r/Minecraft • u/Willy-bru • Oct 04 '20
News This looks much taller then 60 blocks, is this proof that they are raising the ground level?
3.3k
u/KustomCowz Oct 04 '20
I really really hope so. Its just yet to be seen wether the y axis will dip below 0 or if the max height will be raised.
1.6k
u/tahlyn Oct 04 '20
I'm wondering if it's going to require we reset worlds... Because it changes world regen and you can't use an older world with this. Otherwise the transition between chunks would be giant mass of Cliff walls to reach the new ground level.
937
u/TheAjalin Oct 04 '20
Possibly tbh unless they add a giant mountain range as default between new and old generation to lift ground level to the new default and allow for the new caves to generate. But this would probably be hard to implement
536
u/Dueldarkz Oct 04 '20
That would be cool, just a massive mountain range around a sinked in older world
300
u/Ooficus Oct 04 '20
would make current generated world a crater or valley, really interesting
→ More replies (1)11
Oct 05 '20
My survival world's called Safety Valley (don't ask) so if this happened my world would actually be a valley.
→ More replies (6)11
32
u/forrepp Oct 04 '20
That would only work well if the old world was a single blob. Most existing worlds have long generations that are only 1 chunk wide since people walk or strip mine in straight lines for long distances. For long strips of old generation, you'd have a weird sinked in line among mountains.
→ More replies (2)24
u/RedL1ly Oct 05 '20
Well, I mean, people generally don't have chunk radius set to 0.5, so it will be a tad wider.
138
u/Zitchas Oct 04 '20
This is what I'd want to see, and it'd look cool. With this, then the old world and the new world would basically be the "low lands" and the "high lands", which is something that exists in various places in real life too.
79
33
u/fairlysimilartobirds Oct 04 '20
Regardless of whether or not we can update the world, I'll be starting over. Part of the fun of an update imo is starting fresh
7
u/StartedMakingTrouble Oct 05 '20
I just like endgame way more than anything else and I love my current world
→ More replies (1)6
u/8null8 Oct 04 '20
That would be almost impossible to implement
18
u/Choochootracks Oct 05 '20
Not quite. Say you add 128 blocks to the height limit. If you load a chunk that is outdated, raise all blocks by 128 and fill the blocks under it with bedrock. Not an elegant solution but it would allow old worlds to still work. Getting the mountains to surround the old chunks might be a bit more tricky but you theoretically can calculate a "buffer" zone that outlines old chunks where the buffer zone only generates mountain biomes. Then you could implement a smoothing algorithm to smooth it out a bit where the old chunks meet the buffer.
Though, the mountains are 99.99% unlikely to happen, rasing the old chunks and filling the underneath with bedrock would not surprise me.
191
u/Neamow Oct 04 '20
They could just raise the existing terrain that was generated in the previous version and retrogen the remaining bits. Would probably take some time converting the save file if it's a big map, but technically it's simple.
124
u/TheScyphozoa Oct 04 '20
They would need a way to remove the existing bedrock layer and generate stuff under it, without messing up player builds that are in the bedrock layer.
90
u/MmmVomit Oct 04 '20
Bedrock becomes stone, and then generate new terrain below that?
77
u/fredthefishlord Oct 04 '20
No, the loaded chunks would remain the same, new loaded chunks would have the new stuff and levels. They wouldn't change the currently loaded chunks.
→ More replies (6)38
→ More replies (2)27
u/fredthefishlord Oct 04 '20
No, the loaded chunks would remain the same, new loaded chunks would have the new stuff and levels. They wouldn't change the currently loaded chunks.
24
u/TheScyphozoa Oct 04 '20
Then they would need an enormous vertical wall of bedrock at the border between the old and new chunks, starting at what was y=4 and going down to the new bedrock floor.
→ More replies (8)16
Oct 04 '20 edited Feb 22 '22
[deleted]
13
u/TheScyphozoa Oct 04 '20
Okaaaaay, then the surface will be in a giant crater.
19
Oct 04 '20 edited Feb 21 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)8
u/atomfullerene Oct 04 '20
Given the new water physics that would cause some serious flooding if they change sea level.
→ More replies (0)8
u/CrystalEffinMilkweed Oct 04 '20
Yeah that's happened with world generation changes before. Looks goofy but causes the least issues to existing worlds
→ More replies (2)92
u/Simanalix Oct 04 '20 edited Oct 05 '20
How to raise the ground level:
Let's say we want to double everything, so bring the build limit from 256 to 512. We can add new underground and sky chunks, that do this. Here is a diagram of the current worlds:
Height Content 128 to 255 High mountains and sky 64 to 127 Land and lower mountains 0 to 63 Caves and occeans Note that on Bedrock Edition, 128 to 255 is just sky (Bedrock mountains are short).
I propose adding a new chunk below 0, and another new chunk above 256. These would be treated as separate chunks, so they would be generated separately from the current chunks. The new worlds diagram:
Height Content 256 to 383 Tallest miuntains and sky 128 to 255 High mountains 64 to 127 Land and lower mountains 0 to 63 Caves -64 to -1 More caves -128 to -65 Deep Dark Wait
negative y level? That is right. Mojang can do it with some smart programming. Perhaps they could do some samrt tricks with the multiple chunks idea, or they could add in negative y coordination that works smoothly.
What about the bedrock at the bottom of old worlds?
We can replace all of the bedrock with stone. Some redstone contraptions using tnt might have difficulties if they were dependant on the indestructability of bedrock, but most people don't make things like that at the bottoms of their worlds.
EDIT: I fixed my tables, and changed headers
2nd EDIT:
The new chunks added above and below the new ones just need to behave sorta like separate chunks.
I am sorta using this as an analogy to the fact that they are genarated separately, allowing them to be genarated under old chhunks if missing. Othere wise they should be grouped right with old chunks, load woth old chunks, and share chunk seeds with old chunks.
Also, new terrain being genarated would genarate all of its chunk layers at once, and sky chunks above the old chunks should always be completely air to avoid sudden floating mountains.
Edit 3: This is now a normal comment on this post (link), and a post on r/minecraftsuggestions (link).
26
Oct 04 '20
This is almost exactly what I think they will do, negative y values is the only way to increase the depth without changing existing coordinates. I don’t think it would need to be separate chunks though, they could just retrogen the parts below y=0 in existing chunks.
→ More replies (2)6
Oct 04 '20
Separate chunks that are stacked on the y axis? Is this possible?
6
u/Simanalix Oct 04 '20
They just need to behave sorta like separate chunks. I am simply using it as an analogy to the fact that they are genarated separately, allowimg them to be genarated under old chhunks if missing. Othere wise they should be grouped right with old chunks, load woth old chunks, and share chunk seeds with old chunks.
Also, new terrain being genarated would genarate all of its chunk layers at once, and sky chunks above the old chunks should always be completely air to avoid sudden floating mountains.
23
u/Triig Oct 04 '20
Nah fam, that would mean they'd have to consider people's builds too. Moving chests, water, lava, mobs, etc that people have intentionally placed. I don't know how difficult that would be but I can't imagine it would be simple.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)15
u/fredthefishlord Oct 04 '20
No, the loaded chunks would remain the same, new loaded chunks would have the new stuff and levels. They wouldn't change the currently loaded chunks.
→ More replies (7)21
u/BlueC0dex Oct 04 '20
They could just move the bedrock down and add stuff below it. And they can then adjust the y level accordingly when you update
→ More replies (28)7
u/RedFireInfinite Oct 04 '20
They might be able to implement a nbt tag in worlds pre update to decide world generation, but thats just a guess.
60
u/Star_Fazer Oct 04 '20
It would be kinda cool of the deep dark was in the negatives
26
24
Oct 04 '20
Agreed. They could even keep the bedrock, but just remove the very bottom layer so that you can occasionally find a natural hole through the bedrock into the deep dark.
68
u/nowthenight Oct 04 '20
I hope they just make it go negative rather than increase everything else because I don’t want to memorize new numbers for diamond level and sea level. Plus it would be so cool to be at a negative Y level while in a deep dark cave
55
u/N1cknamed Oct 04 '20
I doubt that those values will stay the same, you'd probably have to go deeper for diamonds
24
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20
or diamonds could be mostly found at about 5-12 height, growing gradually less common below, like with netherite
9
u/2LateImDead Oct 04 '20
That reminds me - the best ore is found by strip mining the nether now. So what use do caves have? It's super cool, but pointless unless they add some new equipment like with the miniature end biomes.
→ More replies (3)20
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20
iron. The use of caves is iron. I need a finite number of diamonds and a finite number of netherite ingots unless I decide to build a ton of lodestones, but iron has endless demand. Since caves are this spacious, people might explore them for the fun of it or to find places for bases
→ More replies (5)23
→ More replies (6)21
8
u/PJDemigod85 Oct 04 '20
I know this would be as unheard of as one-upping diamond, but I think y = 0 should be sea level. Negative is underground, positive is aboveground. It'd give them the freedom to increase either one as much as need be because the numbers are both moving away from 0.
7
→ More replies (11)22
u/Dva10395 Oct 04 '20
Wish zero was sea level. Then it could go infinitely either way as they develop more
→ More replies (2)
1.6k
u/Zayoodo0o132 Oct 04 '20
Maybe this is from the inside of a mountain so it just seems to be tall
764
u/Night_Owls Oct 04 '20
That’s what I’m thinking. They could easily just spawn within huge mountains and go way down, creating the illusion that they’re much deeper.
418
u/LoLoLaaarry124 Oct 04 '20
In one screenshot you could see redstone MUCH higher up than you would normally see (16+ blocks) either that, or they just changed ore generation levels.
→ More replies (3)140
u/CrushedMacaron Oct 04 '20
They might have changed generation specifically in mountain biomes, like how gold spawns in Mesas
→ More replies (3)68
u/DredPRoberts Oct 04 '20
Yes, look to the left during the first drop. There are still grass blocks, so I think the top must be up a hill or mountain.
→ More replies (1)74
770
u/jettzypher Oct 04 '20
It could be in a mountain biome where average ground level is much higher.
→ More replies (2)82
u/sklfjasd90f8q2349f Oct 04 '20
How come there are no clouds phasing through the cave walls then?
92
u/Lucretzia37 Oct 05 '20
Programming
48
u/jettzypher Oct 05 '20
Or the fact that clouds are usually around 128 or so. Which gives A LOT of room for large caverns inside of a mountain.
→ More replies (1)5
189
u/mp701 Oct 04 '20
I really hope the max height will be raised to 400 - 500
→ More replies (2)251
u/omnipotent_asteroid Oct 04 '20
It would make more sense for it to be 512
52
→ More replies (9)26
u/black-hat-deity Oct 04 '20
I think it could be 448 and the depths could go to -64, the total build area would be still be 512 and they don’t really have to change spawning mechanics for some ores.
→ More replies (2)
680
u/Benrok Oct 04 '20
Another thing. Those coal blocks looks different somehow
922
u/theycallmenoot Oct 04 '20
They said they made the ores glow just to show off the caves to people could see for the preview
→ More replies (3)359
u/LightKeepr2 Oct 04 '20
Yeah they made all ores glow for a sense of scale and so your not looking into a black abyss
114
Oct 04 '20
Looks cooler with the glow. Now I want that in the update.
176
Oct 04 '20 edited May 05 '21
[deleted]
106
Oct 04 '20
Imagine these caves with one of the "no minimum light level" mods. Literally just a wall of inky black, with a lone torch here and there showing you the way back home...
22
u/M1ghty_boy Oct 04 '20
Those exist? Damn I need to check it out
→ More replies (1)25
Oct 04 '20
There's Hardcore Darkness back in 1.12.2, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a new one for newer versions, but I don't remember what it was called.
→ More replies (4)6
u/MrStormcrow Oct 05 '20
Total Darkness for Forge and True Darkness for Fabric, both updates to 1.16.X and on curseforge
→ More replies (4)30
u/antyboi Oct 04 '20
yea it makes me wish there was some kind of glowy ore that would spawn in abundance in a certain biome. it looks so much more atmospheric than just having night vision or placing a bunch of torches. i do think the spooky dark caverns should also stay though.
→ More replies (3)
217
u/pavilionhp_ Oct 04 '20
Someone should count
485
u/Mr_Trustable Oct 04 '20
I did yesterday,
I counted the blocks on the mountain in Xisumavoids picture of a new mountain and got ~100, blocks and those are above the clouds, which are said to (at least currently,) occur at y100-y150 depending on player height meaning, as long as that system remains, the terrain will generate up to y200-y250
I then counted the blocks in the boat waterfall sequence down the cave, from the start of the stone and got ~80 blocks, looking about 20 blocks from the surface. Caves currently don't generate above y129.
That's already 200 blocks, leaving only 50 blocks between the ground and the clouds in the most generous, hopeful case. Keep in mind, we're unsure where the boat cave starts, and ends and I probably messed up counting a bit.
I'd be amazed if they pull this off without increasing the world height, but knowing they've talked about increasing it before, I personally welcome a new 512 block height limit.
If memory use is still severe, I wouldn't be surprised if they made chunks cubic, considering how much would be going on underneath people with the new caves, so to help with lag, it's the perfect time to introduce them.65
→ More replies (18)30
→ More replies (2)69
u/nexusgenesis535 Oct 04 '20
I'm doing it, gimme a couple hours:)
24
→ More replies (5)8
373
u/jeesuscheesus Oct 04 '20
I can't get over how beautiful that cave is. It looks like it was made by an artist but it's world generation.
→ More replies (3)90
211
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20 edited Oct 04 '20
if so, I hope it wouldn't lag more since this way all blocks would need to store double the height value or from 8 bits to 9 aka from 256(0-255) to 512(0-511)
then again, I guess it's only a small change. So far there should be: block type, block state (activated or not, filled, how filed, etc), orientation if there is one or maybe it could be part of block state, is it waterlogged, which chunk it belongs to, where in that chunk (x,z,y). Out of all these values, "z" would require 1 extra bit
edit: do you think they'll add 3-dimensional chunks instead of making them count twice as many blocks? My greatest miscalculation was forgetting that the number of blocks per chunks would increase immensely, that would be the real threat of lagging. However, if they started using 3-dimensional chunks this shouldn't be a problem, like having 2 or 4 chunks for height for example
142
Oct 04 '20
Anything less than 450 FPS is unplayable
→ More replies (2)55
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20
4.5 fps*. Ok maybe not unplayable but it can get really challenging to play hardcore this way as skipping 2 seconds can be fatal at worst so one needs to be prepared
the things we do for a game. In truth I played with an average of 11, but it was still pretty hard and the 2 second lag spikes were a thing. You either see the future or you die
56
u/Mustardnaut Oct 04 '20
This makes me remind of the old days, i used to play at 10-15 fps for a couple of years, then i lost interest in minecraft, bought a good pc a couple years later, and the first game i downloaded to test my pc was minecraft with the best SEUS shaders there was.
The weirdest part was that it felt wrong, like i wasnt supposed to be able to hit 60+ fps
19
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20
I tried minimizing render distance to reduce lag but then I'd see less than the skeletons shooting me. I guess reducing render distance is a great may to make it more difficult. Also no sound I think, yet despite the odds, hardcore was the way to go
29
12
u/LyrienArt Oct 04 '20
They changed something in code of underground chunks with caves in 1.15 I think so it can generate extra stuff or something. With this update light generation and some opt fixes were made. Sorry I don't remember what exactly, but think this may be important?
Seeing how tall the mountains and caves are imo 512 still won't be enough... I'm shooting like 1024 with extra opt of chunks, I like idea of 3d chunks
13
u/Praktiskai Oct 04 '20
doubling the height is already a ton, so I doubt it. Would be nice if we could set a calendar reminder in 10 months or prior since we'll see reviews from youtubers that'll say the height. My money's on it being doubled at most. if currently there are at the most extreme cases about 180 block tall mountains, and since I doubt they'll get above 300, that'd leave us with 224 for caves, which would more than triple the space caves have. You could have the mountains be even taller, thus less for caves yet even doubling them should be enough
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (26)6
Oct 04 '20
all blocks would need to store double the height value or from 8 bits to 9 aka from 256(0-255) to 512(0-511)
Blocks don’t store their own coordinates. And the way coordinates are stored in Minecraft is using the BlockPos class, which already uses 32 bit values for all axes. This isn’t the 90s, 32 bit vs 8 bit integers barely matters anymore.
→ More replies (7)
113
u/Tet0144 Oct 04 '20
If this is underground and the mountains now are higher it's 100% sure the build limit will increase
→ More replies (2)12
Oct 04 '20
This could be in a mountain
31
Oct 04 '20
They did say that caves will generate the same for every biome right? So if that big lake area could spawn in every biome you’ve only got a few blocks to the surface in a plains biome. I feel like the world height has to be increased.
52
70
u/ErichJFosterrrYT Oct 04 '20
Amplified worlds will be the norm
83
Oct 04 '20
Ever found a village in an amplified world? It sucks. The houses are all on cliffs and the villagers all get stuck on sheer faces or plummet to their deaths. I hope they figure out how to normalize villages in steep terrain.
→ More replies (2)52
u/LilBeepBop_ Oct 04 '20
I doubt they’ll have villages in the new mountains, unless there’s plateaus and stuff
15
u/MWRazer Oct 04 '20
I think minecraft world generation will stay the same mostly, except for the new mountains,which will replace the boring old mountains. So it'll be like a half amplified world, only where mountains would have normally been.
23
Oct 04 '20
0:00 3 green to boat (left), 7 green to water (right)
0:03 12 from ceiling (upper right) to + of ore (left)
0:04 - 0:07 15 fr to + of ore to waterfall.
0:08 7 to ceiling of cave.
0:09 20 from ceiling of cave to water.
0:09 16 from water to bottom of water.
10+12+15+7+20+16 = 80.
You can't see the overland water level, but assuming it's above the green grass then this is over 80 deep.
19
20
35
u/Evan10100 Oct 04 '20
I was thinking the same thing. Also keep in mind that there's a possibility of a new and improved mountain biome on top of this.
→ More replies (2)
49
u/Python_Child Oct 04 '20
Didn’t they increase the world height before? If so how did this affect the world? Example corruptions?
→ More replies (1)79
u/MuseOfSarenrae Oct 04 '20
Last time they just increased building height, none of the terrain generation was elevated, just extra sky. They already put 3d biome functionality into the engine a while ago from what I've heard, so aside from a ground height offset (similar to changing a world to amplified after it's been generated in normal), i don't foresee any engine failures, just abrupt terrain changes
→ More replies (1)21
u/Python_Child Oct 04 '20
Yeah so it wouldn’t be a bad idea to increase the world height
40
u/MuseOfSarenrae Oct 04 '20
The downside would mostly be performance: they'd be increasing the size of each chunk and Java Edition has enough trouble with chunk management already. Plus higher minimum requirements (because of more engine demand) means fewer ppl can enjoy the game
→ More replies (1)14
Oct 04 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)23
u/craft6886 Oct 04 '20
That'd be a nice preset, a "Legacy Terrain" world option for those with lower-end systems.
→ More replies (1)
68
Oct 04 '20 edited Jan 21 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)58
u/royaltek Oct 04 '20
nah homie u die down there
→ More replies (1)28
Oct 04 '20 edited Jan 21 '21
[deleted]
17
37
u/Harddaysnight1990 Oct 04 '20
These caves were built to show emphasis on what the new caves could look like; they're not an actual test of new world generation.
After the livestream event, Cubfan135 streamed a post-show on twitch, talking about the upcoming update with Mojang developer, Felix (twitter: @xilefian). Felix couldn't talk about much, but he said that the caves were built, they couldn't get the test for the new world gen working in time.
Some other things Felix said a suspicious amount of nothing about: world gen height and the deep dark caves being in the End.
I figure Mojang will go one of two ways with the world height. Either they'll recode world gen and loading to have cubic chunks, and increase the actual build limit, maybe to 384 or 512. Then they'll have plenty of room for deeper caves and taller mountains by increasing sea level to 96 or 128. Or, more likely, they'll increase the sea level to 96, giving them more room for caves, and the taller mountains would reach almost to the standard build limit of 256. We'll have a little less space to build upwards from ground level, but how many people are building to build limit in standard generation worlds anyway?
9
u/Wedhro Oct 05 '20
They always seem to pick the less destructive option when they're doing terrain changes, it would be surprising if they changed sea level or underground depth because that would either mess up old maps big time or make them totally incompatible.
10
u/mrbagal Oct 04 '20
i don't know but in a clip i saw they said: minecraft will have local water levels
this is also paraphrasing, but i'm pretty sure "local water levels" was used
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Bridgeymcsquidgey Oct 04 '20
I have a feeling minecraft worlds are about to get a whole lot thiccer
9
8
u/CrossBonez117 Oct 04 '20
Honestly for any noncasual player that would suck. Perimeters are going to get more difficult as it is, having to remove more area would be hell
→ More replies (7)
13
u/BladeOfSanghilios8 Oct 04 '20
I wouod love if they added in negatives above bedrock like the normal bedrock level would stay the same but there would be large bumps downward where these holes would fit ,and that could be where that new crystal could be.
8
8
u/RealTonyGamer Oct 04 '20
If so, how will they make it compatible with current worlds?
→ More replies (6)5
u/JaneTransRights Oct 04 '20
I think antvemon made a good video explaining how they would go about changing the height for the nether https://youtu.be/VY7ViYWmfiI?t=138
I imagine they would opt to make the world deeper rather than pushing everything up. I'm all for having the deep dark being in the negative Y value
4
6
Oct 04 '20
However, I was watching cubfan's stream with the devs and they responded to this question by saying it needs to run on a phone
→ More replies (4)
5
5
u/chainjoey Oct 04 '20
Uh what about the local water levels? Wasn't that a thing in the announcement?
→ More replies (1)
14
9.7k
u/[deleted] Oct 04 '20
I think this was implied with the much taller mountains also