SunshineFaith Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 I don't actually want a tiny world. Just smaller so I can see more of the world without walking 50k blocks. Are there any drawbacks to going lets say to a 100k or 256k world? I wonder how far you would put the polar distance with a smaller world. Anyone? Thoughts please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Streetwind Posted March 18 Solution Report Share Posted March 18 Note: lowering the world size doesn't actually make the geography smaller. It just moves a hard cutoff world border closer to the world spawn. The only number you need to adjust (and the only one you can adjust) is pole-equator distance. This influences how quickly it gets warmer as you move south, or colder as you move north; and this, in turn, influences how quickly the flora and fauna changes. It does nothing for the east-west axis, nor does it influence geology (rock strata, land forms, etc). I played with 15k once. You can try it, but it felt a bit too small. You can basically see the temperature change as you walk. 25k is probably a saner choice. It's half the default value. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunshineFaith Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 18 minutes ago, Streetwind said: Note: lowering the world size doesn't actually make the geography smaller. It just moves a hard cutoff world border closer to the world spawn. The only number you need to adjust (and the only one you can adjust) is pole-equator distance. This influences how quickly it gets warmer as you move south, or colder as you move north; and this, in turn, influences how quickly the flora and fauna changes. It does nothing for the east-west axis, nor does it influence geology (rock strata, land forms, etc). I played with 15k once. You can try it, but it felt a bit too small. You can basically see the temperature change as you walk. 25k is probably a saner choice. It's half the default value. I did know that the equator distance was going to make the biggest difference but I was thinking just a smaller map in general. Will that be easier for say a server or even a potatoe computer? My computer isn't a potatoe but was wondering about that. I mean I will never get to the rest of the world at 1 million so I was thinking smaller might be just better for saves and what not. Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 World size doesn't affect performance either, unless you have a habit of generating the entire world at once Only the area you uncover takes disk space. Only the area inside your view distance takes performance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunshineFaith Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, Streetwind said: World size doesn't affect performance either, unless you have a habit of generating the entire world at once Only the area you uncover takes disk space. Only the area inside your view distance takes performance. oh, I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunshineFaith Posted March 18 Author Report Share Posted March 18 I went with 512k world with 25k polar distance.. how can I make the mountains not so tall. Seems this map has a ton of mountains at the start. I'm sure that is random but I don't care for huge mountains. Which setting will adjust that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 Well, partly. Upheavel elevates part of the terrain. That can result in mountains, but more often results in shifting an entire region 20-30 blocks upwards. The fact that the world is very jagged, noisy, and filled with ultra-steep slopes is due to the landforms the terrain generator is working with. You have absolutely zero influence on those outside of using a mod. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts