Bit of an update. I've got some experimental new water effects working that will allow for good-looking brown water in swamps as well as lighter partially frozen water in cold areas, mineral deposits around mountains, and deeper blues in deep water. However this will be MCPatcher exclusive. My pack will no longer properly work on Optifine by itself (unless you like grey water). Which personally I'm fine with, since I hate Optifine anyway. But yeah, just a heads-up: If you're currently just using Optifine and cannot live without it, you'll need to use both MCPatcher and Optifine (Which you should be using for the animations and Randomobs anyway. :tongue.gif:). But yeah, the results look extremely promising. My next update will mostly have a lot of environmental improvements: Biome colors, water, lighting, etc.
Yeah I think the hd texture and hd font support is better in mcpatcher then optifine. I have noticed lately also that even though I am getting higher fps with it the game feels... jittery. Not smooth like I would expect for a steady 50-60fps should be. Hoping Jeb can do more optimizing of the game code to eliminate the need for optimizers.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
1/29/2011
Posts:
59
Member Details
Awesome texture pack! Though I wanted to let you know while you say you "Don't want to Endorse" GLSL officially until it gets fixed up more, I wanted to let you know you kinda already Endorse them. You are the #1 search result for ANYTHING GLSL besides CinemaCraft with LB Photo Realism. Hate to burst your bubble, but that's probably the main reason for the half the traffic to your texture pack. I'd highly suggest updating GLSL with your texture packs despite it's support. Because honestly, you texture pack requires MCPatcher to run (properly), thus is also not fully supported just like GLSL.
I have no problems with lighting on GLSL like that page you offer indicates as well. It runs just fine. The only problems is when a texture pack creator doesn't compress their PNGs properly and you get 'dots' of semi translucent pixels that show up as a rainbow effect.
I shouldn't respond to this since I already gave my stance on this issue, but I have a huge pet peeve for poorly-constructed arguments that are seemingly intended to be persuasive. I'm not an ideal target to be manipulated by unsound arguments or emotionally-driven pleas.
Quote from WAS »
...I wanted to let you know while you say you "Don't want to Endorse" GLSL officially until it gets fixed up more, I wanted to let you know you kinda already Endorse them. You are the #1 search result for ANYTHING GLSL besides CinemaCraft with LB Photo Realism...
Er... How exactly am I endorsing anything here? My pack gets results in association with this due to past experimental shader support. How does this now translate to endorsement in any way? I think you're mixing up 'endorsed' with 'associated.' And even in that instance, I'm associated only through limited experimental support which I made very clear at the time. This doesn't even remotely go against anything I've said in the past or my current stance on the mod.
Quote from WAS »
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's probably the main reason for the half the traffic to your texture pack.
Wait... What? Burst my bubble on what? Since when do you know more about what kind of traffic my pack generates than me? This is pure speculation and assertion. My pack, since its release, has over 3,000,000 downloads (That I'm aware of.). Combining every downloaded release of my shader maps together (even when they were outdated) I only have on record about 14,500 downloads (A fraction of the amount of downloads my pack gets on a single version). Most people on these forums that I've run into with tech support issues with my pack have computers that couldn't even run GLSL if they wanted. My pack may be popular among the GLSL crowd, but they certainly do not speak for the majority of Minecraft players who use my pack(Hell, googling 'misa' in most countries will have the first result as my pack, beating out even misa.com.).
And of course the whole point of this is moot when you realize that I'm not a hits ***** to begin with. For me this isn't about being popular, recognized or making money. It disgusts me that much of the community is like this in fact. The Minecraft modding community is the first I've been a part of that's been like this, and I've been doing mod work for games since 1994. It's a hobby for me. I made my pack because I wanted to improve the look of Minecraft, I uploaded it because I had reached a creative impasse and required constructive criticism to improve the aspects I knew weren't quite right but couldn't pinpoint.
Quote from WAS »
...I'd highly suggest updating GLSL with your texture packs despite it's support. Because honestly, you texture pack requires MCPatcher to run (properly), thus is also not fully supported just like GLSL...
This doesn't make a bit of sense... My pack requires MCPatcher to run, thus isn't fully supported? WHAT? I'm not even going to go into the equivocation fallacy at the end, the first part of that is just... What? Let me break this down:
-My texture pack requires MCPatcher to properly run.
-My pack makes use of features only available in MCPatcher.
-Many of the new features are things that resulted from live discussion between me and the author of MCPatcher.
-The author of MCPatcher values my feedback and suggestions.
-I in turn value the features added and fully support MCPatcher to a degree that most texture packs do not.
How do any of these facts lead to, "...you (sic) texture pack requires MCPatcher to run (properly), thus is also not fully supported..." You need to first be able to demonstrate how the latter half of this statement follows from the first before you can even make an equivocation to the situation with GLSL support.
Quote from WAS »
...I have no problems with lighting on GLSL like that page you offer indicates as well. It runs just fine. The only problems is when a texture pack creator doesn't compress their PNGs properly and you get 'dots' of semi translucent pixels that show up as a rainbow effect...
Just because it looks pretty to you, that doesn't mean my criticism is invalid. You clearly have no understanding of my arguments against the lighting system. I never said anything about semi-translucent pixels showing up as a rainbow effect... See the bulleted lists I've made. They deal with issues with the physical properties of the lighting system itself and how they make no realistic physical sense in some cases. They also deal with things that aren't implemented, but need to be in order to maintain realism. There are also general bug reports of things that have nothing to do with compression or format of the shader maps.
The effect works fine for me, it just leaves MUCH to be desired. It is an unfinished and unpolished product that has made little progress over a long period of time. Until this changes I have nothing to gain by supporting this and nothing to lose by not supporting this. There is simply no motivation, and some stranger telling me to reconsider my position isn't going to change this without a genuinely persuasive argument backed by evidence and reason. I'm glad you appreciate my work, but arguments like these are only an insult to my intelligence. If you wish to challenge my stance, please take the time to review my stance in its entirety, then form reasoned objections to specific points I've made. I enjoy having my ideas genuinely challenged. It's the best way I can hope to improve them.
Awesome texture pack! Though I wanted to let you know while you say you "Don't want to Endorse" GLSL officially until it gets fixed up more, I wanted to let you know you kinda already Endorse them. You are the #1 search result for ANYTHING GLSL
That does not mean endorse, if she were endorsing them she would have links and instructions on how to use. Just because its popular among that area is no indication as to Misas support of it.
Its kinda like saying Microsoft endorses viruses... Just because its popular among that area is no indication as to their support of it.
'Scuse the noob here. I'm trying to use the HD-Default font for this pack, y'know, the 'old' font. I like that one a lot. But ever since 1.0, or the new MCPatcher version or something, using that font has been weird. The letters are all cramped together and stuff. No me gusta. Assistance?
'Scuse the noob here. I'm trying to use the HD-Default font for this pack, y'know, the 'old' font. I like that one a lot. But ever since 1.0, or the new MCPatcher version or something, using that font has been weird. The letters are all cramped together and stuff. No me gusta. Assistance?
delete default.properties
That's the font spacing file, it's meant for the new font. If you switched back to the old one, delete it
Read the above post, dammit! It's about half the page, not hard to miss.
Yeah I think the hd texture and hd font support is better in mcpatcher then optifine. I have noticed lately also that even though I am getting higher fps with it the game feels... jittery. Not smooth like I would expect for a steady 50-60fps should be. Hoping Jeb can do more optimizing of the game code to eliminate the need for optimizers.
Looking forward to the update! :smile.gif:
that pig looks scary..
this guy does.
EDIT: he made them.. I asked, but no reply.
OH MY GOD.
read the first post.
Ill spell it out to you, nice and slow.
1. download MCpatcher from HERE
2. open it
3. make sure Randomobs, HD textures, and HD font is selected.
4. hit Patch. Its big. cant miss it.
5. That's it. every other texture pack bigger than 16x will work.
If you dont understand that, then get out.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI have no problems with lighting on GLSL like that page you offer indicates as well. It runs just fine. The only problems is when a texture pack creator doesn't compress their PNGs properly and you get 'dots' of semi translucent pixels that show up as a rainbow effect.
Web Development for Hire
Er... How exactly am I endorsing anything here? My pack gets results in association with this due to past experimental shader support. How does this now translate to endorsement in any way? I think you're mixing up 'endorsed' with 'associated.' And even in that instance, I'm associated only through limited experimental support which I made very clear at the time. This doesn't even remotely go against anything I've said in the past or my current stance on the mod.
Wait... What? Burst my bubble on what? Since when do you know more about what kind of traffic my pack generates than me? This is pure speculation and assertion. My pack, since its release, has over 3,000,000 downloads (That I'm aware of.). Combining every downloaded release of my shader maps together (even when they were outdated) I only have on record about 14,500 downloads (A fraction of the amount of downloads my pack gets on a single version). Most people on these forums that I've run into with tech support issues with my pack have computers that couldn't even run GLSL if they wanted. My pack may be popular among the GLSL crowd, but they certainly do not speak for the majority of Minecraft players who use my pack(Hell, googling 'misa' in most countries will have the first result as my pack, beating out even misa.com.).
And of course the whole point of this is moot when you realize that I'm not a hits ***** to begin with. For me this isn't about being popular, recognized or making money. It disgusts me that much of the community is like this in fact. The Minecraft modding community is the first I've been a part of that's been like this, and I've been doing mod work for games since 1994. It's a hobby for me. I made my pack because I wanted to improve the look of Minecraft, I uploaded it because I had reached a creative impasse and required constructive criticism to improve the aspects I knew weren't quite right but couldn't pinpoint.
This doesn't make a bit of sense... My pack requires MCPatcher to run, thus isn't fully supported? WHAT? I'm not even going to go into the equivocation fallacy at the end, the first part of that is just... What? Let me break this down:
-My texture pack requires MCPatcher to properly run.
-My pack makes use of features only available in MCPatcher.
-Many of the new features are things that resulted from live discussion between me and the author of MCPatcher.
-The author of MCPatcher values my feedback and suggestions.
-I in turn value the features added and fully support MCPatcher to a degree that most texture packs do not.
How do any of these facts lead to, "...you (sic) texture pack requires MCPatcher to run (properly), thus is also not fully supported..." You need to first be able to demonstrate how the latter half of this statement follows from the first before you can even make an equivocation to the situation with GLSL support.
Just because it looks pretty to you, that doesn't mean my criticism is invalid. You clearly have no understanding of my arguments against the lighting system. I never said anything about semi-translucent pixels showing up as a rainbow effect... See the bulleted lists I've made. They deal with issues with the physical properties of the lighting system itself and how they make no realistic physical sense in some cases. They also deal with things that aren't implemented, but need to be in order to maintain realism. There are also general bug reports of things that have nothing to do with compression or format of the shader maps.
The effect works fine for me, it just leaves MUCH to be desired. It is an unfinished and unpolished product that has made little progress over a long period of time. Until this changes I have nothing to gain by supporting this and nothing to lose by not supporting this. There is simply no motivation, and some stranger telling me to reconsider my position isn't going to change this without a genuinely persuasive argument backed by evidence and reason. I'm glad you appreciate my work, but arguments like these are only an insult to my intelligence. If you wish to challenge my stance, please take the time to review my stance in its entirety, then form reasoned objections to specific points I've made. I enjoy having my ideas genuinely challenged. It's the best way I can hope to improve them.
SHUT UP.
that's what Misa should've said.
That does not mean endorse, if she were endorsing them she would have links and instructions on how to use. Just because its popular among that area is no indication as to Misas support of it.
Its kinda like saying Microsoft endorses viruses... Just because its popular among that area is no indication as to their support of it.
delete default.properties
That's the font spacing file, it's meant for the new font. If you switched back to the old one, delete it
I like it! put it on mine =D