I installed the 13w2b snapshot and the latest mcpatcher (3.0.0beta5) but it does not seem to reconize the snapshot. Says it only works with 13w2a or higher. I realize this is a question for the mcpatcher fourm but that it not the only issue. The converted texture pack does not work at all, but the non converted texture pack works just fine (minus the HD textures because mcpather wont let me tic the boxes).
I installed the 13w2b snapshot and the latest mcpatcher (3.0.0beta5) but it does not seem to reconize the snapshot. Says it only works with 13w2a or higher. I realize this is a question for the mcpatcher fourm but that it not the only issue. The converted texture pack does not work at all, but the non converted texture pack works just fine (minus the HD textures because mcpather wont let me tic the boxes).
Anyone else seen this happen?
It really sounds like you just didn't install the snapshot you thought you did, or you accidentally overwrote it by forcing an update to the game or something. If unconverted texture packs are working but converted ones aren't, then there's definitely no way you have a snapshot installed that uses the new format. Re-download the snapshot, ensure it goes into the bin folder, run the beta MCPatcher, and ensure you don't force an update or anything.
I've been using this pack since back in beta 1.73 and in the past couple versions i've been getting a weird glich where the sky turns completely white after one day/night cylce ingame after starting minecraft. I've updated patcher for the current version (1.4.7) and the pack propperly, and everything works except for the sky. Any tips?
Edit: - Running Windows XP Home ServicePack4 with 6gigs of RAM, ATI Radeon 2600 GPU and unmodded vanilla MC if that is of any importance.
And yes, I like to keep it oldschool.. XP for the win people...
I've been using this pack since back in beta 1.73 and in the past couple versions i've been getting a weird glich where the sky turns completely white after one day/night cylce ingame after starting minecraft. I've updated patcher for the current version (1.4.7) and the pack propperly, and everything works except for the sky. Any tips?
Edit: - Running Windows XP Home ServicePack4 with 6gigs of RAM, ATI Radeon 2600 GPU and unmodded vanilla MC if that is of any importance.
And yes, I like to keep it oldschool.. XP for the win people...
White textures = memory issue. The skybox textures from Better Skies are larger than your allotted memory to the game. You can increase the java heap size to improve this in the Options tab of MCPatcher. Note that programs running in the background may prevent the amount of RAM allocated to Java from actually getting used. As someone who's been building computers from scratch since 1988 and who's currently running XP Professional, I can safely say that on all 32-bit versions of XP, only 3-3.5GB's of RAM can be utilized by the OS. If increasing the heap size doesn't help, disable Better Skies, or read the first issue of my FAQ for a more complete performance guide which has an effect on the white texture issue as well as performance.
...So your texturepack is working for me. I added all new items and blocks, I got the portal, water, lawa and fire working.
The only thing I can't get to work is the connected textures-thing....
Is that why you still need MCpatcher for?
I thought MCpatcher was adding the possibility of high resolutions to the game.
In 1.5 this is not needed anymore.
Isn't there a way to get the connected textures to work in vanilla minecraft without using a external tool??
Don't fall for the "HD texture support is in vanilla so MCPatcher isn't needed" nonsense the way people thought it wasn't needed for advanced 16x16 packs when Mojang first added basic texture pack support. For years MCPatcher has done way more than just high resolution texture support. Unless Mojang wises up and gets in touch with Kahr, you will likely always need MCPatcher for this pack for more than just CTM. There are entirely way too many features this pack relies upon that simply are not provided for in vanilla Minecraft. Also if the converter tool you're referring to is Dinnerbone's unstitcher--it's pretty much worthless on this pack compared to MCPatcher's converter--which does convert CTM, custom animations, and some other things to the new format.
As nice as it'd be to see MCPatcher's features properly incorporated into Minecraft vanilla, running MCPatcher isn't really all that much of a hassle as it is. It's a client mod which doesn't affect online play with people who don't have it installed and it's a small download which you only have to run once on major updates. Downloading and patching even on a slow connection takes maybe a minute tops.
Misa and you saw the new CTM better grass function? In it it is possible to make smooth transition of a stone and the earth and other blocks.
I have no idea what new CTM better grass function you're referring to. Can you please post a link to or quote of the documentation for this feature? The screenshot you posted to later just looked like ordered CTM, and it looked like a poor implementation of it as ordered CTM makes no use of conditional dynamics the way better grass does.
What does it mean by the 64x and 32x and stuff in the title? I have seen that around a lot.
It's the horizontal and vertical pixel count on the basic textures. In my pack it means that each block will have a pixel resolution of 64x64. However this does not mean that all of my textures are 64x64. In fact many of my textures are actually 256x256 and the ice texture is 512x512--they're just spread out over the blocks in a way that each still has 64x64 pixels. Texture resolution doesn't always mean everything though. The design is the most important aspect of a texture pack and depending on the style, certain resolutions will be meaningless beyond a certain point. So if you use it as a number to pick out packs, you should probably only use it as a gauge for what your hardware can handle and not how good or bad a pack is.
From personal experience, I've seen a lot of really great 16x and 32x packs designed by artists who have mastered pixel work, and a lot of really terrible 128x and 256x packs of hacks who just take stock photos and paste them into the texture pack format (I've even seen some with watermarked images!). That's not to say all low resolution packs are good and all high resolution packs are bad. Just always keep in mind that resolution is nowhere near as important as the design of the pack. I went with 64x because to me it's a high resolution pack that most people can run without too many performance issues, and it's a resolution that works well given the blocky nature of the models in this game without looking too pixelated or too much like photographs pasted onto cubes.
Wanted to say that I really, really appreciate all the fine, detailed work on this texture pack. It is really a pleasure to use, has a very coherent theme and style, and frequently delights and surprises with the excellent work and attention to detail, especially with the connected textures and animations!
Some of my favorite parts:
The dividers inside of large chests, especially since you normally barely get a glimpse of this when closing a chest
2x2 and 3x3 giant jungle tree trunks
Connected bedrock and stone textures
The bold choice to re-style nether brick fences
Nighttime sky with milky way
Brilliant and dramatic sunrise and sunset
Bookshelves: perfect style and feel, excellently done connected textures. And nice job softening up the white group of books that stood out too much in prior versions.
Snowmen with different hats/heads
Mooshrooms
Great style and animation on enchantment tables and ender portal blocks
Love how distinct the 4 different wooden planks are, each one is great!
Redstone lamps are very, very nice!
My older PC is really on the verge of being able to run a 64x texture pack well, so it remains to be seen whether I continue to use it long term, looking forward to seeing kind of performance changes the 1.5 release brings, if any.
Like anything, some textures are a matter of taste (the ores, especially iron, aren't my favorite), but in between all the tech support questions and next version speculation, I just wanted to say, Thanks, Misa!!
Looks like they are just taking the raw data provided my mojang and graphing it exactly as-is. Not sure why different machines would report different variations of the same texture pack name (with and without the .zip, etc). But yes, combining the dups would make this graph much more useful.
The important thing is: Misa's pack is definitely one of the top 10 texture packs of Minecraft, even when some other packs are counted twice.
I estimate about 7th after combining...
Furthermore, it only shows one version of Misa's, not those using older clients and possibly older texture pack versions.
I like your Textures, but if the Optifine mod is installed, the screen flickers so strange.
But when you disable OptiFine everything is normal again.
Would be really nice if you could fix it.
Thx.
Enable full screen mode in the options. I had the same problem with both MC Patcher and Optifine.
I believe that is all the pertinent info about my hardware to show that it shouldn't be a hardware issue to run this texture pack. I run it on my 5 year old computer with a Q6600 2.4ghz and an 8800GTS 512mb just fine. This leads me to believe I have some java issues or issues in some other settings.
I've followed the installation instructions about a clean Minecraft install and the latest version of MCPatcher, but there must be something else to be done. I am also running 64bit java. What could be causing this lag?
I really don't know, but just a completely unrelated question: For what the hell do you need 32 GB RAM ???????
As far as I know, Windows 7 Ultimate x64 can use max. 24 GB RAM in general, and this is still an unnecessary high amount of RAM. I've allocated 7 GB RAM to Java and even this is only needed when blowing up a landscape full of TNT.
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 can handle 192GB of RAM actually. But I don't use 32GB for gaming of course; no game could use even close to that. I use it for After Effects RAM previews and for 3D animation previews in Cinema 4D.
Hmm, I really can't figure out why this texture pack would be causing me lag. Maybe I should reinstall Minecraft entirely and not simply delete the bin folder as per the instructions.
I looked at my FPS with F3. It was at a steady 59-61 FPS, as I would have expected for this game. Even more baffling to try and figure out why 60 FPS was appearing more like 15 FPS. It was very jerky and stuttery. So it's definitely not my hardware being bogged down, but more like some sort of bug. My computer is having no problem rendering the game at 60 FPS, it's just rendering it in a very stuttery way... Makes no sense to me.
So I disabled vsync. My FPS shot through the roof at 300+, and now it appears to run buttery smooth.
The question is, why am I having issues with Misa + vsync? Again, not that vsync is bogging my computer down. It's handling 60 FPS no problem. It just doesn't LOOK like it...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyone else seen this happen?
Edit: - Running Windows XP Home ServicePack4 with 6gigs of RAM, ATI Radeon 2600 GPU and unmodded vanilla MC if that is of any importance.
And yes, I like to keep it oldschool.. XP for the win people...
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1414510-a-texture-artists-guide-to-mcpatchers-features/page__st__320
Post #324
It's resolution of textures, default is 16x. Higher resolution texture packs require better hardware.
http://www.planetminecraft.com/member/spejs/
As nice as it'd be to see MCPatcher's features properly incorporated into Minecraft vanilla, running MCPatcher isn't really all that much of a hassle as it is. It's a client mod which doesn't affect online play with people who don't have it installed and it's a small download which you only have to run once on major updates. Downloading and patching even on a slow connection takes maybe a minute tops.
I have no idea what new CTM better grass function you're referring to. Can you please post a link to or quote of the documentation for this feature? The screenshot you posted to later just looked like ordered CTM, and it looked like a poor implementation of it as ordered CTM makes no use of conditional dynamics the way better grass does.
It's the horizontal and vertical pixel count on the basic textures. In my pack it means that each block will have a pixel resolution of 64x64. However this does not mean that all of my textures are 64x64. In fact many of my textures are actually 256x256 and the ice texture is 512x512--they're just spread out over the blocks in a way that each still has 64x64 pixels. Texture resolution doesn't always mean everything though. The design is the most important aspect of a texture pack and depending on the style, certain resolutions will be meaningless beyond a certain point. So if you use it as a number to pick out packs, you should probably only use it as a gauge for what your hardware can handle and not how good or bad a pack is.
From personal experience, I've seen a lot of really great 16x and 32x packs designed by artists who have mastered pixel work, and a lot of really terrible 128x and 256x packs of hacks who just take stock photos and paste them into the texture pack format (I've even seen some with watermarked images!). That's not to say all low resolution packs are good and all high resolution packs are bad. Just always keep in mind that resolution is nowhere near as important as the design of the pack. I went with 64x because to me it's a high resolution pack that most people can run without too many performance issues, and it's a resolution that works well given the blocky nature of the models in this game without looking too pixelated or too much like photographs pasted onto cubes.
Some of my favorite parts:
My older PC is really on the verge of being able to run a 64x texture pack well, so it remains to be seen whether I continue to use it long term, looking forward to seeing kind of performance changes the 1.5 release brings, if any.
Like anything, some textures are a matter of taste (the ores, especially iron, aren't my favorite), but in between all the tech support questions and next version speculation, I just wanted to say, Thanks, Misa!!
Why here duplicates of texture packs?
I estimate about 7th after combining...
Furthermore, it only shows one version of Misa's, not those using older clients and possibly older texture pack versions.
Enable full screen mode in the options. I had the same problem with both MC Patcher and Optifine.
i7 3930K OC'ed 4.2ghz
GTX680 Lightning 2gb
32gb RAM
Samsung SSD
Windows 7 Ultimate x64
I believe that is all the pertinent info about my hardware to show that it shouldn't be a hardware issue to run this texture pack. I run it on my 5 year old computer with a Q6600 2.4ghz and an 8800GTS 512mb just fine. This leads me to believe I have some java issues or issues in some other settings.
I've followed the installation instructions about a clean Minecraft install and the latest version of MCPatcher, but there must be something else to be done. I am also running 64bit java. What could be causing this lag?
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 can handle 192GB of RAM actually. But I don't use 32GB for gaming of course; no game could use even close to that. I use it for After Effects RAM previews and for 3D animation previews in Cinema 4D.
Hmm, I really can't figure out why this texture pack would be causing me lag. Maybe I should reinstall Minecraft entirely and not simply delete the bin folder as per the instructions.
I looked at my FPS with F3. It was at a steady 59-61 FPS, as I would have expected for this game. Even more baffling to try and figure out why 60 FPS was appearing more like 15 FPS. It was very jerky and stuttery. So it's definitely not my hardware being bogged down, but more like some sort of bug. My computer is having no problem rendering the game at 60 FPS, it's just rendering it in a very stuttery way... Makes no sense to me.
So I disabled vsync. My FPS shot through the roof at 300+, and now it appears to run buttery smooth.
The question is, why am I having issues with Misa + vsync? Again, not that vsync is bogging my computer down. It's handling 60 FPS no problem. It just doesn't LOOK like it...