It looks very noisy, and has a lot more contrast than other textures, which makes it stand out a little, but I think in this case its a bit too much. The old bedrock flowed a lot better with the stone and the rest of the pack better than this version. I feel like there is too much contrast in the texture for it to be a stone texture, it looks a bit like a steel block. But that is just my 2 cents.
I think you were right.
I created a smoother version, with the separate top and side textures.
Noisy? Too much contrast? You do realize your describing the vanilla bedrock texture perfectly, and this is a faithful pack... so yea... Personally I think he makes the noise work very well.
That's the endless challenge of trying to do a faithful pack that also looks good-- Finding the ballance between the two.
So I made some stone variants. One of them I was trying to make it a subtly smoother version of the main stone texture so it looked more like a rock-face but still tileable with the chunkier stone texture. The other two are rarer and feature a hole and a skull. What do you guys think?
Personally, I'm not fond of "Add random items" CTM. I'd much rather see a variant texture that can be used frequently and breaks up the pattern. YMMV.
Since the Emerald topic was created interest, I'll show another revamp. New Bedrock:
My previous bedrock is one of my oldest surviving textures in Lithos, so anything else looks pretty weird to me. The one thing i've knowingly deviated from defaultness is the strong horizontal lines in the bedrock. Such lines on natural blocks simply look weird on the upper faces, and I was too lazy to do a separate set of textures for sides and top/bottom.
I edited layer_0, and i'm looking at blocks(I never bothered testing it on entities). All I see is the vanilla fire... Any other ideas?
The texture used isn't actuall random. There's a billion fire models one for fire on top, one for fire on the west, one for fire on top and the west, etc. Each model uses 0 and 1 for different faces. You may need to create fires on different faces.
This is all it gave for a quick load up of minecraft, going into a world, f3+t, then closing out of the world and minecraft:
I don't see anything complaining about JSON, so it is probably a basic file name error. The blockstate or model file isn't actually pointing to the file you think it is.
May I please get some help with this, I have been trying for somewhere in the realm of 4-5 hours to get it to work, and it has not changed anything in game, just my sanity...
After you quit mincraft what does it say in the "Game Output" tab of the launcher window?
It could also be something wrong with a filename. JSON code snippets aren't great for solving these sorts of problems since they might not contain the problem.
Meaning to post textures as I was completing them but it got away from me. Here are a bunch of screenshots of what I have been working on. I intend to use this as a texture pack for an adventure map so I have gone outside the box on some of these. This is all in vanilla at 64x. I'll welcome any questions comments or suggestions. Thanks!
Very Impressive. The logs look very good.
As a general observation keep an eye on the general contrast. Some textures stick out as having really strong dark shadows, while others are sorta flat.
Here's my second take. it is a bit more faithful, and I think lacks some of the other issues of the earlier version. While it is still darker, that's sort of inevitable for the shiny, translucent look I'm going for.
But I can say, that after a certain distance the light going through a gem, will slowly start to drop off & get darker & darker. This is even true for a clear diamond. So for a 1 meter thick colored gem, the color will still be transparent, but will most likely be just color.
So with that, It would be a great idea to create one that is not as dark
Yeah, but even a 1m thick diamond would be shiny on the surface, and so a cut face would be reflective, showing different values on different planes.
Lithos:Luminous will probably get the diamond in the final version
0
The grass and leaves look pretty flat, and the brown thatched roof, and some of the wooden elements have some pretty strong dark lines.
1
Random mob skins that persist over different logins.
2
Or maybe i'll help you with the mod support again...
Redid Bedrock:
3
I think you were right.
I created a smoother version, with the separate top and side textures.
0
Yes
1
Those colors are hardcoded.
MCPatcher might give you the ability to change them, I haven't messed with it.
0
That's the endless challenge of trying to do a faithful pack that also looks good-- Finding the ballance between the two.
4
Personally, I'm not fond of "Add random items" CTM. I'd much rather see a variant texture that can be used frequently and breaks up the pattern. YMMV.
Since the Emerald topic was created interest, I'll show another revamp. New Bedrock:
My previous bedrock is one of my oldest surviving textures in Lithos, so anything else looks pretty weird to me. The one thing i've knowingly deviated from defaultness is the strong horizontal lines in the bedrock. Such lines on natural blocks simply look weird on the upper faces, and I was too lazy to do a separate set of textures for sides and top/bottom.
Thoughts? Defaulty enough? Looks like bedrock?
1
At least in the screenshots, the dead branches look rather convincing.
3
Also comming soon:
Only the Enderdragon remains until completion!
0
The texture used isn't actuall random. There's a billion fire models one for fire on top, one for fire on the west, one for fire on top and the west, etc. Each model uses 0 and 1 for different faces. You may need to create fires on different faces.
3
Up next:
New Emerald Block
1
I don't see anything complaining about JSON, so it is probably a basic file name error. The blockstate or model file isn't actually pointing to the file you think it is.
1
After you quit mincraft what does it say in the "Game Output" tab of the launcher window?
It could also be something wrong with a filename. JSON code snippets aren't great for solving these sorts of problems since they might not contain the problem.
5
Very Impressive. The logs look very good.
As a general observation keep an eye on the general contrast. Some textures stick out as having really strong dark shadows, while others are sorta flat.
Here's my second take. it is a bit more faithful, and I think lacks some of the other issues of the earlier version. While it is still darker, that's sort of inevitable for the shiny, translucent look I'm going for.
Yeah, but even a 1m thick diamond would be shiny on the surface, and so a cut face would be reflective, showing different values on different planes.
Lithos:Luminous will probably get the diamond in the final version