Here are a bunch of birch textures I´m working on at the moment. Lots of random variants and vertical CTM. I probably double the amount in the end, with moss, knotholes, mushrooms and other details. They don´t serve a purpose yet but they are most likely going to be included in a future adventure map.
The bark patterns are very nice, but the strong shading on the edges IMHO detract. It is about as dark on the edges ads the dark marks, so it looks like the trees have a huge long dark mark on the corners.
Maffew:
The vertical lines in the bark seem a bit unnaturally precise and constant.
I don't see how all of you do it XD This was my best try out of many at 16x16 grass. (Resized to 512x512 for viewing.)
IMHO there's no advantage in showing your texture that big. It won't be viewed like that in the game. Provide screenshots of the texture in use to enable better feedback. It is the context that determines if a .PNG works or not.
I decided that the packed ice i did was horrible, and remade it... while i was at it, i redid regular ice as well, and lightened snow a bit, because i realized actual ash is light gray, not dark gray.]
The clear ice look very good. While the current packed ice looks better than the previous, it doesn't seem as icy as the clear ice. Specifically the consistent-width light veins in the packed ice don't seem to belong in ice.
I can't decide on what the problem is. There's not much I can do about the colors; no matter what color I make it, the blocks and items are diverse enough that there will always be something that will blend in with the background a little. I've done a little bit to make stone blocks (which use the same colors, mostly) stand out, and it seems to be enough.
Maybe it's the detail level? It's a lot more busy than I originally intended. Would removing all that detail in and around the slots make it better?
IMHO the main issue is the background is high contrast and unpredictable, which draws attention away from the items and makes it harder to spot blocks/items that might only differ slightly from the color of the background.
I personally would recommend a fairly smooth background with a bit of a gentle gradient in luminosity so a block/item of the same color as for instance the top of the background would contrast at the bottom.
Of course it all depends if you want to wow people with screenshots, or make it a pleasure to use. My advice is aimed at ease-of-use.
I'm finally doing some GUI screens, cause I'm sick of seeing the default ones. How's this look?
For me that GUI would be a deal-breaker. While you certain can find everything if you take a second or two, scanning inventories (sometimes double chests + player inventory) takes up a lot of MC time, and GUI that obscures blocks/items to the least degree cumulatively detracts a lot from the minecraft experience.
Hello, I thought I'd post my issue here since I haven't yet got an answer on another thread.
Is there a way, using renderPass 3, to have more than one transparency level in one image? So I can have a texture fade out to transparent? I'm trying to make a light-shaft like texture.
Yes, you can do that with render pass 1 or 3. Both support everything from full opacity to full transparency and everything in-between.
If you are having trouble perhaps you are saving the file wrong, or you image editor simply can't do it.
Funny you should say that, I'm getting the following error when I try to vote (or I'm just blind): "You must cast your vote in each question of the poll."
Sorry, I've recreated the poll, it seems to work now.
Well, in this community, stock images are typically held as unacceptable, so of course you have been met with hostilities.
I've only been around for ~6 months, but reading the recent thread, it seems there are at least as many voices for disagreeing with what you consider "typically held", and it is just a vocal minority that has a problem with it.
As a general practice, using images for textures does not hold artistic merit. It is how you go about doing this that may or may not add artistic merit. For instance, you can take wood, dirt, brick, etc. and crop them and you got it done, boring. Or, you can do as Steel said and take multiple images and make something of your own design, which does add artistic merit. Taking the images yourself adds more artistic merit yet.
Actually you are overlooking the key thing what makes a good pack. It has nothing to do with how much work goes into individual files. You could make a bunch of clever, striking individual images using any complicated and creative process, and still produce a lousy pack.
It is all about how all the textures work together— the harmonizing of a thousand or more images. That's where the artistic eye comes in no matter what the technique used to make the individual .PNGs. When the artist imposes a single vision on all those files, and turns it into a single cohesive work of art-- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And that IMHO is what separates the great packs from the larger mass of merely technically good packs.
Don't get hung up on the process of art. Process only matters in as much as it gets you to a certain result. The result is the point.
I've started a Pre-release program for Lithos. At least once between any two public releases, i'll make available a download of the current state of one or more of the Lithos packs. The intention is to foster additional feedback and criticism, without the need of investing the large amount of time it takes to put up a release.
The pre-releases will only be made available to a select group, made up of people whose contribution to this thread and/or Lithos development have been above average. So how to you get added to this group? Sorry, it's not by asking for admission. There are two ways:
Provide above average useful feedback and constructive criticism, or aid the development or promotion of Lithos in some other significant way.
I thought i should explain this in the thread since there may be comments posted that refer to a version of Lithos not yet publicly available.
A couple comments on Lithos Luminous, the less-faithful pre-released add-on. Luminious relies on MCPatcher more than basic Lithos.
One major feature is the light maps (MCPatcher required). This controls the color and brightness of the various kinds of light in minecraft. You should notice the night is bluer, and placeable light sources are a bit dimmer and redder, so you should be able to tell the source of the light just by looking at it. I hope the dimmer torch/lamp light isn't annoying.
I've also updated regular glass with "better glass" (MCPatcher required). I'm trying to make the glass slightly visible and grainy. How well that works seems to vary by light and dimension.
Also though the process of making the different colors of stained glass is the same the grit/grain in the glass appears much more visible in the dark and desaturated colors. Noticeable, or am i being oversensitive?
edit - But I did find that the different glass in paterns make some pretty interesting effects.
I would have written the same thing as 13thmurder -- your first screenshot apparently only displayed a small fraction of the versatility of your stained glass.
samohtj:
That post seems an odd way to try to defuse the situation.
Maybe some of you (collectively) have historical reasons for not being fond of photo-based packs. I don't like them myself-- IMHO they just don't mesh with the very simple geometry of MC.
That gives neither of us the right to try to prevent someone else from using an particular art process, nor chasing them away from part of the forums. You can be protective of your work without being dismissive of somebody else's non-infringing work.
And as someone who is part of the professional design/illustration community as well as this "for fun" one, i think it is worth mentioning that photo manipulation is a valid artistic skill in it's own right. In many cases it may more efficient that other means, but so is photography itself. The point of art is not to sink a lot of time into something-- but to achieve a particular visual result-- by whatever ethical means neccesary. Photography and Photo-manipulation still take skill and artistic judgement to achieve a good result, though in the case of photo manipulation you usually only notice it when it is done badly.
Also since 1.7 is out, you can stack texture packs to apply parts of different packs to your game. You can achieve the same thing by distributing a pack that only contains your vignette image(s), and instructing the user to load it above the pack of their choice.
eleazzaar, I cant find where to download the christmas add-on pack. Could you please put it up for download if it isnt, or tell me where it it is if it is already up?
Thanks in advance.
0
The bark patterns are very nice, but the strong shading on the edges IMHO detract. It is about as dark on the edges ads the dark marks, so it looks like the trees have a huge long dark mark on the corners.
Maffew:
The vertical lines in the bark seem a bit unnaturally precise and constant.
IMHO there's no advantage in showing your texture that big. It won't be viewed like that in the game. Provide screenshots of the texture in use to enable better feedback. It is the context that determines if a .PNG works or not.
The clear ice look very good. While the current packed ice looks better than the previous, it doesn't seem as icy as the clear ice. Specifically the consistent-width light veins in the packed ice don't seem to belong in ice.
0
IMHO the main issue is the background is high contrast and unpredictable, which draws attention away from the items and makes it harder to spot blocks/items that might only differ slightly from the color of the background.
I personally would recommend a fairly smooth background with a bit of a gentle gradient in luminosity so a block/item of the same color as for instance the top of the background would contrast at the bottom.
Of course it all depends if you want to wow people with screenshots, or make it a pleasure to use. My advice is aimed at ease-of-use.
0
For me that GUI would be a deal-breaker. While you certain can find everything if you take a second or two, scanning inventories (sometimes double chests + player inventory) takes up a lot of MC time, and GUI that obscures blocks/items to the least degree cumulatively detracts a lot from the minecraft experience.
0
Open the "Hearts, bubbles, armour... and meat" spoiler
0
Yes, you can do that with render pass 1 or 3. Both support everything from full opacity to full transparency and everything in-between.
If you are having trouble perhaps you are saving the file wrong, or you image editor simply can't do it.
0
Sorry, I've recreated the poll, it seems to work now.
0
Beaver = "false rumor"
unless somebody has a credible link? A conveniently 404ed link doesn't count. ;P
2
I've only been around for ~6 months, but reading the recent thread, it seems there are at least as many voices for disagreeing with what you consider "typically held", and it is just a vocal minority that has a problem with it.
0
0
I wish there was, but no-- MC makes no distinction.
Is it possible that the creeper wandered in from a near-by snowy or extreme hill biome? They don't change colors when they cross into new biomes.
0
Actually you are overlooking the key thing what makes a good pack. It has nothing to do with how much work goes into individual files. You could make a bunch of clever, striking individual images using any complicated and creative process, and still produce a lousy pack.
It is all about how all the textures work together— the harmonizing of a thousand or more images. That's where the artistic eye comes in no matter what the technique used to make the individual .PNGs. When the artist imposes a single vision on all those files, and turns it into a single cohesive work of art-- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And that IMHO is what separates the great packs from the larger mass of merely technically good packs.
Don't get hung up on the process of art. Process only matters in as much as it gets you to a certain result. The result is the point.
0
The pre-releases will only be made available to a select group, made up of people whose contribution to this thread and/or Lithos development have been above average. So how to you get added to this group? Sorry, it's not by asking for admission. There are two ways:
- Provide above average useful feedback and constructive criticism, or aid the development or promotion of Lithos in some other significant way.
- Donate on one of Lithos' Curse pages
I thought i should explain this in the thread since there may be comments posted that refer to a version of Lithos not yet publicly available.A couple comments on Lithos Luminous, the less-faithful pre-released add-on. Luminious relies on MCPatcher more than basic Lithos.
One major feature is the light maps (MCPatcher required). This controls the color and brightness of the various kinds of light in minecraft. You should notice the night is bluer, and placeable light sources are a bit dimmer and redder, so you should be able to tell the source of the light just by looking at it. I hope the dimmer torch/lamp light isn't annoying.
I've also updated regular glass with "better glass" (MCPatcher required). I'm trying to make the glass slightly visible and grainy. How well that works seems to vary by light and dimension.
Also though the process of making the different colors of stained glass is the same the grit/grain in the glass appears much more visible in the dark and desaturated colors. Noticeable, or am i being oversensitive?
1
I would have written the same thing as 13thmurder -- your first screenshot apparently only displayed a small fraction of the versatility of your stained glass.
samohtj:
That post seems an odd way to try to defuse the situation.
Maybe some of you (collectively) have historical reasons for not being fond of photo-based packs. I don't like them myself-- IMHO they just don't mesh with the very simple geometry of MC.
That gives neither of us the right to try to prevent someone else from using an particular art process, nor chasing them away from part of the forums. You can be protective of your work without being dismissive of somebody else's non-infringing work.
And as someone who is part of the professional design/illustration community as well as this "for fun" one, i think it is worth mentioning that photo manipulation is a valid artistic skill in it's own right. In many cases it may more efficient that other means, but so is photography itself. The point of art is not to sink a lot of time into something-- but to achieve a particular visual result-- by whatever ethical means neccesary. Photography and Photo-manipulation still take skill and artistic judgement to achieve a good result, though in the case of photo manipulation you usually only notice it when it is done badly.
Can't we all just get along?
3
0
Yep, it isn't right for everything-- that's why i'll be putting it in an add-on.
It looks like the Curse download widget isn't working. I've added a fall-back link on the first post, or you can just go here:
http://www.curse.com/texture-packs/minecraft/lithos-christmas-add-on-32x