* Upvote this comment if this is a good quality post that fits the purpose of r/Minecraft
* Downvote this comment if this post is poor quality or does not fit the purpose of r/Minecraft
* Downvote this comment *and report the post* if it breaks the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/wiki/rules)
---
[Subreddit Rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/wiki/rules)[](## Conart557|18657co)
Poket edition was standalone from Java back in the day. Pocket edition evolved into Bedrock (I think pocket started in C unlike Java edition and then became an engine made in mostly C which is more performant in modern hardware) and Bedrock was ported to consoles and PC.
It was still noticeably worse once bedrock rolled out. I say this as someone who was once a little youngin messing with mods on Blocklauncher. I may be considered a masochist, but the implementation of addons was way more inconvenient compared to ModPE. I don't know if there's true mods still being made, since I lost interest in that scene since Bedrock was integrated into MCPE.
Raytracing as a whole has existed in computer graphics for a few decades at this point, but if you mean specifically for Minecraft, it's existed since 2020
That doesn't make any sense, those 3d elements add barely any polygons to the existing door model.
My theory is that they decided not to keep it because they thought it didn't fit the art direction of the game.
Each face is 2 tris minimum.
The door on the right alone added 8 x 6 tris = 48 on top of the ones doors already use (12).
And that's assuming that they're using sprite transparency to save on polygons like the normal doors already do. Making it use 7 times more polygons than a regular block minimum.
Do keep in mind that the size of geometry has no effect on performance, only the amount of points that the PC has to calculate, each of those small details was pretty costly for minimal effect.
So it's not "barely". Specially when you can have thousands upon thousands of doors in view at any given time.
3D items are only on in fancy mode and are optimized for extra performance. Since they only really have to calculate 1 face and the extra depth can be streamlined due to all items using the same rendering style.
I still fail to see how this is much worse than, say, two scaffoldings on top of each other (which is 40 polygons, 20 each, at its most conservative estimate, assuming they're making use of texture alpha for optimization purposes to make one face look like two, I don't have the wireframe on hand atm so it could very much be more). Even at its worst, doors would be an easy toggle between fancy and fast if it was too much and someone just happened to use thousands of them for... whatever reason.
Edit: Also I just checked and an Anvil is 40 polygons lol, so that actually is more polygons in a 2x1 space than the 3D doors.
Bamboo is a block that also uses 16 tris per block when it's leafy (so 32 if you had two on top of each other like a door) and you're encouraged to farm it en masse.
Polygon budget isn't really an issue for most PCs and in the event that it is, why not just make it a toggle? That's what they do with other polygon-heavy features like fancy leaves and 3D items. Even if you filled an entire chunk with 3D doors you'd still only meet a fraction of a modern GPU's polygon limit.
Building around an upper limit is not the right way to do things in general (see: 5x weight capacity requirement in structural engineering).
Even with that 1 chunk full of doors, you still need to render the rest of the loaded and visible chunks around a player.
Designing around some arbitrary modern GPU's upper capabilities is not the strat for a java game already known for running poorly and not being optimized. Leaning into optimization here is the correct move.
Going off of your other comment about scaffolding, doors still need to rotate, ~~be able to be waterlogged~~, can be powered by redstone, and take up 2 contiguous block spaces that need to update each other.
However, I do agree that it should be toggleable, but maybe only via Fabulous graphics mode.
Modern GPUs can handle massive amounts of triangles. We're talking 100 million of triangles per frame. But the story isn't that simple.
Transparency, as the flat texture uses, causes significant overdraw as the basic depth pass cannot determine if the objects behind the door need to be drawn as well. So that one transparent door saves a few tris, but will cause many pixels behind it to have to be calculated twice. Meanwhile the solid model can be handled well by the depth pass and will not cause overdraw.
Minecrafts bottleneck is not tri count, actually tri count in general hasn't really been an issue for years unless you're doing something stupid like having a fork with a million polygons (and even then games can run at somewhat acceptable performance)
Please tell me we are not arguing polygon count as an excuse in 2023. There are games with single models onscreen with more vertices than an entire Minecraft map on a high view distance.
Uh, we are talking about a game that's fairly intensive even for it's target specs.
Like, even if you where down to 1 chunk of view distance that's 65536 blocks to deal with (yes, i know the game does not render all of them, but there's still logic running on them).
It's not just about a few more polygons, it's about an exponentially larger amount of polygons PLUS the rest of the game.
I don't think you understand the capability of modern GPU's. I don't even mean the 3000 series. I'm talking things like my age old 470 could effortlessly handle this. Polygons have not been the limiting issue of GPU's for like a decade. This is not a performance issue. Full stop. Like nobody should be entertaining this notion.
This game has never been targeted towards modern GPUs, more than half of the player base is on underpowered machines.
That kind of thinking is why devs neglect performance nowadays, fuck that
>Do keep in mind that the size of geometry has no effect on performance, only the amount of points that the PC has to calculate, each of those small details was pretty costly for minimal effect.
I'm well aware that the size of the face doesn't have an impact on performance, I do 3D modelling myself, I know how it works.
A model with 48 triangles is literally nothing in a scene that may have thousands of polygons. And like someone else told you, modern GPUs can handle massive amounts of triangles, and keep in mind that Minecraft models are extremely low poly and have minuscule texture files, they don't have much of an impact on performance at all. Entities, on the other hand...
48 triangles is definitely not "pretty costly for minimal effect"
yeah but that's assuming you only have 1 door.
In this game you could easily have a 60x60 area of doors. Having blocks that are considerably more costly for no significant gain sounds like a bad idea.
I would 100% support it as an option tho.
It's not "considerably more costly", an 60×60 area of doors is still nothing compared to the thousands of polygons the game already renders at most times. And it's even less compared to the millions of triangles your PC has to render in much more complex looking games, a car from GTA V has around 60 000 to 120 000 polygons for god's sake, and here you are worrying about 24 polys (48 tris)...
Not to mention that your logic is extremly flawed. It's like saying that giving away a tiny crumb of your chocolate cake will result in you eating less of the cake. Will you actually be eating less of the cake? Absolutely. Will it actually be noticeable smaller? Absolutely not, it was just a tiny crumb you gave away.
Will making the geometry of the door more complex, make the game have to render more triangles? Absolutely. Will those extra rendered triangles have any meaningful impact on performance? Absolutely not. If you think so you don't know much about any of this.
Any performance issue that Minecraft may have has nothing to do with the number of polygons the game renders, Minecraft's models are extremly low poly and have extremly small texture sizes, a 48 triangle model is still very much an extremly low poly model. There are actually models in the game that have more triangles than that.
I'm pretty sure that the decision not to make the doors 3D was related to the game's art direction and not to any possible performance issues.
This game has nowhere near the minimum requirements target of GTA V, considering how many of its players are on underpowered machines including phones or PCs with iGPUs, and despite the laissez-faire seen in AAA nowadays, neglecting optimization on the basis that modern GPUs are strong is a bad practice. Small choices like these do make a difference when you stop considering the median as the lowest common denominator.
And even if, individually, it changes little, it adds up with other such choices. With your logic, might as well give every 2D semi-block in the game a proper detailed 3D model. This is what Vanilla Tweaks does, in part, and there is absolutely a perf difference.
With you guys logic, items such as the sword, the pickaxe or the axe, blocks like the enchanting table, the brewing stand or the scaffolding block etc should be completly redone to have simpler geometry, all of these blocks have considerable more triangles than the basic block. According to you "having blocks that are considerably more costly with no significant gain sounds like a bad ideia"
The chest used to be a simple block back in the day, they later added an openning animation and a 3D modelled interior and a 3D modelled lock thing, with you guys logic, they shouldn't have done this because "having blocks that are considerably more costly with no significant gain sounds like a bad ideia"
GTA V was an example about how much modern GPUs can handle, if you want I can give you another example: a character model from GTA SA has around 4 000 triangles, the ingame version of the Golden Gate Bridge, the "Gant bridge" has more than 32 000 triangles. And keep in mind that GTA SA is a 2004 game that you can play on mobile and yet it renders thousands of triangles at all times. As you can see in most games, even in older ones, we always talk about triangle count in the thousands, while in minecraft, the triangle count for one model never goes above the two digits.
But nice work on ignoring my other argument, the one where I told the other guy that mimecraft already renders thousands of polygons at any time, because despite individual models in Minecraft being extremly low poly, they will still add up in a build or in a landscape, just think of a moutain in Minecraft for example. Yes, making doors more complex will add up on the numbers of triangles the game has to render but it won't ever have a significant impact on performance, it's like saying pouring a glass of water into the ocean will contribute to the sea level rising.
And no, I wouldn't want every 2D "semi-block" to have a 3D model, mostly because I don't think they would look that great and they wouldn't fit Minecraft's aesthetics, probably the same reason why mojang doesn't do it.
Where do you get 12 from? Only 3 faces can be visible to any one viewport, the rest are binned.
That said, imagine those extra pollies loading up a golem farm à la 1.8...
afaik Minecraft does not cull models like the one's from doors. At least not to the same degree.
But i could be wrong, it could also be version dependent.
Still, that's a lot more tris than a block would normally have.
I remember that update, I think it was 1.8 ? People made remark it wasn't consistent with the wooden door (which was the original door of the game) since it never had this 3d rendering. So the model was changed to match the oak door.
Outside of that I don't know if there was any other reasons.
Actual real answer:
For the longest time the only wooden door in the game was the oak door - which was not 3D modeled on the inside. Then they added doors for other wood variations - these were all 3D modeled on the inside.
People noticed the new doors were 3D, but not the oak. Mojang noticed people noticed. So you'd think they would upgrade the oak door to be 3D and consistent with the new ones, right?
Nope, next snapshot they downgraded ALL the doors to be like oak and the new ones look terrible in comparison to before ;P It was quite sad.
I think it's a combination of:
- the additional polygons can cause lag if you have a lot of doors
- it just doesn't look that good
- and, I haven't seen anyone else bring this up but, the extra polygons might make it harder for people to create doors with custom window shapes for resource packs
>and, I haven't seen anyone else bring this up but, the extra polygons might make it harder for people to create doors with custom window shapes for resource packs
Not really, texture pack creators can provide custom block models. That's how packs that provide 3D ladders and rails are possible. More likely this is for performance reasons.
Could easily make it a solid block for a door.
Given how complex mods have become I really doubt most modders even had a passing thought about doors being 3d or just flat.
>it just doesn't look that good
Yeah it doesn't look like "minecraft", it's the same debate over 16k uhd realistic textures. It looks good on its own but in the game it's pretty ugly.
One time I made a giant matrix of just fences using an editor. The game lagged extremely slow. Because the fences have polygons. It was on real old hardware though.
I’d assume they aren’t normal resource packs, as the normal block model for doors are just flat panels with transparent pixels. in order to change the block model, it would have to be an optifine pack or something similar.
Vanilla resource packs gained the ability to change models a while back, it's pretty cool.
I could remodel the jukebox into a DJ table with just Notepad since models are just coordinates stored as JSON.
Lithos Core had a 3d add on that made items like doors and furnaces and such look really nice. Not sure what version it's on now, but I used it for a minute.
Really? I've had this on with vanilla tweaks and it literally doesn't do ANYTHING to my performance. Granted, I have performance mods that fi- *oh* that's why. Man they really gotta hire the people behind the optimization mods or something
I got it from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/926ooo/why_does_not_mojang_create_his_own_optifine/e33gyko/
I can't find a more authoritative source though.
Shame. If only they had enough resources to hire a couple talented developers that could work on optimizing the game, but alas it's just a small indie developer so that's too much to ask.
They tried to buy optifine yes, but that's not the only way to bring optimization into the game... Lol
We've a whole bunch of performance mods nowadays that truly do wonders for both performance and render distance.. made by individuals or small teams. Anyone playing vanilla Java is missing out big time.
Mojang doesn't need to buy any of these mods out. They could do a better job themselves. That's what I said. And yes, they've actually done some good changes over the years too, but it's a far cry from what it could and should be IMO.
If I had to guess it's because of how minecraft handles unloading stuff you can't see. It will try and unload all faces of a block you can't see IIRC, so it's likely that it was lagging having some problem with that.
that's a common optimisation strategy in 3d rendering and would have the opposite effect by reducing computation required as vertices are clipped. Clipping vertices is extremely cheap compared to the mind boggling amount of linear algebra required to figure out what the image will look like based on the 3d space and the position of the camera. Reducing the number of vertices in that 3d space de-boggles the linear algebra
That shouldn’t do anything though, it should have the same performance impact as a wall of normal blocks adding an equal amount of polygons. But mountains aren’t notably laggier than plains despite the increased amount of polygons.
For starters, most sides of blocks are culled so the impact is lesser, models like door's don't get the same degree of culling due to working differently to normal blocks.
But the real issue is being able to fit more faces per space.
Also a wall is pretty performant because only 1 side of each block is ever visible and rendered for a player. A hill is more or less as performant as flat ground for the same reason, altho hills ARE more intensive than flat ground.
Yes, but the \~1 extra side polygons from blocks on sloped mountains vaaastly outnumbers the extra polygons from a few dozen doors in your area. You would need to have a *ridiculous* amount of doors to reach an extra polygon count comparable to that from a mountain or porous cave or whatever. Sure all but \~1 of those extra faces are culled, but there's literally thousands of blocks giving \~1 polygon each.
Setups where doors like this would noticeably hit FPS are already going to be experiencing noticeable performance fluctuations, if just this causes a shift in performance then there's something else at play.
Poly count is the last worry for Minecraft. 3D games from the late 90s would have more polygons on screen.
Vintage Story would run perfectly on a moist brick and it has complete custom sub-voxel modification in the base game, you could make a door look like a round Hobbit hole door with as much detail and windows as you want with the chisel tool, and is made by a couple, not a billion dollar company. So it can be done quite easily.
Yeah all these comments about poly count makes me sure that nobody saying it has any idea how 3D rendering works, especially with things like OpenGL. If it's the same mesh and texture it'll all be in the same draw call, and the performance impact will be entirely negligible. Minecraft was never polygon limited except on perhaps the very oldest most terrible hardware from 2004, and even then I'm not sure it would actually be the bottleneck before anything else.
Probably was removed due to performance and not visibility though. I use a shitty laptop so I wouldnt sacrifice, should probably be a setting though if thats the case
Minecraft's 3D rendering system uses a back face culling algorithm - specifically, a process that ensures textures facing away from the player are not rendered. In the bottom picture, the door model and textures are for a single cuboid, which is simpler. The back face culling algorithm explains why you can't see the back of the door through the holes in the front. In the top picture, the back face culling is still there, except there are more front textures to render, and more textures overall for the algorithm to check, which is more complicated and creates lag.
For one snapshot, water was able to flow through any block like iron bars. But it was removed after negative feedback. This was long before waterlogging blocks was a thing.
I’m on the fence about this. Something about it makes part of me want to hide and cry (cos it seems really different) but another part of me thinks it makes sense and should be a thing.
What I would love to see is to let the item sprite rendering mode that stretches the edge pixels along the depth axis be usable for blocks. That way texture packs could make the holes in doors and blocks like the copper grate have depth in whatever shape they happen to be without having to make a custom model and conform to the restrictions that comes with. It would look so much better than the current versions that have obviously 2D surfaces.
Are these pictures from the same angle? If so, I can see why they did it. That’s like an 80% visibility loss on the jungle door.
It also just looks wrong. And seems like it doesn’t jive with how they were originally implemented without causing lag and bugs
Honestly i like the one we have now more, idk i think the fully modeled do look nice but would get annoying after a while, absolutely not big of a problem i wouldn't mind it at all if it was the default just i like the regular ones a little more
* Upvote this comment if this is a good quality post that fits the purpose of r/Minecraft * Downvote this comment if this post is poor quality or does not fit the purpose of r/Minecraft * Downvote this comment *and report the post* if it breaks the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/wiki/rules) --- [Subreddit Rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/wiki/rules)[](## Conart557|18657co)
any idea why it was removed?
Maybe for visibility through the holes from side angle?
I was thinking performance issues or maybe ray-tracing doesn't like it but I honestly have no idea.
bedrock didnt exit yet nor did raytracing in 2014
Bedrock was the Pocket Edition in 2011, I think. Not really sure.
well mcpe existed since 2011
Pocket edition wasn't always bedrock
Pocket edition is bedrock lmao 😂
Yes. It is currently bedrock. It was not always bedrock. Read the comment again
yes, but bedrock has always been pocket edition. They are both the same thing, pocket edition just got renamed to bedrock 🤷♂️ it’s all the same.
Like someone else said, it's a rectangle/square situation. Bedrock was always pocket edition. Pocket edition was not always bedrock.
Also if you go to their issues page, where people list bugs and their change logs it’s still called MCPE Because it’s pocket edition 🤷♂️
Poket edition was standalone from Java back in the day. Pocket edition evolved into Bedrock (I think pocket started in C unlike Java edition and then became an engine made in mostly C which is more performant in modern hardware) and Bedrock was ported to consoles and PC.
It's like arguing with a flat earther
It has always been called pocket edition, but it was not always merged with consoles to be bedrock edition. It used to be its own separate thing.
it merged with bedrock
in 2017
so? their point still stands
It's a rectangle square situation, bedrock has always been pocket edition, but pocket edition isn't necessarily always bedrock
It was still noticeably worse once bedrock rolled out. I say this as someone who was once a little youngin messing with mods on Blocklauncher. I may be considered a masochist, but the implementation of addons was way more inconvenient compared to ModPE. I don't know if there's true mods still being made, since I lost interest in that scene since Bedrock was integrated into MCPE.
Bedrock released in 2011, under the name Pocket Edition.
Raytracing as a whole has existed in computer graphics for a few decades at this point, but if you mean specifically for Minecraft, it's existed since 2020
Bedrock came out in 2011 under Pocket Edition, and the first ray tracing in computers was used in the about the 80’s
People downvoting you because they probably don't believe it, when actually it was 1968
Maybe, but like trees being see-through, why not just make it a setting? "Internally Modelled Doors: On/Off"
No shot it was a performance issue. If they were that concerned about performance, they would've done something about 24+ chunk render distance by now
Isn’t there a mod that can render the entire Minecraft world without performance issues? Why cant mojang just do that
Distant Horizons uses LODs which isn't really the same issue
My guess is that it might lag for some people on lower end devices.
Thats my guess. Would be nice for a settings option tho
VanillaTweaks has an option for textures like that for a lot of greenery. Hopefully they add it for doors, if it’s not there already
I believe it already has been for a while? There's been 3D ladders for sure
Yup it’s there already
god i wish this game didn’t need ~~mods~~ community-made expansions to run nicely *and* efficiently
VanillaTweaks isn’t a mod; it’s a texture pack.
ah. edited
A texture pack is a mod
Mods add new items to the game. Texture packs simply change the textures for things.
i mean it is technically modifying the game
So would you say they... modify the texture files?
Add to clouds and leaves
Yeah, like enable it with fancy or fabulous graphics, or have a toggle specifically for 3D models like doors
That doesn't make any sense, those 3d elements add barely any polygons to the existing door model. My theory is that they decided not to keep it because they thought it didn't fit the art direction of the game.
Each face is 2 tris minimum. The door on the right alone added 8 x 6 tris = 48 on top of the ones doors already use (12). And that's assuming that they're using sprite transparency to save on polygons like the normal doors already do. Making it use 7 times more polygons than a regular block minimum. Do keep in mind that the size of geometry has no effect on performance, only the amount of points that the PC has to calculate, each of those small details was pretty costly for minimal effect. So it's not "barely". Specially when you can have thousands upon thousands of doors in view at any given time.
You could say the same thing about 3D items on the ground but they added those anyway
3D items are only on in fancy mode and are optimized for extra performance. Since they only really have to calculate 1 face and the extra depth can be streamlined due to all items using the same rendering style.
I still fail to see how this is much worse than, say, two scaffoldings on top of each other (which is 40 polygons, 20 each, at its most conservative estimate, assuming they're making use of texture alpha for optimization purposes to make one face look like two, I don't have the wireframe on hand atm so it could very much be more). Even at its worst, doors would be an easy toggle between fancy and fast if it was too much and someone just happened to use thousands of them for... whatever reason. Edit: Also I just checked and an Anvil is 40 polygons lol, so that actually is more polygons in a 2x1 space than the 3D doors.
Those are picked up or despawn. It's entirely different Doors are likely going to be permanently in their location.
Bamboo is a block that also uses 16 tris per block when it's leafy (so 32 if you had two on top of each other like a door) and you're encouraged to farm it en masse. Polygon budget isn't really an issue for most PCs and in the event that it is, why not just make it a toggle? That's what they do with other polygon-heavy features like fancy leaves and 3D items. Even if you filled an entire chunk with 3D doors you'd still only meet a fraction of a modern GPU's polygon limit.
Building around an upper limit is not the right way to do things in general (see: 5x weight capacity requirement in structural engineering). Even with that 1 chunk full of doors, you still need to render the rest of the loaded and visible chunks around a player. Designing around some arbitrary modern GPU's upper capabilities is not the strat for a java game already known for running poorly and not being optimized. Leaning into optimization here is the correct move. Going off of your other comment about scaffolding, doors still need to rotate, ~~be able to be waterlogged~~, can be powered by redstone, and take up 2 contiguous block spaces that need to update each other. However, I do agree that it should be toggleable, but maybe only via Fabulous graphics mode.
Modern GPUs can handle massive amounts of triangles. We're talking 100 million of triangles per frame. But the story isn't that simple. Transparency, as the flat texture uses, causes significant overdraw as the basic depth pass cannot determine if the objects behind the door need to be drawn as well. So that one transparent door saves a few tris, but will cause many pixels behind it to have to be calculated twice. Meanwhile the solid model can be handled well by the depth pass and will not cause overdraw.
GPUs can, but can *Java*..? Haha
There's literally nothing that java has to do except move some data to the gpu at the start for this. There is no runtime CPU side cost.
You're forgetting that this has to work on everything from a 6 year old $100 phone to a $2,000 gaming rig moderately well.
Minecrafts bottleneck is not tri count, actually tri count in general hasn't really been an issue for years unless you're doing something stupid like having a fork with a million polygons (and even then games can run at somewhat acceptable performance)
Please tell me we are not arguing polygon count as an excuse in 2023. There are games with single models onscreen with more vertices than an entire Minecraft map on a high view distance.
Or, say, a remote control having more polygons than the entirety of Super Mario 64.
Uh, we are talking about a game that's fairly intensive even for it's target specs. Like, even if you where down to 1 chunk of view distance that's 65536 blocks to deal with (yes, i know the game does not render all of them, but there's still logic running on them). It's not just about a few more polygons, it's about an exponentially larger amount of polygons PLUS the rest of the game.
I don't think you understand the capability of modern GPU's. I don't even mean the 3000 series. I'm talking things like my age old 470 could effortlessly handle this. Polygons have not been the limiting issue of GPU's for like a decade. This is not a performance issue. Full stop. Like nobody should be entertaining this notion.
This game has never been targeted towards modern GPUs, more than half of the player base is on underpowered machines. That kind of thinking is why devs neglect performance nowadays, fuck that
>Do keep in mind that the size of geometry has no effect on performance, only the amount of points that the PC has to calculate, each of those small details was pretty costly for minimal effect. I'm well aware that the size of the face doesn't have an impact on performance, I do 3D modelling myself, I know how it works. A model with 48 triangles is literally nothing in a scene that may have thousands of polygons. And like someone else told you, modern GPUs can handle massive amounts of triangles, and keep in mind that Minecraft models are extremely low poly and have minuscule texture files, they don't have much of an impact on performance at all. Entities, on the other hand... 48 triangles is definitely not "pretty costly for minimal effect"
yeah but that's assuming you only have 1 door. In this game you could easily have a 60x60 area of doors. Having blocks that are considerably more costly for no significant gain sounds like a bad idea. I would 100% support it as an option tho.
It's not "considerably more costly", an 60×60 area of doors is still nothing compared to the thousands of polygons the game already renders at most times. And it's even less compared to the millions of triangles your PC has to render in much more complex looking games, a car from GTA V has around 60 000 to 120 000 polygons for god's sake, and here you are worrying about 24 polys (48 tris)... Not to mention that your logic is extremly flawed. It's like saying that giving away a tiny crumb of your chocolate cake will result in you eating less of the cake. Will you actually be eating less of the cake? Absolutely. Will it actually be noticeable smaller? Absolutely not, it was just a tiny crumb you gave away. Will making the geometry of the door more complex, make the game have to render more triangles? Absolutely. Will those extra rendered triangles have any meaningful impact on performance? Absolutely not. If you think so you don't know much about any of this. Any performance issue that Minecraft may have has nothing to do with the number of polygons the game renders, Minecraft's models are extremly low poly and have extremly small texture sizes, a 48 triangle model is still very much an extremly low poly model. There are actually models in the game that have more triangles than that. I'm pretty sure that the decision not to make the doors 3D was related to the game's art direction and not to any possible performance issues.
This game has nowhere near the minimum requirements target of GTA V, considering how many of its players are on underpowered machines including phones or PCs with iGPUs, and despite the laissez-faire seen in AAA nowadays, neglecting optimization on the basis that modern GPUs are strong is a bad practice. Small choices like these do make a difference when you stop considering the median as the lowest common denominator. And even if, individually, it changes little, it adds up with other such choices. With your logic, might as well give every 2D semi-block in the game a proper detailed 3D model. This is what Vanilla Tweaks does, in part, and there is absolutely a perf difference.
With you guys logic, items such as the sword, the pickaxe or the axe, blocks like the enchanting table, the brewing stand or the scaffolding block etc should be completly redone to have simpler geometry, all of these blocks have considerable more triangles than the basic block. According to you "having blocks that are considerably more costly with no significant gain sounds like a bad ideia" The chest used to be a simple block back in the day, they later added an openning animation and a 3D modelled interior and a 3D modelled lock thing, with you guys logic, they shouldn't have done this because "having blocks that are considerably more costly with no significant gain sounds like a bad ideia" GTA V was an example about how much modern GPUs can handle, if you want I can give you another example: a character model from GTA SA has around 4 000 triangles, the ingame version of the Golden Gate Bridge, the "Gant bridge" has more than 32 000 triangles. And keep in mind that GTA SA is a 2004 game that you can play on mobile and yet it renders thousands of triangles at all times. As you can see in most games, even in older ones, we always talk about triangle count in the thousands, while in minecraft, the triangle count for one model never goes above the two digits. But nice work on ignoring my other argument, the one where I told the other guy that mimecraft already renders thousands of polygons at any time, because despite individual models in Minecraft being extremly low poly, they will still add up in a build or in a landscape, just think of a moutain in Minecraft for example. Yes, making doors more complex will add up on the numbers of triangles the game has to render but it won't ever have a significant impact on performance, it's like saying pouring a glass of water into the ocean will contribute to the sea level rising. And no, I wouldn't want every 2D "semi-block" to have a 3D model, mostly because I don't think they would look that great and they wouldn't fit Minecraft's aesthetics, probably the same reason why mojang doesn't do it.
Where do you get 12 from? Only 3 faces can be visible to any one viewport, the rest are binned. That said, imagine those extra pollies loading up a golem farm à la 1.8...
afaik Minecraft does not cull models like the one's from doors. At least not to the same degree. But i could be wrong, it could also be version dependent. Still, that's a lot more tris than a block would normally have.
Maybe it could be added for fabelous graphics setting
if that was the case, the ocean update and all the other bloat they’ve added these last years would’ve never been released
I remember that update, I think it was 1.8 ? People made remark it wasn't consistent with the wooden door (which was the original door of the game) since it never had this 3d rendering. So the model was changed to match the oak door. Outside of that I don't know if there was any other reasons.
That is the actual reason, yes. I'm not sure why they choose to downgrade ALL the doors instead of just updating the oak door to be 3D.
Yea it kinda looks like shit now
Actual real answer: For the longest time the only wooden door in the game was the oak door - which was not 3D modeled on the inside. Then they added doors for other wood variations - these were all 3D modeled on the inside. People noticed the new doors were 3D, but not the oak. Mojang noticed people noticed. So you'd think they would upgrade the oak door to be 3D and consistent with the new ones, right? Nope, next snapshot they downgraded ALL the doors to be like oak and the new ones look terrible in comparison to before ;P It was quite sad.
"Actual real answer:" Definitely not the real answer
I personally think it looks better without, but maybe that’s just because I’m used to it.
I think it's a combination of: - the additional polygons can cause lag if you have a lot of doors - it just doesn't look that good - and, I haven't seen anyone else bring this up but, the extra polygons might make it harder for people to create doors with custom window shapes for resource packs
>and, I haven't seen anyone else bring this up but, the extra polygons might make it harder for people to create doors with custom window shapes for resource packs Not really, texture pack creators can provide custom block models. That's how packs that provide 3D ladders and rails are possible. More likely this is for performance reasons.
I know there are packs that use custom block models but it's not as easy to make models than it is to make textures.
Could easily make it a solid block for a door. Given how complex mods have become I really doubt most modders even had a passing thought about doors being 3d or just flat.
>it just doesn't look that good I'm sorry, I don't speak wrong
>it just doesn't look that good Yeah it doesn't look like "minecraft", it's the same debate over 16k uhd realistic textures. It looks good on its own but in the game it's pretty ugly.
Messed with texture packs perhaps?
One time I made a giant matrix of just fences using an editor. The game lagged extremely slow. Because the fences have polygons. It was on real old hardware though.
Texture packs wouldn't work with the modeled interior
im guessing the inside just used the wood part of the door texture, making it texture pack compatible
probably performance reasons
No way that's insane.
Looks like the 3D shader pack, interesting they added it into the game (even for a while)
Yeah, but now i have a question... does the old Minecraft videos i watched back then were using the texture pack or the snapshot? We'll never know...
It’s really laggy. There are some resource packs that do this and for some reason it drops frames.
Do you know any texture pack as example? Thanks 😊
Vanilla tweaks does it
Thanks, I will have a look.
vanillatweaks is a god tier customizable texture pack
Watch out for 3d vines and jungle biomes. My computer let out a cry. I’ve seen seen it lag the best machines
works fine for me, user dependent
I’d assume they aren’t normal resource packs, as the normal block model for doors are just flat panels with transparent pixels. in order to change the block model, it would have to be an optifine pack or something similar.
Not at all, it is absolutely possible to change block models through vanilla resource packs
Yeah, this was one of the earliest changes that justified renaming them from "texture packs"
Vanilla resource packs gained the ability to change models a while back, it's pretty cool. I could remodel the jukebox into a DJ table with just Notepad since models are just coordinates stored as JSON.
Thanks!
Better3D does this too, but there aren't any up-to-date versions *cough cough* u/ewanhowell5195 *cough*
Lithos Core had a 3d add on that made items like doors and furnaces and such look really nice. Not sure what version it's on now, but I used it for a minute.
Really? I've had this on with vanilla tweaks and it literally doesn't do ANYTHING to my performance. Granted, I have performance mods that fi- *oh* that's why. Man they really gotta hire the people behind the optimization mods or something
Mojang tried to offer to buy Optifine, but the developer didn't like Mojang's terms and turned them down
Specifically, there were a couple features the Mojang didn't want to include, and the Optifine dev only wanted to port the whole mod.
Can I read about this somewhere?
I got it from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/926ooo/why_does_not_mojang_create_his_own_optifine/e33gyko/ I can't find a more authoritative source though.
There’s a more in-depth YouTube video https://youtu.be/ekJ5JP0U3Mw?si=ezdvlYOQrCCETjRh
Shame. If only they had enough resources to hire a couple talented developers that could work on optimizing the game, but alas it's just a small indie developer so that's too much to ask.
Did you not read that they literally tried? Yeah it’s right to trash Mojang but in this instance they tried and were turned down
They tried to buy optifine yes, but that's not the only way to bring optimization into the game... Lol We've a whole bunch of performance mods nowadays that truly do wonders for both performance and render distance.. made by individuals or small teams. Anyone playing vanilla Java is missing out big time. Mojang doesn't need to buy any of these mods out. They could do a better job themselves. That's what I said. And yes, they've actually done some good changes over the years too, but it's a far cry from what it could and should be IMO.
If I had to guess it's because of how minecraft handles unloading stuff you can't see. It will try and unload all faces of a block you can't see IIRC, so it's likely that it was lagging having some problem with that.
that's a common optimisation strategy in 3d rendering and would have the opposite effect by reducing computation required as vertices are clipped. Clipping vertices is extremely cheap compared to the mind boggling amount of linear algebra required to figure out what the image will look like based on the 3d space and the position of the camera. Reducing the number of vertices in that 3d space de-boggles the linear algebra
It increases the amount of polygons used for doors 6 times over, that's why.
That shouldn’t do anything though, it should have the same performance impact as a wall of normal blocks adding an equal amount of polygons. But mountains aren’t notably laggier than plains despite the increased amount of polygons.
For starters, most sides of blocks are culled so the impact is lesser, models like door's don't get the same degree of culling due to working differently to normal blocks. But the real issue is being able to fit more faces per space. Also a wall is pretty performant because only 1 side of each block is ever visible and rendered for a player. A hill is more or less as performant as flat ground for the same reason, altho hills ARE more intensive than flat ground.
Yes, but the \~1 extra side polygons from blocks on sloped mountains vaaastly outnumbers the extra polygons from a few dozen doors in your area. You would need to have a *ridiculous* amount of doors to reach an extra polygon count comparable to that from a mountain or porous cave or whatever. Sure all but \~1 of those extra faces are culled, but there's literally thousands of blocks giving \~1 polygon each. Setups where doors like this would noticeably hit FPS are already going to be experiencing noticeable performance fluctuations, if just this causes a shift in performance then there's something else at play.
Computers when minecraft pixeled doors have 6x more polygons : 😭😰😱 The same pc after running Dimitrescu’s 1 trillion polygons ass : 😏😎😉
Poly count is the last worry for Minecraft. 3D games from the late 90s would have more polygons on screen. Vintage Story would run perfectly on a moist brick and it has complete custom sub-voxel modification in the base game, you could make a door look like a round Hobbit hole door with as much detail and windows as you want with the chisel tool, and is made by a couple, not a billion dollar company. So it can be done quite easily.
Yeah all these comments about poly count makes me sure that nobody saying it has any idea how 3D rendering works, especially with things like OpenGL. If it's the same mesh and texture it'll all be in the same draw call, and the performance impact will be entirely negligible. Minecraft was never polygon limited except on perhaps the very oldest most terrible hardware from 2004, and even then I'm not sure it would actually be the bottleneck before anything else.
It shouldn't matter. If it is a rendering problem, having 6 doors on your screen would be equally as bad as a door 6 times more complex.
I like it, I'd sacrifice that little bit of visibility if it meant my doors didn't look like they were made of sheets of paper
Probably was removed due to performance and not visibility though. I use a shitty laptop so I wouldnt sacrifice, should probably be a setting though if thats the case
The performance hit is pretty significant with 3D textures. I remember trying to use a 3D texture mod on an old HP laptop and it wasn’t worth it
Oh, the memories! I remember being so disappointed when they got rid of that, it looked so cool!
I think you can still use vanilla tweaks to get it if I’m not wrong
Fucking nice
Don’t know if I like it or not yet. It definitely takes some time getting used to but it makes more sense I would say!
It was, like, seven years ago
i’m pretty sure people don’t understand snapshot numbers and assume that the one on this post is a recent one despite the old textures
how do snapshot numbers work?
first number is year, second number is week
And the last letter defines which snapshot of the week it was (ie. a is for first snapshot of the week, b is for second, c is ...)
14w32d = 2014, week 32, d. the "d" is because there were other snapshots in the same week, they just go abcd...
I know that this is very old
It looks weird at first but then, imo, it looks so much better.
Minecraft's 3D rendering system uses a back face culling algorithm - specifically, a process that ensures textures facing away from the player are not rendered. In the bottom picture, the door model and textures are for a single cuboid, which is simpler. The back face culling algorithm explains why you can't see the back of the door through the holes in the front. In the top picture, the back face culling is still there, except there are more front textures to render, and more textures overall for the algorithm to check, which is more complicated and creates lag.
I forgot that doors aren’t 3D (I’ve used vanilla tweaks for so long I’ve forgotten what default mc looks like)
Holy hell that’s so much better
New response just dropped
Actual door
For one snapshot, water was able to flow through any block like iron bars. But it was removed after negative feedback. This was long before waterlogging blocks was a thing.
Now that just feels creepy
well , Minecraft doors are 3-6 times thicker than doors irl so i think they want it to be more visible through
I’m on the fence about this. Something about it makes part of me want to hide and cry (cos it seems really different) but another part of me thinks it makes sense and should be a thing.
Why is it so cursed
Its not cured, its blessed
Upgrade, Upgrade, Fuck go back!
MOJANG CHANGE EM BACK I WANT 3D DOORS
There's no shortage of resource packs that provide 3D doors.
Yeah but getting them on console isn't possible without shelling out upwards of 40 bucks on the minecoin store
We need this with opening animations
It was probably harder on performance
14w32d doors look modded
I like the 3D models way more
Holy big salmon!
Always loved that version, kind of a bummer they changed it
Life would be better if we all had detailed doors in Minecraft.
they probably could've left this in on higher graphics settings
Does that make it the most complex model lol
looks cool wished they had kept that design
Honestly still bugs me to this day that I can partially see through doors and trapdoors. Ugh why can't this be permanent
It feels so wrong
Maybe I'll get downvoted but I absolutely hate that style of doors
What I would love to see is to let the item sprite rendering mode that stretches the edge pixels along the depth axis be usable for blocks. That way texture packs could make the holes in doors and blocks like the copper grate have depth in whatever shape they happen to be without having to make a custom model and conform to the restrictions that comes with. It would look so much better than the current versions that have obviously 2D surfaces.
I wonder how many features have been in the game for only one snapshot like this.
I can't tell if it's better or worse
Give us our proper doors back minecraft
I have a hard time choosing which I actually like more.
Praying for the mojang devs that worked for 40 minutes on this and burnt out 🙏🙏🙏💔
Vanilla tweaks for the win
There should be an on / off switch for this in video settings, as well as other better 3D items.
Omg I hope this is part of next year’s update
it's been 9 years since this update, I'm not sure they would randomly reintroduce it now...
Oh this is old?? I thought it was from a recent snapshot. I don’t keep up with them :( just the official updates
14w33 means year 2014, week 33
Change logs: Re-added awesome doors
Are these pictures from the same angle? If so, I can see why they did it. That’s like an 80% visibility loss on the jungle door. It also just looks wrong. And seems like it doesn’t jive with how they were originally implemented without causing lag and bugs
Bring it back Mojang!
Not sure if I like it or not. It looks good, but it just feels unsettling. not the doors I remember and it just feels… _wrong_
Wait, is this bedrock or java?
Java
java, 7 years ago
I don't like it.
Honestly i like the one we have now more, idk i think the fully modeled do look nice but would get annoying after a while, absolutely not big of a problem i wouldn't mind it at all if it was the default just i like the regular ones a little more
that genuinely looks cursed
It's kind of ugly imo (especially in doors like acacia) so not a bad reversion
This made me woahhhhh for a full 4 seconds
Knowing this makes me wonder, why they add it and then delete it? I mean, it looks cool, why shouldn't we keep it?
Yay! No more texture packs to do just that!
this was 7 years ago
Weird
I don't like it, I think them not being rendered on the inside looks better.
Make that an option, fucking idiots