Відео

Yeah, I'm still just going to mine several hundred blocks straight, then turn back around and do it again. Just better after the mining. What does the gap stuff mean though? Like, when it says "no gap" is that just mining the wall of the tunnel you just created? I'm not sure how to use words to make this clear. Basically, would the "no gap" result in a massive open area, or would there still be a dividing wall between each tunnel?

I really enjoyed this video!!!!

As soon as you used calculus I INSTANTLY subscribed lol

wsg markiplier

This notation was really confusing to me at first, because I kept expecting tunnel height to be mentioned. Some of my mines have 1x2x1 and others are 1x3x1, because having more headroom lets you run faster. But it also means mining an extra block, so I usually skip it and make the tunnel only 2 blocks tall. So the 1x1 versus 2x1 confused me, because my tunnels never end up being double-wide. I can see how it would help, but 2x2x1 and 1x2x2 tunnels are only used to connect my mines to each other.

wouldn't it be 4x - 3 for the 1x1 because practically you'll have the starting blocks already exposed by your traveling tunnel?

What’s the time to mine like with faster picks? The 1x1 is only optimal because one block is close to the distance travelled in the time it takes to mine one block. Either mining is the bottleneck, or walking/running is, and a faster pick could change the balance. Also I hate branch mining with a passion.

Magnificent analysis! Now do it again with water and lava diving (diamonds generate more frequently when exposed on all side, and that includes water and lava) >:D That and running around caves with or without a mob switch EDIT: You just mentioned that you wanted to test that, woops

Hey, does anybody happen to know what World edit plugin he is using that shows the selection? The closest i could find was //drawsel, but that only shows a max of 64x64x64, and it uses structure blocks, not whatever it is in this video. if anyone could shed some light on this, i'd appreciate it, been looking for ages and can't find it

I've always used the 2x1 branch method because I learned to mine before crawling was a thing, definitely gonna start using the 1x1 method from now on.

you know strip mining is in the past when even using Xray is less viable than actually going into a caves

The most recent version that I play is 1.8, where mining 1x1 tunnels are impossible, so I guess nothing really change for me

This is great work. Shame that building an iron farm next to a village makes all of this irrelevant.

it would amazing to see more (please make the video on cave)

What about a 2x1 tunnel with 1x1 branches? I doubt it’s as efficient, but it might be better that 2x1.

The averages you have at 20:59 I don't think you can average like that. To contrast, if you sum the diamonds across the 10 layers and then time across the 10 layers and do time/diamonds that way you'd expect to get the same result but you don't.

good damn I thought this was about real diamonds

or just use a tunnel bore

I'm amazed with how well thought out this is.

That's a really great in depth video! Thank you for sharing and creating it, this answers one of the most common debates for strip miners lmao

Does this all apply to older versions?

Yeah but what about lava? I died already 😂

Nice, but can you beat my Advanced Xray Mod?

how is it you’re getting that the limit of 4x+1 is 4 as x approaches infinity?

You’re a great teacher, sound just like one of my professors lol

Wow your calculations and methods are riddled with errors. Is this video a parody or something?

Maybe you will bring it up but at 17:14 I see the Error about the "hidden diamonds" that have been kept, as these type of diamonds require more effort, they need to be treated as a separate ground. We essentially have 3 groups of diamonds: visible (easy), hidden (more effort), invalid (0). Adjusting this could make a difference in the general methods depending how the hidden to visible diamonds ratio changes. The effort of the hidden blocks need to be statistically proven too, by how many blocks on average you would need to dig out to expose the hidden ones in the most efficient way, which may also mean that there is a method that would allow some hidden diamonds to be missed. Anyway, we could then compare if the effort of searching for hidden diamonds is itself worth it, or if it is best to not go for them at all. Lots of calculations..

Half the community: Figuring out the most mathematically efficient way to find diamonds. Other half: Quarrying from surface to bedrock because zen. I'm the other half. But I appreciate how efficient mining can be if you're willing to put in the effort.

Definitely don't gesture with the mouse, at most point toward what you're mentioning. Keep mouse still generally.

is the 1x1 in deepslate also better than a running stone 2x1 insta-mine?

Since there are 4 layers with decent distribution, I would probably do a staggered offset 1x1 grid pattern (3 over, 1 up/down), as that would seem to be the most efficient way to expose most of the blocks in those 4 layers (since diamond veins not exposed to air almost never spawn as a single ore, you don't need to see every block, just most of them)

i wonder how you could use the knowledge that only one diamond vein spawns per chunk to speed this up even further

Max hanke found a mathematical description of the statistically optimal harvest timing.

I'm sorry, you're saying a standard deviation of 75 doesn't matter when the average is 108? Laughable. The wider the gap, the more diamonds per second you get. A bit of theory really helps out here. Clearly, the 1-gap method will occasionally have a vein of diamonds overlap with the next tunnel, leading to time inefficiency. A vein can be up to 3 blocks wide, and you could expose another vein while mining it, leading to 6 or 9 blocks wide (etc) really any combination of width. The wider spacing you make your tunnels, the better each tunnel will be. This falls off drastically at 4 wide gaps between the exposed bits. But clearly, if one were to test actual tunnels for tens of thousands of blocks to get those standard deviations down, this would be more time efficient than a 1 block gap. Just to point out as well, because you chose seconds per diamond, the rate of finding diamonds gets hyperbolically better as this number decreases. Like, you cannot even take an average this way what are you even doing? The average of 100 seconds per diamond (2 diamonds in 200 seconds) and 200 s/d (1 diamond in 200 seconds) is not 150 s/d, it is 133 s/d (400 seconds, 3 diamonds). You need to take the reciprocal average of the reciprocals. Your actual average of the three block gap is 71s/d. The one block gap was 68s/d. These are too close to reach any conclusions. Absolutely horrible approach to math displayed here. Delete this video. Like, my brain cannot even with all the errors here. If you want to remake this video, properly, I will go more in depth all the mistakes I found. There are many.

thank you for this! I realize how much work this was. very cool and helpful

your blocks mined:blocks exposed thing is inaccurate, it is 1:5 for the 1x1 strip mine as ur "exposing" the blocks you're mining. i dont know why you would subtract mined blocks from the exposed blocks.

bro mathematically solved diamond mining

For your design, while it is elegant i would say that having to fill a barrel with stacks of items or a bunch of unstackable items is pretty annoying so im just thinking out loud here... cant you use a furnace instead? It acts like a barrel in terms of being a block you can place a dust on and it can also be filled with items (less items) for the comparator. Am i wrong?

You basically did a 10fold cross validation. You should have created some boxplots with the 10 layers of each. That would have been cool to see!

I was inspired by your video to figure out how to mathematically calculate all the expected values for sugarcane farms instead of simulating them and finding them empirically: ua-cam.com/video/WIwtUOLYsXw/v-deo.html Hope you enjoy it.

hey, i just noticed something right away that i was watching which maybe was overlooked. A simple sum of 3 or 4 layers might not properly capture the potential diamonds exposed for a 1x1 or 2x1 tunnel. The reason being, the middle layers of the tunnel will actually be 3 wide of exposed blocks, while the top and bottom layers will only be 1 wide of exposed diamond. To visualize what im trying to describe, think of the cross section of the tunnel as a "plus shape". So for the potential exposed diamonds you should actually use a formula that is something like bottom layer + (3 * middle layer) + top layer for a 1 wide tunnel, and a formula that is something like bottom layer + (3 * middle layer 1) + (3 * middle layer 2) + top layer for a 2 tall tunnel. This has some implications, because the middle layer spawning rates are favored over the top and bottom layers at a 3:1 ratio (1:3:3:1) for 2 tall tunnels, and a 3:2 ratio (1:3:1) for 1 tall tunnels. This trend is also less true as the tunnel gets wider. For a 2 wide 1 tall tunnel, there is a 1:1 (2:4:2) ratio, and for a 2x2 tunnel there is a 2:1 (2:4:4:2) ratio. My guess is that this wouldn't impact rates a whole ton anyway, as long as you're somewhere around y level -56 or -57, but if you're mining somewhere around y level -60 or y level -53 i imagine using a simple sum could begin to throw off numbers.

I think a better description for your channel would be the minecraft scientist. this is what I want when i look up what the best farm to build is

Hey nice video but did you factor in that the edges of chunks are more efficient to mine because diamonds spawn by each chunk? If you are on the edge of a chunk, it is more likely that you find a larger cluster of diamonds. Because two clusters can spawn right next to eachother unlike how they would spawn if you were just in one chunk.

has anyone field tested this?

I believe I see another error. When doing the best layer to mine calculation, you only sum 3 layers vertically. However in reality, with the middle layer you are exposing 3 blocks (the hole mined and blocks to either side), and therefore the formula should be top + (middle x 3) + bottom. This would weight the middle layer more and probably change your answer to layer 56 instead of 57! :)

To be fair, this experiment was trending towards efficiency in getting diamonds _faster,_ but the 1x2 branch method is most efficient when it comes to wxtracting the highest possible concentration of diamonds from a given space, regardless of time, while the 1x1 straight tunnels leave a lot of "waste" diamonds behind.

That's crazy, now based on all of the statistics and knowledge i know the fastest way of getting diamonds is through villager trading, thanks man. But like seriously, diamond in its pute form it's only for blocks and jukeboxes... better no one dare say smithing templates

engineers curse it's a lot more fun finding the optimal way to do something than actually doing it

Yo vi un video de ElRich de esto hace tiempo. Qué lindo jeje

I think it's nice to demonstrate how real mining times will always be slower than simply calculated time to mine. 2x1s should even be more than twice as slow, because unless you plan to cover the entrance to the tunnel and circle back in a separate tunnel every time, you have to light it to prevent monsters greeting you when you return. In a 1x1, torches are optional because no monster will spawn in those conditions, so you can get much closer to the optimal mining rate.