You're gonna have to wait awhile likely. Mojang almost seems to be going out of its way to ensure that I can't work on my pack at all. Today's update to the new launcher pretty much prevents client mods from functioning. As if it wasn't already evil enough having removed the user's option to disable automatic updates, now the jar for each version is replaced with a clean one each time you launch the game. The snapshot I was using only yesterday to work on the pack with no longer works. Version control should never be so unethically far-reaching that it completely eliminates the end-user from the update process...
Misa: because of all the zip file problems from other users and me (and the missing active detector rail image), would it be possible to upload another copy of the texture pack for 1.5.x (even if it only has images to that point of the game updates & not beyond), especially since 1.6.x (and its snapshots) is cutting any work on the current texture pack to near nil?
If you answer any* form of yes: thank you.
If you answer any* form of no: I understand (I remember what you said a while back)
*by any, I mean any that don't have stipulations that are major/severe. Those answers would require a specific reply, though likely still along the same lines as the general reply.
It's bothersome that the default texture for the new hardened clay in the snapshot is similar to your texture for regular clay.
Does Mojang just hate you? Haha.
On the subject of the horses, I really think they should've used the models from the Simply Horses mod, rather than Mo' Creatures.
Much more consistency, in my opinion.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what kind of magic you work with the stuff being added. Always looking forward to an update from you, Misa.
Thanks for all of your hard work and dedication to this pack, my friends and I have been using it since 1.7.3 Beta.
[...]
The model's what bugs me more than anything. The default textures have had poor and inconsistent designs for ages. This is part of the reason I started my texture pack in the first place. The whole "8-bit design" label also bugged the hell out of me since I first started playing the game. There is absolutely nothing 8-bit looking about the art style of this game. Typically, 8-bit art should have a very limited color palette for each tile (around 4 colors per). [...]
I totally agree with Misa.
I'm currently working on the horses textures for PureBDcraft and I'm kind of disappointed when I see that the final result still looks like a bit as defaut because of the 3D details (when a simple 3D modeling with a 2D texture would have been able to do the job a lot better)... A lot of the Horse's parts are just 1 pixel wide... For example, look at the saddle: Why the Hell the saddle of the horses are so detailed when the saddle of the pigs is so simple?
I don't complain about hardness of working on complex models, but I don't quite understand why there is this inconsistency of design between old models and new models. For example, currently Minecraft has a very basic model for helm: it's just a cube which can become anything you want thanks to 6 textures with transparency. What would be the helm if it was composed by a lot more 3D details?
A part of the charm of Minecraft is to have a simple 3D environnement composed by cubes for ground, items, characters and mobs. Players will have the opportunity to easily customize this simple world with texturepacks which only contains textures that will totally change how the whole Minecraft world looks like... The whole shape of the horse - even with a HD texture - will remain as pixelated as before because it is way too detailed...
[...]
[...]The art in this is just random, colorful, pixellated art with a disgusting overuse of a noise filter. Fortunately all of it can be avoided/corrected with texture packs--the inconsistent model designs on the other hand cannot.[...]
It will maybe be possible with the future "API". But this will not be anymore a 2D artist work.
I am having problems with the textures of the spruce and jungle wood planks. The top and bottom look fine but the sides look like the sides of the birch wood planks and I don't like how they look with their sides like that. Please fix this. Thanks.
Would this texture pack work on a server for players without a modified client?
Basically, I'm setting up a server and wanting to add more realistic textures. However, considering that I'm being told by several sources that HD Textures require a modified client, I'm wondering if this also counts for users on a server.
I'm shooting for highest compatibility on my server and if HD textures require the players have a modded client then I guess I'm not going to be using HD textures.
Further, if it is IS true that HD textures require the players to have a modified client, then, at what point is a texture pack considered HD? 32x32? Because I'll be shooting for the best thing I can install that will work for all players on my server.
I would like to apologize for posting multiple times about the same thing - I did not realize others were having the same issue and all it took was a search to figure it out. It was done inadvertently but nevertheless a mistake.
For all who are still experiencing corrupt zip issues, like Misa had said, the issue seems prevalent in Linux/Mac - I for one am experiencing this in Linux. It take a simple command to fix this. Fire up a terminal and issue the following:
zip -FF Misa500.zip --out NewMisa500.zip
That should resolve the extraction/repackaging issues (it did for me )
all fair points. all I am saying is, a horse wouldn't fit if it was as simple as, say, a pig. is what your saying is what they should have done is just edit the cow model a little and slap a skin on it? By the way, don't think I am dissing your point of view, I know where you are comeing from. I am just saying, its hard to see how else they could have done it, without it being realy disappointing, or lacking in peoples expectations. this implementation of horses has been expected for yonks. least this way its disappointing on a technical standpoint. the horse models in game done look terrible. and I brought up the enderdragon because you said ALL the other mobs where simple. and so I named one that wasn't. check.
I would argue that, yes, a horse would look fine if it had a simple construction similar to pigs (If you lack the imagination to see how this could've been done, see all the previous posts linking to and referencing simpler horse models that would've worked better with the other models.) Again the Enderdragon is completely irrelevant. It's a more complex model, but it's also a vastly larger model. Complexity has to scale with size. The Enderdragon is a special case that cannot be compared to the average sized animals. If Mojang made a miniature dragon that was the size of a pig and used the enderdragon model and textures, that would be a terrible design decision.
I think that the zip is corrupt as I have been having intermittent problems with water colour, which I thought was related to mcpatcher. I can confirm that I can't unzip with 7zip and if I do manage to decompress the texture pack with Windows some of the files are corrupt.
Yeah, uncompression errors are generally related to the headers - if they are improper 7zip will refuse to extract those files correctly stating "unsupported compression method". I guess because of these bad objects in the zip we could be having issues
Misa,
Would it be possible for you test the decompression of this file? You are probably the best person to reaffirm the integrity of this archive
Misa: because of all the zip file problems from other users and me (and the missing active detector rail image), would it be possible to upload another copy of the texture pack for 1.5.x (even if it only has images to that point of the game updates & not beyond), especially since 1.6.x (and its snapshots) is cutting any work on the current texture pack to near nil?
If you answer any* form of yes: thank you.
If you answer any* form of no: I understand (I remember what you said a while back)
*by any, I mean any that don't have stipulations that are major/severe. Those answers would require a specific reply, though likely still along the same lines as the general reply.
I've already addressed this, and others have posted fixes and workarounds. I've already announced that the pack will be repackaged by the next time I update, along with fixes to all the missing/bugged stuff that's been reported. Just be patient until then or use the search feature to see temporary workarounds posted on the subject.
It's bothersome that the default texture for the new hardened clay in the snapshot is similar to your texture for regular clay...
I thought it'd be annoying to work with the new hardened clay texture too, but once again, CTM saved the day and I still got to maintain the realistic material-derivative consistency of my pack while having a valuable new building material to work with.
Adobe anyone?
And of course if anyone still wants a greyish building material in my pack similar to vanilla's unrealistic clay that magically turns from grey to red when heated (This isn't shrimp or lobster!), there's smooth stone, grey wool, and iron to work with.Now Mojang just needs to add hardened clay slabs and stairs to make it a truly viable building material in general. They probably need to do something similar with hay bales for thatched roofs.
It will maybe be possible with the future "API". But this will not be anymore a 2D artist work.
I can do 3D too, and long ago I redesigned all of the game's mob models to be more realistic while retaining a blocky but anatomically-correct design that used coordinate re-mappings of the default game's texture maps as part of a proof-of-concept experiment. If the language/interface format for the modding API were easy enough for me to pick up without too much of a time investment in learning Java, I'd love to release a "Misa's Realistic Model Pack." Of course that also depends on if I'm still around by the time the API is released.
I am having problems with the textures of the spruce and jungle wood planks. The top and bottom look fine but the sides look like the sides of the birch wood planks and I don't like how they look with their sides like that. Please fix this. Thanks.
I cannot fix an isolated incident. You're the only one to report this issue and my tests cannot reproduce the problem you're experiencing. My guess is you have some mod conflicts or installed the pack improperly or over a dirty installation. Following the cleaning and installation instructions on my thread should fix the issue for you.
Would this texture pack work on a server for players without a modified client?
Basically, I'm setting up a server and wanting to add more realistic textures. However, considering that I'm being told by several sources that HD Textures require a modified client, I'm wondering if this also counts for users on a server.
I'm shooting for highest compatibility on my server and if HD textures require the players have a modded client then I guess I'm not going to be using HD textures.
Further, if it is IS true that HD textures require the players to have a modified client, then, at what point is a texture pack considered HD? 32x32? Because I'll be shooting for the best thing I can install that will work for all players on my server.
Thanks!
- Alex
No, this texture pack does not work on an unmodified client. The majority of high resolution texture packs still require a client modifier despite Mojang's poor attempt to add support for high resolution texture packs. Their animation rendering method is pretty atrocious and doesn't support custom non-block animations. They also lack custom color support and CTM which this and many other packs (including low resolution packs) rely upon.
As far as the HD thing goes, HD is not the correct term. High definition typically deals only with full screen resolution (terms like "HD audio" are meaningless buzzwords) and is more of a television marketing gimmick than anything--Computer monitors and videos cards have had "HD" support as the standard since the early 90's.
To refer to texture resolution, typically the term "High resolution" is what's used. As far as Minecraft goes, anything above the default texture resolution of 16x16 is considered high resolution. In practice 256x256 is the highest practical resolution for Minecraft texture packs but requires a proper computer designed for gaming to make use of (Though there are several 512x512 and 1024x1024 packs out there as well). 64x64 is the best compromise I've found in performance and visuals for the majority of players with gaming and non-gaming computers. 32x32 is also good and probably more recommended for servers. I would never recommend 128x128 and above for enforced server texture packs and the performance variance among players will vary widely and be unplayable for many.
A bit of a myth to dispel is that higher resolution texture packs always look better than lower resolution texture packs. Art style, design consistency, and material recognizability have greater effects on how good a texture pack will look than the resolution it uses. There are styles that are best suited to 16x16 that would simply not work (or be a complete waste of pixel resource usage) on higher resolutions and the inverse would hold true for different styles. Ideally people shouldn't ever judge a texture pack based on its resolution but rather on how it looks to them in-game and how practical it is for the application they're using it for. For instance if you were using a texture pack for a vanilla minecraft server, you'd want to avoid specifically-themed and novelty texture packs that stray away from the vanilla concepts of blocks to avoid player confusion. Personally I'm against server-enforced/distributed texture packs. A server recommending an official pack and providing supplemental textures for said pack for unique server content is more ideal. I think people should ultimately have the option to use whatever texture pack works best for them though.
That's not an issue with my pack. It's either caused by MCPatcher or Mojang's latest snapshots (Which this pack does not fully support yet). Experiment to determine which and redirect your report to one them. The version this pack is designed for does not have this effect.
...It should go without saying but YOU WILL NEED THE LATEST MCPATCHER TO AVOID PROBLEMS WITH THIS PACK. Note that Optifine may not support every feature in this pack. If you choose to use Optifine, any problems you encounter should be reported on the Optifine thread so that they can hopefully address your problems. DO NOT POST TECHNICAL PROBLEMS HERE IF YOU ARE USING OPTIFINE. This thread is for discussion of the texture pack. I can only provide tech support if you've followed the installation instructions posted...
If you use a dishwasher to wash your clothes, and the dishwasher breaks because clothing jammed it up, you can't call up the dishwasher company to file a complaint and expect to be taken seriously.
That's one of the problems I've been having and I use MCPatcher (clean install and everything)
Started with 1.5.x
here's a question for anyone with this error: do you have any problems with the zip file as covered in the last month?
(also, a question for anyone without this error)
I have a theory, but lack the data to confirm/deny it...
theory is: it's an issue for those who have an issue with the zip file itself.
this is why I'm asking the question... to gather data
theory is: it's an issue for those who have an issue with the zip file itself.
this is why I'm asking the question... to gather data
Have you not managed to fix the zip file? If you can fix it, then you can test to see if the zip file is itself the contributing factor. Once I fixed my zip, all is well - of course I am using mcpatcher and no optifine.
Really strange indeed. Are you sure you started with a clean .jar file when you installed McPatcher?
MCPatcher creates a backup of the original clean Minecraft.jar, so yes. I use MCPatcher to install my mods as it is a really handy mod installer and I can switch between MCPatcher and OptiFine very easily. If I want to install OptiFine, I would just disable MCPatcher's built-in patches.
Have you not managed to fix the zip file? If you can fix it, then you can test to see if the zip file is itself the contributing factor. Once I fixed my zip, all is well - of course I am using mcpatcher and no optifine.
I "fixed" it (the zip), but there are still some errors. Title screen "missing texture". White water. Breaking blocks is "highlighted".
I'm also tired of saying that I do, in fact, use MCPatcher (and I do use the latest version (MCPatcher & texture pack), and I do do a clean install).
I suggest you guys avoid trying to "fix" the ZIP file. Just try opening the file using Windows Explorer (right-click ZIP, click "Open with", and click "Windows Explorer") and copy the ZIP's files with it. It extracted the files from the ZIP just fine in my case. Fixing the ZIP file corrupts the mclogo.png, watercolorX.png, and some other files, thus the missing title screen texture and white water, among other things.
i followed the instruction perfectly like i have the last 3 patches and have had no problems.
this last time i followed the installation instructions perfectly and everything was fine. forgot that i usually unchecked the "lighting" option in mcpatcher and repatched. booted up the game and now the water is a pale white color and stone(baked from cobblestone type stone) has a very bizarre blatant pattern that is extremely eye soring. also, glass no longer has a block free element to it. the glass is transparent but large windows are essentially blocks that are transparent. ive attempted full reinstalls to no avail. anyone else having these problems?
thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Misa,
Can you please test out the zip at your end and let me know?
Thanks
If you answer any* form of yes: thank you.
If you answer any* form of no: I understand (I remember what you said a while back)
*by any, I mean any that don't have stipulations that are major/severe. Those answers would require a specific reply, though likely still along the same lines as the general reply.
Does Mojang just hate you? Haha.
On the subject of the horses, I really think they should've used the models from the Simply Horses mod, rather than Mo' Creatures.
Much more consistency, in my opinion.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what kind of magic you work with the stuff being added. Always looking forward to an update from you, Misa.
Thanks for all of your hard work and dedication to this pack, my friends and I have been using it since 1.7.3 Beta.
I totally agree with Misa.
I'm currently working on the horses textures for PureBDcraft and I'm kind of disappointed when I see that the final result still looks like a bit as defaut because of the 3D details (when a simple 3D modeling with a 2D texture would have been able to do the job a lot better)... A lot of the Horse's parts are just 1 pixel wide... For example, look at the saddle: Why the Hell the saddle of the horses are so detailed when the saddle of the pigs is so simple?
I don't complain about hardness of working on complex models, but I don't quite understand why there is this inconsistency of design between old models and new models. For example, currently Minecraft has a very basic model for helm: it's just a cube which can become anything you want thanks to 6 textures with transparency. What would be the helm if it was composed by a lot more 3D details?
A part of the charm of Minecraft is to have a simple 3D environnement composed by cubes for ground, items, characters and mobs. Players will have the opportunity to easily customize this simple world with texturepacks which only contains textures that will totally change how the whole Minecraft world looks like... The whole shape of the horse - even with a HD texture - will remain as pixelated as before because it is way too detailed...
It will maybe be possible with the future "API". But this will not be anymore a 2D artist work.
Twitter: @Sphax84 / @Cubik_Studio
Basically, I'm setting up a server and wanting to add more realistic textures. However, considering that I'm being told by several sources that HD Textures require a modified client, I'm wondering if this also counts for users on a server.
I'm shooting for highest compatibility on my server and if HD textures require the players have a modded client then I guess I'm not going to be using HD textures.
Further, if it is IS true that HD textures require the players to have a modified client, then, at what point is a texture pack considered HD? 32x32? Because I'll be shooting for the best thing I can install that will work for all players on my server.
Thanks!
- Alex
For all who are still experiencing corrupt zip issues, like Misa had said, the issue seems prevalent in Linux/Mac - I for one am experiencing this in Linux. It take a simple command to fix this. Fire up a terminal and issue the following:
That should resolve the extraction/repackaging issues (it did for me
Peace
Yeah, uncompression errors are generally related to the headers - if they are improper 7zip will refuse to extract those files correctly stating "unsupported compression method". I guess because of these bad objects in the zip we could be having issues
Misa,
Would it be possible for you test the decompression of this file? You are probably the best person to reaffirm the integrity of this archive
Misa: because of all the zip file problems from other users and me (and the missing active detector rail image), would it be possible to upload another copy of the texture pack for 1.5.x (even if it only has images to that point of the game updates & not beyond), especially since 1.6.x (and its snapshots) is cutting any work on the current texture pack to near nil?
If you answer any* form of yes: thank you.
If you answer any* form of no: I understand (I remember what you said a while back)
*by any, I mean any that don't have stipulations that are major/severe. Those answers would require a specific reply, though likely still along the same lines as the general reply.
I've already addressed this, and others have posted fixes and workarounds. I've already announced that the pack will be repackaged by the next time I update, along with fixes to all the missing/bugged stuff that's been reported. Just be patient until then or use the search feature to see temporary workarounds posted on the subject.
I thought it'd be annoying to work with the new hardened clay texture too, but once again, CTM saved the day and I still got to maintain the realistic material-derivative consistency of my pack while having a valuable new building material to work with.
Adobe anyone?
I can do 3D too, and long ago I redesigned all of the game's mob models to be more realistic while retaining a blocky but anatomically-correct design that used coordinate re-mappings of the default game's texture maps as part of a proof-of-concept experiment. If the language/interface format for the modding API were easy enough for me to pick up without too much of a time investment in learning Java, I'd love to release a "Misa's Realistic Model Pack." Of course that also depends on if I'm still around by the time the API is released.
I cannot fix an isolated incident. You're the only one to report this issue and my tests cannot reproduce the problem you're experiencing. My guess is you have some mod conflicts or installed the pack improperly or over a dirty installation. Following the cleaning and installation instructions on my thread should fix the issue for you.
No, this texture pack does not work on an unmodified client. The majority of high resolution texture packs still require a client modifier despite Mojang's poor attempt to add support for high resolution texture packs. Their animation rendering method is pretty atrocious and doesn't support custom non-block animations. They also lack custom color support and CTM which this and many other packs (including low resolution packs) rely upon.
As far as the HD thing goes, HD is not the correct term. High definition typically deals only with full screen resolution (terms like "HD audio" are meaningless buzzwords) and is more of a television marketing gimmick than anything--Computer monitors and videos cards have had "HD" support as the standard since the early 90's.
To refer to texture resolution, typically the term "High resolution" is what's used. As far as Minecraft goes, anything above the default texture resolution of 16x16 is considered high resolution. In practice 256x256 is the highest practical resolution for Minecraft texture packs but requires a proper computer designed for gaming to make use of (Though there are several 512x512 and 1024x1024 packs out there as well). 64x64 is the best compromise I've found in performance and visuals for the majority of players with gaming and non-gaming computers. 32x32 is also good and probably more recommended for servers. I would never recommend 128x128 and above for enforced server texture packs and the performance variance among players will vary widely and be unplayable for many.
A bit of a myth to dispel is that higher resolution texture packs always look better than lower resolution texture packs. Art style, design consistency, and material recognizability have greater effects on how good a texture pack will look than the resolution it uses. There are styles that are best suited to 16x16 that would simply not work (or be a complete waste of pixel resource usage) on higher resolutions and the inverse would hold true for different styles. Ideally people shouldn't ever judge a texture pack based on its resolution but rather on how it looks to them in-game and how practical it is for the application they're using it for. For instance if you were using a texture pack for a vanilla minecraft server, you'd want to avoid specifically-themed and novelty texture packs that stray away from the vanilla concepts of blocks to avoid player confusion. Personally I'm against server-enforced/distributed texture packs. A server recommending an official pack and providing supplemental textures for said pack for unique server content is more ideal. I think people should ultimately have the option to use whatever texture pack works best for them though.
That's not an issue with my pack. It's either caused by MCPatcher or Mojang's latest snapshots (Which this pack does not fully support yet). Experiment to determine which and redirect your report to one them. The version this pack is designed for does not have this effect.
Please learn to read the first post, usage instructions or readme file for anything you download:
If you use a dishwasher to wash your clothes, and the dishwasher breaks because clothing jammed it up, you can't call up the dishwasher company to file a complaint and expect to be taken seriously.
Not necessarily...
That's one of the problems I've been having and I use MCPatcher (clean install and everything)
Started with 1.5.x
Nope. Tested this with the latest MCPatcher. Same issue as OptiFine.
like I said...
here's a question for anyone with this error: do you have any problems with the zip file as covered in the last month?
(also, a question for anyone without this error)
I have a theory, but lack the data to confirm/deny it...
theory is: it's an issue for those who have an issue with the zip file itself.
this is why I'm asking the question... to gather data
Have you not managed to fix the zip file? If you can fix it, then you can test to see if the zip file is itself the contributing factor. Once I fixed my zip, all is well - of course I am using mcpatcher and no optifine.
MCPatcher creates a backup of the original clean Minecraft.jar, so yes. I use MCPatcher to install my mods as it is a really handy mod installer and I can switch between MCPatcher and OptiFine very easily. If I want to install OptiFine, I would just disable MCPatcher's built-in patches.
I "fixed" it (the zip), but there are still some errors. Title screen "missing texture". White water. Breaking blocks is "highlighted".
I'm also tired of saying that I do, in fact, use MCPatcher (and I do use the latest version (MCPatcher & texture pack), and I do do a clean install).
i followed the instruction perfectly like i have the last 3 patches and have had no problems.
this last time i followed the installation instructions perfectly and everything was fine. forgot that i usually unchecked the "lighting" option in mcpatcher and repatched. booted up the game and now the water is a pale white color and stone(baked from cobblestone type stone) has a very bizarre blatant pattern that is extremely eye soring. also, glass no longer has a block free element to it. the glass is transparent but large windows are essentially blocks that are transparent. ive attempted full reinstalls to no avail. anyone else having these problems?
thanks.