Minecraft Forums

Quote from Santairo »

I've been saying this a lot recently, it's starting to annoy, I wanted to rant about this somewhere, so I decided to put it in here. /endrant

No problem. :biggrin.gif:

I will add a section on that.

Thank you so much. I am so freaking sick of "SimpleCraft" "SmoothCraft" and the like.

Quote from dustyshouri

I don't know if this holds true still, but you could crash Minecraft just with a texture pack. Minecraft was only coded to handle certain sizes for some images, and exceeding that size(2x default, or 32x, is usually the max) would give you a black screen as soon as the image was attempted to be loaded. For example, using a pumpkinblur 3x or higher would crash Minecraft as soon as you put a pumpkin on as a helmet. Again, not sure if this still applies since Minecraft is "hd compatible" now.

If I get what you are saying, putting a pumpkin on your head that is included with a 128x texture pack would crash the game, if the .png file were increased in size at the same ratio as the rest of the pack? Easy to test that, the pumpkin blur for Impressions happens to be sized proportionality for that resolution.


Well, here is a screenshot that shows my pumpkin blur in game. (and my zombie mob skin as well. :smile.gif:

Quote from dustyshouri

The OP said texture packs can't crash Minecraft, and my point was they actually can. Yes, if the client is patched it wouldn't crash, but it's still the texture pack causing the crash regardless of whether the client is patched or not.

Anyways, good job, most of these points are true, but good luck getting people to read it. I have a FAQ in my own thread before people install and they still spam the same questions over and over about "WHY ARE BRICKS BROKEN!?!"


Ah, so Minecraft actually is fully HD "compatible?" Well that's good to know, though now I'm curious to do more extensive testing.

By all means, please. I would love to know more.

Though I would like to point out that the issue would still be a problem with patcher and not the texture pack.

But, I would concede the point anyway. :smile.gif:

Quote from dustyshouri

Actually it's not the problem with the patcher since the client wouldn't be patched, it would be a problem with the person who doesn't read and find out they have to patch. In the end though, the texture pack is the one who would have been making Minecraft crap itself a black screen, in the most exact sense. Still the persons fault, but just saying a texture pack easily has the possibility(or did, at least) of crashing Minecraft, even if it didn't edit code.

hmm I suppose I can reword it.

If it is needed after some research. :smile.gif:

The vast majority of the posts that I run into were people are getting pissy at texture packs creators are because of issues caused with improper installation of the HD patches. That's what I was adressing.

Quote from Forever A Troll

32x textures and below do not crash the game.
64x... I'm not sure. Haven't tested that in 1.8.1 or any of the 1.9 prereleases.
128x and above often cause crashes(even when enough memory is allocated) if you have a few textures at this resolution.

Everything that is not 16x messes up the way the game locates individual tiles on texture sheets like terrain.png and items.png.

So that means you can still make many things in different resolutions that the default without any mods. But not everything, and not the most important things.

But this would be the result of poor hardware. Not texture packs. :smile.gif:

Also, that is not quite what he was describing...I think.

I really hope people actually read this instead of just skipping over it like people usually do to stickies. Ironic that you warn against ignoring threads such as these, yet those who don't follow those instructions won't see them...

Anyway I have some suggestions for more Myths. First of all I think you have to look through the eyes of a brand new texture pack user and a brand new texture pack creator.

Myth: All you have to do is put the texture pack in the texture packs folder

Fact: If the pack is HD, you have to use HDpatcher or OptiFine, and for your game to run smoothly using 128x128 and up texturepacks, you have to have a good graphics card and a generally powerful computer.

And now I'm coming to a blank, ahwell.

Here are a few more myths:

Myth: Making a low-res texture pack is easy.

Fact: Making a GOOD Low-res texture pack (e.g. low-res packs that aren't checkerboard) is extremely hard. Packs like Scorpiux and Blizzard's 4x probably took a lot of time and effort to get it looking nice enough for no ridicule. My 4x pack was extremely hard to make presentable, and even then, I decided to change it to 5x because some of the textures didn't work right. There aren't many texture pack artists who think this, but there was a person who commented on my texture pack and bitched about how "i=It was probably the easiest pack anyone can do." So if you decide to put this in your post, then it should be in "The Myths of Texture Pack Users".

Myth: Bucket fill texture packs reduce lag.

Fact: The only way bucket fill texture packs would reduce lag would be if the pack was ACTUALLY 1x1 (As in, the terrain.png itself is resized to 16x16.) Just bucket-filling the textures won't do a thing if the pack is the default res. Would CryEngine2 be able to run on an old netbook if the textures were all one color? You would probably think that's preposterous. Well, it doesn't. And guess what? Minecraft works the same way! if I don't even know if this is a myth, really. Whoever started this myth was obviously a person who was trying to defend their decision of uploading a bucket-fill pack on here. I don't know if this should be in Texture Pack Creators or Users, because there is a fair number of both who think this.

Myth: Making a good photo-realistic pack involves using images that you have found using Google Image Search.

Fact: This couldn't be any more wrong. Seriously; does the concept of tiling not matter to whoever believes this!? Using pictures would work well for some textures like planks, but for everything else? NO IT DOESN'T! If you want too make a good photo-realistic texture pack, you will either have to:

A ) Hand-draw it

Or B ) Be like Aageon and use a CGI program like Blender or 3DS Max to make your stuff.

Is that too much work for you? Then forget about making a photo-realistic texture pack. (Texture Pack Creators)

Myth: Upscaling the default texture pack and adding a filter is an original idea and looks good.

Fact: There are about as much as these texture packs as there are noiseless simple packs. You are not original because you added a bumpmap filter to the default texture pack. Also, they look like ****. They make everything look like they're made of tiny bathroom tiles. (Texture Pack Creators)

Myth: MS Paint is a good program for texture pack creating.

Fact: No it isn't. Paint has no transparency capabilities. If you want to make a good texture pack, use Paint.net or GIMP (Or Photoshop if you have a BT client or a few hundred bucks laying around.) (Texture Pack Creators)

Quote from Forever A Troll

OR you could take photos and use them to create actual textures, as opposed to just slapping them onto a terrain.png file and calling it a day.
Oh, and print screen the final product? That's not really the best way to get a high quality texture.


There is no such myth. There is, however, the myth that MS Paint is a terrible program that you should avoid at all costs. This is of course not true.


You can just, you know, use another program to add transparency. Takes less than ten seconds(7 seconds to be precise... I measured the time that took just for you). Or how about using a version that does support transparency... ._.

Paint is the GOD of pixel art. If you can't do pixel art with Paint then you can't do it with Photoshop or anything else either.


This is the biggest myth of them all. There are hundreds of other programs out there, and it's very unlikely that GIMP or Photoshop(edit: the reason why I didn't mention Paint.NET is that it's nothing more than Photoshop with a whole bunch of features removed from it) will be the one that suits your needs perfectly.

Sorry about that pixel art comment. I haven't use Paint in months, so I didn't know the pencil snapped to the pixels. I thought it didn't.

Also, why use another program to add transparency if you can just use that program to make the pack?

updated the op with some of the user submitted myths.

I swear, I love you. I knew about most of these myths, but they gave some good tips that you may have not even meant to base the post on. Thank you!

Myth: Making a texture pack is a one day project.

Fact: Making a GOOD texture pack is more than a one day project. I personally have spent 200+ hours on Impressions and I am no where near satisfied with the pack overall. I have sped up with practice and now, instead of taking 4 hours per block on average I am down to about 2 hours; though that is only if I go with the first draft of a block which only happens half the time. If you are going to make a good texture pack expect to spend a large portion of your life working on it.

Sounds about right! I literally DREAM about texture packs. If you post a text pack that only took you a day, and you get upset about the criticism, then you're definitely not doing it for the right reasons. If i'm going to be perfectly blunt, I'd rather not see a post devoted to a pack that was done in a day taking up room on the forum.

Awesome thread 42!

Quote from MopyDream44

Myth: Making a texture pack is a one day project.

Fact: Making a GOOD texture pack is more than a one day project. I personally have spent 200+ hours on Impressions and I am no where near satisfied with the pack overall. I have sped up with practice and now, instead of taking 4 hours per block on average I am down to about 2 hours; though that is only if I go with the first draft of a block which only happens half the time. If you are going to make a good texture pack expect to spend a large portion of your life working on it.

Sounds about right! I literally DREAM about texture packs. If you post a text pack that only took you a day, and you get upset about the criticism, then you're definitely not doing it for the right reasons. If i'm going to be perfectly blunt, I'd rather not see a post devoted to a pack that was done in a day taking up room on the forum.

Awesome thread 42!

Even the pack that I am working on for the challenge has taken me more than a day. (more like 3 so far)

Great thread, 42! I see you guys have been handling yourselves well in my absence. :tongue.gif: