No need to use via proxy at all. Minosoft supports 1.12.2 natively. You can just enforce that version (cuberite also supports 1.14, you can force that version too).
Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
41–50 of 88 posts
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#42No need to use via proxy at all. Minosoft supports 1.12.2 natively. You can just enforce that version (cuberite also supports 1.14, you can force that version too).
There is a need as multiple things were broken when I tried both of those methods, ViaProxy is technically not required but having it makes the two work together a lot more nicely. I'm not entirely sure what ViaProxy does differently here but it fixed both the getting stuck in doors issue as well as mobs not rendering
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#43No need to use via proxy at all. Minosoft supports 1.12.2 natively. You can just enforce that version (cuberite also supports 1.14, you can force that version too).
There is a need as multiple things were broken when I tried both of those methods, ViaProxy is technically not required but having it makes the two work together a lot more nicely. I'm not entirely sure what ViaProxy does differently here but it fixed both the getting stuck in doors issue as well as mobs not rendering
I always used Cuberite with enforced 1.14 as test server worked.
But both your points are valid, doors are implemented like shit in https://gitlab.bixilon.de/bixilon/minosoft/-/commit/9afbe0df... (Oct 14, 2023). I will test that...when I got time :)
No clue about mobs, but textures were named differently back then. Could be.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS is slowly killing off Java so they can push Bedrock (much less flexible) on everyone though. And all my daughter's friends use Bedrock :-\. I have a server with GeyserMC running to let them play together but it definitely isn't what it once was.
I find bedrock has much better performance than java. It runs very nicely using the MCPE launcher on linux.
The performance is nice, but the advanced modding scene is non-existent. In java a mod author can do just about anything they can imagine and write code for. Somehow i doubt we will ever see dimensional doors as a bedrock mod.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#45I'd recommend Minetest+some full game instead of a reimplementation from an older version. I know it's not the same; but some full games for Minetest are close enough and they will run on really old machines much faster than this reimplementation.
Last time i tried Luanti (when it was still called Minetest) I ran into serious bugs rightaway. I reported them and a year later they still weren't fixed. I hope the quality has improved since then. It's nice to have a free alternative for programming classes etc.
Minetest sort of officially rebranded itself as a game engine when it changed name, it already was a game engine before that. Most of the bugs are caused by games and/or mods themselves, in particular if you had a Lua exception.
Among the various games that took inspiration from Minecraft (Voxelibre, Mineclonia, Repixture), some are more reliable than others. Those that don't try to be too close are the more reliable because replicating complexity tends to lead to more bugs.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#46I think it's amazing to have a massive commercially successful game such as Minecraft give the fans the ability to be very liberal with what they can do with it. Now we have open-source re-implementaions that are pretty close to vanilla!
MS is slowly killing off Java so they can push Bedrock (much less flexible) on everyone though. And all my daughter's friends use Bedrock :-\. I have a server with GeyserMC running to let them play together but it definitely isn't what it once was.
The impression I got was they actively promote Bedrock, but take the necessary steps to keep Java supported. They make more money from Bedrock, makes sense to budget there.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#47Vintage Story ruined Minecraft for me.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it was done with modding in mind or not, but the transition to data packs was a non-trivial addition of mod support.
At the cost of inner-platform-effecting all the game code. Long-time software engineers know all about the inner platform effect - if not, see [1]. Instead of writing directly what you want, something like: new Block("mymod:mystone").setShape(Shapes.CUBE).setTexture("mymod:stone_texture").setStepSound(Sounds.STEP_ON_STONE)... you now have to do some of this inline (the part that can't be customized in data packs): ne…
I still think this is better than mod load conflicts when two mods attempt to overwrite the same Minecraft-core class file. Pre-forge modding was not good.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#49I think it's amazing to have a massive commercially successful game such as Minecraft give the fans the ability to be very liberal with what they can do with it. Now we have open-source re-implementaions that are pretty close to vanilla!
Minecraft is wierd because all that amazing modding that is done is in spite of mojang not because of them. I have not played minecraft in a few years but I think nothing has changed. Mojang, even pre microsoft, has never provided any sort of modding support. I grew up on quake where ID would give you the game code and tools necessary to make mods. Mojang gave nothing. modding on minecraft involved decompiling the by…
> Mojang, even pre microsoft, has never provided any sort of modding support.
I believe Mojang now provides deobfuscation mappings[0] which makes life slightly easier for modders.
[0] Although all I can find are people saying "we should move to Mojang's mappings!" rather than an official Mojang announcement.
Re: Playing “Minecraft” without Minecraft (2024)
#50I'd recommend Minetest+some full game instead of a reimplementation from an older version. I know it's not the same; but some full games for Minetest are close enough and they will run on really old machines much faster than this reimplementation.
Minetest is pretty awesome but it has some harsh limitations like a -32k -> 32k block world size limit in all directions as well as not being world file compatible (i know that experimental converters exist but half the blocks never load in and these are as old as 1.2.5 blocks so no chance it will even attempt to work with 1.12.2 maps) so for someone trying to get close to vanilla, I still think reimplementations are…
The finite world is a problem in practice only for popular game servers. I think the base walking speed for characters is ~2m/s, so reaching the edge from origin would take at least 4 hours. Even free-falling from max altitude (10 m/s is the max speed IIRC) takes a while.
Moreover, the "finitude" of the world can be mitigated by the fact that Luanti also offers 64 km total vertically out-of-the-box; various mods use this space to create the equivalent of "dimensions". In practice, without tools that allow to dig ridiculously fast, supposedly realistic mountains (what can be realistic in a game where you can carry with you several trees, casually jump 1 m anyway and barely get a scratch from a 15 m fall?), planes, dragons or whatnot, a "troposphere" of 1 km is plenty, and would allow 128 64x64 km "dimensions".
That being said, and my own biases put aside, people outside of the Luanti core team are working on that [1]