Ethan "derdiggermunster" Gardener

I find it difficult to understand why this bug has been closed as "works as intended".  Waking up on a corner is always at least a little weird, sometimes actually difficult, and sometimes places this bizarre restriction on architecture.

For a position to place the player, the game first considers the 10 blocks adjacent to the bed.  Is it really so hard to pick out the 6 which are not corners, before the corners are considered?

Yesterday, I posted an attachment on MC-146760 because this one didn't come up in search.  The attachment shows my bed in a Pillager outpost, with two blocks of yellow concrete showing where I woke up.  The position was not just diagonal, it was 2 blocks down with no straightforward way up.  (There were vines in those 2 blocks, that might be another bug.)  The Pillager outpost has nice architecture, but beds would have to be placed strangely to avoid this weird issue. 

(Oh, how many bugs does Atlassian have?! That image was shown in full when I pasted the link into the editor, but is dead after posting.  It's not even a link!  Oh well, click the MC link above, it's the only attached image.)

It is indeed the same as MC-68200 which didn't come up in search.  Commenting there.

This is not a duplicate of MC-146360 .  That report complains about being placed within a wall, this about being placed on the other side of a wall. 

I have the same (or similar) issue as this myself in 1.14.1 prerelease 2.  Having placed a bed in a pillager outpost, I woke diagonally outside to the southwest, and 2 blocks lower!  The game placed me there in preference to the 5 blocks adjacent on the same level, or on the bed itself.

Sort-of related: being placed diagonally next to a bed is always a little wierd, sometimes bad.  Positions directly (not diagonally) adjacent to the sides of the bed are always preferable.  Prioritising them would fix the issue for me.

Attaching screenshot 2019-05-10_14.55.19.png showing the bed and yellow concrete showing where I was placed on waking up.

Note: There were vines on the walls next to where I was placed.  Might that have caused the code to think the location at the same height of the bed was suitable?

btw i also had a tamed, named, saddled & armored horse dissappear. the horse lasted about 3 months (irl) before dissapearance, but the cats(s) only a few ,days. the horse dissappearance followed a period of severe lag (in singleplayer).

in 1.8.3 i have had a tamed cat revert to wild twice. i think it despawned shortly after the 2nd time. i named it between first & second reversions. i don't know if the name tag was still on it after the second reversion, all i saw was a yellow streak in a place which normally has no cats. in both cases i'm just assuming it reverted; it may have just disappeared.

logs are never a problem to place any more. why are all the sensitive components so hard to place?

Not sure what "chunk distance > 16" means here, but I have my draw distance at maximum and it affects me.

There's another bug involved in this which I've reported elsewhere: Distant sky should not be affected by light level at the player's position. Having it get dimmer the moment the player steps under a tree is creepy and weird. (It's one of the reasons I stopped playing Minecraft this year.) If anything, the sky should get brighter not dimmer when the player's immediate environment gets dimmer, but it's simpler to just have it unaffected; which would also fix this issue.

Bump. The more I play, the creepier and more disorientating this gets.

Updated to jre1.8.0_20. Problem remains.

I've just seen a baby chicken float above the water. It bobbed up and down as normal, but barely touched the water itself. If this is because of the sticky motion I described in MC-70700, I can imagine a baby chicken could get stuck below the water's surface and drown.

I tried a chick to see if MC-9388 might be related. I didn't find any direct evidence; the chick grew to adulthood in water.

One odd feature was the chick floated above the water, its feet only sometimes touching the water's surface. If this is because of the same motion problem, I can imagine a chick could get stuck lower down and drown.

That chicken I can see from the bridge has moved at least 5 blocks since I filed the report. I see it moving in about 1/8th-block steps (maybe 1/4), repeating at about the interval it would take to swim one block in previous versions.

It seems the bobbing is unconnected to moving forward, or there is a random chance of attempts at forward motion working at all.

Applies just as badly in single-player, even on a computer which is quite capable. (last test: 1.7.10)

Ah! I didn't know that. I guessed it might be the case (from drop behaviour,) but I've made enough wrong assumptions about other projects that I learned to never assume.

Unresolved: This is the first description of this in single-player. At least, MC-2931 does not mention single-player at all.