In 1.8 no longer all vanilla TEs tick. The hopper is one that doesn't if you want to test.
So, then why in heavens name is the chest still a ticking TE? 
I dont know much about java, but having a method called every tick for every TE must take SOME time! even if that method doesnt do anything...
As far as I know, all Mojang tile entities tick, as it's Forge that adds the ability for a tile entity to not tick.
.... ..... Ok, I'm sorry, but if that is the case, why in the high heavens hasnt mojang made it possible for tile entities to not tick yet? 
With how many there are in your average 'often played' world, it seems like a glaringly obvious and easy way to improve TPS at pretty much no cost.
The list of ticking TE's has indeed gone down quite a lot with the 1.62 version, but according to the sampler chests are still ticking, did you somehow miss those or are the chests actually ticking? (And if so, have you got any clue WHY? cause it seems pointless to me)
The 1.8.9 version of the sampler reports all tile entities as being ticking entities when using `/sampler counts X`, is this a oversight in the sampler or are for some reason all these blocks ticking for no real reason?
Is there any chance you could release a 1.8.9 version of the sampler? I am running a 1.8.9 experimental server, and it is having some tick issues that I would love to discover the reason behind, but your sampler seems to be the only mod that lets you really dig into the details to discover what is causing lag like this.
I have been monitoring my server with the sampler for quite a while now, and I've noticed that the skull block is a ticking TE, is this actually required? It would seem to me that not ticking it would be much more efficient, so am I missing something obvious here?
FastCraft 1.22ctest13: http://puu.sh/jHxoX/1321bc680c.jpg
FastCraft 1.21: http://puu.sh/jHxxc/87ab7a799c.jpg
Seems that its acting like TreeCapitator
Fun times.
Do the blocks themselves still remain, but just invisible? If so, please give the coordinates and angles it happens at, since that would mean invisible render chunks, and since it doesnt happen to everyone everywhere its likely an issue with the math that becomes noticeable at those coordinates.
I freezed / crashed recently, playing the most recent Regrowth pack (7.4) with this mod added in, alongside Optifine and the GLSL shader mod. Removing this mod seems to have removed the problem.
Freeze and then crash occurred after entering Witchery's Spirit World. Minecraft's CPU usage went from the usual cruising of less than 40% to maxing out all four cores. Here's a crash log.
One of fastcraft's optimisations increases memory usage to improve FPS & TPS in return, simply increase the memory available to your instance and the problem will be solved.
Entoarox: Thanks, I think I've just fixed this, did you increase the view distance by any chance? The issue is in FastCraft.
I have my view distance at 16 chunks myself, and I have not changed any lookingGlass settings (If there even are any?) But I am not a hundred percent on how lookingGlass views are identified on the rendering side of things.
Edit: for people with the same issue, turning lookingGlass off untill the fix has been released stops the problem.
I believe I have just run into a bug between fastcraft and lookingglas, since lookingglas has not been updated (while previously working fine) and fastcraft is the only other mod mentioned, I am making the bug report here first
If there is more info needed please inform me so I can get the information.
I've upgraded to the test10 version, have noticed all chunk flickering seems to be gone, quite happy with that!
Will ctest8 work on 1.7.10 SMP servers?
Since it is a beta version, you should not be using it for any public situation, if it is a small server for you and a few friends, who all understand that the beta version might have bugs that can cause a server-crash, then go ahead and try it out, but otherwise wait untill a stable build is available.
Entoarox: I don't see any of that myself. Did you enable async culling in the config? Any more insight?
I did not change anything in the config, so unless it is enabled by default I did not.
Unfortunately, the render chunks disappearing on me happens only very rarely, and I've yet to find a way to purpousely cause it to happen, so I'll have to get back to you on that if I manage to do so.
EDIT: With a bit of luck I managed to get it to repeat often enough to take a screenshot of it happening, but I honestly found no clear reason as to why it repeated so often.
See the attached screenshot where the beacon beams that should be progressing all the way up to y 256+ getting cut off visually.
And I have a new test build: http://files.player.to/tmp/fastcraft-1.22-ctest7.jar
Besides a few more tweaks this should fix compatibility with Optifine (at reduced performance benefits), ShadersMod and add compatibility for Cauldron (needs testing).
I've been noticing render chunks (the 16^3 bits) flickering in and out every so often with this build, Did notice a further slight improvement in FPS though, although it looks as if more chunks are remaining visible with this version. (30~40 versus the 15~30 of the previous test version)
Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.
Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.
And once more you fail to read properly, As the very issue you bring up I already answered not even 2 paragraphs before, player promotes a build as 'stable' if no issues have been reported with that build, thus, the second anyone runs into repeatable issues with that build, it no longer counts as stable, thus it no longer counts for the licence terms.
(Of course, you will be required to report the issue in order for that build to be able to be marked as problematic, but if you fail to do so it is your own mistake and not in any way Player's fault.)
Display More
That is exactly what I said: I cannot include Fastcraft because of the license issue, so I can only recommend it but not include it. This however is rather annoying for the users of the pack and many are either not reading that part or it is too annoying/complicated for them to do.
I do not choose a launcher for my pack, I can select one of those available. This is an important difference, because I cannot make sure that a launcher will have the required options and I especially cannot make sure that a launcher still has such an option in 1 year. So if I have to limit my options just because of one mod, that mod won't be in the pack.
Yes I did, but you are obviously not a legal expert.
"The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free"
Free of charge I can do, but ad-free is beyond my abilities if I host that mod let's say on Curse, because it is up to them to decide whether there will be ads or not. And again I cannot guarantee that it will be ad-free now or in the future, so I cannot include Fastcraft again.
[/qo
For once have you considered that this is not my job? I might have other things to do or be on a business trip for a month or two, or even just have vacation somewhere, where I can not check this. And then the license also says that I would be forced to include the latest Fastcraft version even if that completely breaks the mod-pack. So again, as the license is very strange here, it is better to not have it in the pack in the first place.
Here is another theory: I am an expert on software development and project management and just know a lot more about licenses, legal issues, update hassles and potential pitfalls than you are even aware of. And because of that my request is actually very valid. The fact that most other mod-packs do not include Fastcraft for the very same reasons is a good hint that the license as it stands right now is probably not very fitting.
Directly from the license:
Quote- The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.
So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".
The three weeks rule counts for stable releases, if a thought-stable release interferes with the functioning of a mod-pack, it obviously is not actually stable and thus no longer falls under the license agreement. (And you should be reporting the issue here so Player actually knows it needs fixing.)
Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.
And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.
So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.
Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually. (The license is for DISTRIBUTION, not usage)
Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed, by doing your research properly instead of being lazy.
As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?
Because basic banner ads ARE, it is only "wait x seconds to continue" type advertisments or "so much junk we cant see the darned download link" type that are disallowed. (Again, did you even READ the requirements???)
Next, if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place, because you wont be able to support a user-base either.
When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place. (It isnt just "put online and forget it" you know, it requires you to actively take responsibility as the first person for your users to report ANY and ALL issues to!)
Entoarox: Try also comparing the value after C: in the F3 screen between FC 1.21 and FC 1.22. You need a normal (non-flat/void) world, not use Optifine and VSync (implicit/explicit) disabled to see a difference I assume. Bugs may be another cause.
The first value after C (before the slash) is smaller with 1.22, that is good right?
I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).
Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?
You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...
Just finished doing al the tests I can think of, and have not ran into any issues with the latest test version of 22, Did notice only a small (~5 fps higher, at 62fps average instead of 57fps) increase in FPS, dont know if it is because fastcraft is simply that good (possible), I've simply hit the FPS limit my PC can handle (unlikely, I managed to get 120+ fps on 1.8 ) or my CPU just doesnt like playing nice with your algorithm for some weird reason (probably, It enjoys hating things for no good reason...)
What I did notice is that I never got the "lines between blocks" effect that annoys me so greatly about 1.8, so very happy with that one!
Will continue to play with the 22 test version, so if something crops up I'll be posting an issue here ASAP 
