All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
  • 0

    posted a message on CartLivery
    *waves at chloe*

    Cute mod, I've added it to my addon page:
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from walkerjonny

    Yeah, you might be right about that it is indeed an apples to oranges comparison.
    But I just wanted to point out that also a independently written software can breach the EULA of another software and the owner of said software can be sued because of that especially if that breach was caused intentional.

    Except no judgement was ever made in that case as to whether Glider actually violated the EULA.
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from walkerjonny

    I was just reading through the judgement about MDY vs. Blizzard.
    As it looks like MDY's developed software Glider was an independently depeloped software that interacted with Blizzards WoW in a way that caused a copyright infringement of at least the EULA of WoW and MDY got sued because of that.
    Therefore your statement seems not to be correct to me.
    As it looks like also a independently developed software (like that kind of mod you mentioned) can breach another software's EULA and at least cause a contract breach if not a copyright breach if it interacts with the other software in a way that breaches its EULA.

    The original MDY vs. Blizzard ruling was absurd frankly. The appeal was better.

    The original Court ruled in favor of Blizzard on terms of tortious interference (violating the EULA), contributory copyright infringement (allowing the users to infringe by violating the EULA), and vicarious copyright infringement (profiting from enabling infringement via DRM circumvention).

    The appeal backed off a fair bit and ruled that Glider violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by circumventing Blizzards Digital Rights Management code, but didn't actually infringe or facilitate infringement. The tortious interference (violation of the EULA) was remanded (sent back for a new judgement), but it doesn't appear that a new judgement was ever made. Since this is the clause you are basing your argument on, you appear to be standing on a pillar of sand. I'd suggest finding a more relevant case of tortious interference to base your arguments on.
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from immibis

    Has anyone pointed out that the original EULA specifically said you could sell mods?
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 7

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from Zegreiart

    Most of the longwinded BS that you just spewed isn't even worth replying to. However, this little gem right here really sent my sides into orbit.

    Right, DRM is caring about your users and their "safety". Safety from what? You? Because if you did, your mod (and a few others) wouldn't have DRM in the first place.

    Please explain to me how that's caring.

    Edit: Added in the sentence before that to the quote. I'd really like a source as proof of these less reputable elements and how they have taken advantage of users. Frankly, it just sounds like you're trying to justify your (terrible) actions by looking high and mighty.

    You'd like an example? Sure, just don't anyone download it, it WILL install Malware on your computer:
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from Zegreiart

    CovertJaguar, you are part of the problem. How about that RP2 check to see if any of it was modified? What's your excuse there?

    I really hope Mojang just flat out puts a stop to this nonsense and modders like you just end up leaving.

    Modified binaries of popular mods were being distributed illegally. As sane responsible modders who care for our users and their data, we should want all our mods to be verified as "safe". Just look at the Google Play Store, all those apps are verified in a similar way. Though admittedly the system provided by FML is far more primitive than the Play Store. The Minecraft mod community lacks a true central repository that everyone can point and say "these mods are safe, download them from here". In that absence, less reputable elements have taken advantage of users and distributed modified binaries containing who knows what. Forgive me for caring about my users. I apologize for caring about their safety.

    Note: it was not targeted at "unofficial bugfixes" they were an unfortunate casualty of preventing far less reputable code from being distributed under our names.
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 6

    posted a message on To Mod Creators: Copyrights and Malicious code
    Quote from Nekowulf

    May I please get a clarification of this clarification of your clarification of a clarification?

    Are modders allowed to:
    1: Dictate where users are allowed to obtain their mod from, including force an adfly download?
    That's what Copyright is, the right to control distribution.
    2: Dictate who can and cannot use their mod via various forms of digital rights management (DRM) code?
    Use? No. Redistribute or modify? Yes. Copyright only grants the right to control distribution, not use.
    3: Collect information on users by having their mods check in with a certral server, ranging from a simple "check this file online for an updated list" that by default will log IP addresses to recording MC user names?
    I'm sorry, what? Is that a conspiracy theory?
    4: Dictate which mods can and cannot be used in an install alongside their mod?
    There will be incompatible mods, for both technical and ideological reasons. Its not a "right", its a "fact". Pretending you can wave a magic wand and fix that is silly. For example, Railcraft frequently dictates which version of Forge you must have to a run specific version of Railcraft (can be for either technical or ideological reasons). Its no different from ExtraBees dictating that Forestry must be installed to run (technical). Or yes, even that TCon and Gregtech cannot be run together (both technical and ideological). You can't ban one example and allow the others.
    5: Interfere with the function of minecraft and/or the users computer based on install directory or logged in user?
    Interfering with the computer is intolerable. Deleting Minecraft (or worlds) is the same. Preventing the mod from running? Up to the modder, software terminates for any number of reasons. You can't start cherry picking specific cases and saying "bad".
    6: Dictate who can and cannot re-implement features present in their existing mod in a new mod?
    No, ideas are not copyrightable. Doesn't make it any less of a **** move though.
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on What Texture Artists Wished Modders Knew
    I don't think I've ever gotten any feedback from any texture pack creator about "things they'd like to see change to make texture packs better". It would certainly be helpful since we modders don't really see that side of the equation.
    Posted in: Resource Pack Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Archimedes' Ships v1.7 - Banking ships!
    Occasionally, I get a "Cannot decompile ship here" message. At which point I can no longer dismount the ship short of relogging. Not even the commands work, they say "Not steering a ship". I suspect a client/server sync issue, because I can't move it without rubberbanding either. And relogging can cause the ship to disappear entirely.

    EDIT: I've seen similar behavior from Minecarts when I try to dismount a player without informing the client.
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 1

    posted a message on Railcraft
    Quote from SegFaulter

    I installed Optifine to deal with performance issues. Without it, Minecraft is slow. Instead of ignoring the problem, my "Suggestion Nr. 1 for Optifine Problems" is that the problem is fixed on the side that causes it.

    I didn't cause it, I can't fix it. Optifine removed a function that is the very core of my entire network framework.
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on Archimedes' Ships v1.7 - Banking ships!
    Revisiting the issue of one giant collision box vs many smaller collision boxes again.

    Last time I mentioned Entity.getParts() you said you had network issues with it, but I don't see how that's possible considering its server side only and the sub-entities aren't even added to the world or synced to the client. They are just dummy classes with bounding boxed that you need to move at the same time you move the main entity.

    In your case, you just need to create a dummy entity for each block in the ship.

    Entity.getParts() is used exclusively to provide non-uniform bounding boxes like the EnderDragon. Which I think would be really quite useful for allowing your ships more freedom of movement around the world.
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on Archimedes' Ships v1.7 - Banking ships!
    Quote from BalkondeurAlpha

    I understand now.
    But that would be so strange, because the renderer gets the tile entity from its IBlockAccess. The RenderBlocks object is constructed with the MobileChunk as IBlockAccess, so it must get the tile entity from the MobileChunk. And if the MobileChunk would contain a newly created TileEntity, it would not replace the correct one in the world.

    Thanks for the deobfed classes. I am not sure how to do the same with my source, but I'll try to deliver it to you so you can do some research too, if you like to.


    While typing this, I think I know what the problem is...
    No, I am quite sure what the problem is.

    The tile entities are all stored properly in the server-sided MobileChunk. However, the client-sided MobileChunk does not contain the same tile entities, or none at all. The tile entities are stored in the ships' NBT, but not sent to the client. The only tile entities that are being sent are vanilla signs, which is a hardcoded part of the mod.

    I didn't think of the possibility that other mods could have tile entities containing render data when I designed that part. I think I could rewrite it so, that all tile entities are written to NBT and sent completely to the client. It happends through a separate package, so it should not be a problem for the maximum block count.

    I just finished it and it works fine! On ship creation all tile entities are written to NBT and sent to the client.

    Awesome! I hadn't even considered that, but it definitely makes sense.
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on Better Archery v1.6.2 (Adds new bows, arrows, quivers, more)
    Hi, very nice mod, but one question. Is there any way to hide to the Quiver Hotbar? And if not, could you change it to auto-hide it if the player doesn't have a bow selected? Maybe a bit of transparency would be nice too. It takes a fairly large chunk of screen real-estate, which is an issue if your are for example recording youtube videos. ;)

    Oh and also:
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on Archimedes' Ships v1.7 - Banking ships!
    Quote from BalkondeurAlpha

    You might be able to still fly the ship in the next update, if there are not more than about 10000 blocks.

    I will install some of those mods and see for myself. But the blocks you mention are not tile entities, right?
    That would be quite inefficient.

    But do the blocks revert to default when made into a ship or when rejoined with the world?
    Could it be that these tile entities check for their metadata in their worldObj object at the corresponding coordinates, instead of their own blockMeta value?

    The blocks mentioned all have tile entities. In the case of the Stairs and Forestry wood blocks (it might actually be ExtraTrees wood, a Forestry addon), they are non-ticking tile entities. Tile Entities are often used any time the block Id cost of a block would be so prohibitive as to make the creation of the block unfeasible.

    To take Railcraft Stairs as an example, they possess a non-ticking tile entity that contains only one piece of information: the Stair type. By default, this is Sandy Brick.

    The renderer is quite simple, and simply passes rendering to RenderBlock.renderStair().

    The Block itself implements getTexture() as such:
        public Icon getBlockTexture(IBlockAccess world, int x, int y, int z, int side) {
            TileEntity tile = world.getBlockTileEntity(x, y, z);
            if (tile instanceof TileStair) {
                return ((TileStair) tile).getTexture(side);
            return super.getBlockTexture(world, x, y, z, side);

    The tile implements getTexture as below, with "stair" being an instance of EnumStair:
        public Icon getTexture(int side) {
            return stair.getIcon(side);

    The problem is that while moving (and only while moving), the Stair always renders as a Sandy Brick stair. It doesn't matter whether its a Diamond Stair or Infernal Stair, it always reverts to the default Sandy Brick stair. However, once it rejoins the world, the stair type is as it should be. So only the renderer is being passed a newly created tile entity (Block.createTileEntity()).

    As you can see, metadata is not relevant to this discussion. Stairs use the metadata for rotational information. The renderer (or more specifically Block.getBlockTexture()) is not being passed the Tile Entity stored in the MobileChunk.

    Here is a deobf version of railcraft that you can simply drop into your mcp/jars/mods/ folder:
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on Railcraft
    Quote from jaquadro

    I only made that observation based on the exception showing up in the client rendering code. It could also be that placing the button object on a space that has an invisible hidden block is also causing a conflict, but I really don't know anything about these hidden blocks (or railcraft in general). How does it deal with any plain old block that isn't solid like standard buttons, saplings, and such? Does it alias a tile entity over those blocks? What about blocks that need to carry a tile entity themselves?

    I tried searching for information on this, and I think it's a forge extension method (#1, #2). I'm not directly comparing to air anywhere, so I'm not sure where it would be relevant.

    Your issue is not directly related to isAir, rather its the fact that getMixedBrightnessForBlock() is not called with the coordinates for YOUR block, but rather the blocks around it. Try putting a button on Y==0 and watch it crash with an Array Index Out of Bounds: -1. ;)

    Quote from aeshettr

    Getting a weird crash. Whenever my liquid boiler runs out of fuel(I have it linked to a creosene tank to supply the fuel) the GUI crashes. Not exactly sure what's happening, but here's the crash report:

    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // Everything's going to plan. No, really, that was supposed to happen.

    Time: 9/12/13 7:44 PM
    Description: Rendering screen

    at mods.railcraft.common.fluids.tanks.StandardTank.refreshTooltip(
    at mods.railcraft.common.fluids.tanks.StandardTank$1.refresh(
    at mods.railcraft.client.gui.GuiContainerRailcraft.func_73863_a(
    at net.minecraft.client.renderer.EntityRenderer.func_78480_b(
    at net.minecraft.client.Minecraft.func_71411_J(
    at net.minecraft.client.Minecraft.func_99999_d(
    at net.minecraft.client.main.Main.main(SourceFile:101)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
    at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
    at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
    at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)
    at net.minecraft.launchwrapper.Launch.launch(
    at net.minecraft.launchwrapper.Launch.main(

    Fixed in dev, meanwhile don't look at empty GUIs. ;)

    Quote from Farproc

    @CovertJaguar: Regarding the Dark Tower series - why didnt you jsut take some buckets and create a water source closer to your base?

    Quote from Farproc

    This appears to amuse you.
    I am also interested in why he has not yet made other Thaumcraft items like boots of the traveller yet :- was Thaumcraft included principally for the Wand of Equal Trade and the other items are considered too cheaty for CJ's 'hardmode' style, or has he just not gotten around to them yet. That, im mostly willing to wait out and see where the videos go.

    I have learn't about a number of railcraft devices I never before considered making. A 'steam oven' for reducing ore? I never even considered it. And I really REALLY want to see if he can actually setup the farm <-> large steam boiler as, personally, iv'e always given up on that as too damned hard, and just gone with immediate power via combustion or biofuel engines exclusively.

    So yes. I am interested. Even in what the philosophy is behind which water sources are 'permitted' to drive industry.

    Mainly because everything in "Tower One" is temporary and will be moved eventually. I don't plan to delve into Thaumcraft too deeply until "Tower Four" is ready to accept my laboratory.
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.