# Talk:Tutorials/Units of measure

## Pixels

Should Pixels be included in the blocks > metric table? For instance, a decimeter could be defined as 1.6 pixels in the default texture pack?

--DigiDuncan (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

## No voxels

Could the stuff about voxels please be reworded to say something about pixels instead? Otherwise I'll just remove it completely. Minecraft has no voxels. The measurements might be correct if it had (I didn't check), but the game just has 2D pixels rendered in 3D. When you go inside a block, you can see that they are completely flat. If they were voxels, they would have to have a certain thickness. In general, true voxels are very rarely used in games. You could describe the entire blocks to be voxels in the block grid, that would be much closer to the definition, but that's not what the article is talking about. Here is a picture of real voxels. Fabian42 (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly accurate to describe the Minecraft world as being composed of voxels, where each block is one voxel. The term "voxel" says nothing about whether each unit is solid (or, rather, its "thickness", whatever that's supposed to be), and if you clip your camera inside a solid block all you'll see is black anyways. I also have no idea how measurements come into this; voxels can be portrayed as any size, just as pixels can be. Saying the game "has 2D pixels rendered in 3D" is meaningless as well: just like virtually all 3D video games, it maps 2D textures onto 3D models (or displays them as 2D sprites, but that's not relevant when discussing blocks), which are then projected onto a 2D display. The only thing the image you linked shows is a voxel grid; boxes or blocks are just as valid a representation of voxels as are points in a 3D grid.
Basically, you're using semantics to play a no true voxel game without considering if it actually affects reader comprehension or textual accuracy (it doesn't). 09:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, "voxel" as used on this page isn't defined anywhere (I'm guessing it's supposed to be one pixel cubed), and it doesn't make much sense not to have it equated with a block instead, without some reason to define it otherwise. (I think I've noticed this before, and was just as confused by it then.) 09:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Your last paragraph is what I meant. The voxel volume calculations on this page are all imcorrect, but correcting them to 1m³, 1000l, etc. would just turn them into redundant information, because it's already said somewhere else on the page. So, should it just be removed? Fabian42 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
All right, sorry for misunderstanding, then. In that case, I would agree to removing it, though I also wouldn't mind a brief mention in prose that individual blocks can be equated to voxels. If you (or someone else) wants to do so, I'd also support the addition of voxel measurements where a voxel is defined as a pixel cubed, instead of a whole block, as long as it's made clear that this is only useful in certain situations (but I don't feel very strongly about this and frankly wouldn't miss it if it were never added). 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)