4 ms·

Minecraft reigns king in that category. I don't know if it still does, but a couple years ago Minecraft actually managed to somehow still use the OpenGL immedia

Minecraft reigns king in that category. I don't know if it still does, but a couple years ago Minecraft actually managed to somehow still use the OpenGL immediate mode. Back then the larger Minecraft servers required ridiculous amounts of memory and dedicated a dozen cores just to Java's GC.

mjevans 8y ago
That's still pretty much the case today. Though the underlying java GL library the desktop client uses has been updated a bit and the newer versions have migrated to higher versions of OpenGL; breaking a lot of mods pretty hard with the changes to the rendering engine. I hear the (Windows/console only?) version is faster for all the reasons you'd expect, but I'll probably end up never playing it.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Windows version has way better performance, but it doesn't support mods so nobody cares about it.
  - hyperpallium 8y ago
    Was the "Windows version" the one released 1-2 years ago that looks really pretty, with god rays etc? I wondered if it would be a hit, since 8 bit graphics is part of the charm and concept of minecraft, but I didn't consider the mod ecosystem.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Yeah, the one based on the mobile version.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Minecraft has made some very, uh, interesting performance decisions. For example they decided to forcibly split everything into server thread(s) and play thread(s), even when you're doing single player. This made things more consistent, and sometimes helped performance, even though it broke a huge amount of mods. While making this clean break it would have been easy to put world generation into its own thread, or even let it use multiple threads. Minecraft's world generation is inherently very parallel, and it bogs down servers all the time. Responsiveness could be improved by a huge amount by cutting it out of the simulation loop. They didn't.

mjevans 8y ago

That's still pretty much the case today. Though the underlying java GL library the desktop client uses has been updated a bit and the newer versions have migrated to higher versions of OpenGL; breaking a lot of mods pretty hard with the changes to the rendering engine. I hear the (Windows/console only?) version is faster for all the reasons you'd expect, but I'll probably end up never playing it.

jandrese 8y ago
Windows version has way better performance, but it doesn't support mods so nobody cares about it.
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  Was the "Windows version" the one released 1-2 years ago that looks really pretty, with god rays etc? I wondered if it would be a hit, since 8 bit graphics is part of the charm and concept of minecraft, but I didn't consider the mod ecosystem.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Yeah, the one based on the mobile version.
Dylan16807 8y ago
Minecraft has made some very, uh, interesting performance decisions. For example they decided to forcibly split everything into server thread(s) and play thread(s), even when you're doing single player. This made things more consistent, and sometimes helped performance, even though it broke a huge amount of mods. While making this clean break it would have been easy to put world generation into its own thread, or even let it use multiple threads. Minecraft's world generation is inherently very parallel, and it bogs down servers all the time. Responsiveness could be improved by a huge amount by cutting it out of the simulation loop. They didn't.