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)
- 1 Update for End?
- 2 Merge with Map?
- 3 Lava
- 4 Nether
- 5 Clay does not require water
- 6 Obsidian
- 7 Reason behind the reduction of placeable block altitude?
- 8 Questions about mods that increase altitude limit
- 9 Scalable version of the graph, with a larger map
- 10 Textual desciption table
- 11 Eye Level Error?
- 12 Graphs
- 13 Possible Item?
- 14 Ore distribution changed with MC 1.2
- 15 Sea level is 63
- 16 Emerald ore
- 17 Tree generate above layer 128.
- 18 Lava layer
Update for End?
Does all of this information still apply to the End?
- The End is boring. Air, end stone from layer 11 to 65, obsidian from 57 to 92, a few pieces of bedrock and an egg once you kill the dragon. Nothing else. Orthotope 04:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
What are the occurrence possibilities of different materials in different altitudes in the Nether? --Flajuram 14:54, 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)
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)
Section added. Soul Sand is most common around layer 60; there's a smaller peak at layer 22, but it's hard to get to, being under the lava ocean. Glowstone is most frequent near the ceiling (layer 104), but occurs at a fairly steady concentration between layers 32 and 90. Orthotope 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
how about a little graph update for the nether quartz? update the nether graph & add nether quartz to it.
Clay does not require water
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)
I think they may despawn. I don't know this though. I think that because I know that placing blocks exclusive to 1.6 in a world, then playing it with 1.5, causes those blocks to be nonexistent. I think Minecraft will just ignore any data that it can't load, and the blocks would get completely deleted as they are saved over without the unrecognized blocks. 220.127.116.11 03:16, 30 June 2013 (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)
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. :) --18.104.22.168 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 not 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)
- Tested it, fixed it. 22.214.171.124 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
how were they made? using a program(link?)? manually? i want to know for my worlds Quietsamurai1998 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- A custom Java utility (written by VictorJavAdore) that reads the region files and produces an SVG graph, then Inkscape to convert it into a PNG. Requires some knowledge of Java to use, as there's no interface - everything is configured in the source code. -- Orthotope 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
How up to date is the graph? It isn't tagged with a minecraft version.
Keybounce 03:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- World was generated in release 1.1; I put that in the image description. Took a long time to generate that many chunks, so I'm not planning to make a new one for every release unless the patch notes say that ore distribution has changed. -- Orthotope 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm wondering if there is an in game map or graph that doesn't take space and shows your current elevation? I'm new to this so please be kind in your replies.
- The F3 debug screen is the only option I know of in vanilla Minecraft, but it can obscure a large part of the screen, especially on lower-end machines. OptiFine fixes this by letting you turn off the profiler and frame rate graph. Rei's Minimap also shows elevation and is relatively unobtrusive (and useful). Both can be found on the Mods page. -- Orthotope 02:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ore distribution changed with MC 1.2
According to the page Ore the dirtibution is changed with Update 1.2. Everything is now a lot rarer.
Could somebody please make a new chart? From a quick look around I've found that lava is also a lot rarer than it used to be. A new chart would be very informative and helpful. Thanks. --126.96.36.199 07:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Working on it, takes a while to generate a sufficiently large world. I don't know what tool Zerpa is using; it might have an Anvil-related bug. My results so far are very close to the distribution in 1.1 . -- Orthotope 08:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sea level is 63
The sea level is at 63, not 62 as the article states. Evidence: If you stand on a block at sea level (shore) like in the example in the article, F3 will showvthat your eyes are at ≈Y64.6. Eye height is 1.6 blocks above feet (also stated in article), and 64.6 - 1.6 = 63, not 62. Also, in the code it sets "average terrain height" to 63 in normal worlds (as opposed to superflat, which has average height 4 in the code), and experimenting with this value moves the sea level.
- Indeed, see level is 63, but highest see layer is 62. (Some layer X is between altitudes X and X+1). I admit the article is ambiguous, so I'll correct it. VictorJavAdore 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Tree generate above layer 128.
Sometimes, in jungle biome, tree may generate over layer 128. Seed: 1178. X/Z: 175,400 188.8.131.52 08:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)184.108.40.206
I just noticed that from 1.2 over 1.3 to 1.4 the amount of lava at layer 10 and lower drastically decreased. It stays that way in 1.5.
Is this an undocumented change in generation or just an issue with the diagrams? And if it is real, does the loss of the "lava layer" mean the bottom ten layers are way less dangerous now? --220.127.116.11 10:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)