Talk:Altitude

I've seen many references to altitude refering to sea level as 64, and the articles about where ores can be found are inconsistant. That's why I started this page - please help improve it! Tim McCloud 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Map?
IMHO, this topic is too specific to warrant its own article. I have a feeling it'd fit better within the Map page. --Gnu32 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lava
As the Map article points out, it's possible for lava to appear at sea level (and above?) in certain biomes. Whether it or other placement levels are affected by biomes, I do not know. I have, however, seen lava myself all the way up at 6 blocks below sea level on a map from the middle Alpha days. Just some info to consider. — MK (c/t) 11:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC) I've seen lava on land (I had a forest burn down when I first started my world because of this random lava pool, around, or a few blocks more than sea level.) The last version before this current version JeffBobbo 13:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because of the introduction of lakes in Alpha 1.2.6. I don't know if they are the same kind as those found deep underground. --Scykei 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least in Beta now, lakes of lava even high above sea level are not very rare. I have too had them to start random forest fires, which is quite annoying but interesting to spectate. :P --TheKax 11:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nether
What are the occurrence possibilities of different materials in different altitudes in the Nether? --Flajuram 14:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Soul Sand/Glowstone is altitude independant, but Glowstone is way more often found at ceiling. C ali nou - talk × contribs » 17:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? How is Glowstone altitude independent if it's more common on the ceiling? And there isn't really that much stuff in the Nether anyway. JesusChrist666 17:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he means Soul Sand and Netherrack are altitude independant. – Scaler (t) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's a low ceiling, Glowstone can generate. I've even seen Glowstone generating on ground. C ali nou - talk × contribs » 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll make a graph of it when Creative Mode arrives, to be able to walk through it without respawning all the time. VictorJavAdore 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Clay does not require water
According to the Clay page, Clay does not require Water to spawn -- only sand. -- ClapNZ 10:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian
As obsidian is very closely related to lava, is it correct to say that there is so much obsidian at certain altitudes, where it could be simply the combination of water and lava (e.g. occuring due to special circumstances, and not due to it existing naturally) --Gemberkoekje 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but i wouldnt go so far as to say that. And please sign your posts with four tildes (Deanm 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)) Deanm 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry --Gemberkoekje 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC) :)

Reason behind the reduction of placeable block altitude?
I came to the wiki to find out if there were any theories as to why, probably, Notch changed the height at which the highest blocks could be placed. Anyone have any ideas? Trivia or not, I want to know! Feylias 05:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Feylias


 * Probably to fix various bugs related to placing certain items on the top layer, and entities being/spawning on the top layer. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions about mods that increase altitude limit
I was wondering, if you have a mod that increases the skybox and then the mod breaks via an update, will the blocks still exist above the top layer, or will they despawn? I know mods go in and out of usability constantly due to updates and I don't want my work to be ruined if the mod stops working.

Trentroolz 17:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * make a second map and use the mod in that map on an old ver of MC, then update MC and see what happens...--Yurisho 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It will most likely crash as minecraft attempts to load in information that it doesn't have the capacity to hold. Same as when you have a non-vanilla item in your inventory and switch back to vanilla code, the mod item crashes your save. (Only guessing though. You will have to test it) --HexZyle 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Scalable version of the graph, with a larger map
I'm currently doing a scalable version of the graph (I mean, a program that writes a SVG file for any McRegion map). I'm still having some bugs with text, and I still have to do the blocks' captions, but I'd like to know what you think of it, and what improvements I could bring to it (I'm not using any pre-built libraries for the display, so everything should be possible). There is the link : http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/File:Blockcount.beta.1.7.3.svg (I couldn't create an internal link...)

If you want the code I use (in Java), you can ask me, but it's really dirty. :s

The map I'm using is currently 152MB, and I generated it by walking East for about 30 km. It contains 34764 chunks. I you have a larger (raw) map, I'd be pleased to use it, because it's really boring to do. :D

Finally, I'm thinking about adding a customized graph for every ore's page. What do you think about it ? VictorJavAdore 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit : Does anyone know why it displays the text of the .svg when the image is clicked ? VictorJavAdore 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It begins looking like a final version :

I converted it to PNG due to bugs I encountered with SVG here. If you have improvements to propose, I'll be pleased to perform them.

My map is now 250MB big. There are some conclusions I would make :
 * About obsidian : it really looks to follow a logical pattern, particularly between 0 and 12 : obsidian follows water's pattern exactly with 1 block interval (the block needed for water to fall on lava ?). And higher the data is still not reliable enough, but it seems to be quite constant, until lava's frequency drops.
 * About wood : there doesn't seem to be any limit, and the amount goes down in a nicely smooth line.
 * About coal : that's more interesting, because there really looks to be a limit : 115. But maybe it's due to some minimum depth underground (and the ground is limited to 128).
 * About liquids : no obvious height limit... There looks to be a rule for the mount of water in the sea (this neat cut at 56 must mean something).
 * About clay : it seems to follow a nice pattern, which looks like lapis lazuli's, I should look at it in non-log scale. (Because lapis lazuli has a linear pattern).
 * About ores (except coal) : the pattern seems to be right, there must be a rule.
 * About air : seems logical, and we can see a neat drop below 10.

What do you think about that ? And do you think I can replace the image in the page now ? - VictorJavAdore 10:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment there have been some changes due to new terrain features.


 * Nice graph! It would be also nice to have such one for the Nether. Also, it would be nice to know how much blocks on this graph is 100%, or maybe it would be better to use the percentage of blocks instead of the number of blocks (to use 1, 0.1, 0.01,... or (even better) 100, 10-1, 10-2,... on the graph), to remove ambiguity. :) --93.139.60.20 08:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just made a new graph and updated the table for 1.8.1 Update.


 * About %, I think it would make the graph much clearer, and it would make it seem to have more precision than it actually has. To see 100%, look at the air graph around 127... However, I can understand it could be useful to use such data for the pages of individual blocks. It could be a nice idea to put a non-logarithmic graph in each block or ore page with the percentage. But since I've stopped playing Minecraft because of a huge loss of time, I don't really feel like it.


 * I'll try to make a graph for the Nether soon, but I don't think I could be really interesting (I think the blocks' distribution is quite constant). VictorJavAdore 13:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Textual desciption table
The table at its current state is quite unuseful, and often erroneous. The arrival of new, more reliable data about altitude distribution of resources (see new graph) creates a nice occasion to rebuild it.

The "implement needed" field is fine, quite useful, we should keep it. But the "commonly found up to", "rare between" and "none above". IMHO we don't generally want to know where a resource isn't, but where it is. (Well, this only is a formulation issue.) Another problem is : these fields assume the resources are all commonly found up to the bottom, which isn't true : they all get rarer from layer 3 and there's often none in layer 0, due to bedrock. A third problem is that these fields contain highly conjectural data that would really need citation.

What I propose is 2 fields : "commonly found between" and "ideal layer" (in addition to the "implement needed" field)


 * "Commonly found between" : defines the interval(s) where the amount of blocks is quite close to its maximum. Ideal for multi-level mining. This field allows more flexibility than a single upper bound, and is really easy to get with the graph.
 * "Ideal layer" : the layer where the resource really is at its maximum. In case of nearly equality (let's say less than 5% difference), we choose the layer where mining is easiest. The criterions would be height (the higher the better), lava and water (the less the better), caves (the more the better ?), gravel (the less the better). It is ideal for single-level mining. It's also easy to see it with the graph, and allows more common sense and useful advice.

Do you think I should do it ? - VictorJavAdore 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Eye Level Error?
I was just reading the page and noticed someone cant do math.

It states "with the player's eye located 1.6 blocks above the layer the player is standing on." But after that it says "a player standing on a shore of an ocean will see their Y coordinate as approximately 65.6." This cannot be true as it says "Sea Level is recognized as Layer 63"?

Either sea level is layer 64, Eye level is 2.6 or the Y coordinate at sea level shown by F3 is 64.6.

Please can someone tell me which of the 3 options are right and change this in the article.


 * 1.6 is the correct eye level height. A while ago, some people discovered that sea level was at 63 instead of 64. They changed it and forgot to change the 65.6 value. --HexZyle 17:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)