Note that as of this release, semi-transparency is supported only in the stained glass. The regular glass renders exactly as it did before-- with only the front faces showing. Stained glass renders all sides.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Personally, I'd love to see partial transparency support on every single transparent texture in the game including items and the GUI. Think of how much better we could make leaves and items look.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
Personally, I'd love to see partial transparency support on every single transparent texture in the game including items and the GUI. Think of how much better we could make leaves and items look.
I'd love to see more true partial transparency support, although I'm not sure if it's actually possible with items or anything that's not a "whole block" and handled as a true 3D model.
For example, take the 2D items, the items themselves sitting in your inventory would look find with nice partial transparency around the edges. It would make for HD packs to have MUCH smoother looking edges. No more fugley hard edges. I would totally love this!
Problem is, when these items are converted to 2.5d (Like when they are on the ground, or in your hand). The partial transparency on the 2D sprite being converted to a "3d" object would look really funny when converted. You'd have these "Pixels squares" that are somewhat transparent all along the edges of your 3d model, I think that would result in a really strange unnatural effect, almost like your item has a glass outline around it. It's a bit hard to explain what I mean, I wish I could come up with a simple example.
Also insomniac_lemon you shouldn't make an issue for it it's more like a suggestion.
Before 13w41a it would have been. However, stained glass is now in the game, with now backface culling and nearly perfect partial transparency.
It's inconsistent now, because stained glass has no backface culling, while normal glass still does. Regular glass should also have partial transparency support because now it's possible, and it will allow for more artistic normal glass. More beautiful (artist-defined) regular glass AND (user-defined) stained glass.
I know it SOUNDS like a suggestion, but it's not just that. The stained glass added is MUCH more aesthetically pleasing because of new features that were not backported to regular glass. This should not be the case-stained glass and regular glass should be able to be equal as far as aesthetics, the ONLY differences should really be color, which is user-preference. The only other difference that there should be is allowing normal glass to be less opaque, which is again, up to preference (and the texture pack), but should be allowable for more subtle details (as said in the issue) than stained glass.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'd love to see more true partial transparency support, although I'm not sure if it's actually possible with items or anything that's not a "whole block" and handled as a true 3D model.
For example, take the 2D items, the items themselves sitting in your inventory would look find with nice partial transparency around the edges. It would make for HD packs to have MUCH smoother looking edges. No more fugley hard edges. I would totally love this!
Problem is, when these items are converted to 2.5d (Like when they are on the ground, or in your hand). The partial transparency on the 2D sprite being converted to a "3d" object would look really funny when converted. You'd have these "Pixels squares" that are somewhat transparent all along the edges of your 3d model, I think that would result in a really strange unnatural effect, almost like your item has a glass outline around it. It's a bit hard to explain what I mean, I wish I could come up with a simple example.
You bring up a good point. I'd still like to have it though for making things like diamonds, emeralds and bottles partially transparent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
Stained glass is awesome, however, the new 8-chunk max on render distance is a load of bullsh*t. It feels like render distance tiny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
95% of teens would scream if Justin Beiber was about to jump of the top of the Empire State Building. If you are in the 5% that would grab a seat and some popcorn and yell JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! post this into your sig.
Before 13w41a it would have been. However, stained glass is now in the game, with now backface culling and nearly perfect partial transparency.
It's inconsistent now, because stained glass has no backface culling, while normal glass still does.
Lemon, I agree that glass and stained glass should not have different properties. I don't know, personally I think that stained glass would look better with backface culling. I mean, the problem everyone has with glass is that it's so damn noisy right? People want to see through the glass, not all these model faces that are distracting and cluttered. I think partial transparency is wicked (and could be really radical if they implemented it for item sprites) and glass should totally get it too, but no texture should be without backface culling. Mob spawners and beacons as a possible exception.
pretty sure that'll get fixed. I can't see that being intentional.
Lemon, I agree that glass and stained glass should not have different properties. I don't know, personally I think that stained glass would look better with backface culling. I mean, the problem everyone has with glass is that it's so damn noisy right? People want to see through the glass, not all these model faces that are distracting and cluttered.
but no texture should be without backface culling. Mob spawners and beacons as a possible exception. your explanation was fine. I think you're right but agree with Fool in that it would still be a sweet option.
Just because default has a horrible texture that has annoying streaks in it, does not mean that game features should revolve around that. Nearly all artists use a cleaner texture, usually a frame. As such, more benefit would be gained from regular and stained glass not having backface culling. With backface culling you can't see where certain faces are, which can often cause problems with determining the actual depth of glass.
but no texture should be without backface culling
The entire point of backface culling is to save resources by not rendering faces that you *don't* see. Any face that you can see should be rendered. Especially when paired with a decent glass texture, and when used in large amounts, glass just looks better without backface culling. Even better with CTM....
As far as the ugly streaks in default, if regular glass could contain transparency, they could be a lower opacity and the streaks wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
The entire point of backface culling is to save resources by not rendering faces that you *don't* see. Any face that you can see should be rendered. Especially when paired with a decent glass texture, and when used in large amounts, glass just looks better without backface culling. Even better with CTM....
As far as the ugly streaks in default, if regular glass could contain transparency, they could be a lower opacity and the streaks wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Dude, can you imagine your glass texture with all six sides rendered? There are a lot of pixels on that thing, you would barely be able to see anything through it from certain angles! I don't know man, we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think getting rid of backface culling makes sense for textures where you would only ever have one of them in a given spot (e.g. mob spawners, beacons, enderdragon-healing-cube-things etc.) but for any block that you could potentially have multiples all next to each other, there would just be so much visual information. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Cubic_honeycomb.png know what I mean?
Dude, can you imagine your glass texture with all six sides rendered? There are a lot of pixels on that thing, you would barely be able to see anything through it from certain angles! I don't know man, we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think getting rid of backface culling makes sense for textures where you would only ever have one of them in a given spot (e.g. mob spawners, beacons, enderdragon-healing-cube-things etc.) but for any block that you could potentially have multiples all next to each other, there would just be so much visual information. http://upload.wikime...c_honeycomb.png know what I mean?
I'm not saying making the faces BETWEEN glass blocks visible! Backface culling is AFTER that, and determines if a face that otherwise WOULD be visible, but are not currently visible due to the user's position and viewing angle. To explain, left regular glass has backface culling, while stained glass does not:
Notice on the left you can't see where the glass even is but the front. Notice on the right you can see EXACTLY where it is. My stained glass would be more transparent, but alas, it can't be much less opaque because of the other bug I've been mentioning
EDIT: What you're thinking of isn't really a technical process. It's more of a custom implementation. Minecraft takes faces that aren't touching air or a non-solid block and doesn't render them. Once again, that's not what I was talking about.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'm not saying making the faces BETWEEN glass blocks visible! Backface culling is AFTER that, and determines if a face that otherwise WOULD be visible, but are not currently visible due to the user's position and viewing angle.
Thanks for the clarification. That explanation was helpful. So it would only show faces that were exposed to air. That is a lot better than what I was imagining. That being said, glass would definitely have to have both translucency and backface culling removed. Because if glass still had to be opaque, I think I still have a valid point. I'm curious to see what the stained glass would look like with your glass texture instead of the translucent one you made.
But yeah, if you've got both, it's not really a problem because you can see through everything anyway and you get the bonus of knowing specifically where the blocks end.
Honestly, I hate glass, ice etc. without blackface culling. I will try and enable it always - it looks horrid without.
yeah, blackface is racist .... I'm guessing autocorrect or quick spellcheck.....
Wait, do you actually mean you like backface culling, or do you really mean you don't like it? Because liking backface culling doesn't quite make sense with your statement, as you don't need to really "enable" it, as until this newest snapshot backface culling was always enabled by default. You had to go out of your way to disable it, using MCpatcher to change the renderPass to 2 or 3. I'm not sure how backface culling not being present could be ugly unless the texture was really hard to see through, which would make the glass ugly in the first place. Also, if you're using MCpatcher to change renderPass, you might as well add in CTM, which increases visibility, which looks absolutely awesome with backface culling removed, allowing you to see the full shape of the glass.
I'm curious to see what the stained glass would look like with your glass texture instead of the translucent one you made.
This statement am confuse brain :S
Do you mean you want to see what it would look like if I used stained glass as a placeholder for if the issue I made was fixed, making regular and stained glass equal? If that is what you mean, I would probably make it as it is, but with the frame lower opacity (like it is on stained glass) the middle (what's transparent now) slightly opaque (5-15%?) and the middle lines (that don't extend all the way) would extend to a full + and be just a bit more opaque than the center fill (10-20%?). However, the transparency issue would not allow this. Truthfully, my stained glass is too opaque for my taste as-is.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Be careful with transparency, in my testing lower opacity glass is more likely to randomly disappear. I havent figured out all the conditions, but the reliability of the transparency seems to vary according to the direction you are looking and by different parts of the map.
That's because yours doesn't have fully opaque borders. (It's a snapshot issue with translucency)
Looks like it is more complicated that that.
I made red 100% opaque on the borders and 50% on the inside
I made blue 80% on the border and 62% on the inside.
Everything else is 80% on the border and 50% on the rim.
I couldn't get blue or red to blink or disapear. The rest frequently disappeared except for the more opaque border.[/quote]
I'd love to hear if these results are consistent across computers, or the transparency thresholds are simply a result of my hardware/software.
I'd love to hear if these results are consistent across computers, or the transparency thresholds are simply a result of my hardware/software.
Well, from my testing it's anything below 50%. And also, beware of GIMP, because it didn't seem to always give the exact opacity I tried, sometimes it wouldn't give me a specific value. So if you're using it, you might want to double check that the value is 50% and not 49%.I'm not sure why it would be hardware specific. I could see if your OpenGL version made a difference (which is a combo of graphics card/driver). It maybe could be an LWJGL difference? But beyond those I think it should be the same.EDIT: Also, this is the issue: https://mojang.atlas...browse/MC-31658
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Yeah, that sucks. I made an issue for it. Of course please support.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Upvoted.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
I'd love to see more true partial transparency support, although I'm not sure if it's actually possible with items or anything that's not a "whole block" and handled as a true 3D model.
For example, take the 2D items, the items themselves sitting in your inventory would look find with nice partial transparency around the edges. It would make for HD packs to have MUCH smoother looking edges. No more fugley hard edges. I would totally love this!
Problem is, when these items are converted to 2.5d (Like when they are on the ground, or in your hand). The partial transparency on the 2D sprite being converted to a "3d" object would look really funny when converted. You'd have these "Pixels squares" that are somewhat transparent all along the edges of your 3d model, I think that would result in a really strange unnatural effect, almost like your item has a glass outline around it. It's a bit hard to explain what I mean, I wish I could come up with a simple example.
Now to get it to look good in my pack.
Agreed.
Before 13w41a it would have been. However, stained glass is now in the game, with now backface culling and nearly perfect partial transparency.
It's inconsistent now, because stained glass has no backface culling, while normal glass still does. Regular glass should also have partial transparency support because now it's possible, and it will allow for more artistic normal glass. More beautiful (artist-defined) regular glass AND (user-defined) stained glass.
I know it SOUNDS like a suggestion, but it's not just that. The stained glass added is MUCH more aesthetically pleasing because of new features that were not backported to regular glass. This should not be the case-stained glass and regular glass should be able to be equal as far as aesthetics, the ONLY differences should really be color, which is user-preference. The only other difference that there should be is allowing normal glass to be less opaque, which is again, up to preference (and the texture pack), but should be allowable for more subtle details (as said in the issue) than stained glass.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
95% of teens would scream if Justin Beiber was about to jump of the top of the Empire State Building. If you are in the 5% that would grab a seat and some popcorn and yell JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! post this into your sig.
Lemon, I agree that glass and stained glass should not have different properties. I don't know, personally I think that stained glass would look better with backface culling. I mean, the problem everyone has with glass is that it's so damn noisy right? People want to see through the glass, not all these model faces that are distracting and cluttered. I think partial transparency is wicked (and could be really radical if they implemented it for item sprites) and glass should totally get it too, but no texture should be without backface culling. Mob spawners and beacons as a possible exception. your explanation was fine. I think you're right but agree with Fool in that it would still be a sweet option.
Just because default has a horrible texture that has annoying streaks in it, does not mean that game features should revolve around that. Nearly all artists use a cleaner texture, usually a frame. As such, more benefit would be gained from regular and stained glass not having backface culling. With backface culling you can't see where certain faces are, which can often cause problems with determining the actual depth of glass.
The entire point of backface culling is to save resources by not rendering faces that you *don't* see. Any face that you can see should be rendered. Especially when paired with a decent glass texture, and when used in large amounts, glass just looks better without backface culling. Even better with CTM....
As far as the ugly streaks in default, if regular glass could contain transparency, they could be a lower opacity and the streaks wouldn't be so much of an issue.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'm not saying making the faces BETWEEN glass blocks visible! Backface culling is AFTER that, and determines if a face that otherwise WOULD be visible, but are not currently visible due to the user's position and viewing angle. To explain, left regular glass has backface culling, while stained glass does not:
Notice on the left you can't see where the glass even is but the front. Notice on the right you can see EXACTLY where it is. My stained glass would be more transparent, but alas, it can't be much less opaque because of the other bug I've been mentioning
EDIT: What you're thinking of isn't really a technical process. It's more of a custom implementation. Minecraft takes faces that aren't touching air or a non-solid block and doesn't render them. Once again, that's not what I was talking about.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
But yeah, if you've got both, it's not really a problem because you can see through everything anyway and you get the bonus of knowing specifically where the blocks end.
yeah, blackface is racist .... I'm guessing autocorrect or quick spellcheck.....
Wait, do you actually mean you like backface culling, or do you really mean you don't like it? Because liking backface culling doesn't quite make sense with your statement, as you don't need to really "enable" it, as until this newest snapshot backface culling was always enabled by default. You had to go out of your way to disable it, using MCpatcher to change the renderPass to 2 or 3. I'm not sure how backface culling not being present could be ugly unless the texture was really hard to see through, which would make the glass ugly in the first place. Also, if you're using MCpatcher to change renderPass, you might as well add in CTM, which increases visibility, which looks absolutely awesome with backface culling removed, allowing you to see the full shape of the glass.
This statement am confuse brain :S
Do you mean you want to see what it would look like if I used stained glass as a placeholder for if the issue I made was fixed, making regular and stained glass equal? If that is what you mean, I would probably make it as it is, but with the frame lower opacity (like it is on stained glass) the middle (what's transparent now) slightly opaque (5-15%?) and the middle lines (that don't extend all the way) would extend to a full + and be just a bit more opaque than the center fill (10-20%?). However, the transparency issue would not allow this. Truthfully, my stained glass is too opaque for my taste as-is.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Edit: Oh, it is probably an Optifine issue. It isn't updated for 13w41b of course. Nevermind!
Owner & Creator of Aquain, a huge underwater city on the Opticraft server. Check out info on my underwater city here. Also creator of an art deco-like resource pack to go along with the city. Help me develop my resource pack here.
EDIT: Here's some harder details from my thread:
Looks like it is more complicated that that.
I made red 100% opaque on the borders and 50% on the inside
I made blue 80% on the border and 62% on the inside.
Everything else is 80% on the border and 50% on the rim.
I couldn't get blue or red to blink or disapear. The rest frequently disappeared except for the more opaque border.[/quote]
I'd love to hear if these results are consistent across computers, or the transparency thresholds are simply a result of my hardware/software.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'm not talking about the graphic never showing, i'm talking about a irregular, temporary disappearance.
I haven't seen anybody else complain about this, thus my suspicion that it has a more specific cause.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help