MC-77170False Shown Leaf Decay
When i point my cursor on leaves while in the F3 menu leaves don't show decaying to true. Example:
minecraft:leaves
check_decay: false
decayable: true
variant: spruce
When it should be.
minecraft:leaves
check_decay: true
decayable: true
variant: spruce
While no logs are touching it or not in range.
Environment
Java: 1.8.0_25 64bit
CPU: 2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Screen: 1680x1050 16:10 Wide Screen
Linked Issues
Created Issue:
False shown Leaf Decay
When i point my cursor on leaves while in the F3 menu leaves don't show decaying to true. Example:
minecraft:leaves
check_decay: false
decayable: true
variant: spruceWhen it should be.
minecraft:leaves
check_decay: true
decayable: true
variant: spruceWhile no logs are touching it or not in range.
Environment
Java: 1.8.0_25 64bit
CPU: 2x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Screen: 1680x1050 16:10 Wide Screen
Attachments2
Falseshown Leaf DecayFalse Shown Leaf Decay
relates to
is duplicated by
![[Mod] Neko](../../../data/avatars/users/92901.png){kind=small}
is duplicated by
Confirmed in 1.8.3. Relates to MC-77170.
I understand your point. What I'm saying is that the only time the "Works as Intended" resolution should be used is if Mojang actually wants it to be in the game. This lag, while not a huge problem, and basically unfixable, is not something that Mojang thought would be good to have. It's just a problem that isn't going to be fixed because it doesn't bother anyone anymore. That's what the "Won't Fix" resolution is for. Something that everyone agrees is a bug, but Mojang, for whatever reason, isn't going to fix it.
As it is, many bugs that Mojang has decided not to fix are labeled WAI, such as MC-1823, MC-2313, MC-10708, MC-30663, MC-50605, MC-63055, MC-63446, MC-64634, MC-77170, and MC-78797. In all of these reports, the issue is clearly not something that Mojang intended to occur. They have simply decided not to fix it, sometimes for performance reasons, sometimes because it would just take too much effort. The "Won't Fix" resolution is woefully underused, which leads to very inconsistent resolutions. WAI should only be used when it was actually intended, such as MC-11220, MC-35860, MC-48184, MC-63380, MC-78691, and MC-79609.
Does MC-77170 describe your issue? If not, could you please attach a resource pack which can be used to reproduce this issue?
WAI per MC-77170.
Intended. Random ticking will change this back to true.
i'v already tryed but it stay's the same.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Random tick speed doesn't affect whether a leave can decay, only how fast.
Confirmed in 1.8.2-pre6. The check_decay field is simply incorrect. Grow a tree, and destroy the wood. Some of the leaves with have check_decay true, and some will have false, but they will all decay.
ok thanks
This is not intended. Please reopen.
Could someone please explain why this is marked as WAI? It's clearly a bug.
[Mojang] Nathan Adams explained the check_decay field to me a while back, though I can't remember if there was a specific issue under discussion. The leaf decay algorithm is kind of computationally expensive, and they've done a lot of things to try to reduce its impact on performance. The server doesn't generally send updates about the check_decay field to clients in order to reduce traffic. The client doesn't need to know about it, because it doesn't affect the appearance of the block, and it's the server that does the decay calculations. The server only sends it when it has to send other information about that block, such as when you load the whole chunk, and possibly when it experiences a block update.
Oh. Well I still feel that this is a bug, because the debug screen is showing incorrect information. If they don't want to send those updates to the client, they should remove that field from the debug screen.
The debug screen is primarily for Mojang's own use. If they find the presence of the check_decay field useful, even though it isn't always up to date, then it serves its purpose. Anyway, I believe the debug screen is populated automatically, and it's probably not worth it to make a special case to specifically exclude a field.
Server has some internals that 'leak' through blockstates, they are not send to reduce traffic.