Ask a simple question, get a simple answer

[RealKC]

Yep, a drop in the ocean of books

I realize a majority of people really love their in-game manuals, but I'm always going to prefer out-game wikis.

If I'm ever going to make a mod, when you enter on it's wiki you'll have to answer a question about an easter egg that you find by reading a manual with LOTS of pages. MUHAHAHAHA

 

[Xavion]

If I'm ever going to make a mod, when you enter on it's wiki you'll have to answer a question about an easter egg that you find by reading a manual with LOTS of pages. MUHAHAHAHA

Don't forget to make the code change on a regular basis so you can't just check once and have to keep track of updates, ooh! Unique codes based off the instance, and each code can only be used once so you can't just google it either.

 

[RealKC]

Don't forget to make the code change on a regular basis so you can't just check once and have to keep track of updates, ooh! Unique codes based off the instance, and each code can only be used once so you can't just google it either.

If I could +1 that 2 times I'd do it

 

[Pyure]

If I'm ever going to make a mod, when you enter on it's wiki you'll have to answer a question about an easter egg that you find by reading a manual with LOTS of pages. MUHAHAHAHA

I'll be at least a tiny bit tempted to ignore your mod

 

[RealKC]

I'll be at least a tiny bit tempted to ignore your mod

What if I make it that good that you'll want to play with it just because it's that good and I'll also add that much compatibility that you'll stop using the IC2 plates?

 

[Xavion]

Reminds me of one of the ideas I had for a mod, more spell creation style except based around creating static rituals more than spells. Part of the idea had it so that you couldn't really just copy stuff, you had to learn the patterns to do things to get the best results, sure copying the low power ritual might work even though different biomes or altitudes (or seeds?) modify how effective different bits are, but the strong stuff? Well you don't have much room for error there so it's likely to fail, in possibly spectacular fashion. I mean you created your super ore multiplying setup, good for you, but it was unstable and thus it doesn't actually produce iron blocks from your iron ore as you hoped, it produces silverfish iron blocks, or radioactive iron that works but it'll damage you regularly. Alternatively you just pushed too far and rent a hole in reality via the force of the explosion, that works too.

Of course one of the biggest issues was actually designing the systems, in theory it could probably be one of the most "OP" mods ever if I made it, just because laying out a scaling system would mean you could really scale it as far as you could figure out how to make it not backfire while actually getting the resources to build the thing.

 

[Hambeau]

If I could +1 that 2 times I'd do it

Did it for you.

The only thing I'd add is a $0.99 app (available @ Apple's store, Google Play and Windows Store) that you have to enter the Easter egg into to get the "password of the day"

 

[Xavion]

The only thing I'd add is a $0.99 app (available @ Apple's store, Google Play and Windows Store) that you have to enter the Easter egg into to get the "password of the day"

We want people to play, gating knowledge behind playing is much more reasonable than charging to play the mod.

Although based off the idea I mentioned, to stop it so people just repost all the content on a different wiki, things like world seed affect how different things work so the info shown by the wiki is customized based off your code. You need to put the code into the wiki or the information you get will be unreliable at best and horribly detrimental at worst, don't want to find out you're in a world where natural substances like wood are superior and you're checking info on one where metals are the best stuff the hard way after all.

 

[Viperion]

If you can coax 100fps out of 2Gb RAM, don't tinker with anything. Some people would kill for such performance.

SO MUCH THIS. I have a mid-range graphics card (can't remember what off the top of my head) and allocate 3GB of ram to minecraft and I'm lucky to get 60fps, with occasional drops to 10 or so when I'm loading new chunks in (in modded, I get 150ish fps in vanilla)

 

[Ashendale]

SO MUCH THIS. I have a mid-range graphics card (can't remember what off the top of my head) and allocate 3GB of ram to minecraft and I'm lucky to get 60fps, with occasional drops to 10 or so when I'm loading new chunks in (in modded, I get 150ish fps in vanilla)

If I can help:
-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalPacing -XXarallelGCThreads=4 -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:NewRatio=3 -XX:SurvivorRatio=3 -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=80 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=8 -XX:+UseParNewGC -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=10 -XX:GCPauseIntervalMillis=50 -XX:MaxGCMinorPauseMillis=7 -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=60 -XX:+BindGCTaskThreadsToCPUs -Xnoclassgc
Those are the parameters I'm using on the Curse client.

Edit is ": P" (without space). Change number of threads to the number of cores you have available or want to use.

 

[Dkittrell]

SO MUCH THIS. I have a mid-range graphics card (can't remember what off the top of my head) and allocate 3GB of ram to minecraft and I'm lucky to get 60fps, with occasional drops to 10 or so when I'm loading new chunks in (in modded, I get 150ish fps in vanilla)

Graphic card doesnt help with your FPS in minecraft, its all on your CPU, just fyi

 

[Viperion]

If I can help:
-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalPacing -XXarallelGCThreads=4 -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:NewRatio=3 -XX:SurvivorRatio=3 -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=80 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=8 -XX:+UseParNewGC -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=10 -XX:GCPauseIntervalMillis=50 -XX:MaxGCMinorPauseMillis=7 -XX:+ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=60 -XX:+BindGCTaskThreadsToCPUs -Xnoclassgc
Those are the parameters I'm using on the Curse client.

Edit is ": P" (without space). Change number of threads to the number of cores you have available or want to use.

I'm not even gonna try and figure out what all that means. Where - exactly - do I need to put this? (I ask because I don't see the memory allocation argument in there so not sure if this is in the command line arguments or somewhere else)

 

[Viperion]

Graphic card doesnt help with your FPS in minecraft, its all on your CPU, just fyi

Of course it does. I upgraded my graphics card last year and immediately jumped from ~15-20fps to a steady 60ish

 

[Ashendale]

I'm not even gonna try and figure out what all that means. Where - exactly - do I need to put this? (I ask because I don't see the memory allocation argument in there so not sure if this is in the command line arguments or somewhere else)

Go to the Curse settings>Minecraft. Paste there. you see no allocation because by setting the bar (above the box where you paste that) adds the parameter for RAM when you start the game. By the way, when you do start the game, on the Minecraft launcher edit profile (you'll see the parameters and memory allocation there) edit the Java path to, instead of using the silly Java Runtime Environment directory, go to your installed Java path. Sadly you'll have to reset that path each time you close the game AND the launcher. Just closing the game, as long as the launcher is not shut down, does not require the path to be reinputed.

Edit:

Of course it does. I upgraded my graphics card last year and immediately jumped from ~15-20fps to a steady 60ish

Ok, it helps. But it's mainly a CPU thing. RAM second (don't quote me on that) and GPU dead last. And AMD is not best indicated for this kind of thing. Any kind of gaming, actually...

 

[jordsta95]

Ok, it helps. But it's mainly a CPU thing. RAM second (don't quote me on that) and GPU dead last. And AMD is not best indicated for this kind of thing. Any kind of gaming, actually...

CPU and RAM are your main 2 hitters, however, if your GPU can't hit a home run too, then it the whole team see poor results.
AMD are actually extremely good, yes they may take a while to get their drivers in gear, however, they are probably the best bang for their buck.

But you would probably find that RAM and GPU both amount to the same impact on game performance.
A GTX titan with only 2GB of RAM will probably perform better than if I had 32gb of RAM in my current PC (which is a few years old). Because your graphics card actually does a fair amount more than just process graphics. And, it's the reason why, with most games you will see the same RAM amount, but different GPU requirements for games. (obviously, RAM requirements will go up slightly over time)

 

[Ashendale]

I was under the impression that AMD processors were subpar compared to Intel's. I'v checked CPU Boss to compare different pairs and, completely disregarding presence or absence of integrated graphic, there was no AMD CPU equaling or surpassing Intel in the same price range. Except on the number of cores.

I've picked the most recent AMD processor and I did not manage to beat some Intels that were not the most recent.

Are those values misleading? What should I be looking for?

 

[Firnagzen]

Could someone tell me what the recipe for an AE2 Inscriber is in IE:E? I'm away from my computer right now and can't check directly.

 

[jordsta95]

I was under the impression that AMD processors were subpar compared to Intel's. I'v checked CPU Boss to compare different pairs and, completely disregarding presence or absence of integrated graphic, there was no AMD CPU equaling or surpassing Intel in the same price range. Except on the number of cores.

I've picked the most recent AMD processor and I did not manage to beat some Intels that were not the most recent.

Are those values misleading? What should I be looking for?

Well you have to think about what the numbers show with how many cores.
Let's say with AMD could do 8 tasks per second
And Intel could do 10.
So at face value the Intel one seems better.
However, depending on where you are looking, you may get different results. As some would show the 2 figures above to be the be-all and end-all. Whereas, what they actually mean is x tasks per second per core.
So a hexcore AMD could do 48 tasks per second whereas a quadcore intel would only do 40. (this is assuming these 2 types of cards are equal pricing)

However, as I said, AMD is generally better value for money. It may not be the best to look at the latest release, as it usually takes a year of driver updates before AMDs start to perform as good as they can. However, AMD stuff tends to last longer, in my opinion. So even if you bought an AMD processor, and suffered a year with it being only 90% as good as the equivalent Intel processor, you will then find they either level out, or in some cases the AMD chip will start to outperform the Intel one. And then in 5-10 years when you decide to upgrade your PC a little, you may find that your AMD chip is still decent, and you just want to upgrade the GPU to the next model, or one after (if you're on a budget)

 

[RavynousHunter]

Aye, the only complaints I've ever had whilst running AMD machines is when software, for whatever reason, doesn't agree with them. Likely because they built and optimized their software on Intel hardware and never bothered to see if it borked things on AMD machines. For example, until a few years ago, the original Guild Wars would occasionally crash or get weird texture glitches on my bro's AMD machine. After some research, found out it was because GW had problems supporting AMD hardware, especially when combined with an nVidia graphics card.

TL;DR: Only problems I've had with AMDs in my life have been due to developers' cock-ups.

 

[Pyure]

GPU-wise, I've always used AMD cards, but my next one will probably be nvidia. Every couple years or so I'll run into an issue where my graphics drivers refuse to play nice with minecraft, and I don't see nvidia users having the same problems.