Aha! I have proof that dirt deposits generate after grass is calculated!
Here it is:
What we are looking at is a large stone glitch on a desert biome with dirt deposits under it. The sand prevents the grass from growing over the dirt (as it would happen in any other biome) preserving the evidence. Also, it is notable that the deposits were exposed to direct sunlight, yet still did not grow any initial grass. As such, we can say light calculations are done before dirt deposits are placed, thus if limestone deposit generation were to occur after dirt placement, ugly patches of limestone will not poke through the soil.
As an extra, an underground grass cave was found on the same map. Seen through a chunk that was slow to load, the cave had a complete layer of grass along the bottom, despite there being no entrance and zero light whatsoever. This can be put towards the fact that grass is not calculated by direct light.
1: A sword breaks leaves quicker than your hand. Any sword will do, so make it out of stone (or wood for irony)
2: Learn to click mine. The elites of minecraft thread has an explanation on it, and also a video. If you click mine with the sword on leaves, you'll be far faster than usual. Here is the video (I know it's garbage, but it works).
3: Abandon your farm and make a new one. Reclaim the old one when leaves disappear again.
One problem is travel. You still need to move over the next chunk. The next issue is those eight block offsets. There is no garuntee an area is diamond free because those offsets can make one deposit go north and the chunk north go nowhere. This results in essentially two deposits in one chunk, and none in another.
Unless there is a mathematical bias to particular offsets, then it won't change mining in any way.
On another note, I will say that ore crossing is of extreme importance now. With over 50% of mining being wasted in a staggered mine, there is obviously ways to improve mining further. We are at the golden age of Mines!
I've been looking at ore loss and ore cross, and they might be gragh-able. With a 0-100% ore loss mine on one side vs a 0-100% ore cross on the other. This will make mines comparable in a visual sense.
I will now research into said 0% ore cross mine. This will give the ranges that ore loss and ore cross are able to go.
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore loss: 0.0818
Avg Ore loss = (32/96*((1652/19099)*1))+(8/96*((1148/19099)*2))+(8/96*((724/19099)*4))+(16/96*((591/19099)*2))+(8/96*((465/19099)*3))+(4/96*((425/19099)*3))+(4/96*((423/19099)*4))+(4/96*((244/19099)*5))+(4/96*((238/19099)*4))+(12/96*((209/19099)*2))
Avg Total Ore after loss: 3.9052
Ore cross for the honey comb is done. The ore cross rate is actually ridiculously high: Some less dense mining cross section diagrams might be needed.
Anyway, I will be adding a new rating: Rational Ore Loss
Rational ore loss is the loss the mine takes from combined ore loss and ore cross. Rational ore loss will be one of the main deciders between mining cross sections. It is the averager between ore loss and ore cross: The mine with the lowest Rational Ore Loss can be determained as one of the best mines possible.
I will then hook density to the probability, to give the mine with the lowest Rational Ore loss when compared to the effort it would take to mine.
That will be the the mine's rating. All mining cross sections should be universally comparable with this single figure.
While I'm at this, does anyone have any suggestions for low ore cross diagrams? The ore loss is far lower than ore cross, so an equilibrium will need to be found.
Minerals in Multiple Bedrocks - This is a tempting idea and the only reason I did not lean to it was because of the added demands in block types.
I do not think that adding an appropriate background would be needed for all ores. A generic one, or even just the plan smooth stone would do fine. I'll test this out by repainting some more caves and see how it looks. It should not impact the player' perspective of the game in any way.
Quote from Metadigital »
In short, there's already these beds. My suggestion was more complex, as it dealt with the generation of "layers", but what this does is diversify the underground areas as though they are terrains all their own. Resource "beds" won't significantly change the appearance of caves or tunnels.
Your idea of layers will create interesting occurrences between beds. A variable layer of sedimentary rock could diagonally cut in half a cave system, leading to an interesting effect. However, beds ARE what make caves diverse, and interesting in appearance. Imagine a cave with no dirt, ores or even that hated gravel.
Now make it natural again:
Not only does the cave look natural now, but it's useful too. If the main bedrock was composed of four main parts, you will have awesome natural caves that isn't just interesting and unique to look at, but also holds a purpose.
This is why I would go with deposits that can generate anywhere, creating immense diversity rather than a linear (if variable) stone layer.
Quote from Metadigital »
I never stated that granite would be harder to break than rock.
Erm, I think I derived that from "Sedimentary rocks are more fragile than igneous ones", but I must have gotten mixed up there.
Quote from Metadigital »
The focus of my thread was to create natural "indicators" to give players a direction as to where to mine to obtain what they want.
So, you are trying to tell players to go for specific ores by using indicators? This isn't apparent at all in the thread. If a player wants diamond, their only indicator is to "dig down". The same for gold. The same iron even (just look for granite!). The only indicator a player has is to the various sedimentary layers, which are not of importance to the average player. Even then, different types of sedimentary layers all have the same probability to hold coal. A fault line or volcano will more or less indicate the player to stay away, and will simply make the region harder to mine.
This is again why I suggested intrusive deposits. If you see gabbro, you will get excited because you might get diamond. Certain regions or mines will have (more) gabbro, which will attract more people. Diorite areas aren't in demand as much, but they are great if no one else has redstone at all. These are all the indicators you need, as gabbro can exits in cliffs, which can excite knowledgeable players, while still allowing for underground deposits to be found.
Quote from Metadigital »
You can understand my rationality when I suggested my ideas for a Minecraftian geology.
Yeah, suggestions for erosion and volcanism have turned up before. People have wanted marble and limestone before as well. People have wanted coal rarity to be lowered. All I want to show is that only deposits are needed to show diversity: They are already in game, they just require restructuring. It's a simple, quick way to make advanced geology without hours of coding in for something too 'insignificant' like new cosmetic blocks, or something that probably won't be appreciated like earthquakes and fault lines.
Hopefully being doable will be a massive plus towards the suggestion going into actuality.
As far as adapting vertical mines into this, I have suggested a vertical mining hub. Essentially as outlined above, you need some horizontal mines under a vertical mining grid. The only issue is that the vertical grid must be the same size as the hallways below. They fit spot on in a grid mine, but we already know grid mines are confusing as heck.
Hmm, I'm not going to get any work done unless I set something up.
This Saturday the 4th (for New Zealanders anyway). I will calculate ore loss, ore cross, and those two relative to density. I'll do this for the most promising ones so far, like the staggered mine, the one Fractangle provided and the one with only 6 1x1 holes. If the lowest density one of those turns out best, I'll keep going wider in cross sections until the there are diseconomies of scale.
If anyone wants to help, just PM me and I'll tell you how to do it (I'm not expecting anyone, but hey, I try). This will tell us definitely what the best thing is, and a (smaller) guide can be constructed to tell you how to make the mine and why it works.
A TL;DR is available at the bottom for you annoyed casual readers.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
From what I understand, grass is currently applied last when generating new terrain and is partly based on calculated exposure to light. If I'm correct, then the idea of limiting limestone distribution based on presence of grass won't work because grass will always be generated after limestone. You'll have to suggest some other means to avoid obtrusive limestone deposit, or suggest that the current code for grass be changed.
Bolded for emphasis. If this is so, then limestone's rarity can be dropped as it is now easier to find. Otherwise the priority can be swapped around, but I'm unsure of that part of the code. It is similar to clay, in that clay appears as speckles on the worlds sand, limestone may appear as speckles in the soil. Using the current height system of ore generation, you can limit limestone from appearing in layers 67 and up, which will prevent limestone on mountains.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
Feather's changes to resource generation method:
Existing metal (counting redstone as metal in this paragraph for the purpose of simplicity) resource no longer have their own blocks, but instead appear within other types of blocks.
Diamond can have it's texture changed to grabbro, and redstone to diorite. No issues there. Iron and gold do not need extra backgrounds; a basalt background is sufficient, especially so if the other intrusive rocks looked similar to the basic basalt.
Feather's net changed basic block count: 2 will be changed.
Basalt is exactly the same as it is now, not even a texture reskin. Gold and iron are not eliminated or changed, but diamond and redstone now do have new textures.
Yes, that means my idea and meta's both have the same amount of changes, but mine has one more base block. That extra block is needed to allow for redstone and diamond to be found in their own niche geology.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
Meta's changes to resource generation method:
As far as I can tell, the iron/gold/diamond/redstone will retain their existing block configuration but moved to appropriate layers/veins. So no new blocks or changed blocks as far as they're concerned.
This here is the saddest part. On the assumption that we can have a 256 high map with volcanoes and fault lines, earthquakes and granite, layered strata of limestone sandstone and shale, and all the rest: Mining will still be hell boring. Why? The iron/diamond/gold deposits generation is exactly the same as before. The only change is that the ores are now stretched out over a larger area, and the amount of them is raised to offset this. Congratulations, you are now mining through harder to destroy granite for the exact same goal: a diamond.
Using the resource generation I have suggested, you don't just have an eternal field of probability when it comes to mining. Rather than mine through solid granite to get to your diamond, you should actively search for a region that contains diamond. Meta's geology might create a pretty landscape up above, but when it comes to the grind, we have exactly the same when it comes to mining deep down.
My idea creates regional variation similar to the biomes. If you want more logs now, go find a forest. You could potentially plant more trees to satisfy your want for logs. If you want more diamonds now, go find an exposed gabbro vein. You could potentially dig and explore for a gabbro vein to satisfy your want for diamond.
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
(and I can't even find anything he says about flowing sand, is that his idea or someone else in his thread?)
Quote from Metadigital »
- Sandstone will replace sand's role entirely.
- To address this, sand will change its behavior into a liquid with slightly different properties than either water or lava. First of all, its texture will not animate. It will simply flow out from a point and sit still in a pile. Second, the player walks upon it rather than swimming in it. It will be a solid material with liquid-like properties. As such, its source can either be "mined" or captured in a bucket. Mining the sand will break it down into the same parts as sandstone that can be reworked into brick or forged into glass, but capturing it in a bucket will retain its liquid-like properties.
An interesting point here. Sandstone will replace gravel, yet sandstone will replace sand? That's just something I noticed now.
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
particularly owing to the big IFs regarding mineral generation. If may be better just to spawn existing metal and crystal blocks in the appropriate layers and veins, rather than change the way they work as blocks.
...You just proved yourself wrong. In this case, the appropriate layers are the rocks gabbro, granite and diorite. I have not changed the way any blocks work, they are all exactly the same as one another with ingame physics, with the exception of granite being slightly harder. They do not use new craft recipes, they do not gain the ability to erode, nor do they have a liquid form.
Meta's version DOES have all these changes to the ways blocks work. He wants rocks to be able to sense water, and erode if necessary, he wants sand to become another liquid object. I have made no ideas about changing the way any blocks work, thank you very much.
TLDR
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
I think Feather has potentially posed an alternative idea to that of Meta's with comparable (if not greater) level of complexity and work involved, rather than something that is overall simpler
Incorrect. This idea is barely an alternative. This idea and Meta's are not substitutes for one another. They are COMPLIMENTS that work together! We AGREE that there should be coal in the sedimentry layer, we AGREE that there should be limestone and marble. We AGREE that there should be more types of rocks underground!
Even the differences are completly non related:
He goes on about tectonics and erosion and extra ore types which makes the surface funner to explore.
I go on about a better way to generate ores using the current system to make the underground funner to mine.
These ideas fit together like a hand in a glove. The only difference is that his suggestion is only an idea, and my suggestion has a very easy way to link with the current system. No new features. (except a possible chisel and maybe letting ores generate within two stones. That can even be ignored and let iron generated before gabbro/granie/diorite and gold can generate in deposits of granite. Problem solved.)
So there you have it. Is there anything left to argue over, and completely ruin both ideas?
Some things are not feasible simply because it requires restructuring of stuff already in game. I have seen many suggestions for volcanoes (I've even made one myself), but they hold no ground with how the game already plays. They would require some sort of signature (random coordinate, volcanic area) then they would generate lava. But how would that ever reach the surface? You'd need the lava to periodically explode whenever it can't rise any higher, destroying the stone above it.
The fix for that would be pre made volcanoes, but Notch has stated about the monster villages:
Quote from NotchBlog »
For villages, I need to come up with something clever. It would be great to have small huts with roads and so, but doing that procedurally in streaming terrain is far from trivial, heh.
Any large pre-generated volcano would only be 16x16 in size (the size of a chunk)! The generator can't cope well with adding features to a map.
Another point is about the implementation requirements that Metadegital wants to fufil. Yes, a 256 deep map would be awesome, just like the indev games. HOWEVER, as Notch has stated somewhere in his twitters, the lighting bugs up going down 256 squares.
Fault lines have a similar problem to volcanoes, because as Notch said:
Quote from Notchblog »
It’s either a chaotic wasteland of random blocks, or a sharp border of sudden ice
They would require a continuous reference in perhaps a bitmap that says where to generate a 'fault'. The main issue here is making sure that you don't get horrible "Chunk Glitches" which are prevalent on large SMP maps. Some could say they themselves are crude forms of fault-lines. Making a fault line obvious but not ugly would be the hard part.
Erosion requires general block to block interaction, which Notch still hasn't implemented properly yet. This could also potentially result in all the little streams across the world burrowing down into the ground, resulting in random ditches all over the place. It could be added, but a proper mechanism will need to be thought for it.
There are some things I agree with Metadigital though. That includes that Coal should be in the sedimentary layer. By making it absurdly common, but only found in the soil layer and any soil deposits underground you are making coal into a rare substance. This will add more value for digging through soil, and coal itself can be substituted with logs or lava if one needs it for furnace operations.
Limestone is a big one. Again, it should be found in the soil layer, and it will help with many big monuments. Limestone bricks are possible crafts as Meta has said, and that would be awesome as well for creating buildings.
Things like shale and sandstone are taking the idea too far, but I'm all for more colours and textures. I already use sand in my European housing, and more variety for the greyscale colours would be awesome. Notch just seems to have something against making a ton of useless blocks (I.e, he refuses to make more than two stair types (wood and cobble), and he removed all the wool blocks with the intention of making the one wool block id harbour all the colour changes to it.
TL;DR
That is my reasoning for stating complications with Meta's idea. It's okay to dream up ideas, but one step at a time.
A larger world needs Notch to further optimise the game, and adding fault lines and erosion require balancing to properly add to the game. Volcanism requires more growth features in game, or pre-generation capabilities. Flowing sand sounds quiet useless, and the only foreseeable good point about it would being the ability to make sloping roofs.
I am mearily offering a simple, effective generation idea that can be hooked up easily in game with only 3 new needed blocks, and 2 extra cosmetic blocks. These will help regions gain their own variation, with some regions being more valuable than others, which will influence player decisions on where to settle.
Here we have a granite intrusion into a cave between the igneous and sedimentary layer. A limestone deposit has been cut in half by erosion, however a small amount of marble is now visible.
Nine people wanted the videos, so I'll post em up. These are some of the first time lapses I've ever witnessed and/or made in Minecraft, so different styles and software was used to render them.
The first one, this one used Wax video editing software to put together. It is probably the worst one so far.
This second one was done with multiple people. I used Windows Movie Maker to put it together, so I had more control over sound than Wax gave (like volume). This worked really well, it isn't boring, and multiple people means something interesting was always happening.
I probably could have speed this one up a bit more. One person means more boring, but this video is useful for demonstrating usage of parabolas. I tried to use the night to help show off the lamps, but I forgot hypercam doesn't do night time very well...
If you have any comments (like was the music weird/annoying/loud, or was the camera quality too low) then post them here.
0
Here
The purpose of it? It tells you how to mine faster. So you can gather more materials for other excessive things.
0
Here it is:
What we are looking at is a large stone glitch on a desert biome with dirt deposits under it. The sand prevents the grass from growing over the dirt (as it would happen in any other biome) preserving the evidence. Also, it is notable that the deposits were exposed to direct sunlight, yet still did not grow any initial grass. As such, we can say light calculations are done before dirt deposits are placed, thus if limestone deposit generation were to occur after dirt placement, ugly patches of limestone will not poke through the soil.
As an extra, an underground grass cave was found on the same map. Seen through a chunk that was slow to load, the cave had a complete layer of grass along the bottom, despite there being no entrance and zero light whatsoever. This can be put towards the fact that grass is not calculated by direct light.
0
2: Learn to click mine. The elites of minecraft thread has an explanation on it, and also a video. If you click mine with the sword on leaves, you'll be far faster than usual. Here is the video (I know it's garbage, but it works).
3: Abandon your farm and make a new one. Reclaim the old one when leaves disappear again.
0
Unless there is a mathematical bias to particular offsets, then it won't change mining in any way.
On another note, I will say that ore crossing is of extreme importance now. With over 50% of mining being wasted in a staggered mine, there is obviously ways to improve mining further. We are at the golden age of Mines!
I've been looking at ore loss and ore cross, and they might be gragh-able. With a 0-100% ore loss mine on one side vs a 0-100% ore cross on the other. This will make mines comparable in a visual sense.
I will now research into said 0% ore cross mine. This will give the ranges that ore loss and ore cross are able to go.
0
I'll finish up the data today.
0
Ore loss:
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.086 ((1652/19099)*1)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.120 ((1148/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0758 ((724/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.073 ((465/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0886 ((425/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.089 ((423/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.064 ((244/19099)*5)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.050 ((238/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.022 ((209/19099)*2)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore loss: 0.0818
Avg Ore loss = (32/96*((1652/19099)*1))+(8/96*((1148/19099)*2))+(8/96*((724/19099)*4))+(16/96*((591/19099)*2))+(8/96*((465/19099)*3))+(4/96*((425/19099)*3))+(4/96*((423/19099)*4))+(4/96*((244/19099)*5))+(4/96*((238/19099)*4))+(12/96*((209/19099)*2))
Avg Total Ore after loss: 3.9052
Percentage Change in ore: 0.0205 * 100 = 2.0525% Ore loss.
Density: 16.7%
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.086 ((1652/19099)*1)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore loss: 0.0130
Avg Ore loss = (((1652/19099)*1)*8/72)+(((591/19099)*2)*4/72)
Avg Total Ore after loss: 3.9740
Percentage change in loss: 0.0016 * 100 =0.1551% Ore loss.
Density: 22.2%
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.086 ((1652/19099)*1)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore loss: 0.0235
Avg Ore loss = (((1652/19099)*1)*2/10)+(((591/19099)*2)*1/10)
Avg Total Ore after loss: 3.9635
Percentage change in loss: 0.0059 * 100 =0.5926% Ore loss.
Density: 20%
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.086 ((1652/19099)*1)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore loss: 0.3523
Avg Ore loss = (((1652/19099)*1)*6/2)+(((591/19099)*2)*3/2)
Avg Total Ore after loss: 3.8203
Percentage change in loss: 0.0436 * 100 =4.3624% Ore loss.
Density: 19.8%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ore Cross fact sheet (ignore):
____________ Avg Probable Ore: 0.707 (((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 1.341 (((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.505 (((278*2)+(591*3)+(1827*4))/2696)*(2696/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.669 (((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.086 ((1652/19099)*1)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.120 ((1148/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0758 ((724/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.073 ((465/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0886 ((425/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.089 ((423/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.064 ((244/19099)*5)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.050 ((238/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.022 ((209/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.045 ((173/19099)*5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ore Cross:
____________ Avg Probable Ore: 0.707 (((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 1.341 (((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.669 (((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0758 ((724/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.073 ((465/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0886 ((425/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.089 ((423/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.064 ((244/19099)*5)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.050 ((238/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.022 ((209/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.045 ((173/19099)*5)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore Cross: 0.9136
Avg Ore Cross = (((173/19099)*5)*6/24)+(((209/19099)*2)*2/24)+(((238/19099)*4)*8/24)+(((244/19099)*5)*10/24)+(((423/19099)*4)*2/24)+(((425/19099)*3)*2/24)+(((465/19099)*3)*4/24)+(((724/19099)*4)*6/24)+((((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)*4/24)+((((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)*8/24)+((((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)*8/24)
Avg Total Ore after Ore Cross: 3.0734
Percentage change in Ore Cross: 0.2972 * 100 =29.7245% Ore Cross.
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Rational Ore loss: 0.9954
Avg Ore Cross = (((173/19099)*5)*6/24)+(((209/19099)*2)*2/24)+(((238/19099)*4)*8/24)+(((244/19099)*5)*10/24)+(((423/19099)*4)*2/24)+(((425/19099)*3)*2/24)+(((465/19099)*3)*4/24)+(((724/19099)*4)*6/24)+((((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)*4/24)+((((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)*8/24)+((((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)*8/24)+(32/96*((1652/19099)*1))+(8/96*((1148/19099)*2))+(8/96*((724/19099)*4))+(16/96*((591/19099)*2))+(8/96*((465/19099)*3))+(4/96*((425/19099)*3))+(4/96*((423/19099)*4))+(4/96*((244/19099)*5))+(4/96*((238/19099)*4))+(12/96*((209/19099)*2))
Avg Total Ore after Ore Cross: 2.9916
Percentage change in Rational Ore Loss: 0.3327 * 100 =33.2732% Rational Ore Loss.
____________ Avg Probable Ore: 0.707 (((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 1.341 (((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.505 (((278*2)+(591*3)+(1827*4))/2696)*(2696/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.669 (((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.120 ((1148/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0758 ((724/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.062 ((591/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.073 ((465/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.0886 ((425/19099)*3)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.089 ((423/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.064 ((244/19099)*5)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.050 ((238/19099)*4)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.022 ((209/19099)*2)
____________Avg Probable Ore: 0.045 ((173/19099)*5)
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Ore Cross: 1.4622
Avg Ore Cross = (((((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)*9/18)+((((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)*8/18)+((((278*2)+(591*3)+(1827*4))/2696)*(2696/19099)*2/18)+((((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)*6/18)+(((1148/19099)*2)*4/18)+(((724/19099)*4)*6/18)+(((591/19099)*2)*1/18)+(((465/19099)*3)*5/18)+(((425/19099)*3)*5/18)+(((423/19099)*4)*6/18)+(((244/19099)*5)*21/36)+(((238/19099)*4)*9/18)+(((209/19099)*2)*4/18)+(((173/19099)*5)*7/18)))
Avg Total Ore after Ore Loss: 2.5248
Percentage change in Ore Cross: 0.5791 * 100 =57.9158% Ore Cross.
Avg Total Ore: 3.987
Avg Rational Ore Loss: 1.4753
Avg Rational Ore loss = ((((1652/19099)*1)*8/72)+(((591/19099)*2)*4/72))+(((((291*4)+(476*5)+(1660*6))/2757)*(2757/19099)*9/18)+((((1833*4)+(1136*6)+(270*7)+(1197*8))/4436)*(4436/19099)*8/18)+((((278*2)+(591*3)+(1827*4))/2696)*(2696/19099)*2/18)+((((569*3)+(682*4)+(1667*5))/2918)*(2918/19099)*6/18)+(((1148/19099)*2)*4/18)+(((724/19099)*4)*6/18)+(((591/19099)*2)*1/18)+(((465/19099)*3)*5/18)+(((425/19099)*3)*5/18)+(((423/19099)*4)*6/18)+(((244/19099)*5)*21/36)+(((238/19099)*4)*9/18)+(((209/19099)*2)*4/18)+(((173/19099)*5)*7/18)))
Avg Total Ore after Ore Loss: 2.5117
Percentage change in Ore Cross: 0.5873 * 100 =58.7371% Ore Cross.
0
Anyway, I will be adding a new rating: Rational Ore Loss
Rational ore loss is the loss the mine takes from combined ore loss and ore cross. Rational ore loss will be one of the main deciders between mining cross sections. It is the averager between ore loss and ore cross: The mine with the lowest Rational Ore Loss can be determained as one of the best mines possible.
I will then hook density to the probability, to give the mine with the lowest Rational Ore loss when compared to the effort it would take to mine.
That will be the the mine's rating. All mining cross sections should be universally comparable with this single figure.
While I'm at this, does anyone have any suggestions for low ore cross diagrams? The ore loss is far lower than ore cross, so an equilibrium will need to be found.
0
0
I do not think that adding an appropriate background would be needed for all ores. A generic one, or even just the plan smooth stone would do fine. I'll test this out by repainting some more caves and see how it looks. It should not impact the player' perspective of the game in any way.
Your idea of layers will create interesting occurrences between beds. A variable layer of sedimentary rock could diagonally cut in half a cave system, leading to an interesting effect. However, beds ARE what make caves diverse, and interesting in appearance. Imagine a cave with no dirt, ores or even that hated gravel.
Now make it natural again:
Not only does the cave look natural now, but it's useful too. If the main bedrock was composed of four main parts, you will have awesome natural caves that isn't just interesting and unique to look at, but also holds a purpose.
This is why I would go with deposits that can generate anywhere, creating immense diversity rather than a linear (if variable) stone layer.
Erm, I think I derived that from "Sedimentary rocks are more fragile than igneous ones", but I must have gotten mixed up there.
So, you are trying to tell players to go for specific ores by using indicators? This isn't apparent at all in the thread. If a player wants diamond, their only indicator is to "dig down". The same for gold. The same iron even (just look for granite!). The only indicator a player has is to the various sedimentary layers, which are not of importance to the average player. Even then, different types of sedimentary layers all have the same probability to hold coal. A fault line or volcano will more or less indicate the player to stay away, and will simply make the region harder to mine.
This is again why I suggested intrusive deposits. If you see gabbro, you will get excited because you might get diamond. Certain regions or mines will have (more) gabbro, which will attract more people. Diorite areas aren't in demand as much, but they are great if no one else has redstone at all. These are all the indicators you need, as gabbro can exits in cliffs, which can excite knowledgeable players, while still allowing for underground deposits to be found.
Yeah, suggestions for erosion and volcanism have turned up before. People have wanted marble and limestone before as well. People have wanted coal rarity to be lowered. All I want to show is that only deposits are needed to show diversity: They are already in game, they just require restructuring. It's a simple, quick way to make advanced geology without hours of coding in for something too 'insignificant' like new cosmetic blocks, or something that probably won't be appreciated like earthquakes and fault lines.
Hopefully being doable will be a massive plus towards the suggestion going into actuality.
0
As far as adapting vertical mines into this, I have suggested a vertical mining hub. Essentially as outlined above, you need some horizontal mines under a vertical mining grid. The only issue is that the vertical grid must be the same size as the hallways below. They fit spot on in a grid mine, but we already know grid mines are confusing as heck.
0
Hmm, I'm not going to get any work done unless I set something up.
This Saturday the 4th (for New Zealanders anyway). I will calculate ore loss, ore cross, and those two relative to density. I'll do this for the most promising ones so far, like the staggered mine, the one Fractangle provided and the one with only 6 1x1 holes. If the lowest density one of those turns out best, I'll keep going wider in cross sections until the there are diseconomies of scale.
If anyone wants to help, just PM me and I'll tell you how to do it (I'm not expecting anyone, but hey, I try). This will tell us definitely what the best thing is, and a (smaller) guide can be constructed to tell you how to make the mine and why it works.
0
Bolded for emphasis. If this is so, then limestone's rarity can be dropped as it is now easier to find. Otherwise the priority can be swapped around, but I'm unsure of that part of the code. It is similar to clay, in that clay appears as speckles on the worlds sand, limestone may appear as speckles in the soil. Using the current height system of ore generation, you can limit limestone from appearing in layers 67 and up, which will prevent limestone on mountains.
Diamond can have it's texture changed to grabbro, and redstone to diorite. No issues there. Iron and gold do not need extra backgrounds; a basalt background is sufficient, especially so if the other intrusive rocks looked similar to the basic basalt.
Feather's net changed basic block count:
2 will be changed.
Basalt is exactly the same as it is now, not even a texture reskin. Gold and iron are not eliminated or changed, but diamond and redstone now do have new textures.
Yes, that means my idea and meta's both have the same amount of changes, but mine has one more base block. That extra block is needed to allow for redstone and diamond to be found in their own niche geology.
This here is the saddest part. On the assumption that we can have a 256 high map with volcanoes and fault lines, earthquakes and granite, layered strata of limestone sandstone and shale, and all the rest: Mining will still be hell boring. Why? The iron/diamond/gold deposits generation is exactly the same as before. The only change is that the ores are now stretched out over a larger area, and the amount of them is raised to offset this. Congratulations, you are now mining through harder to destroy granite for the exact same goal: a diamond.
Using the resource generation I have suggested, you don't just have an eternal field of probability when it comes to mining. Rather than mine through solid granite to get to your diamond, you should actively search for a region that contains diamond. Meta's geology might create a pretty landscape up above, but when it comes to the grind, we have exactly the same when it comes to mining deep down.
My idea creates regional variation similar to the biomes. If you want more logs now, go find a forest. You could potentially plant more trees to satisfy your want for logs. If you want more diamonds now, go find an exposed gabbro vein. You could potentially dig and explore for a gabbro vein to satisfy your want for diamond.
An interesting point here. Sandstone will replace gravel, yet sandstone will replace sand? That's just something I noticed now.
...You just proved yourself wrong. In this case, the appropriate layers are the rocks gabbro, granite and diorite. I have not changed the way any blocks work, they are all exactly the same as one another with ingame physics, with the exception of granite being slightly harder. They do not use new craft recipes, they do not gain the ability to erode, nor do they have a liquid form.
Meta's version DOES have all these changes to the ways blocks work. He wants rocks to be able to sense water, and erode if necessary, he wants sand to become another liquid object. I have made no ideas about changing the way any blocks work, thank you very much.
Incorrect. This idea is barely an alternative. This idea and Meta's are not substitutes for one another. They are COMPLIMENTS that work together! We AGREE that there should be coal in the sedimentry layer, we AGREE that there should be limestone and marble. We AGREE that there should be more types of rocks underground!
Even the differences are completly non related:
These ideas fit together like a hand in a glove. The only difference is that his suggestion is only an idea, and my suggestion has a very easy way to link with the current system. No new features. (except a possible chisel and maybe letting ores generate within two stones. That can even be ignored and let iron generated before gabbro/granie/diorite and gold can generate in deposits of granite. Problem solved.)
So there you have it. Is there anything left to argue over, and completely ruin both ideas?
0
The fix for that would be pre made volcanoes, but Notch has stated about the monster villages:
Any large pre-generated volcano would only be 16x16 in size (the size of a chunk)! The generator can't cope well with adding features to a map.
Another point is about the implementation requirements that Metadegital wants to fufil. Yes, a 256 deep map would be awesome, just like the indev games. HOWEVER, as Notch has stated somewhere in his twitters, the lighting bugs up going down 256 squares.
Fault lines have a similar problem to volcanoes, because as Notch said:
They would require a continuous reference in perhaps a bitmap that says where to generate a 'fault'. The main issue here is making sure that you don't get horrible "Chunk Glitches" which are prevalent on large SMP maps. Some could say they themselves are crude forms of fault-lines. Making a fault line obvious but not ugly would be the hard part.
Erosion requires general block to block interaction, which Notch still hasn't implemented properly yet. This could also potentially result in all the little streams across the world burrowing down into the ground, resulting in random ditches all over the place. It could be added, but a proper mechanism will need to be thought for it.
There are some things I agree with Metadigital though. That includes that Coal should be in the sedimentary layer. By making it absurdly common, but only found in the soil layer and any soil deposits underground you are making coal into a rare substance. This will add more value for digging through soil, and coal itself can be substituted with logs or lava if one needs it for furnace operations.
Limestone is a big one. Again, it should be found in the soil layer, and it will help with many big monuments. Limestone bricks are possible crafts as Meta has said, and that would be awesome as well for creating buildings.
Things like shale and sandstone are taking the idea too far, but I'm all for more colours and textures. I already use sand in my European housing, and more variety for the greyscale colours would be awesome. Notch just seems to have something against making a ton of useless blocks (I.e, he refuses to make more than two stair types (wood and cobble), and he removed all the wool blocks with the intention of making the one wool block id harbour all the colour changes to it.
That is my reasoning for stating complications with Meta's idea. It's okay to dream up ideas, but one step at a time.
A larger world needs Notch to further optimise the game, and adding fault lines and erosion require balancing to properly add to the game. Volcanism requires more growth features in game, or pre-generation capabilities. Flowing sand sounds quiet useless, and the only foreseeable good point about it would being the ability to make sloping roofs.
I am mearily offering a simple, effective generation idea that can be hooked up easily in game with only 3 new needed blocks, and 2 extra cosmetic blocks. These will help regions gain their own variation, with some regions being more valuable than others, which will influence player decisions on where to settle.
Thank you for reading.
0
Here we have a granite intrusion into a cave between the igneous and sedimentary layer. A limestone deposit has been cut in half by erosion, however a small amount of marble is now visible.
Images courtesy of Plusnine.
0
The first one, this one used Wax video editing software to put together. It is probably the worst one so far.
This second one was done with multiple people. I used Windows Movie Maker to put it together, so I had more control over sound than Wax gave (like volume). This worked really well, it isn't boring, and multiple people means something interesting was always happening.
I probably could have speed this one up a bit more. One person means more boring, but this video is useful for demonstrating usage of parabolas. I tried to use the night to help show off the lamps, but I forgot hypercam doesn't do night time very well...
If you have any comments (like was the music weird/annoying/loud, or was the camera quality too low) then post them here.