• 5

    posted a message on [5x] [1.9] [WIP] Net_Bastard's Epic Low-Res v1.0
    EDIT: After a hiatus, I have to apologize. This texture pack, and Net_craft as well, have both been discontinued. I've uninstalled Minecraft and have no interest in re-installing. If anyone wants to unofficially continue my texture packs, then they're free to do so, as long as you give me credit for the original, and give them the same titles.

    You may remember Net_Bastard's Epic Low-Res. Well I resized the terrain.png to 80x80 due to issues with the torches and glass. Also because odd TP resolutions are cool. I didn't know how to edit the title of a topic, so I decided to make a new thread.


    Torches still look bad, but I don't care this time.

    I will fix most of these problems later tonight.

    These are improvements that were made possible due to the higher resolution

    Glass looks better

    Leaves look better

    Torches look slightly better

    Mob spawner looks better

    Here are some general improvements:

    Crafting table looks better

    Grass is tiled better


    Terrain: Almost done

    Mobs: Halfway there

    Items: Just beginning

    GUI: Haven't started

    SEXY 1920x1080 SCREENSHOTS (Note: some screenshots are out of date)







    Posted in: WIP Resource Pack
  • 2

    posted a message on [256x, 512x] [1.2.3] [WIP] Net_Craft, a greyscale cartoon-style texture pack. (Version 1.0: Now with improved texture tiling!)
    Hello. This is my first high-resolution texture pack. Funnily enough, the last texture pack I did before this was a low-resolution texture pack. This is Net_Craft. I took inspiration from many things in this pack, but I was mostly inspired by Japanese animation. There are many problems with the pack right now, but I just wanted to put it on the forums so badly.

    Remember to leave a comment if you liked this texture pack. It keeps the thread up.

    Questions that would probably be frequently asked if I didn't address them here (QTWPBFAIIDATH?):

    Q: Are there any plans to make this texture pack in a resolution below 256x? My computer can't handle 256x.

    A: This pack was made with the 512x resolution in mind. I would have to make too many changes to the pack if I shrunk it down to 128x, or any odd resolution between 128x and 256x. It's already a bit blurry in 256x.

    In short, don't count on it.

    Q: Why do the cacti look so ****-awful?

    A: I made those while I was sleep deprived and grumpy. They will most likely get fixed soon.

    Q: What mobs do you have skinned?

    A: Only the main character, the zombie, and the Enderman.

    Q: Why aren't the birch and pine trees greyscale?

    A: I don't know how to bypass the hardcoding on those.

    Q: Why are the grass and tree leaves still hardcoded green?

    A: You need MCPatcher. No, not Optifine, MCPatcher. Only MCPatcher lets you use the custom hardcoded colors I made.

    Now here are some screenshots. These are of the 256x version since my computer can't handle 512x very well:


    Crafting Table:

    Breaking animation:

    Biome transitions:



    Download links (Mediafire):

    256x version: http://www.mediafire...y3soch0m2exx55m

    256x version with 512x mobs: http://www.mediafire...w5v0judmww0qtrx

    512x version: http://www.mediafire...8y4a3y9eb4cx45x

    Once again, please remember to comment if you like the look of this pack. Like I said above, it keeps the thread up.
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 3

    posted a message on I Need a 1024x1024 Pack
    Quote from lordofsax

    Dude, chill. Everyone seems to have copied me after I said it was around 700x or something like that, I never said it was exactly 700x though. As for the 1024x is not high res argument, you are right, but so is everyone else to a degree, It depends on what scale you are thinking on, the 2k graphics of console games are for large areas, a minecraft block would be tiny. Imagine it as a 1cm cube. On a 1cm cube 1024x is very high res, on a 3m by 2.5m wall in Team fortress 2 it isn't. It's all about scale.

    The blocks in Minecraft are 85cm, not 1cm. Back when the game was a Youtube video called "cave game tech test" Notch mentioned that the player is 1.7m tall, and the blocks are half his size, so yeah.

    Also, I am only pissed in that comment because of how many people made terrible arguments. If you say that a texture pack over 32x "ruins the feel of Minecraft" then I can automatically assume that you're an asshole. Sure it's your opinion, but the people that say it usually shove it down other's throats. I can like a photo realistic texture pack if I want to.
    Posted in: Resource Pack Discussion
  • 5

    posted a message on I Need a 1024x1024 Pack
    Everyone here is being stupid.

    First of all: "1024x is an extremely high resolution!"

    NO IT ISN'T. 1024x = 1k. You'd be hard pressed to now find even a console game that doesn't have less than 2k textures. PC games have 8k textures, and sometimes they even have 16k. 1024x is the maximum texture cache of the Nintendo Wii for ****'s sake! And look at how good the graphics are on the Wii.

    Second of all: "You can't see the pixels on a 512x pack!"

    I'm using a shitty off-brand HDTV as a computer monitor. I can see the pixels when I look close enough.

    Third of all: "It ruins the feel of Minecraft!"

    YOUR OPINION. Packs like PureBDCraft are perfect for Minecraft. Even a good photorealistic texture pack is a nice fit for Minecraft. Call me a graphics ***** all you like. I'll even send you a ****ing tampon through the mail if you whine enough you elitist scum.

    Fourth of all: The maximum texture resolution for Minecraft is 768x, not 700x. And even then it's not confirmed. The maximum texture res could be even higher than that. It's just lower than 1024x.

    But to the OP:

    Java can't handle 1024x. That's a fact.

    You can handle a 768x texture pack though. But very few are in existence, and even fewer are in the forums.
    Posted in: Resource Pack Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New texture pack ( MY 4th one ) HD!!!!!
    Wow this is awful. You only did work on the kz.png, and not only that; you don't even know the resolution. This isn't a texture pack. It's a thread with pictures, and a crappy one at that.
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 1

    posted a message on Delete this thread
    Quote from RalphMarino

    Changed the texture pack from x256 down to a x128 texture pack so this pack will be compatible with much more users.

    Don't do that! Do a 256x version AND a 128x version. You don't have to do just one. I really want this to be 256x. Hell you could even do a 512x version so people with the extra specs can get less pixellated lines.

    Seriously man, don't trash the 256x idea. Please don't. I have a computer that can run 256x at 60+ FPS and it would be awful if I had to have less pixels because some people can't run it. Just do both.
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 1

    posted a message on A word about texturepacks
    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)
    Posted in: Resource Pack Discussion
  • 6

    posted a message on Scrolls Shall Stay Scrolls
    Zenimax can go **** themselves, but Mojang was just playing the "I'm a poor indie dev, lighten up" card, without realizing that that doesn't work when your first game sells millions in its alpha and beta stages.
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 1

    posted a message on [4x] [WIP] [1.9] Net_Bastard's Epic Low-res
    First off, I would like to introduce myself. My screen name, as you can see, is Net_Bastard. I specialize in making low-res packs (which is basically anything below 16x). And this is the first one, a 4x pack. It's called Net_Bastard's Epic Low-Res. I make low-res packs because they are much easier to make, and they help out people who do their computing on a toaster. I used to have a toaster before I built a gaming rig, so I feel their pain.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: YES, I DID RESIZE THE TERRAIN.PNG TO 64x64!!! WHY THE **** WOULDN'T I!? If you link me to TheFiftyNiner's study, there will be blood and limbs. Your limbs.

    NOTE #2: Due to resizing issues, the items.png and the kz.png are 8x instead of 4x.


    Terrain: 75% done

    Items: 1% done (I just resized them and did nothing else.)

    Mobs: 85% done (I did everything (including the char.png) except for the skeletons and the nether monsters. Oh and I couldn't do Endermen for reasons that are kind of hard to explain.)

    Environment: 50% done (still don't know whether or not I want to edit the sun and moon)

    GUI: 0% done (I used EpixPivotMaster's templates, and he's not finished with the GUI yet so it isn't downloadable)

    KNOWN PROBLEMS: A little glitch in the torches, switches, and redstone torches due to the pixel count.

    UPDATE 1.1 IS NOW OUT! This release has better looking glass and better tiled grass.

    SEXY, SEXY SCREENIES (Please note that some of these screens are from v1.0 and therefore outdated)

    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 1

    posted a message on [8x] [1.9.4 pre] skorpiux pack [discontinued]
    That's probably the best 8x pack I've seen.
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • To post a comment, please .