Minecraft Forums

Quote from Patch12»

Alvoria use that seed that has all the biomes in a 2K radius, set biomes to small, and get teleports. It's great for testing packs out, and would showcase well.

I'd still have to build structures to show off the non-natural textures. Trust me, a making a map will work better in the long run.

I think I've finally made a decision on what I'm going to do with my pack if 1.9 actually makes Minecraft playable again.

I'll keep working on the pack, withholding the changes until it's basically a new pack (especially compared to the pre-models version) and re-release it with a new name. I have no idea what to call it, but I'd like something specific yet descriptive. And since I have that already (*grumbles* IMO), something shorter, preferably one word for easy searching. And not something generic-sounding either.

Another thing, I've decided I'm going all-out with item models. People like it, it looks way better, gives depth, and might actually be less intensive than extruded items, at least theoretically since how intensive extruding items is for the crappy result. I'm still trying to keep models simple, but I'm to the point where I care about how simply I can get a good result rather than the function of the item. At one point it was just going to be a separate model pack but I don't think that's going to be the case anymore.

I've started this process already, along with a redone hotbar and reticule. I personally liked my old hotbar's spaced-out-ness, but it turns out the item placement is really bad compared to blocks, like the plants being placed on the bottom of the box. Undoing my shrinking of them reduced that a little.

Apple and pufferfish tie (both at 7 elements) for most advanced models I've recently made. The apple is more practical, but the pufferfish is cute! The apple falls from trees, but the pufferfish would fly towards you in the air if you caught it when fishing!

Not sure if I'm final on the hotbar. I like it, but the shading on the little gaps keeps bothering me because it has an optical illusion where it makes it look like it's a shape it isn't. Also, I found yet another error.... the hotbar selector doesn't use the bottom 2 rows of pixels, you just can't notice with default because both the hotbar and hotbar selector have a black outline.

Also tried making a firework charge model and the recoloring (even with tintindex applied) wasn't working for me.

Quote from XxDarkMiragexX»

Last post for today. Let's admire this cute couple and their ability to be thrown.

Your shading is much too close to the edge, should be drawn to the middle. Much worse on the egg, IMO it is to the point that it doesn't give the form you intend, making it look much flatter than it should.

See how the highlight is more towards the middle? You should have at least some darkness get to that edge, if not a few more tiny bands of much darker pixels.

Quote from Cozzmy13»

If off-topic isn't allowed, then the community would die, like it did here. I mean, we just had a talk about programming, and we made 1 page and a half in 30 minutes. It boosts the community. But I don't want to break the rules, so, yeah...

There's nothing wrong with having posts that happen to include off-topic conversation. The problem is when your post only contains something off-topic.

Rule of thumb is don't post unless your main reason of posting is on-topic. On-topic here is technically game assets specifically for Minecraft or the union itself.

Yes, your pixel art you posted might be related to textures and could possibly be used in-game as a painting, it is ultimately seen as off-topic just as it would be to post your normal hand-painted art. So TBH the admins don't like that sort of thing, so I'd advise you to only post non-related art inside of a post that has a significant amount of Minecraft-related art.

New cobblestone texture

Quote from RustNRuin»

The cracks seem too harsh on the pieces, also it is missing appropriate shading; pieces should have light and dark spots currently it appears too flat. Just from my own experience; at that size; cobble begins to look a bit like gravel. Instead of thinking of cobble in the purely default sense where it has to be crumbled rock think of it a cobble street where they are more brick like. It is a lot easier to create a good looking texture for cobble when the pieces are bigger; shading and drawing the cracks are both significantly easier. It is also easier to avoid tiling errors, in your current texture you have a pattern of darker squares that appears.

I know this is hard to hear and its annoying to have to redo textures, considering you probably spent a while on them. Honestly though, it makes a big difference. I was told the same thing once upon a time and found it pretty darn annoying but the guy made a fair point which improved my textures. Hopefully I have done for you what he did for me.

Thanks for the suggestions

I added that lighting to the rocks (forgot to do that a few days ago :P)

(It looks better in-game):

WARNING: Technical whatchamacallits ahead. Yeah, I get some people don't care if their wolf is a cat, if so please ignore.

Quote from RustNRuin»

Instead of thinking of cobble in the purely default sense where it has to be crumbled rock think of it a cobble street where they are more brick like.

I really hate this description of cobblestone.

Both of those you described are wrong. Cobblestone isn't crumbled rock, but it isn't "brick-like" either.... bricks are "setts" and cobblestone isn't made with setts... calling any sort of brick cobblestone is a misnomer by people who don't know anything about architecture (and it seems to be common for people to make this mistake).

It should be unprocess stones (typically larger, naturally smooth boulders, apparently they often used "river stones" In the 17th century), the name even literally means "rounded lump" of "stone". It doesn't matter if you pack them into dirt or actually use mortar:

Setts are processed stone, whether rugged and rectangular or finely cut+polished and in some sort of curve or tessellation, it's still a sett.

[insert picture of any brick here]

Yeah, I know some people like to use rugged brick for their "cobblestone" texture, but my point is it's inaccurate and redundant. But you're an adult. Or a child. Or a peruvian goat. I can't control you, only judge you

Also, cobblestone forming from lava is kind of stupid. That and I'm pretty sure notch had obsidian confused with basalt (based on the hardness of the in-game block and how it forms)....

or maybe I'm too concerned on the scientificals and that's why I hate texturing Minecraft so much.... I think I'd need to get a geology degree to texture andesite/diorite. Heck, I still want to call it adensite because it seems like a better flowing name! Sure I've heard of granite, but seriously, did they pick those from wikipedia when they found some sort of rock formation that had the color schemes they wanted?

Imagine if they didn't add rabbits, but instead Romerolagus Diazi, or "Volcano Rabbit" from the mountains of Mexico.

Quote from markacashion»

Also if the "wolf is a cat" thing is a joke, or a meme, then I don't get it.

It's sort of a joke referencing the fact that Cobblestone is an older block than stone bricks, so there was a time people made Cobblestone have a brick texture and it wasn't accurate but it also wasn't redundant either. So it wasn't really detestable like it is now because it was just stretching creative freedom a bit.

The "wolf is a cat" thing comes into the same scenario- wolves were added into the game before cats. Someone out there may have wanted cats so much in the game that they retextured wolves into cats (possibly their sounds and bones into fish), meaning the obvious next step when cats finally were added would be to undo/redo their wolf textures, otherwise they'd have 2 sets of cats in the game (and others will have to do this if they ever add pugs or foxes).

But knowing some people, they wouldn't care. That's the joke.