be gone entirely, but it wouldn't be like 80% of normal forests.


    There is the other big issue of causing biomes to be more lag inducing upon world generation (think jungles with the vines) until all trees are fully grown, unless generation only puts in fully grown trees, but then you're adding all of this work for variety that... will not be seen so much less unless you manually grow trees, and I can't see them doing all that work only to keep it out of world generation either. Perhaps it wouldn't be as lag inducing as I'm thinking, and surely it COULD be done if game performance as a whole were better... but I don't have that much faith in Mojang regarding performance, sadly.


    This has partial support from me since I do think trees (small) need some work (removal), and adding stages and/or types could be a good way to add more to the game, however unlikely I think it'll happen.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.