Any tutorials on how to make the fire texture? I tried to make a short animation to try it out, and i even included the mcmeta file but it wont show up in game... Dunno what I did wrong or if there is something special I have to do with the fire, or a requirement I'm missing...
Here's my second take. it is a bit more faithful, and I think lacks some of the other issues of the earlier version. While it is still darker, that's sort of inevitable for the shiny, translucent look I'm going for.
Yeah, but even a 1m thick diamond would be shiny on the surface, and so a cut face would be reflective, showing different values on different planes.
Lithos:Luminous will probably get the diamond in the final version
That is true, it just depends on the cut, clarity & a few other factors & it also depends on what the gem (or block) is surrounded in/around. (I have no life & read a lot of science papers. Also know a lot about science. Want me to talk about Quantum Physics to you too? ... yeah no life & loves some certain science aspects).
Any tutorials on how to make the fire texture? I tried to make a short animation to try it out, and i even included the mcmeta file but it wont show up in game... Dunno what I did wrong or if there is something special I have to do with the fire, or a requirement I'm missing...
There are two fire textures, layer 0 which shows up randomly on half the faces, and layer 1 which shows randomly on the other half/when entities are on fire. If it is not showing up, the reason could be you are looking at entities and just edited layer 0.
There are two fire textures, layer 0 which shows up randomly on half the faces, and layer 1 which shows randomly on the other half/when entities are on fire. If it is not showing up, the reason could be you are looking at entities and just edited layer 0.
I edited layer_0, and i'm looking at blocks(I never bothered testing it on entities). All I see is the vanilla fire... Any other ideas?
I edited layer_0, and i'm looking at blocks(I never bothered testing it on entities). All I see is the vanilla fire... Any other ideas?
The texture used isn't actuall random. There's a billion fire models one for fire on top, one for fire on the west, one for fire on top and the west, etc. Each model uses 0 and 1 for different faces. You may need to create fires on different faces.
So I made some stone variants. One of them I was trying to make it a subtly smoother version of the main stone texture so it looked more like a rock-face but still tileable with the chunkier stone texture. The other two are rarer and feature a hole and a skull. What do you guys think?
So I made some stone variants. One of them I was trying to make it a subtly smoother version of the main stone texture so it looked more like a rock-face but still tileable with the chunkier stone texture. The other two are rarer and feature a hole and a skull. What do you guys think?
Personally, I'm not fond of "Add random items" CTM. I'd much rather see a variant texture that can be used frequently and breaks up the pattern. YMMV.
Since the Emerald topic was created interest, I'll show another revamp. New Bedrock:
My previous bedrock is one of my oldest surviving textures in Lithos, so anything else looks pretty weird to me. The one thing i've knowingly deviated from defaultness is the strong horizontal lines in the bedrock. Such lines on natural blocks simply look weird on the upper faces, and I was too lazy to do a separate set of textures for sides and top/bottom.
It looks very noisy, and has a lot more contrast than other textures, which makes it stand out a little, but I think in this case its a bit too much. The old bedrock flowed a lot better with the stone and the rest of the pack better than this version. I feel like there is too much contrast in the texture for it to be a stone texture, it looks a bit like a steel block. But that is just my 2 cents.
Personally, I'm not fond of "Add random items" CTM. I'd much rather see a variant texture that can be used frequently and breaks up the pattern. YMMV.
Since the Emerald topic was created interest, I'll show another revamp. New Bedrock:
My previous bedrock is one of my oldest surviving textures in Lithos, so anything else looks pretty weird to me. The one thing i've knowingly deviated from defaultness is the strong horizontal lines in the bedrock. Such lines on natural blocks simply look weird on the upper faces, and I was too lazy to do a separate set of textures for sides and top/bottom.
It looks very noisy, and has a lot more contrast than other textures, which makes it stand out a little, but I think in this case its a bit too much. The old bedrock flowed a lot better with the stone and the rest of the pack better than this version. I feel like there is too much contrast in the texture for it to be a stone texture, it looks a bit like a steel block. But that is just my 2 cents.
Noisy? Too much contrast? You do realize your describing the vanilla bedrock texture perfectly, and this is a faithful pack... so yea... Personally I think he makes the noise work very well.
Noisy? Too much contrast? You do realize your describing the vanilla bedrock texture perfectly, and this is a faithful pack... so yea... Personally I think he makes the noise work very well.
That's the endless challenge of trying to do a faithful pack that also looks good-- Finding the ballance between the two.
I edited layer_0, and i'm looking at blocks(I never bothered testing it on entities). All I see is the vanilla fire... Any other ideas?
Not sure what else would be the problem, unless you have models in your pack changing the fire or a typo in one of the file names. It might help me guess a bit if I knew if you were using 1.8 or 1.9, but I really would need to see the pack for any information beyond that.
The texture used isn't actuall random. There's a billion fire models one for fire on top, one for fire on the west, one for fire on top and the west, etc. Each model uses 0 and 1 for different faces. You may need to create fires on different faces.
Well, not in 1.8 at least. 1.9 changed it to random using multipart, which has the side effect of removing two tags from the model (thus only a quarter of the original states are now needed)
I added two new variants to my log texture. I personally think oak logs are one of the main highlights of my pack, so hopefully these will add to it. Thoughts?
I added two new variants to my log texture. I personally think oak logs are one of the main highlights of my pack, so hopefully these will add to it. Thoughts?
This looks great BTW. Knots are always a nice touch.
That tan stuff in the BG, though... if that's sand, I think it has too much stone in it. And if it's stone, well... vice versa.
This looks great BTW. Knots are always a nice touch.
That tan stuff in the BG, though... if that's sand, I think it has too much stone in it. And if it's stone, well... vice versa.
With BetterSkies, I guess? You mean like how the texture itself was made?
Thanks! The tan stuff is gravel btw. I intended it to look like dirt with little bits of rock in it, so it would look good in village paths and stuff. As far as the sky, I meant how you got minecraft to use the texture. I know how to create a texture, but I didn't think minecraft allowed for custom skys. I'd love to add one to my pack if possible. The default blue sky is a bit too saturated and vibrant to match my packs lower saturation(almost pastel?) color pallete.
As far as the sky, I meant how you got minecraft to use the texture. I know how to create a texture, but I didn't think minecraft allowed for custom skys. I'd love to add one to my pack if possible. The default blue sky is a bit too saturated and vibrant to match my packs lower saturation(almost pastel?) color pallete.
You can get Minecraft to do that by using BetterSkies from MCPatcher or Optifine
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff*grabs a duster and tries to dust off the account, gets a new cobweb hairdo* hey... sup?
Any tutorials on how to make the fire texture? I tried to make a short animation to try it out, and i even included the mcmeta file but it wont show up in game... Dunno what I did wrong or if there is something special I have to do with the fire, or a requirement I'm missing...
That is true, it just depends on the cut, clarity & a few other factors & it also depends on what the gem (or block) is surrounded in/around. (I have no life & read a lot of science papers. Also know a lot about science. Want me to talk about Quantum Physics to you too? ... yeah no life & loves some certain science aspects).
Also that would be a good idea for Luminous.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHaii Taiine! WB!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThere are two fire textures, layer 0 which shows up randomly on half the faces, and layer 1 which shows randomly on the other half/when entities are on fire. If it is not showing up, the reason could be you are looking at entities and just edited layer 0.
I edited layer_0, and i'm looking at blocks(I never bothered testing it on entities). All I see is the vanilla fire... Any other ideas?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe texture used isn't actuall random. There's a billion fire models one for fire on top, one for fire on the west, one for fire on top and the west, etc. Each model uses 0 and 1 for different faces. You may need to create fires on different faces.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
So I made some stone variants. One of them I was trying to make it a subtly smoother version of the main stone texture so it looked more like a rock-face but still tileable with the chunkier stone texture. The other two are rarer and feature a hole and a skull. What do you guys think?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumPersonally, I'm not fond of "Add random items" CTM. I'd much rather see a variant texture that can be used frequently and breaks up the pattern. YMMV.
Since the Emerald topic was created interest, I'll show another revamp. New Bedrock:
My previous bedrock is one of my oldest surviving textures in Lithos, so anything else looks pretty weird to me. The one thing i've knowingly deviated from defaultness is the strong horizontal lines in the bedrock. Such lines on natural blocks simply look weird on the upper faces, and I was too lazy to do a separate set of textures for sides and top/bottom.
Thoughts? Defaulty enough? Looks like bedrock?
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
It looks very noisy, and has a lot more contrast than other textures, which makes it stand out a little, but I think in this case its a bit too much. The old bedrock flowed a lot better with the stone and the rest of the pack better than this version. I feel like there is too much contrast in the texture for it to be a stone texture, it looks a bit like a steel block. But that is just my 2 cents.
I love that! Huge improvement!
Noisy? Too much contrast? You do realize your describing the vanilla bedrock texture perfectly, and this is a faithful pack... so yea... Personally I think he makes the noise work very well.
What I meant by that was that it doesn't really fit with the rest of Lithos, which is a bit smoother.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThat's the endless challenge of trying to do a faithful pack that also looks good-- Finding the ballance between the two.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumNot sure what else would be the problem, unless you have models in your pack changing the fire or a typo in one of the file names. It might help me guess a bit if I knew if you were using 1.8 or 1.9, but I really would need to see the pack for any information beyond that.
Well, not in 1.8 at least. 1.9 changed it to random using multipart, which has the side effect of removing two tags from the model (thus only a quarter of the original states are now needed)
I added two new variants to my log texture. I personally think oak logs are one of the main highlights of my pack, so hopefully these will add to it. Thoughts?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAnyone remember the villager fella I posted a while ago? He's finished now:
How did you do that custom sky texture by the way?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis looks great BTW. Knots are always a nice touch.
That tan stuff in the BG, though... if that's sand, I think it has too much stone in it. And if it's stone, well... vice versa.
With BetterSkies, I guess? You mean like how the texture itself was made?
Thanks! The tan stuff is gravel btw. I intended it to look like dirt with little bits of rock in it, so it would look good in village paths and stuff. As far as the sky, I meant how you got minecraft to use the texture. I know how to create a texture, but I didn't think minecraft allowed for custom skys. I'd love to add one to my pack if possible. The default blue sky is a bit too saturated and vibrant to match my packs lower saturation(almost pastel?) color pallete.
You can get Minecraft to do that by using BetterSkies from MCPatcher or Optifine