Streetwind

I have not personally tested this. But I have heard it claimed that the ore map is seed dependant - but the individual deposits aren't. As in, you would find the same Ultra High reading in the same spot, but the deposits generated there would be randomly different. Why don't you test your seed and report back your findings?

It's complicated. Prospecting results do not care about the chunk grid, because they interpolate over nearby pixels on the ore map. The ore map itself, however, has a resolution of 1 pixel = 32x32 blocks, or in other words, 1 pixel = 1 chunk. Ore also rolls for permission to spawn on a per-chunk basis. Perhaps OP wants to make sure that they don't dig on a chunk border, believing that if ore spawns in chunk A but not in chunk B, they would be encountering a lower local ore density there? That is technically a valid concern... ...although one that doesn't really play out that way in practical application except maybe for gold and silver, which do produce single-pixel spawn regions on the ore map. All other ores generate larger areas with smooth gradients, so you'll never have a chunk with a high spawn chance bordering a chunk with a low to nonexistant one. It'll be more like high bordering slightly less high. Also, picking a chunk to dig in requires identifying the chunk with the highest ore map value first, which given the interpolating nature of density search is more complicated and time-consuming than just finding the highest single reading. And finally, with ores like iron and halite that try to spawn just once or even less than once per chunk, finding the perfect chunk doesn't matter much because the ore may not even have tried to spawn there and you'll have to search the wider area anyway. Personally, I've never paid attention to this, and have been successful in my mining expeditions anyway.

It should be due to having young, yes. Perhaps the aggression isn't properly resetting afterwards, in which case this might be worth a bug report. But replicating it first would kind of be a requirement for that...

You can use .debug wireframe chunk in chat to see where chunk borders are. It's not on the map, but rather directly in the world. Unsure if you prefer that or the other variant, but it is something you can use right now.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Look up the patch notes for 1.19.

This has to be the saddest patchnote I have ever read

Only loaded chunks are updated on the map. Thus, areas you haven't visit since updating will retain the old look until you go there.

From what it looks like, a 1.19 build released there about five hours before you posted...

This refers to ruins. The game will sometimes place a number of them in close proximity, resulting in the appearance of a former village.

You can easily find out if it is due to mods. Disable all of them (except the three vanilla components), start a new world, give yourself some clay from the creative menu, and start to clayform. After you have confirmed that it is a mod issue, you can slowly add in mods in pairs and test again until you find the culprit. If it should turn out not to be a mod issue... well, I don't know then. Other people playing 1.19 have not reported this.

Definitely a useful and reasonable suggestion, I agree.

If you have a specific window of playtime coming up, I'd say use it! The release candidates are not bug-free, and many mods will not be updated to work for them. But so long as you are okay with that, there's nothing else standing against it. There will not be any breaking changes or feature additions between the RCs and the stable version - it's all just bugfixing at this point. So a world you start now will migrate to stable just fine, especially if you do not use mods.

The server logs indicate the game is loading 42 mods. Remove them and try again?

1.19 is still only a preview release. If you want it, log into the client area, you can download it there.

No idea, then, sorry. That's very strange.

Did you die once or twice while down south, too? In some game modes, respawn points created by temporal gears have limited uses.

Unsure. Will need someone to do a test. What I do know is that even should the zones on the ore map be identical, the deposits spawned in those zones get randomized and are not tied to the world seed.

Iron has this quirk where it tries less than once per chunk to spawn. So you could have an "ultra high" reading and there still might not be anything there, because while it would absolutely succeed in spawning if it were to try, it didn't even get to try. So you'll likely need to check in multiple locations, instead of just at the highest reading you found. In return, though, the deposits are gigantic. which means (1) if you find just one, you're set for a long time, and (2) if it exists, it will be easy to hit, so you can space your dig sites apart much further and thus cover a lot more ground. I tend to make shafts 50 blocks apart when looking for iron. It feels like a lot, but the deposits really are that big. It also helps knowing what ore you're looking for and where it generates. For example, if your local rock strata go chert -> slate -> granite, and you have a reading for limonite, you can stop digging as soon as you hit slate. Because limonite can generate in chert, but not in the other two. This can save a lot of time in some cases.

I think the implied downside here is that by using a backpack slot, you're reducing your inventory size.

There's probably some nuance, but the way I look at it is as follows - Landcover is how much land there is compared to how much ocean there is. Defaults to 100%, meaning all land, no ocean. But note that even 0% doesn't mean "no land, all ocean". There's always some land remaining, just very little. Landcover Scale is a modifier on this, and you can think of it more or less as "how much to zoom in on the noise field from which the world is generated". If your landcover setting produced a bunch of small islands in water, then raising the landcover scale makes you "zoom in" on these islands and turn them into continents. You could also take a look at the 1.19 release candidate, because according to Tyron these settings got new mouseover descriptions to better explain them. Note that these settings are not very intuitive to test out, especially when not deviating much from the defaults. You may start a world with 100% landcover, and then compare it to a world with the same seed and 80% landcover, and see no difference whatsoever. The reason for this is that oceans are generated by... sort of "inverting" the terrain in certain locations, and filling it in with saltwater. Where that happens depends on the seed. And you might just explore several square kilometers of world and see no ocean anywhere, just because the seed decided to not invert any of the chunks you looked at. You'd have to compare extremely large maps, like hundreds of square kilometers worth, to consistently see the differences from one setting to the next. I'd also advise you to not go overboard with oceans, because it turns out that oceans... have no content. And where they appear, they actively override and suckify existing content. I once gleefully made a world with large continents surrounded by large oceans (something like 0% landcover, 300% scale), only to discover that every single translocator I stepped into put me in a dead end somewhere under the ocean floor. Finding the resonance archive was a mess and a half - the raft at the time was so slow that I spent over fourty minutes just holding W in order to get to it (one way), seeing nothing but a flat blue surface the entire time. So yeah, don't be lured in by the fantasy of a "realistic" world. Because you'll get it. And then you'll hate it.

Try "false". As in, non-capital F.

I am not a dev, but the patchnotes mention no changes to rock strata generation. Chances are, when you got to the edge of your granite region, you simply found (by random chance) another granite region directly bordering it. Or you simply didn't walk far enough. Depending on terrain roughness, time of year, and a variety of other factors, a player might manage anywhere from below 1000 to well over 4000 blocks between sunrise and sundown, so "a day of running" that doesn't tell us much about how far you actually went. Try going in a different direction, too. I once went over 6000 blocks south in a straight line, still saw the same stone, went back home, and walked 1000 blocks towards the west - boom, new stone.

Well, two things come to mind: 1.) Did you enter the command exactly as you wrote it here? Because that would only print the current value. It's not a binary toggle - you'd need to explicitly provide a value in order to set it. 2.) Did you restart the server afterwards?

The whole "surface ores" and "deep ores" distinction that you can find on the wiki page for ores is just one massive misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Internally, there are exactly two things explicitly labeled surface deposits: the "starter" copper and cassiterite deposits that spawn independently of the ore map and have their frequency defined in the world config. That's all. And while both of those do in fact generate surface rocks, there are plenty of other ores using the regular ore map which can also generate surface rocks. Whether or not an ore can do so is not tied to which generator it uses, or which depth it spawns at, or anything of the sort. I went and checked the code for this just to make sure, and it all boils down to one thing: if the JSON definition of an ore specifies a value called "surfaceBlock", it can generate whatever block defined there on the surface; if the JSON file omits this value, then it can't generate anything. As an example, borax specifies a surfaceBlock, but ilmenite doesn't. If a surfaceBlock is defined, then the game defaults to a genSurfaceBlockChance of 1.0, and a surfaceBlockChance of 0.05. Both can optionally be specified in the JSON file to override the default; for example, olivine specifies genSurfaceBlockChance = 0.35. genSurfaceBlockChance describes whether an individual deposit will try to generate surface rocks at all. For example, only roughly one third of all olivine deposits will attempt to do so, but all borax deposits will make the attempt. surfaceBlockChance describes the likelyhood that each individual block of ore in the deposit will spawn a surface rock, assuming the deposit makes the attempt in the first place. However, that individual block's likelyhood is modified by its depth below the surface. For each block down, the final chance is reduced by 11%. As in, the five percent points of surfaceBlockChance get reduced by 11%. This means that (depending on how SurfaceY is defined) the final chance becomes zero at either 9 or 10 blocks below the surface. Off-by-one errors, yay Ergo, the deeper a deposit lies, the smaller the chance is that it'll produce surface rocks, even if it can do so; and below a certain depth, it'll never generate surface rocks.

You can find the seed by using the edit/details button on the right side of the screen where you load the world. As of right now, there is no tool that allows you to preview terrain generation based on a seed. If you don't want to walk around aimlessly anymore, I recommend going into creative mode so you can fly, and accelerating yourself with (I think) F2. You'll only be limited by how fast your computer can generate new terrain.