Depends. What model is it? Anything above the 2018 model should work, though the 2020 model is recommended if you don’t want your world only slightly toasted.
-
- jdc997
- Registered Member
-
Member for 8 years, 5 months, and 27 days
Last active Thu, Oct, 14 2021 16:37:19
- 12 Followers
- 1,219 Total Posts
- 418 Thanks
-
May 20, 2019
jdc997 posted a message on Important Minecraft Forum Archive AnnouncementPosted in: NewsMan, I haven't been active for awhile, but coming back to see this just---hurts. I remember the old days when I'd come on here almost daily and check out people's suggestions. Even if I haven't done that much here, I'll be sad to see this place go.
Thank you, Critic, for making this forum. Thank you, Sunperp, Badprenup, and the other moderators for doing your best to make this forum a place everyone could visit and enjoy themselves. And, even if you've made some missteps, thank you Curse for bringing this forum to its greatest highs and glory days.
-
Jan 11, 2017
jdc997 posted a message on Minecraft Crafting & Recipe Quiz: Can You Get Every Question Correct?Posted in: News
9/10. I messed up on the cookies one. Probably because I have never once bothered to craft them.
-
Sep 26, 2016
jdc997 posted a message on (PC) A Look At Version 1.11Posted in: NewsQuote from Unclevertitle»
Not to mention that the Curse of Binding might actually be beneficial on a very good sword or pickaxe and paired with Mending. No more accidentally throwing an item away by pressing 'Q' instead of '1' when startled by an enemy.
That's why I set my "Drop" key to P. I have never accidentally dropped an item since.
Personally I'm "meh" about these cursed enchantments. It's an interesting idea, but it seems like it would just turn the item into junk. I think most people would just use books to make sure they get what they want. -
Sep 25, 2016
jdc997 posted a message on (PC) A Look At Version 1.11Posted in: News
Seems cool, though it looks like Minecraft is moving more and more towards a fantasy theme. This isn't bad, but it does open the way for quite a few new suggestions. Hopefully the game doesn't become too much more like an RPG though.
- To post a comment, please login.
0
So, how is this any different than resource packs, which are already embedded into vanilla?
This wouldn't be the first time Mojang did something that they thought wasn't Minecraft-y but it ended up being a boon for the community (ladders, slabs, and stairs, for example*). Minecraft's art style would still remain pixelated (have you ever seen promotional art by Mojang using Dokucraft?) but the option would just be there for players who wanted it.
*And don't just pull out the "these are different so your comparison is somehow automatically invalid" card again. The point I'm trying to make here is that these were things that Mojang didn't want to add, which is like HD skins, but they ended up adding them anyway and people liked them.
I could give a counter argument that shaders would also be an optional video setting, but that's not the point of this thread. But, your point is a bit clearer now, and I get what you're saying (though I would have worded what you said before better). However, the point still stands that putting your skin into a resource pack is an invalid criticism, as it's hardly a substitute for this suggestion.
But that's one of the points of a skin in the first place, though: to get others to see how cool you look. Seeing someone else with an HD skin would hardly ruin your enjoyment of the game, and in the event that it did, that's why you can turn it off.
Animated skins aren't in the game for technical reasons: for one, animated mob textures aren't available yet, and second, that could cause your skin file to be huge. And, like I said, shaders are being rewritten, so, who knows, perhaps we'll get these realistic shaders.
You said "Skins are subjective, so why use up the time in adding extra customized stuff for them?" You could apply this to anything: "Mipmaps are subjective, so..." "Resource packs are subjective, so..." "Clouds are subjective, so..." Were you against it when 1.8 added a huge amount of skin customization?
It's not that I think you hate customization. I'm bringing up video settings because the "It'll be optional then!" part of the suggestions guide explicitly states that those kinds of things are okay to be optional.
Oh, it's amazing. I've gotten to so many alternate realities, such as the one where Mojang decided to make an sequel to the game, or where they sued Bethesda for adding a "notched pickaxe" to Skyrim (it didn't go very well).
Jokes aside, what I'm doing is making an educated guess about what I know about your opinions from reading your posts over the years. Yeah, I could be wrong, but it's too late for either of us to know. Now that it's after the fact and you've seen how great resource packs have been for the game, of course you're going to say you'd support it, but there's no way to know for sure.
Think about it, Cerroz: what is the main point of having a skin? My belief is so that the player can represent how he sees himself in the game. Now tell me, does this somehow change with the skin being in a higher resolution?
0
And these HD skins would also be HD skins that wouldn't be permanently embedded into vanilla, just activated when you wanted them.
Hence why you can turn it off. If HD skins really bother you, you can make it so you only see their more-fitting-to-you SD skins. Yeah, sure, if I spent three hours making a super high-detailed skin and I played with someone who turned it off so he couldn't see it, sure, I'd be disappointed, but it's not like it's the end of the world or harms the game in any way.
That...makes no sense. It sounds like you're saying "I know it's against the rules, but I'm going to say it anyway." Let me reiterate: you can't use the existence of resource packs as a rebuttal for a suggestion to exist as it is against the FORUM rules. It is the same thing when people ask for mods to be part of vanilla, but you can't say no because said mod exists.
And it's not really that much more energy used ("wasted" implies it's pointless, which, since a lot of people would likely use HD skins were this implemented, is wrong). The game already contains code for resizing textures to be properly mapped to mobs, so it's simply a case of an if statement to determine whether you have HD skins enabled, and then just simply sends the right skin to the client.
Guess what: animated textures and shaders already exist in the game (though the shaders are relatively simple and can't be accessed as they're being rewritten). And also guess what: both are optional.
If you're going with that logic, adding the ability to customize anything that doesn't effect gameplay is a waste of energy. If Mojang followed that logic, we wouldn't have skins or resource packs to begin with.
Everything I put there as an example have virtually no effect on performance (smooth lighting and clouds have a minor effect, but are efficient enough that I don't notice a difference playing with or without them, and resource packs usually only cause performance issues at 64x+. Note that I have a terrible computer so any difference in performance is notable to me). Realms was mentioned as it's a purely optional way to play multiplayer, so why should it be directly implemented into the game? In addition, this has nothing to do with consoles, as people can't pick their skin on them.
If a skin doesn't fall under video setttings, what category does it fall under? Audio? Nope. Gameplay? No, it's purely aesthetic. Controls? How could you possibly think so? Since a skin is purely visual, it seems to make the most logical sense to put it under the video category of game elements.
So, are you against resource packs then, as they go against the game's art style? I mean seriously, imagine if resource packs weren't in the game, and someone suggested them. You'd probably be giving the same argument to prevent their addition ("They're not worth adding."). Yet, resource packs have become such an integral and important part of the game.
0
>Looks at Fallout 4 and Skyrim Special Edition< yup, no mods here.
Things are changing, and we can probably expect modding on consoles to be much more common in the future. I don't why we couldn't have addons in the console editions, though they'd have to be made on a computer first and imported (unless you don't mind writing hundreds of lines of JSON code on a console with an Xbox controller).
0
Sure, you can put it up there (with credit given, of course).
0
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but you can try reducing your FOV. Minecraft has no feature that makes it look "more 3D" in 64bit, so I can only think it has to do with your field of vision.
1
Note that, like this suggestion, resource packs are optional. If you really don't like it, you can turn it off.
You do realize that adding your skin to the resource pack will only effect you and only when you're offline or when the skin servers are down? In addition, it's impossible to work with in multiplayer, as you have to be online for servers, and on LAN everyone with your player model would have your skin.
Also, you may not know this, but the suggestion forum's rules were somewhat recently amended so that "just use a resource pack" fall under the category of "just use a mod." It's not a legal rebuttal.
Look, skins are subjective. They have no effect whatsoever on the gameplay. They're simply an extension of the players into the game; how the players sees themselves in the world of Minecraft, and how they wants others to see them. If players want their avatars to look higher quality, there's no reason to stop them.
The it's-an-option path is only bad if it affects gameplay. Mipmaps, clouds, custom controls, smooth lighting, resource packs, skins, and Realms are all purely optional features that have no effect on the core game. Should we remove all of those purely because "they're optional?"
I suggest you read the "It'll be optional then!" section of the suggestion guide again. This suggestion falls under "game settings," discussed in the second paragraph of that section. This isn't like a mob that has poor balancing; it's a purely visual feature that simply allows the game to cater to more players' wants without hurting anyone else. For a game that's all about creativity and customization, that's a good thing.
0
While I still think llamas are pointless with or without this suggestion, this definitely makes llamas more interesting, so I Support. Again.
0
Well, if I was implementing it, I would make it so that the HD version is just another version of your skin that is allowed to be in different variations (so you could even downscale your skin if you wanted), and not force you to make a secondary skin.
0
I believe it is the same amount as your render distance.
0
Normally I would agree about how being able to turn it off isn't a good thing, but in this case, skins are already purely aesthetic, so being able to disable the HD skins seems to be perfectly fine in this case. Also, there's quite a lot of people who like "HD Minecraft;" I mean, why are the most popular resource packs all in a higher resolution than default?
Just because you don't like HD skins doesn't mean no one does. This wouldn't force you to have an HD skin, and thus for you would only have an effect on multiplayer, which, again, is not the main game. Also, who are you to say that no one can have an HD skin? If it really bothers you, you can turn it off, but really, skins are a representation of a player. Why restrict their creativity and how they want to look (as long as it isn't inappropriate)?
0
The game runs a lot better on the older versions of Java, actually, and having everyone use the same version allows Mojang to get around certain bugs, such as the infamous "pixel format not accelerated" error. There's no point to updating except for security, which is already added in each update, and if that's really a big issue, then they should just have made the game in a more secure language.
0
I agree, but that will be almost impossible to do without changing what Minecraft is, which I find to be an even worse thing. This is why I think there should be a sequel.
0
The regular launcher was updated in order to detect whether you had the new beta launcher, and if you did, to warn you that using the regular launcher would reset all your custom settings and profiles.
0
Try running it as administrator. Sometimes, if Minecraft is installed outside of a user's folder, it will have difficulty launching.
0
I don't know who this guy is specifically referring to, but I remember someone once suggested wool slabs and a guy shot him down because it would be "unrealistic" because "your feet would sink into it."
But, yeah, I really don't see the point of this post.