1.8 MC on the near horizon?

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here

Golrith

Over-Achiever
Trusted User
Nov 11, 2012
3,837
2,137
248
Minecraft seems to be following kind of the same update pattern as Windows... one version is great and everyone loves it and the next version sucks ding dongs
sure, it brings in some new stuff, but also brings up alot of new bugs
then comes a version that fixes alot of the problem and soon after another awesome version comes out
but ofcourse after that, the next ding dong version comes up

never really planned on staying at 1.7 too long myself, I just find 1.7 really really buggy
The pattern I'm seeing is that even versions are good (1.2.5, 1.4.7, 1.6.4), odds are naff. Hmm, so why the hell am I working on a 1.7.10 pack? :S
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Thank goodness Mojang isn't as closed-minded as your suggestion is.
Correct, and good observation. No offense taken.

In order to play "modded" minecraft, you need to purchase the vanilla game - so the two are not mutually exclusive, exactly the opposite.
Partially accurate. When Mojang adds a horse to the game, they sell more copies to the vanilla community. Meanwhile the modding community either shrugs or adds it themselves.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
(kinda) On-topic; Anyone knows from the snapshots if conversion between 1.7 and 1.8 is easy and/or no so hard as 1.6 -> 1.7? The easier it is, the faster we get updated packs from our beloved Modpack Creators. :D
I base this on pure speculation on my part, but I *think* it will be much easier to upgrade 1.7-1.8 in the modding scene. 1.7 came with a whole new way of assembling mods that will ( as I understand it) carry forward through 1.8 and hopefully beyond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eyamaz

Yusunoha

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
6,441
-1
0
The pattern I'm seeing is that even versions are good (1.2.5, 1.4.7, 1.6.4), odds are naff. Hmm, so why the hell am I working on a 1.7.10 pack? :S
you're a bit forced to update with each version...
1.6.4 was a golden version, just like 1.2.5 was, and after a version like that people get really excited when a new version comes out
sadly that new version is often not nearly as good as the previous version, but people still want to play it, because new versions means new content and features

I'm really thinking of just skipping 1.7 altogether... I tried it a few times and I just can't seem to get excited for it
both vanilla and modded seems to be really buggy, and I just really hate playing a buggy version
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pizzawolf14

dothrom

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
501
0
0
1.7.10 has disappointed me also. I was (am?) looking forward to the new mod versions, but as stated, it's rather buggy. The chunk-generation/loading problem just kills it for me. Though I was unaware of the mod that might (sometimes?) help with that, so I guess a bit more testing for me. As for even version thing... I *do* remember having some problems with 1.5 I haven't had since. Mostly in relation to mobs getting out of hand very easily and choking out my server.
 

Hambeau

Over-Achiever
Jul 24, 2013
2,602
1,533
213
Ouch. I have found each minecraft version has been more heavy on performance, had to upgrade my PC a while back (was due) since I struggled with 1.5.x, but was fine with 1.2.5 and okish with 1.4.7.
1.8 is a different story... Some of the "under-the-hood" changes have made a vast difference in Vanilla performance, which theoretically should equate to vast improvements in modded performance, given that the selected mods peacefully co-exist with MC and the other mods in the pack.

Just to name a couple of changes, terrain generation will now be multithreaded -and- chunks will be limited to rendering what is visible as opposed to rendering everything down to bedrock. This improves FPS by simplifying graphics operations since blocks are rendered only when they become visible.

Several data structure changes have been made as well, which will allow the implementation of player character name changes without having to delete/restart the world, assuming that another future change doesn't make that necessary. This will be implemented "Sometime after 1.8".

You might want to check out the latest snapshot to see how much faster MC runs now, particularly compared to what happened in 1.7.10.[DOUBLEPOST=1408467814][/DOUBLEPOST]
I base this on pure speculation on my part, but I *think* it will be much easier to upgrade 1.7-1.8 in the modding scene. 1.7 came with a whole new way of assembling mods that will ( as I understand it) carry forward through 1.8 and hopefully beyond.
This is likely to be the case, although there may be an interim version of vanilla to run for world-file compatibility due to the internal data structure changes implemented for the future name change mechanics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
1.8 is a different story... Some of the "under-the-hood" changes have made a vast difference in Vanilla performance, which theoretically should equate to vast improvements in modded performance, given that the selected mods peacefully co-exist with MC and the other mods in the pack.

Just to name a couple of changes, terrain generation will now be multithreaded -and- chunks will be limited to rendering what is visible as opposed to rendering everything down to bedrock. This improves FPS by simplifying graphics operations since blocks are rendered only when they become visible.

Several data structure changes have been made as well, which will allow the implementation of player character name changes without having to delete/restart the world, assuming that another future change doesn't make that necessary. This will be implemented "Sometime after 1.8".
Excellent info (summarizing a bunch of stuff I've seen here or there)

Its a bit relieving to know that the massive amount of time/effort being put in by developers won't be completely wasted on 1.7. A lot of it should hopefully translate over to 1.8 if they should decide to port further.
 

Qazplm601

Lord of the Tumbleweeds
Sep 21, 2013
2,754
3,282
308
Where else?
1.8 is a different story... Some of the "under-the-hood" changes have made a vast difference in Vanilla performance, which theoretically should equate to vast improvements in modded performance, given that the selected mods peacefully co-exist with MC and the other mods in the pack.

Just to name a couple of changes, terrain generation will now be multithreaded -and- chunks will be limited to rendering what is visible as opposed to rendering everything down to bedrock. This improves FPS by simplifying graphics operations since blocks are rendered only when they become visible.

Several data structure changes have been made as well, which will allow the implementation of player character name changes without having to delete/restart the world, assuming that another future change doesn't make that necessary. This will be implemented "Sometime after 1.8".

You might want to check out the latest snapshot to see how much faster MC runs now, particularly compared to what happened in 1.7.10.[DOUBLEPOST=1408467814][/DOUBLEPOST]

This is likely to be the case, although there may be an interim version of vanilla to run for world-file compatibility due to the internal data structure changes implemented for the future name change mechanics.
I would agree if I wasn't getting more lag in the 1.8 snapshots then I was in 1.7
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedBoss

asb3pe

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,704
1
1
I would agree if I wasn't getting more lag in the 1.8 snapshots then I was in 1.7
Its def still a work in progess. One of my long-time wishes for minecraft has been that they find a way to allow us to see vast distances - when you can only see 3 or 4 chunks distance, it really ruins the realism of the game for me. All of the sudden, a huge mountain pops up in front of you where nothing was there a second ago. It's just not realistic.

But when I play the snapshots and put the render distance on 32 chunks, I get vast areas where the chunks just refuse to load. I see half a world, and the other half is all void. It's not rendering speed, it's something else. I'm on single player server, why are chunks taking minutes (not seconds) to load? It's not my computer, trust me - it's Mojang. I sure hope they pin it down, because it seems they're so close to getting it perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure

Hambeau

Over-Achiever
Jul 24, 2013
2,602
1,533
213
Its def still a work in progess. One of my long-time wishes for minecraft has been that they find a way to allow us to see vast distances - when you can only see 3 or 4 chunks distance, it really ruins the realism of the game for me. All of the sudden, a huge mountain pops up in front of you where nothing was there a second ago. It's just not realistic.

But when I play the snapshots and put the render distance on 32 chunks, I get vast areas where the chunks just refuse to load. I see half a world, and the other half is all void. It's not rendering speed, it's something else. I'm on single player server, why are chunks taking minutes (not seconds) to load? It's not my computer, trust me - it's Mojang. I sure hope they pin it down, because it seems they're so close to getting it perfect.
My video card works just fine at 16 chunk distance but I haven't tried 32... I figured my video card might not have enough ram, being 3-4 years old. I'll have to try it but 16 chunks is still an improvement for me.
 

triblades

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
80
0
0
Straw man argument.

In reality, advertising pays the bills. Modded community maintains a tiny fraction compared to the whole, and if vanilla players were getting into it because of their modding friends, they'd be mostly playing modded MC themselves (which evidently they aren't because, again, the modding community is relatively small)

This is all completely, pseudo-scientifically provable too: if modders paid the bills, they'd invest more in the modding community. They're not stupid :)
Agree to disagree on the Straw man, unless I was wrong to assume you meant to say that modded MC didn't cause Mojang to get more money.

Advertising pays bills, yeah, but not exclusively. You state that the evidence of most MC players playing vanilla is the 'small' modded community. Can you back this up? I can't find any numbers support either of our arguments in this. I think it's just the opposite. And besides, unless FTB releases download counters, we unfortunately won't know. I think most vanilla buyers just left the game as is and won't play it anymore, the opposite of modded players. Those, again I think, keep playing (and getting more people interrested) because there is just so much content.

As for you pseudo-scientifically argument, I can say the same because Mojang hired FOUR people to strengthen it's API to modded Minecraft! What more do 'we' want from them?

Partially accurate. When Mojang adds a horse to the game, they sell more copies to the vanilla community. Meanwhile the modding community either shrugs or adds it themselves.
And why do you think they added the horse? Because modded, that's why. I can't find it anymore, but I thought I remembered they even got the skin for the horse from a mod. (mo's creatures?) So this is actually another example of Mojang profeting from mods!
 

triblades

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
80
0
0
My video card works just fine at 16 chunk distance but I haven't tried 32... I figured my video card might not have enough ram, being 3-4 years old. I'll have to try it but 16 chunks is still an improvement for me.
http://optifog.blogspot.nl/2011/08/understanding-minecraft-performance.html (go to: "1. GPU")

At the standard 'far' rendering MC uses ~60 million polygons per second, according to the above site.
Check your videocard specs and look for "polygones per frame". Then multiply it by 30, for 30 frames per second. (the accepted minimum for fluid gameplay)

And then compare the two.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Agree to disagree on the Straw man, unless I was wrong to assume you meant to say that modded MC didn't cause Mojang to get more money.
Mods virtually always bring in more revenue; the corporation will compare that revenue to other revenue streams and angle primarily with the best one which (usually) isn't assisting the modding community (there are exceptions)

Advertising pays bills, yeah, but not exclusively. You state that the evidence of most MC players playing vanilla is the 'small' modded community. Can you back this up? I can't find any numbers support either of our arguments in this. I think it's just the opposite.
Ask Mojang for the numbers.

I think most vanilla buyers just left the game as is and won't play it anymore, the opposite of modded players.
This is possible but to a large extent Mojang doesn't care; the copy is already sold. (Its different if Mojang operates paid/subscription servers; I have no idea if that's the case)

As for you pseudo-scientifically argument, I can say the same because Mojang hired FOUR people to strengthen it's API to modded Minecraft! What more do 'we' want from them?
Me? I want even more. Just because I don't think it makes them money doesn't mean I'm not selfish and want more. Hire 50 people and make unlimited-height worlds please.

And why do you think they added the horse? Because modded, that's why. I can't find it anymore, but I thought I remembered they even got the skin for the horse from a mod. (mo's creatures?) So this is actually another example of Mojang profeting from mods!
I have always said Mojang will take the good ideas out there.
You could make an even stronger argument and say that the modding community creates a talent pool they can draw from.
 

dwappo

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
328
0
0
Correct, and good observation. No offense taken.


Partially accurate. When Mojang adds a horse to the game, they sell more copies to the vanilla community. Meanwhile the modding community either shrugs or adds it themselves.
For the record, horses were in the modded version before vanilla. And even then Mojang got the mod author to help them add horses to the vanilla game.

So, the modding community is kinda important to the game overall.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
For the record, horses were in the modded version before vanilla. And even then Mojang got the mod author to help them add horses to the vanilla game.

So, the modding community is kinda important to the game overall.
I don't think anyone disputed either point, friend. If you prefer, you can extend my original point to say "the modded community shrugs, adds it themselves, or shrugs because they've already added it themselves."
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwappo

xbony2

WikiWorker
Wiki Staff
FTB Mod Dev
Jul 3, 2013
913
1,353
201
America
ftb.gamepedia.com
The pattern I'm seeing is that even versions are good (1.2.5, 1.4.7, 1.6.4), odds are naff. Hmm, so why the hell am I working on a 1.7.10 pack? :S
1.4 was great bro. Nether content and beacons. 1.6 was good for upcoming modders, there were a ton. 1.8 not so much. Bunny rabbits ruined it entirely. Here's my opinion on bunnies.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,194
383
Waterloo, Ontario
I. HATE. Bunnies. A lot. Ok? :p
I spent 3.5 years just shy of the arctic circle (came home last year), and they have these monstrous bunnies that would reap their revenge on you if they ever caught a hold of you.

Seriously dood these things were alarmingly huge.