Hi there. I've noticed that the chest texture flickers a bit. I've found that the bottom layer (for the lid of the chest, the one that needs to be exactly the same as the top of the sides and front) on the chest map for the large chest is 9 pixels where it should be 8. A quick fix, and I attempted it, but I goofed up how the sides look on the chest lid now. I was hoping you'd be able to fix it, as you're the texture pack map owner. Great work though, and thanks so much for updating it!
I like this texture pack because its not like the LB Photo Realism because that just goes way to far with the texture with your texture packs its like the LB Photo Realism but your keeping everything simple and not going to far with the textures. But you can work on the redstone a little I dont like the texture of redstone. But everthing else looks awesome.
Bloody good texture pack ... one gripe: There's no Connected Textures support. While I am aware that most texture pack makers state to use MCPatcher, not everyone does. Many use Optifine (some even use the launcher that modder makes as well) which has a connected texture option to enhance the look of glass, sandstone and bookshelves.
I am not sure what the issue is, but I am getting awful frames with this texture pack, the x256 set. I have a core i5 2500k at 4.6ghz and a radeon hd 6990 OC'ed. There is no way I should be getting 6-10 fps....Skyrim at 4k textures ran better.
I am not sure what the issue is, but I am getting awful frames with this texture pack, the x256 set. I have a core i5 2500k at 4.6ghz and a radeon hd 6990 OC'ed. There is no way I should be getting 6-10 fps....Skyrim at 4k textures ran better.
Skyrim runs a completely different system for rendering than minecraft does. Try using the Optifine mod. It might help.
Skyrim runs a completely different system for rendering than minecraft does. Try using the Optifine mod. It might help.
Well yes, I know it was not a perfect comparison, just a perspective on why it should at least run decent. I have also loaded both the smooth and multi core version and I see no improvement in the game. (it was also on as I applied the textures too.)
I am worried what may be wrong as even on vanilla I get half the performance of similar or worse pc set ups, but then again this is not pc help its a texture forum. Thanks for your advice anyway. Your texture pack is amazing none the less.
Well yes, I know it was not a perfect comparison, just a perspective on why it should at least run decent. I have also loaded both the smooth and multi core version and I see no improvement in the game. (it was also on as I applied the textures too.)
I am worried what may be wrong as even on vanilla I get half the performance of similar or worse pc set ups, but then again this is not pc help its a texture forum. Thanks for your advice anyway. Your texture pack is amazing none the less.
((not mine, but I assume the compliment will be appreciated anyway))
This depends on whether or not your computer can handle a texture pack with a high resolution, and how high can it go? Get both, test both, find which one runs better on your computer. No one can tell you which is better. That's for you to find out.
Well yes, I know it was not a perfect comparison, just a perspective on why it should at least run decent. I have also loaded both the smooth and multi core version and I see no improvement in the game. (it was also on as I applied the textures too.)
I am worried what may be wrong as even on vanilla I get half the performance of similar or worse pc set ups, but then again this is not pc help its a texture forum. Thanks for your advice anyway. Your texture pack is amazing none the less.