Too much focus on fps. if you are constantly above 25-30 fps any game can run smootlhy, expecially for new games like Crysis 2 or Battlefield 3. The human eye does not notice any difference between 25-30 and 60 fps.
Who told you that?
The amount of misconceptions and rumors being used these days just baffles me. There is a CLEAR difference between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second depending on the amount of motion and a bunch of other factors.
In a game like Minecraft, sure. 30FPS is fine.
In a game like MW3 or Quake 30 FPS is utter and complete ****.
Who told you that?
The amount of misconceptions and rumors being used these days just baffles me. There is a CLEAR difference between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second depending on the amount of motion and a bunch of other factors.
In a game like Minecraft, sure. 30FPS is fine.
In a game like MW3 or Quake 30 FPS is utter and complete ****.
Luckily, games like MW3 and Quake seem to run MUCH faster than minecraft with GLSL; and yeah, recommended fps depends entirely on how fast things are happening on the screen.
Do people really need to be arguing about who has what framerate and who doesn't?
If he believes he can run Crysis on a 9600GT, let him believe he can.
This thread is about a mod for Minecraft. Enough said.
can someone please test my latest pack and see if the bumpmapping is functioning properly? there should not have been a change in the way the terrain_nh.png is rendered, or am I missing something? is the rainbow-y normal map not supported now? should I just use the diffuse with the height in alpha instead?
so far, any time I change the settings to anything other than "fine for 16x" I get the result from my previous screenshot, or the shaders just add a layer of noise where the depth should be instead of the mapped texture. (from 1.4-1.7 I ran 256x bumpmapping without fail)
any help would be greatly appreciated.. I really want to get my pack properly updated, and at this point I'm at a loss for what to do differently. the whole pack was made with the intention of using bump shaders for it.
also...I have gone through every possible change in amd vision to no avail.
I am now converting and uploading a video I made to Youtube. At first it was to show you that it broke my game (seriously, it started to flicker when i tried to load a world xD) finally got it to work when i allocated 2gb of RAM to Java... damn your pack looks nice and this vid doesnt do much justice for it, but when I saw the furnace, I almost shat bricks. Good work.
Hello, everyone. I seem to be having problems with bump mapping :sad.gif:
I've followed the instructions on the Dax's wiki but I simply can't get it to work! I've been trying for around 4 hours now :S
I've confirmed that I have the terrain_nh and terrain_s for the texture packs I'd like to use. I've attempted to change the settings in the gbuffers_terrain.fsh but it made no difference in-game.
I'm getting tired of my failed attempts and so I decided to come here so someone might possibly help me out.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong!
PS: My computer is good enough to run bump-mapping, so that's most likely not the problem.
Thanks in advance :smile.gif:
After you have the shader installed via his installer and the DOF, etc is working just fine, there's one more step. You have to unpack the Shaders.n2 file with something like WinRAR and look in the alternative shaders folder. There's some files in there under "bumpmapping" that you have to copy into your minecraft.jar in the shaders folder within that will overwrite the shaders you've already installed. Hope that helps.
large custom animations...lol that and I always forget to set compression when I zip it.
edit: It has been mentioned that it may be the way gimp compresses images as well.. not sure though. my terrain has always been huge.
Guess you just installed something wrong, because bump-mapping is working for me with this pack. Also, I agree, this is a HUGE size for a texture pack O_o Good work on it.
Too much focus on fps. if you are constantly above 25-30 fps any game can run smootlhy, expecially for new games like Crysis 2 or Battlefield 3. The human eye does not notice any difference between 25-30 and 60 fps.
No Difference between 30 and 60 fps? Really? The human eye see the difference between 30 and 60. Even you can tell the difference on 120Hz monitor. I heard stories people saying gaming on 120Hz is a lot smoother than 60Hz. 30 fps on BF3 seems little laggy compared to 60 fps.
After you have the shader installed via his installer and the DOF, etc is working just fine, there's one more step. You have to unpack the Shaders.n2 file with something like WinRAR and look in the alternative shaders folder. There's some files in there under "bumpmapping" that you have to copy into your minecraft.jar in the shaders folder within that will overwrite the shaders you've already installed. Hope that helps.
Or hit Ctrl+R, type "%appdata%" without quotes, and its in the .Nitrous folder
:tongue.gif:
Guess you just installed something wrong, because bump-mapping is working for me with this pack. Also, I agree, this is a HUGE size for a texture pack O_o Good work on it.
****! Beat me to it.... :sleep.gif:
Will be done uploading in about... 5 minutes or so Its done :biggrin.gif:
No Difference between 30 and 60 fps? Really? The human eye see the difference between 30 and 60. Even you can tell the difference on 120Hz monitor. I heard stories people saying gaming on 120Hz is a lot smoother than 60Hz. 30 fps on BF3 seems little laggy compared to 60 fps.
There is a lot more to this than just that though. Used to use a really old computer with a horribly low amount of Hz for the monitor, but I never had a problem with it. Then I got a new computer and I didn't see any improvement. Instead, the old one just looked horrible while the new one looked "normal". How you see it depends highly on how your mind works. Some people are just less susceptible to the differences, or have never tried something better and don't know how great higher amounts can be. After getting my 1920x1080 120 Hz TV, everything lower than that has become noticeable to me, when it never was before.
Or hit Ctrl+R, type "%appdata%" without quotes, and its in the .Nitrous folder
:tongue.gif:
****! Beat me to it.... :sleep.gif:
Will be done uploading in about... 5 minutes or so Its done :biggrin.gif:
Trecko, maybe it's just me but other than the furnace at the very end I don't notice any bump-mapping. Plus those plants need work but the texture pack itself looks very nice.
Trecko, maybe it's just me but other than the furnace at the very end I don't notice any bump-mapping. Plus those plants need work but the texture pack itself looks very nice.
I can see it clearly... must be because I was doing it. Lol. Look on the top, it really stands out. More than anything else there, really. And yes, Grugsy, please look back a few pages to fix the flower and vine mirroring problems. I noticed this with Balea's 3.1 Beta and it is pretty annoying, but it is beta.
And since that last vid has done no justice fully showing off everything, I made a newer one, that shows every texture. Uploading now.
Trecko, maybe it's just me but other than the furnace at the very end I don't notice any bump-mapping. Plus those plants need work but the texture pack itself looks very nice.
I just sent trecko a pm saying I need to fix the textures like plants that are mostly transparent...my fault. and I agree about not seeing the mapping on a lot of the textures...although it is there. I hand paint the height maps I use to create the normal... and they should be much more prominent than they are. all of them use the same depth almost as the furnace, and it baffles the mind why it shows up clearly while the rest do not.
edit: and really... vids don't do it justice at all... the one on my pack thread shows them all fairly well.. but it just doesn't look the same as in game.
edit: and really... vids don't do it justice at all... the one on my pack thread shows them all fairly well.. but it just doesn't look the same as in game.
+1 to this. Sorry for the shitty qualtity, the original file was 2.9gb because in Fraps i set the framerate to 60... fail... so i had to convert it down to 91mb.
+1 to this. Sorry for the shitty qualtity, the original file was 2.9gb because in Fraps i set the framerate to 60... fail... so i had to convert it down to 91mb.
No Difference between 30 and 60 fps? Really? The human eye see the difference between 30 and 60. Even you can tell the difference on 120Hz monitor. I heard stories people saying gaming on 120Hz is a lot smoother than 60Hz. 30 fps on BF3 seems little laggy compared to 60 fps.
This is correct. Though the mind doesn't see greater than 21, the chances of the refreshed image on-screen synchronizing with the mind is increased the higher framerate it is rendered at, and the eye is always taking in information. Just because an image is "seen" only 21 frames a second, if there is no synchronization between the mind and display, then it feels laggy. However, that's only a problem when the refresh rate doesn't stay constant. People playing games on their TV have to deal with consoles having locked FPS. They refresh like clockwork. So you're both right and wrong, IronWill1991.
Who told you that?
The amount of misconceptions and rumors being used these days just baffles me. There is a CLEAR difference between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second depending on the amount of motion and a bunch of other factors.
In a game like Minecraft, sure. 30FPS is fine.
In a game like MW3 or Quake 30 FPS is utter and complete ****.
Luckily, games like MW3 and Quake seem to run MUCH faster than minecraft with GLSL; and yeah, recommended fps depends entirely on how fast things are happening on the screen.
If he believes he can run Crysis on a 9600GT, let him believe he can.
This thread is about a mod for Minecraft. Enough said.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMuch better then the old version of the mod were it worked better on my 8600gt then my 6970.
running around 70 fps.
With misas x64 pack alternative shadders.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumlarge custom animations...lol that and I always forget to set compression when I zip it.
edit: It has been mentioned that it may be the way gimp compresses images as well.. not sure though. my terrain has always been huge.
I am now converting and uploading a video I made to Youtube. At first it was to show you that it broke my game (seriously, it started to flicker when i tried to load a world xD) finally got it to work when i allocated 2gb of RAM to Java... damn your pack looks nice and this vid doesnt do much justice for it, but when I saw the furnace, I almost shat bricks. Good work.
After you have the shader installed via his installer and the DOF, etc is working just fine, there's one more step. You have to unpack the Shaders.n2 file with something like WinRAR and look in the alternative shaders folder. There's some files in there under "bumpmapping" that you have to copy into your minecraft.jar in the shaders folder within that will overwrite the shaders you've already installed. Hope that helps.
Guess you just installed something wrong, because bump-mapping is working for me with this pack. Also, I agree, this is a HUGE size for a texture pack O_o Good work on it.
No Difference between 30 and 60 fps? Really? The human eye see the difference between 30 and 60. Even you can tell the difference on 120Hz monitor. I heard stories people saying gaming on 120Hz is a lot smoother than 60Hz. 30 fps on BF3 seems little laggy compared to 60 fps.
Or hit Ctrl+R, type "%appdata%" without quotes, and its in the .Nitrous folder
:tongue.gif:
****! Beat me to it.... :sleep.gif:
Will be done uploading in about... 5 minutes or soIts done :biggrin.gif:-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumback to trying to figure out why the mod isn't working properly for me.
There is a lot more to this than just that though. Used to use a really old computer with a horribly low amount of Hz for the monitor, but I never had a problem with it. Then I got a new computer and I didn't see any improvement. Instead, the old one just looked horrible while the new one looked "normal". How you see it depends highly on how your mind works. Some people are just less susceptible to the differences, or have never tried something better and don't know how great higher amounts can be. After getting my 1920x1080 120 Hz TV, everything lower than that has become noticeable to me, when it never was before.
YAY! :smile.gif:
Unfortunately, he can't see my pics from that website!
Trecko, maybe it's just me but other than the furnace at the very end I don't notice any bump-mapping. Plus those plants need work but the texture pack itself looks very nice.
I can see it clearly... must be because I was doing it. Lol. Look on the top, it really stands out. More than anything else there, really. And yes, Grugsy, please look back a few pages to fix the flower and vine mirroring problems. I noticed this with Balea's 3.1 Beta and it is pretty annoying, but it is beta.
And since that last vid has done no justice fully showing off everything, I made a newer one, that shows every texture. Uploading now.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI just sent trecko a pm saying I need to fix the textures like plants that are mostly transparent...my fault. and I agree about not seeing the mapping on a lot of the textures...although it is there. I hand paint the height maps I use to create the normal... and they should be much more prominent than they are. all of them use the same depth almost as the furnace, and it baffles the mind why it shows up clearly while the rest do not.
edit: and really... vids don't do it justice at all... the one on my pack thread shows them all fairly well.. but it just doesn't look the same as in game.
+1 to this. Sorry for the shitty qualtity, the original file was 2.9gb because in Fraps i set the framerate to 60... fail... so i had to convert it down to 91mb.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumlol I feel your pain
Ditto, and its taking me an hour to upload a 900mb video to Youtube. :blink.gif:
This is correct. Though the mind doesn't see greater than 21, the chances of the refreshed image on-screen synchronizing with the mind is increased the higher framerate it is rendered at, and the eye is always taking in information. Just because an image is "seen" only 21 frames a second, if there is no synchronization between the mind and display, then it feels laggy. However, that's only a problem when the refresh rate doesn't stay constant. People playing games on their TV have to deal with consoles having locked FPS. They refresh like clockwork. So you're both right and wrong, IronWill1991.