I did not barge in to support Enigmius. Considering we have never talked past thread conversation I have no reason to back him up other than when I agree with him. Especially since I didn't even know that he posted here, since you were the last replier.
Cubic Chunks! Cubic Chunks!
- Thread starter WatcherInTheShadows
- Start date
- Status
I did not barge in to support Enigmius. Considering we have never talked past thread conversation I have no reason to back him up other than when I agree with him. Especially since I didn't even know that he posted here, since you were the last replier.
Um.
Do I really need to point out the obvious holes in this argument?
Either way.
We really have nothing further to say to each other.
Your opinion, however flawed and based upon ignorance in my opinion, is noted.
So how about we end it here?
Addition information from here: https://mojang.atlassian.net/i#browse/MCAPI-28
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic...n-of-x-ray-and-more-60-supporters/page__st__0
I kinda don't really see much point in Cubic Chunks myself. Maybe I read it wrong, but if with cubic chunks minecraft won't load too many upwards either, doesn't that defeat the purpose of big builds? I mean, you aren't going to really see the whole creation at once as chunks will be missing. And without making huge builds that utilise the "infinite" height, what would be the point? Apart from crazily tall mountains which to me means bashing away at my spacebar until I have to replace my keyboard :/.
I would update your OP with these quotes that you are taking from the actual thread as well. It'd be more informative
I would update your OP with these quotes that you are taking from the actual thread as well. It'd be more informative
this thread needs more decaf. don't want more chunks. I don't like fixing what isn't broken.
this idea sounds cool but flawed one being that it the chunks are loading and unloading as described how can we use infinite height like this idea promise if we can not see the higher chunks of the builds this needs to be explained better and shown off better
Exactly, I don't see a problem with the existing system. This basically creates lower render distances by slicing the world into more pieces.
This is a case of their being 99 little bugs in the code and your going to end up with 117 little bugs by making this change. Eventually you would get the bugs lower than the starting amount, but its not worth the effort.
Honestly, just let Mojang do its thing. My spare desktop with 3 year old parts can pull over 1000 FPS on tiny render distance on the latest snapshots, if someone can't hit 60 FPS on normal render distance they should buy a toaster, its got more computational power. World height is editable and mods already exist to generate taller worlds if you want a little more variety, although I think 1.7 will keep everyone busy for a while on that front.
This is a case of their being 99 little bugs in the code and your going to end up with 117 little bugs by making this change. Eventually you would get the bugs lower than the starting amount, but its not worth the effort.
Honestly, just let Mojang do its thing. My spare desktop with 3 year old parts can pull over 1000 FPS on tiny render distance on the latest snapshots, if someone can't hit 60 FPS on normal render distance they should buy a toaster, its got more computational power
. World height is editable and mods already exist to generate taller worlds if you want a little more variety, although I think 1.7 will keep everyone busy for a while on that front.Disclaimer: This is as I understand it and I suck at communicating my thoughts.
Not particularly no.
You would be able to see considerably farther with the same amount of resources your computer currently uses.
Think about it.
Instead of populating and loading a huge swath from bedrock to sky it would really only need to render:
1) What you can see, which can be throttled for slower computers.
2) Your immediate area.
It basically takes chunks, cuts them into blocks and stacks those blocks.
It's a far better use of resources.
I'll see what I can find that explains it better.
I would update your OP with these quotes that you are taking from the actual thread as well. It'd be more informative
You people really are intentionally missing the "referral" to something more knowledgeable than I on this subject gist aren't you?
I've got 99 problems with minecraft. Chunks ain't one of them.Exactly, I don't see a problem with the existing system. This basically creates lower render distances by slicing the world into more pieces.
This is a case of their being 99 little bugs in the code and your going to end up with 117 little bugs by making this change. Eventually you would get the bugs lower than the starting amount, but its not worth the effort.
Honestly, just let Mojang do its thing. My spare desktop with 3 year old parts can pull over 1000 FPS on tiny render distance on the latest snapshots, if someone can't hit 60 FPS on normal render distance they should buy a toaster, its got more computational power
Exactly, I don't see a problem with the existing system. This basically creates lower render distances by slicing the world into more pieces.
This is a case of their being 99 little bugs in the code and your going to end up with 117 little bugs by making this change. Eventually you would get the bugs lower than the starting amount, but its not worth the effort.
Honestly, just let Mojang do its thing. My spare desktop with 3 year old parts can pull over 1000 FPS on tiny render distance on the latest snapshots, if someone can't hit 60 FPS on normal render distance they should buy a toaster, its got more computational power
So, improvement shouldn't be a priority?
If something works now better ways should not be explored?
I believe there is a word for that.
Mediocrity.
As a matter of fact, others have already pulled it off.
https://www.spout.org/ for one.
That's not what DZCreeper is saying. What DZCreeper is saying is that there is a system that works well, so it should not be changed.
Another issue is with ores. Currently, ores are balanced by height level. But with this is if you put a quarry down once it hits diamond level it'll just keep going down and getting more and more diamonds. It completely breaks the balance of ore rarity in general.
This would break chunkloading, automining, tall structures.......yeah no.
This would break chunkloading, automining, tall structures.......yeah no.
Or a better system of ore distribution could be arranged.
As for chunk-loading and auto-mining, not really.
Chuck-loading could easily be adapted and auto-mining as well.
And how exactly would it break tall structures?
As far as mountains go, I've always felt the current standard to be rather weak - I really would love to see some epic mountains.
As far as "digging deeper," I've always thought that being able to go further than the bedrock allows would permit some pretty sweet base designs. My idea was always to have some sort of device/method of creating a "portal" through the bedrock into an "under-world" that would load separately like the nether or twilight forest.
This modification would certainly adress both of those things I want, regardless of whether things like chunk-loading and ore distribution need to be re-worked. I dot know if having this as the new default for *vanilla* is the way to go (yet?) but having it as a mod or as a world-type option seems neat, especially as more work gets done polishing it up and working out the kinks.
As far as "digging deeper," I've always thought that being able to go further than the bedrock allows would permit some pretty sweet base designs. My idea was always to have some sort of device/method of creating a "portal" through the bedrock into an "under-world" that would load separately like the nether or twilight forest.
This modification would certainly adress both of those things I want, regardless of whether things like chunk-loading and ore distribution need to be re-worked. I dot know if having this as the new default for *vanilla* is the way to go (yet?) but having it as a mod or as a world-type option seems neat, especially as more work gets done polishing it up and working out the kinks.
Don't get me wrong, this sounds great but it really belongs in its own game.
It would require several months of converting the existing game and mods, and squishing all the bugs that can and will come with it. Those several months would be better spent adding new features and working on other ways to improve flexibility and performance that don't break the game as much. Really, it is a nice idea, its just too late to put it in the game now.
It would require several months of converting the existing game and mods, and squishing all the bugs that can and will come with it. Those several months would be better spent adding new features and working on other ways to improve flexibility and performance that don't break the game as much. Really, it is a nice idea, its just too late to put it in the game now.
-Tall structures would be cut off from render distance at the top even quicker than currently
-Automining, namely the quarry, is DEPENDENT on the fact that it runs out of room to mine eventually. With this you can pop 4 quarries down and you now have those four quarries running in the same spot FOREVER, creating more and more and more chunks. A tunnel bore would be even worse now that you could have a 40x40 all at diamond level.
-Realistically, how are we going to improve oregen? Just think about it for a sec. It's a system that works great now and has no real problems or imbalances, and this would basically break it.
Also, very epic mountains are possible (*cough*BoP Alps/Crags/Highlands*cough*), it's just that nobody has added them as a non-biome feature. Even these biome mountains only go to about 200 and they're absolutely gigantic. Nothing is stopping people from doing a full-height mountain as it stands.
On another note, if we had some kind of dimension below bedrock (maybe portals at the lowest level of bedrock in some areas, similar to Dimensional Door's Limbo exits?) that would be completely awesome. If you don't feel like you have enough room as it is I suppose making a tardis with DimDoors is always an option.
Uhm...
No.
Why do you say that?
Let me give you taste as to what I am getting at and I guess you missed.
SMALLER CHUNKS MEANS MORE CAN BE LOADED WITH LESS!
The thing that causes lag in chunk generation NOW is the fact it has to the entire thing from bedrock to sky.
Incorrect.
I followed the original Cubic Chunks thread.
Quarries are hard-coded to stop at a certain depth.
They just stopped.
Aaaaannndddddd it would be no different than if a player dug to insane depths.
Did you actually think that chunks would stay loaded?
There have been several mod makers that would tend to disagree.
Yes.
Lag.
Actually read the documentation.
Then get back to me.
Not really.
Another dimension...
Yippee.......
The underground doesn't need to be made infinite. I personally think making it infinite would be a terrible idea, not just because of mod added quarries and such. For starters, vertical movement is a pain. Digging really deep means it would take forever to climb back to the surface. It would also be much easier to get lost. Plus, people in modded servers would need to restrain themselves more when using chunkloaders, since having infinite chunks up and down would mean you would be able to cram much more lag inducing things into closer proximity of each other.
A deeper world limit would still be cool though. I personally think the Minecraft underground should be deeper, and even more high-risk high-reward the deeper you go. That said, even if this was implemented I still think the underground should be cut off by bedrock at some point like it is now.
A deeper world limit would still be cool though. I personally think the Minecraft underground should be deeper, and even more high-risk high-reward the deeper you go. That said, even if this was implemented I still think the underground should be cut off by bedrock at some point like it is now.
This is your friendly neighborhood forum moderator, reminding everyone that politeness and respect for other members isn't just a preference--it's a rule. The first two rules, in fact. Please keep this in mind as the discussion continues. (And yes, this is the topic's one Be Nice warning.)
- Status