46c Experimentation: Ores

[abandoned mines 119]

has anyone noticed the strange concentration of caves along at a 45-degree line along the zx axes?

seems to be consistent: generate any map, open up in mcedit, and observe the very thick line of stalagmites/stalagtites (visible as tile entities)

also, i'm nearly done on a perl script to analyze cluster and supercluster characteristics in a map, giving you average distance between clusters, size of clusters, average and median depths, etc.

even with current (much better) ore distribution (at least in terms of near-surface ores), it's still very possible to start going in a random direction and not come within 25 blocks of a massive ore deposit in 10k blocks of travel. the only reliable way to find an ore that i have determined from ore distribution analysis, is to grid off an area of approximately 200x200 blocks at y=80.

i think there's some kind of bias towards ore lode clumping.

i think the ore clumping is correct and i do believe that its very close to how many ore deposits form in real life like this picture

the orange is the ore deposit that have been mapped from drilling

[scotty2 11]

i think the ore clumping is correct and i do believe that its very close to how many ore deposits form in real life like this picture

the orange is the ore deposit that have been mapped from drilling

eh, i understand you're fond of that pic, and certainly in anecdotal circumstances, certain ores can form close to each other (especially when the geological processes that cause their precipitation or metamorphic changes are regionally similar). However, it is in *no way* a general rule, and there is no reason for sphalerite to grow in clumps around lignite and limonite.

It would be a mistake to attempt to apply specific anecdotal circumstances in a generalized fashion.

However, that's neither here nor there - I was more commenting on playability.

Great strides have been taken to improve early-game playability, including surface ores with decent distributions all the way up to Y:155, making them feasible to find with tediuos ground scanning. I don't mind tedious. In fact, tedious is probably one of the main reasons I play this mod.

However, tedium quickly prances across the line of impossible when you can excavate 250,000 blocks of stone at the Y depth with the highest distribution of ore, without ever finding anything. On the positive side, in 47f, there appears to be so much sphalerite that you could indefinitely search for better ores.

[Scooterdanny 285]

I have not found any exposed ores Unless they are imbedded in a hill, although many copper veins i have found are just below the dirt level, and extend quite far (47F)

[scotty2 11]

I have not found any exposed ores Unless they are imbedded in a hill, although many copper veins i have found are just below the dirt level, and extend quite far (47F)

I have found native copper and sphalerite at surface level, nothing else.

However, from my distribution analysis:

swalker@swalker-desktop:~/tfc$ ./analyze_ores.pl

4 regions to analyze.

293677 blocks of ore found in 1428 chunks in 4 regions.

- Petrified Wood: 42

-- Median Y: 93

-- Average Y: 87

-- Max Y: 98

-- Min Y: 69

- Native Gold: 132

-- Median Y: 89

-- Average Y: 88

-- Max Y: 99

-- Min Y: 79

- Saltpeter: 234

-- Median Y: 64

-- Average Y: 69

-- Max Y: 113

-- Min Y: 37

- Hematite: 271

-- Median Y: 84

-- Average Y: 75

-- Max Y: 103

-- Min Y: 32

- Pitchblende: 340

-- Median Y: 81

-- Average Y: 71

-- Max Y: 115

-- Min Y: 18

- Kimberlite: 388

-- Median Y: 42

-- Average Y: 41

-- Max Y: 52

-- Min Y: 25

- Cryolite: 455

-- Median Y: 43

-- Average Y: 42

-- Max Y: 68

-- Min Y: 20

- Graphite: 672

-- Median Y: 42

-- Average Y: 47

-- Max Y: 103

-- Min Y: 20

- Jet: 705

-- Median Y: 82

-- Average Y: 82

-- Max Y: 90

-- Min Y: 75

- Magnetite: 1244

-- Median Y: 39

-- Average Y: 39

-- Max Y: 55

-- Min Y: 25

- Lapis Lazuli: 1577

-- Median Y: 39

-- Average Y: 38

-- Max Y: 51

-- Min Y: 24

- Native Silver: 1772

-- Median Y: 90

-- Average Y: 89

-- Max Y: 104

-- Min Y: 75

- Limonite: 1966

-- Median Y: 42

-- Average Y: 49

-- Max Y: 98

-- Min Y: 22

- Cinnabar: 2151

-- Median Y: 83

-- Average Y: 68

-- Max Y: 107

-- Min Y: 26

- Olivine: 3045

-- Median Y: 43

-- Average Y: 41

-- Max Y: 60

-- Min Y: 22

- Native Copper: 3048

-- Median Y: 118

-- Average Y: 105

-- Max Y: 152

-- Min Y: 26

- Gypsum: 4032

-- Median Y: 88

-- Average Y: 86

-- Max Y: 101

-- Min Y: 73

- Bismuthinite: 4779

-- Median Y: 113

-- Average Y: 84

-- Max Y: 155

-- Min Y: 24

- Tetrahedrite: 5443

-- Median Y: 85

-- Average Y: 70

-- Max Y: 107

-- Min Y: 25

- Cassiterite: 7690

-- Median Y: 96

-- Average Y: 92

-- Max Y: 153

-- Min Y: 26

- Galena: 7755

-- Median Y: 89

-- Average Y: 88

-- Max Y: 110

-- Min Y: 30

- Lignite: 32476

-- Median Y: 84

-- Average Y: 78

-- Max Y: 112

-- Min Y: 18

- Bituminous Coal: 45349

-- Median Y: 31

-- Average Y: 31

-- Max Y: 89

-- Min Y: 15

- Sphalerite: 168111

-- Median Y: 82

-- Average Y: 76

-- Max Y: 156

-- Min Y: 14

you can see that Sphalerite, Cassiterite, Bismuthinite, and Native Copper can and do spawn above sea-level, it's just with that much ground, it's not common you'll find them when the average distance between surface deposits is ~400 blocks, radially, giving a search area of 502,560 blocks.

[kinjirurm 1]

I've found exposed ores on a couple of different seeds.

[abandoned mines 119]

the ore i like to find though never seem to find in large amounts is malachite

anyone find this as well ?

[scotty2 11]

the ore i like to find though never seem to find in large amounts is malachite

anyone find this as well ?

Having analyzed 5 newly created worlds, I haven't found a single block of malachite. I suspect it's bloody rare, or bugged.

[abandoned mines 119]

Having analyzed 5 newly created worlds, I haven't found a single block of malachite. I suspect it's bloody rare, or bugged.

i ll go check my own worlds, i want to test this

[scotty2 11]

i ll go check my own worlds, i want to test this

I did find some malachite... The trick was exploring a *lot*.

3448732 blocks of ore found in 469366729 blocks in 12544 chunks in 26 regions.

- Malachite: 1419

-- Median Y: 40

-- Average Y: 39

-- Max Y: 54

-- Min Y: 24

-- Distribution:

--- 0: 54: 1

--- 1: 51: 39

--- 2: 48: 65

--- 3: 45: 181

--- 4: 42: 247

--- 5: 39: 287

--- 6: 36: 295

--- 7: 33: 198

--- 8: 30: 68

--- 9: 27: 21

--- 10: 24: 17

representing .0003% of all blocks, or .04% of all ore

so... bloody rare.

[abculatter_2 21]

Should these results be the same expected in the most recent builds (47f or 48b)?

[scotty2 11]

Should these results be the same expected in the most recent builds (47f or 48b)?

i haven't noticed a statistical difference in ore distribution in the most recent build.

sphalerite is still by far the most common after exploring more than a couple of regions worth of chunks, followed by both types of coal.

i feel like coal is *way* *way* *way* over-represented.

there is more coal in most maps than all other minerals combined other than sphalerite.

perhaps a good idea for the future would be a way to turn your mined coal into coke for use in bloomeries?

[Najual 46]

Been playing on a TFC server (47f) for almost a couple weeks and can't find any Garnierite/nickel. I did find several biomes where gabbro was the top layer, even found an entire mountain range of it, which I've been stripe mining the hell out of for days at about y120 just before it transitions to another rock layer. I'm not sure if Garnierite will spawn in the top layer with the other tier 0/1 ores because I haven't found any gold there either.

So I went out far and wide, digging straight down in each biome, hoping to find gabbro at layer 2 or 3. After many dozens of shafts over thousands of meters, I can't find it below the top layer.

That is not to say it isn't out there somewhere. Maybe I just haven't found it. But here's my question:

1) If a given seed generates random layers in each biome, and...

2) Gabbro only appears in the top layers, and...

3) Garnierite only spawns in Gabbro and in lower layers, then...

Is it possible, however unlikely, that there simply isn't any of it anywhere in the world? Seems kinda silly that black, red, and blue steel items are unreachable if the dice don't favor the world generation.

[GCountach 39]

I've played in servers where gabbro was layer 3. One was in a swamp and once was actually the ocean, which was nice. Just like all rock layers, any of them can be on any layer. If you're saying that it should spawn in more than one rock type though, I do agree. It seems far too rare. If nothing else, another dual-metal ore that contains nickel and is more common would be really nice.

[Najual 46]

I've played in servers where gabbro was layer 3. One was in a swamp and once was actually the ocean, which was nice. Just like all rock layers, any of them can be on any layer. If you're saying that it should spawn in more than one rock type though, I do agree. It seems far too rare. If nothing else, another dual-metal ore that contains nickel and is more common would be really nice.

The rarity isn't what bothers me. I think it's appropriate that extremely good armor/items should be very difficult to make. The problem I see is having the top tier items entirely unavailable due to one rare ore that doesn't spawn at all. Even worse, spending weeks or months tearing up the world trying to find it and not knowing if it even exists in that seed.

Like I said I realize it's statistically improbable that gabbro would only form in the top layers of 130 different biome variations. But not impossible, if my understanding of how and where Garnierite spawns is correct.

[scotty2 11]

The rarity isn't what bothers me. I think it's appropriate that extremely good armor/items should be very difficult to make. The problem I see is having the top tier items entirely unavailable due to one rare ore that doesn't spawn at all. Even worse, spending weeks or months tearing up the world trying to find it and not knowing if it even exists in that seed.

Like I said I realize it's statistically improbable that gabbro would only form in the top layers of 130 different biome variations. But not impossible, if my understanding of how and where Garnierite spawns is correct.

2751218 blocks of ore found in 185385143 blocks in 4885 chunks in 10 regions.

- Garnierite: 533

-- >= 144: 0

-- Median Y: 90

-- Average Y: 89

-- Max Y: 105

-- Min Y: 32

-- Distribution:

--- 0: 104: 5

--- 1: 97: 59

--- 2: 90: 235

--- 3: 83: 193

--- 4: 75: 32

--- 5: 68: 0

--- 6: 61: 0

--- 7: 53: 0

--- 8: 46: 0

--- 9: 39: 0

--- 10: 32: 9

I think given that distribution, running into a world without *any* Garnierite is pretty close to impossible. However, I think you underestimate just how rare it is.

It represents 0.00028751% of all blocks, or 0.019373238% of all ore.

Your chances of finding any are pretty close to nil. Though, statistically speaking, Y=90 is your best bet.

[GCountach 39]

The rarity isn't what bothers me. I think it's appropriate that extremely good armor/items should be very difficult to make.

The problem I see is ... rare ore that doesn't spawn at all.

I think you contradicted yourself in two sentences or I'm just not understanding. You don't have a problem with it being rare. You just hate that's rare? Color me confused.

Do you have some script to spit out that by layer info scotty? I'm curious how you come up with that data.

[X-Heiko 11]

I think what's meant is "I have no problem with looking for ores if they are rare to a certain extent, but if they are practically unavailable, it's problematic."

It's a fuzzy statement: rare is good, too rare or almost zero is bad.

[Najual 46]

I think given that distribution, running into a world without *any* Garnierite is pretty close to impossible. However, I think you underestimate just how rare it is.

It represents 0.00028751% of all blocks, or 0.019373238% of all ore.

Your chances of finding any are pretty close to nil. Though, statistically speaking, Y=90 is your best bet.

Oh I get that. It's also possible that in any given seed Garnierite could be right under spawn in layer 2. I'm just saying that in the dozens of biomes I've dug down to y40 or so in, there hasn't been any gabbro layers at all below the top layer, which implies there also isn't any Garnierite at all in that vast area... so far.

There are 23 variations of stone distributed randomly among 130 variations of biomes. From my experience doing all that digging they generally form in three thick layers with divisions around y120 and y40. According to the stats, gabbro needs to be in layer 2 for the best possibility of spawning one of five ores. From that perspective, perhaps it's not as nearly impossible as it seems to have zero or very nearly zero gabbro in the right layer, much less the right ore in that layer. It's a bit too rare at best.

I think what's meant is "I have no problem with looking for ores if they are rare to a certain extent, but if they are practically unavailable, it's problematic."

It's a fuzzy statement: rare is good, too rare or almost zero is bad.

Yes. Knowing something is very rare is not the same thing as the possibility that a certain ore doesn't exist at all due to the random distribution of huge layers of blocks. That's my point. I'd be thrilled just to find gabbro in the second layer down... even knowing that if I strip or blast mined every block of it there still might not be any Garnierite, and I would have to spend days or weeks trying to find another similar biome in a massive world, at least I would know it's possible to find it eventually.

Steel can be made from one decent sized iron find, effectively jumping two tiers from bronze with one ore, and there are three different ores with iron in them. Steel is very nice, to be sure. Then there's this huge cock block to get to the next tier up. Is it worth it?

[scotty2 11]

I think you contradicted yourself in two sentences or I'm just not understanding. You don't have a problem with it being rare. You just hate that's rare? Color me confused.

Do you have some script to spit out that by layer info scotty? I'm curious how you come up with that data.

Ya, i whipped up a perl script to analyze ore distributions from block IDs out of NEI and anvil/nbt format info off of minecraftwiki

again, it's perl - but i'd be more than happy to share if anyone thinks they'll have any use for it.

Edit: It uses forked child processes to speed up (multi)processing, so I don't know how well that'll work under windows, but one could hack the script very easily to do it in a single process if it does not work

[Treyflix 277]

Crap, so if the only layer I have found with Gabbro is layer three, I'm not going to find nickel very easily?

[scotty2 11]

Crap, so if the only layer I have found with Gabbro is layer three, I'm not going to find nickel very easily?

depends on the Y.

I don't know what the layer number to Y depth translation is you guys are using, but from my analyses, ore generation seems very tied to Y depth.

Y=90 is by far the statistical center of Garnierite/nickel, with it trailing above and below that, with almost without fail a few stragglers not really worth mentioning down at the low depths (Y=10)

Again, I have to stress that a map containing ~5000 chunks usually contains just around 500 blocks of the stuff.

That's a surface area of 1.28 million blocks, looking for far, far less than 500 lucky magic BB's within it... most likely in 1 or 2 actual deposits.

What this really means, is that out of every biome that may have a Gabbro layer at the correct Y position, only 1 or 2 instances of that biome will have actually spawned any Garnierite.

[Treyflix 277]

The top of the Gabbro layer is at y 50-60... :/

[sdbaynham 57]

I guess I wouldn't mind nickel if it was required in numbers for red & blue steel, but it's required for black which makes a weird chokepoint. You pretty much get black steel and move right onto red/blue, which is really bizarre. I kinda think metals should have a gradual difficulty rampup, probably involving chromium, which I think could be a bit more common than garnierite but still take a hunt to find.

[Deviator 51]

I guess I wouldn't mind nickel if it was required in numbers for red & blue steel, but it's required for black which makes a weird chokepoint. You pretty much get black steel and move right onto red/blue, which is really bizarre. I kinda think metals should have a gradual difficulty rampup, probably involving chromium, which I think could be a bit more common than garnierite but still take a hunt to find.

I agree with this. Nickel spawn needs to be looked at as well as the transition from Steel to Black to Red/Blue.

[dukejuke 47]

Ya, i whipped up a perl script to analyze ore distributions from block IDs out of NEI and anvil/nbt format info off of minecraftwiki

again, it's perl - but i'd be more than happy to share if anyone thinks they'll have any use for it.

Edit: It uses forked child processes to speed up (multi)processing, so I don't know how well that'll work under windows, but one could hack the script very easily to do it in a single process if it does not work

Is it strawberry ? and if i would love to get my hands on that