LazDude2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Author Posted September 23, 2012 Mageleon, that's not a helpful comment. A helpful comment would be, "The ores in this pack don't blend quite right with the smooth stone." or "I prefer a different version of the JohnSmith ores." I mean, give us something to go on, please.
Mageleon3860 Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Mageleon, that's not a helpful comment. A helpful comment would be, "The ores in this pack don't blend quite right with the smooth stone." or "I prefer a different version of the JohnSmith ores." I mean, give us something to go on, please. no.. the ores suit everything to do with the texture pack and i respect you've put time into this but im just saying that the ores just dosn't suit my standards and im not really asking you to change them for me but what i said earlier is just a random comment from me :P
Glowstrontium Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Hopefully everyone will like these better
Mageleon3860 Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Hopefully everyone will like these better Matter of fact, yes i do. Specially the Sapphire, Ruby,Emerald and Apatite i believe Really nice work Edit: Another thing i realized today is my computer is a 86x and my minecraft can only handle 32x so this texture pack is perfect
andrewdonshik Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Hopefully everyone will like these better Yay, now the ores match the stone!
LazDude2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Author Posted September 23, 2012 Wow, Glowstrontium! Nice work! Out of curiosity; what's the ore on the very bottom right?
Glowstrontium Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 That's diamonds, I thought I'd give it'd vary it a bit from the RP gems.
Mageleon3860 Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Wow, Glowstrontium! Nice work! Out of curiosity; what's the ore on the very bottom right? Silver? Because there is 2 tins isn't there? Edit: Ohhh diamond :o
Adlersch Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 The tin and nikolite still sticks out a little jarringly, but it looks much much better compared to before. This is really coming along well - good job Glowstrontium!
andrewdonshik Posted September 23, 2012 Posted September 23, 2012 Matter of fact, yes i do. Specially the Sapphire, Ruby,Emerald and Apatite i believe Really nice work Edit: Another thing i realized today is my computer is a 86x and my minecraft can only handle 32x so this texture pack is perfect x86 has nothing to do with texture pack size, just saying.
Zicamox Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 x86 has nothing to do with texture pack size, just saying. 32 bit operating systems only allow Minecraft to use 1.5gb of ram, and the Technic pack calls for 2gb ram for any texture pack over 32x.
andrewdonshik Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 32 bit operating systems only allow Minecraft to use 1.5gb of ram, and the Technic pack calls for 2gb ram for any texture pack over 32x. Ah, didn't know that.
Kinglightson Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 @Glowstronium, I prefer the John Smith original iron ore and coal ore much more then the ones that you guys use in this texture pack. If you used those ones I think they would look much better and you could also change them to the more smooth stone like textures as well. Here is a link:
Kinglightson Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 32 bit operating systems only allow Minecraft to use 1.5gb of ram, and the Technic pack calls for 2gb ram for any texture pack over 32x. I have a 64 bit operating system, and I only allotted 1 gigabyte of ram for Technic pack, and I used to used 128x Sphax and I got over 100 FPS sometimes, before I found this, now when using John Smith I can get over 300 FPS sometimes. So I don't think that applies to all computers.
andrewdonshik Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I have a 64 bit operating system, and I only allotted 1 gigabyte of ram for Technic pack, and I used to used 128x Sphax and I got over 100 FPS sometimes, before I found this, now when using John Smith I can get over 300 FPS sometimes. So I don't think that applies to all computers. Agreed. I have never allocated more than 1.5 GB, even though I can, and everything runs fine.
Kinglightson Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Yeah, same here. I didn't see the reason for allocating more than a GB, because if you give the game too much space, it doesn't know what to do with it all and so it actually runs slower. At least that's what I've found when researching about it.
Adlersch Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Do the stone bricks come in any form that's less... Awkward? I dunno, other than the mossy/normal stone bricks they don't seem to fit together as a theme. I'm exploring a stronghold and there are random blocks of tiny tiny bricks everywhere.
Kinglightson Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 The tiny bricks are cracked stone bricks, but I completely agree with you.
Adlersch Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I know, maybe I should have made that clearer; I've tried to find a use for them but I always fail to. They don't really fit the aesthetic theme of any of the other blocks, or the rest of the texture pack really. They stick out somewhat jarringly and I love to add cracked and mossy stone bricks in with others to make something seem old and worn. It's always nagged a bit at me, but in a stronghold (Which I'm considering restoring before making my home) it is much more obvious. If there's no other option it's fine, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about them. As for stone bricks in general, I've seen them more rounded in the MCF post - I don't know if that's an update or different version or whatever, but I'm also torn when it comes to those as opposed to our very blocky, very precise-looking stone bricks.
Zicamox Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I know, maybe I should have made that clearer; I've tried to find a use for them but I always fail to. They don't really fit the aesthetic theme of any of the other blocks, or the rest of the texture pack really. They stick out somewhat jarringly and I love to add cracked and mossy stone bricks in with others to make something seem old and worn. It's always nagged a bit at me, but in a stronghold (Which I'm considering restoring before making my home) it is much more obvious. If there's no other option it's fine, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about them. As for stone bricks in general, I've seen them more rounded in the MCF post - I don't know if that's an update or different version or whatever, but I'm also torn when it comes to those as opposed to our very blocky, very precise-looking stone bricks. Laz decided to use a custom terrain.png, from some user on youtube. So If we were to change the cracked stone brick, we would have to change all of the stone bricks, which I'm fine with. I'll run this by Laz, and see what he thinks of it.
LazDude2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Author Posted September 25, 2012 I'll change the stone bricks. :)
TheAustralianGuy Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 hey i love this but i was thinking you may want to make smooth stone look more like the stone around the ore but apart from that i love this texture pack and cant wait for it to be finished.
LazDude2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Author Posted September 25, 2012 @TheAustralianGuy: It went the other way around, and it's in the upcoming 0.8 release.
TheAustralianGuy Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 ok that sounds great and i cant wait
Kinglightson Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 @TheAustralianGuy: It went the other way around, and it's in the upcoming 0.8 release. Did you take my idea into consideration of trying to make the iron ores and coal ores a smooth stone version of the original John smith iron and coal ores? If you didn't that's ok but I thought they would look a lot better if you did.
Recommended Posts