Minecraft Forums

Quote from Misa

Actually if anything his looks like mine. Mine was released in 2010, his 2011, he's also using my mobs, not the other way around. (It's actually obnoxious how often I get accused of stealing his mobs when I made them to begin with and he even credits me for my work on his thread. Not to imply that that's what you're doing.) As far at textures go though, the similarities are at best limited to the desaturated and darkened colors. His appear to mostly be separate stock photographs converted into tiling textures, mine aren't as photographic and have more of a hand-made quality to them. Generally everything in my pack is built off of itself to have a more cohesive visual theme among all my elements rather than going for the photographic realism his pack does. Either way I'm glad you like both of our packs. :tongue.gif:

If you're just watching the thread and haven't actually tried the pack, you're missing out on a lot. My thread's media is rarely updated, and it can't really do justice to all the features like custom animations or all the varied mob textures. As far as making a higher resolution pack goes, this has been answered in detail many times before. But I guess it's been awhile since I last made a post on this, so I'll do a little update on my explanation now! Here's hoping some people actually take the time to read, it. :tongue.gif:

First of all I feel I should probably make it clear that 'higher resolution' =/= 'better graphics.' It all really boils down to the application of the textures. And technically you could do a 512x512 texture pack that looks exactly like the vanilla textures for Minecraft with no visual difference. In regards to application, Minecraft has textures that tile repeatedly over small areas rather than large chunks as they would in many other games. In most 3D games that have a more realistic look to them, higher resolution textures can greatly improve the look of the game due to the way they're handled. They're generally applied to meshes (3D models) and have no need for tiling due to the fact that you can just assemble your worlds on those games out of detailed model pieces. These textures also make use of advanced shaders to properly reflect lighting and appear to have a 3D surface.

In Minecraft, textures are applied to a grid and repeated ad nauseam. In the case of higher resolution textures, without adequate mip-mapping (Optifine's 'mip-mapping' doesn't remotely cut it.) or 3D texture shaders (Normals, height maps, speculars, etc.) a very distracting grainy noise effect is produced in the distance and on the edge of tiles a few blocks away from the camera. Even my 64x64 pack has this, but to a degree that I feel is manageable. So it's really not the best idea to judge a texture pack's quality by its resolution, but rather its style, features, and practicality. By practicality, I mean its ability for each tile to be easily recognizable quickly without much of an adjustment required and its ability to be easy on the eyes after extended periods of play.

Why I ended up settling on 64x64 had more to do with the scale of objects in the game than anything. In Minecraft, the more resolution detail that's put into each texture, the smaller it appears. An illusion is produced that makes the player almost feel like a giant. This pack started off in 2009 as 16x16, and moved up to 32x32, then 64x64. Each time I went up I had to ensure the scale felt right, and briefly before release, the pack was actually 128x128. I didn't like the 'giant illusion' so shrunk what I had back down to 64x64. By that time, 2D textures with transparency were commonplace, and the idea of wanting to keep some degree of transitioning pixels (From the flat grass to the 3D grass for instance) required keeping things a little blocky. Basically things like blades of grass I wanted to be no thinner than a 64x64 scale pixel. Without a full range of transparency, keeping things from getting too thin due to excessive detail became a bonus feature of lower resolution packs. It also kept some degree of voxel consistency with the way held items are rendered.

This isn't to say I could never see myself going above 64x64. In fact I have a working file for 256x256 that while it looks good on paper, looks like a horribly grainy mess in-game. Realistic textures just have a lot of problem with that lack of mip-mapping due to the initial noise required for realism. Given the limitations of the game, it's not likely that that project will make much progress anytime soon. While 64x64 is a good middle-ranged high resolution pack that most people can use without much of any performance hit, if I had things my way, I'd have a 'badass gaming machine version' of the pack as well. In order for me to keep my consistent style at a higher resolution though I'd need several things to happen:
-True hardware mip-map support.
-A proper dynamic lighting engine that advanced textures can make use of.
-Support for advanced shader texture maps: Normals, Speculars, Height, Glow, etc.
-Full gradient alpha channel support instead of the current binary transparency.

The above would be absolutely necessary for high resolution textures to look good on Minecraft in my opinion, but several other things would also be greatly desired for me to have the full motivation to redo my entire pack to support this:

-Voxel or full polygonal model support for all objects in the game.
-Textures that span multiple similar-material blocks to eliminate excessive tiling.
-Better handling or customization of particles.
-Texture crossfading.
-Full 2D and 3D animation support.

So unless someone is a coder who is capable of making this all happen, please try to tone down the constant requests for me to make my pack a higher resolution. Without any solutions or means provided to make it actually work well, I don't see it as a way to improve my pack so much as just something that clashes with my sense of cohesive design as an artist.

Quote from bmpgotcha

can you please add Mo Creatures textures i want awesome creatures that look good with your pack

Quote from MamiyaOtaru

?? this pack does have mo creatures textures. Check the pics in the first post

Quote from bmpgotcha

Thats the enderdragon

Quote from MamiyaOtaru

are you some kind of genius or something? The first pic is the enderdragon, but 9 of the next 10 pics after that are of the randomobs. Scroll down, just a little, you can do it

Quote from unknowmonster

You Have 1.0.0 Only You can play with Glsl Shader only you can play if you have 1.5 :wink.gif:

Quote from BrotherCabbage

For anyone interested, I updated the terrain_nh and terrain_s maps for this pack (kinda hacky, but looks good). The texture for the sides of grass blocks has been put into terrain_s, fixing a weird issue with shiny side-grass, along with the new booster rail sets. I've also flattened the terrain_nh panels for flowers and saplings, since they tended to morph and slide around when viewed ingame.

Fair warning, it comes with a few personal changes I made. Wood surfaces, grass, dirt, and smooth stone are more matte than shiny, and ores other than diamond have a more dull lustre. I also edited the specular color of the metal on chests and whatnot to have a yellowish, sort of tarnished tinge.

Use these with Dax's latest release of the GLSL shader mod, and follow the instructions for installing that, replacing the default shaders with the ones in "bump mapping" in the alternative shaders folder. You'll have to manually put the terrain_nh and terrain_s files into minecraft.jar, since Dax's patcher doesn't seem to do that properly.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6250847/misanhsmaps151.zip

I'm posting this as-is, meaning I won't make requested edits unless it's actually an error. I'll probably edit this as needed when things get updated and it breaks, but probably for only as long as I use Misa's wonderful texture pack.

Quote from AntonioTheMiner

Does this texture pack support any mod, i tried with Too Many Itens but it didnt worked very well