My IGN is SwordmanofDerp. Yeah. It’s quite the dumb name. I named it when I was 10 guys.
I’m considering changing it to BioDerp, BioPrism, or SwagMeister.
BioDerp was a my usual username on the internet but someone already took it on deviantart. BioPrism was chosen because I like Prisms, and Swagmeister because the word swag is easily my least favorite “word” and I like to make fun of it.
… Well then that’s kind of not the correct logic to have if you’re going to generally state that computers have worse performance than consoles. Remember, consoles are computers too, but they’re just crappy computers that are only barely capable of running their OS and whatever games are down-tuned for them.
And no, if you get crappier FPS in Minecraft compared to other games, that’s probably because your processor isn’t good enough. Processing power is where Minecraft shines, and it’s the reason why console Minecraft has a small field of vision and smaller maps than the PC version- consoles don’t have that kind of processing power, so the game is essentially dumbed down to preserve performance and stability.
Yes, Java is a horrible platform for MC to be based on, as is proven by the Windows 10 version of MC that IS NOT based on Java. But it isn’t the reason why it would perform badly on a PC. It’s the crappy PC you decided to buy that’s at fault.
It isn’t unheard of to buy an overpriced PC that doesn’t perform as well as hundreds of dollars should. Ironically, that’s actually what consoles are. Overpriced, factory-built computers that don’t perform as well as the price says it should.
Smaller maps are because of limited file size not processor capacity. My computer runs every other game I play 60 fps or higher. I have met less people than I have fingers who buy gaming computers at greater than that price range. I ain’t arguing about PCs versus consoles I am simply saying Minecraft and pretty much only Minecraft runs better on console.
No. Sorry, that’s legitimately a wrong statement. It’s totally because of processing power. Where are you even getting this information that it’s based on file size? And what makes you think that file size or storage would even affect performance at all? File size doesn’t affect framerate, graphic rendering, or processing in the slightest. And even if that was the case, (which it most definitely is not) how does that even prove that consoles are more capable of running MC than a PC? Smaller maps are proof in of itself that consoles can’t run Minecraft properly.
And again, if that’s a statement you wish to stick by regardless of any legitimate rebuttals or research presented to you, that’s fine I guess. But you aren’t making any compelling argument to prove it, so why continue to state this with so much certainty as if it was true? If you said, “Minecraft runs better on a console than it does on some incapable/lower-end computers”, then consider me convinced. But you’re making a generalization regarding ALL computers, and it’s a very untrue, and frankly unfair, generalization.
EDIT: NOW have a good day. xD
Minecraft console was planned for infinite worlds but Microsoft stopped them because Xbox games are allotted a small amount of the console’s total hard drive. Sony did the same when the PS version was going to be released.
To be honest console hardware isn’t more capable in any way but because 4J wasted a lot of time optimising the game it generally functions better or equal to it’s PC counterpart.
Another point about the console edition FPS is that with the exception of a bug that was in the game for a week the console rarely suffers from lag spikes. The console could handle minecraft at higher FPSs but it is locked at 60 for reasons 4J has neglected to say. (I suspect though I’m probably wrong that it was to prevent claims of lag spikes when it drops back down to 60. 60 being the highest it can be kept consistent.)
I have had PC edition for 2 years plus Windows 10 edition and Pocket Edition (on my sucky kindle)
So who else is hyped for 1.9?
I have Minecraft for Android, iOS, Xbox 360, Win 10, and PC. (Don’t judge, it’s because of gifts and incompatibilities with friends and such.)
My brother and I had one of our friends over the other day, and we played cross-platform.
My brother used a Galaxy SIII android, our friends used his iPhone 5?, and I hosted the game on my Win 10 laptop.
Both of them had lag, but I never had a hiccup. I didn’t record the FPS, but it was at least high enough to not have noticeable issues.
My laptop can run Minecraft Java version without issues as well. It cost $500, but was $700 retail. It has an i5 processor, 4 gigabytes RAM, and a crappy integrated graphics card with only 32 megabytes of dedicated video memory. A desktop is usually $200 cheaper than a laptop with equivalent specs, so it should be easy to find a $500 retail desktop with those specs on sale for $350-ish, the price of a new XBone.
However, my Xbox 360 has had trouble with low FPS in the past. I have had 3 people playing on a restricted size world, and the FPS would drop a noticeable amount fairly often.
My experience has taught me that Minecraft is best played on a computer, not a phone or console.
Super hyped for two reasons: Shields (which I have been wanting since 1.5) and Gliders
No.
The reason most Devs do this is because 30 FPS is “more cinematic.” That is a blatant lie. Unless you’re applying 60 FPS to a video rendered in 30 FPS, which makes it look awkward and too fast.
Most current-gen consoles can run 60 FPS just fine. Look at Halo 5. It has maps with upwards towards 40 or 50 unique individuals at once, NOT counting the players, and it runs in 60 FPS just fine.
Not to mention that fricking SMASH FOR 3DS runs in 60 FPS, with the exception of Assist Trophies. Again, this is a game on the 3DS.
So no, devs don’t use 60 fps for lag reasons. They do it because they are cheap.
I’ve stopped playing Minecraft for the most part. I mostly just build things in creative mode now.
Wait a minute are we having a debate about processing power?
Okay, i’m fine that you think that, but i’ve got a couple of things i’d like to clarify.
You’re saying i’m wrong because you mentionned one game, i said that consoles are capable of handling 60 fps (with some games), having only one example doesn’t validate your argument.
The 3DS is a portable console, wich is completely different from the otherwise stationary devices, the games produced for it are graphically inferior, but yet again, you mention ONE GAME. Also, i’ve actually done some research and as it turns out, only a few games run at 60, and even so, some only run at 60 under certain conditions. It is possible to make them, but either they will be very high quality and highly optimised, or not very demanding.
This makes no sense, to me at least.
Well that’s it i’m done here.
same 
Since 1.8, I’ve been able to run vanilla lag-free on my craptop. If you’re having troubles with lag, I highly recommend that you go into your video settings and turn on VBOs(NOT Vsync, mind you!). It changes how chunks load and can speed your game up like crazy.
Of course, if you’re using mods, Optifine(and a couple other lag reducers) is your only hope. I installed 4 more gigs to my computer recently to try and run heavier some modpacks to no avail. I dare say it’s come down to the processor, and I don’t intend to delve into that any time soon.
I ran a snapshot server with my IRL friends for a while. It was tons of fun! Survival is quite a bit more difficult, and you have to play a lot more tactically.
This is exactly what I hoped for.
I like the 1.9 snapshots, tried it out a month ago.
I haven’t tried out the new combat system, apparently it’s some item data value thing where any item can be coded for combat purposes?
I don’t even know what the combat system is about. I think there’s some anti-spam meter in which if you spam your attacks are weak as pebbles. Fruity pebbles.
Something like that. Simply put, each tool has its own cool down(presumably based on weight) on how fast you can attack with it to be effective; Axes being the heaviest and hoes being the lightest. Additionally, attack damage values have been tweaked so that axes do much more damage per swing than swords, but sword strikes are more effective if timed properly. It’s actually a skill that you have to develop, as opposed to more damage=better.
Oh, and hoes actually do some damage now(along being fast). They still aren’t very good unless their attack damage is increased, however.
There’s also wings, more realistic boats, skeleton horse mini boss, and costlier brewing stands now.
1.9 is the Dual Wielding update, right?
That’s right
Does anyone here use resource packs?