Are these restrictions only intended for resource packs, or do you intend to also apply them to the API, preventing plugins from adding models seen in the video?
Also, are these changes due to technical/efficiency concerns, or artistic/design choice (and the related complaints by players)?
enderman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:57:46 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
So if I wanted to make rails 3D, I wouldn't be able to say what parts of the rail texture to use? How will textures for 3d blocks work?
Sure you would, you would just have a whole bunch of planes that span a 1x1 area in both their UVs and positions, with the fifth item in their UV definition specified as "down" (since that's the default face used for texture requests with things like rails). Eventually the whole "down" / "north" / etc. bit will be removed from the UV definition and you'll just specify an actual texture resource to use, but we're not there yet.
Sphax84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:37:53 on February 19, 2014 ยท (Permalink)*
So it's impossible to rotate a cube in a Model?
Also with those limitations, a Mod like "Carpenter's Slopes" seems to be impossible to achieve... true?
Edit: For rotating cubes, I think it would be very nice to implement it, this is necessary for Rails Corner for example...
Are you able to clarify as to which does which? as in "useAmbientOcclusion", vs the "cull" in each of the plane definitions?
does "cull" mean cull that only one side of the plane is shown,
and does "useAmbientOcclusion" mean that you cull whichever plane is facing down if there is a block below it?
In computer graphics, ambient occlusion is used to represent how exposed each point in a scene is to ambient lighting. So the enclosed inside of a tube is typically more occluded (and hence darker) than the exposed outer surfaces; and deeper inside the tube, the more occluded (and darker) it becomes. The result is diffuse, non-directional lighting throughout the scene, casting no clear shadows, but with enclosed and sheltered areas darkened. In this way, it attempts to approximate the way light radiates in real life, especially off what are normally considered non-reflective surfaces.
Imagei - The ambient occlusion map for this scene darkens only the innermost angles of corners.
My mistake (mistook it for occlusion culling for some reason), however, I'd still like to know whether "cull" would mean whether or not the side is not rendered if there is a block on that particular side, or is it something else?
So you're limiting development of texture packs to Minecraft's art style? Why bother supporting HD texture packs then? They certainly don't follow Minecraft's art style in most cases.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 19:43:32 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
you should limit texture packs to 16x16 and remove half blocks too, while you are at it.
I'm willing to bet it's an optimization step. That it will make it faster even for folks who aren't using full rotation. That perhaps just having that capability is taxing in a small fashion.
Everyone saying it doesn't feel like Minecraft anymore... This has always been possible with mods and everyone is wanting the modding API. Now that we are getting cool features you say you don't want them? This is an optional feature...
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:35:16 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Torint ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:08:07 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I think it would take too much effort for the average mapmaker to make use of it. Why would I make a 3d model in blender and export it when I could just make do with what I have already?
This! I'm keeping my eye on these latest updates for this very reason. Instead of requiring my adventurers to install mods to see smaller sized statues and sculptures, I just have to give them a resource pack.
some people hate this but i love this, they hate it because it is not a block....They do not have to use this at all just like in tf2 you dont have to have all player models be ponys and all sounds be farts but the engine allows it and that is what is great. also some people say it will destroy maps but i think that it will be amazing and cant wait to see the kinds of maps which use this feature
I've been absent Minecraft for some months now so this feature here confuses me. In the video description OP stated that he didn't use any mods to put that custom model into the game. So is it actually possible to do this in the vanilla game now without mods or not?
The latest snapshot adds a new little bit to Resource Packs that people have been messing around with a LOT. There's now the ability to mot only change textures and sounds, but models too, leading to people making Lego Blocks, Hexagonal blocks, detailed blocks, and, well... this.
People do not need to use this feature, and they don't have any reason to even acknowledge it's existence if they dont want to use it or dont like it. It's just another tool for people to customize thier games as they like it.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:58:31 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
The short of it is this is a step to making modding and map making easier. Mojang for years has been claiming a modding API was forthcoming. We are now, with things like this, starting to see the fruits of it.
Effectively it's like an easier modding. That model is not in the game. It always could have been. It used to be slightly harder to do, now it's easier. Always possible, doesn't effect you if you don't mess with it, doesn't effect servers, nothing. Nothing has changed.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:54 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I doubt many mapmakers will make effective use of it in a noticable way. It's been mostly proven that it's very difficult to make block models that actually look good for large-scale building. Much of it so far has been unable to go further than the small-scale (See the Hexagonal-Blocks and Command-Block-Control-Panel-Jutting) aside from Lego-style blocks. Which, in most maps, wouldn't look too great.
That's quite a claim. You're assuming map makers have no sense of keeping art style consistent. They're generally pretty creative people. I really don't think it will be a problem.
The potential positive uses of this feature outweigh the small number of map makers which will use it recklessly.
Who's arguing? We're having a discussion. If that is frustrating you why contribute?
Yep, kinda feels like the whole building things that aren't blocks, out of blocks part of aircraft is fading. Nevertheless, I'm sure some crazy stuff will be happening with this feature.
I guess you could display nude models on a server, getting the server to ask players to automatically download the resource pack on joining. Get ready for porn servers.
No, I mean specifically nudity. You could already get players to automatically download a resource pack for nude textures, and models (which have much less clarity might I add) aren't really worse than pictures. Considering that's not an issue now, I doubt it'll become an issue.
Has anyone found a way to change the player model? I know there would be some glitches with the texture maps, but is there an editable Json for player models?
๐๏ธ MrIkean ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:35:24 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Not yet, but I think in the next snapshot or in the final 1.8 version, we will be able to change a lot. If not there is surely a mod for it.
Adventure map makers would still be required to create the model outside of minecraft, and as someone who does small amounts of 3D work, it's not easy. I think that this is a tool that will seperate the good map makers from the amazing map makers.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:44 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
As for the part about everything being one block, I don't really like this new feature.
It doesn't feel like minecraft.
k-o-x ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:06:14 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
This is just a way to make authoring and maintaining those models easier. Think about mod API. Dinnerbone told a few months ago that mods will basically be resource packs. This enables them to define new non-block models.
Of course it will not prevent people from doing non-blocky-at-all models. But nobody forces you to use them.
_Grum ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 05:23:33 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Is it because you're adding a vertex limit or similarly? It'd be nice to elaborate why you're undoing a possibly extremely useful tool.
I was thinking that beyond general models, you could name files after specific blocks to only replace the model for that block. Less issues than replacing EVERY block of a kind. Less complex vertexes floating around. Can't say it wouldn't be interesting...
3z3ki3l ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:37 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yes please! Late comment, I know, but I have been wanting to replace the furnace in my house with a brick texture, to match the chimney, but I certainly don't want all my furnaces to be brick!
I don't think you would remove something so incredibly awesome and liberating without a very good reason. The only possible reason I can fathom is that you guys are going to be drastically changing the way the model loading system works.
And while we're at it, let's ban mods like optifine.
What's the point of limiting something like this, let the users decide how low-poly they want their resource packs to be, don't arbitrarily limit the creators.
EzerArch ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 05:20:18 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
let's ban mods like optifine.
Why to ban mods? We are talking about non-modded Minecraft. Mods exist for people who decide to have something else, like hi-poly models.
It was a joke. If we aren't going to ban high-res texture pack mods like OptiFine, we shouldn't be banning high-poly models in resource packs.
The way things are going now, resource packs are slowly turning into mods.
EzerArch ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:32:50 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I got it was a joke.
There's a difference between a resource pack and a mod. The resource pack uses features that are already implemented in the vanilla base-game while a mod adds new features to the vanilla base-game.
If I decide to have or create hi-poly models in the game, I'd better install a mod that removes the limitation.
People are downvoting because they don't understand reddiquette..
lendrick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:50:52 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I suspect people are downvoting it because it's very terse and doesn't give any sort of reason.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:32:09 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please do not take away the custom models!
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:24:45 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
zSync1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:57:11 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please don't remove this, as this will allow resource pack makers to easily make things that would otherwise require modification of the game.
Even if you remove this though, someone will make a mod that reintroduces this feature.
bioemerl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:36 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, I can understand why. Yes, models like this are cool, but if it's an official feature it has to be supported, meaning collisions, no graphical glitches, etc.
It's understandable that that would be a huge, lag causing pain to put in, and it makes sense why it should be nerfed.
Le_SweeT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:52:48 on February 23, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Grum were so sad we did try to create custom maps with these blocks :( now we need to use special mc
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:45 on May 3, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why? There's no point. If a player does not want to use these, they don't have to use them. Nobody is forcing players to use these models. It doesn't degrade the game, it expands it. Removing it is just wasting your time and code because someone will either re-implement it with a mod. Besides, you are literally making your game less functional. Why?
hi9580 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:38:28 on May 29, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Logstone ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 17:25:08 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
guys, how about we let the devs do what they want with THEIR game for once? is that not possible?
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:40:35 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Have you ever heard of industries existing to serve their consumers?
No?
I suggest you look it up. Minecraft is a development studio that makes games for the community. They could make it into a fancy dress simulator, sure, but it would make a ton of people mad, end all trust in mojang, and nobody would keep buying minecraft.
You can scream entitlement all you want, but at the end of the day games exist so the gamers can have fun, not so the devs get to "have their game"
What are they to you, pets? they aren't ingoring the consumers, they made the game, they do what they wish with it.
They wouldn't remove something without reason either, they add what they think is best for the game. sure, it might not always be the best for the game but let them try.
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:53:10 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I'm talking about mojang as a company, which is the true owner of minecraft. The people who work on it, the devs, are a group of people who all probably have different opinions and different ideas on the game and what it should be.
they made the game, they do what they wish with it.
They can, but if they did they wouldn't be in possession of one of the top selling games of all time. Free market exists for a reason, and that reason is to keep people in a business and/or businesses in service to consumers. Mojang as a company exists to make an enjoyable game, and if the people think X is enjoyable (and it actually is/doesn't harm gameplay), then they should add it in.
They actually already DO do what they want withthe game. Did we suggest pistons? withers? spawn eggs? dark oak? nope. they thought they were good edditions to the game, and wanted them in.
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:59:15 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Did we suggest pistons?
Horrible irony there. Were you active in minecraft when pistons were added by any chance? It started as a mod. People liked it so much and wanted it so much that it got added.
Item frames, pots, horses, hoppers, iron pressure plates, iron trap-doors, the mod API?
Minecraft is as much community driven as it is developer driven.
If we add new shapes, why not call it GeometricCraft?
You removed the "Mine" from Minecraft. That means no block breaking. That's why. It'd still be Minecraft, just with different shapes. I know it removes the blocky aspect, but that's nowhere in the title. And it would be used for different things too, like torches or fences or iron bars, just for asthetics.
The more you know!
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 19:10:24 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
THE REDDIT HIVEMIND HAS SPOKEN!
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:07:18 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please stay DDDDDD: I beg of you. Think about the potential!
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 13:51:05 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 02:31:09 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
its a tl;dr you assheads. You never got the joke.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:10:47 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, understood. That along with the fact the format will likely change for accommodations.
Random question, but do you think they should add a version parameter for the files? Even if not for legacy support, just to make it easier to identify outdated/incompatible files. I can see files like this needing a lot of information changes for functionality, and considering that, I think versioning the files would be helpful.
I don't get why eveeyone who dislikes this new feature is being downvoted. They are legitimate, useful comments, even if most people don't agree with them.
Why remove it. Minecraft needs to grow and expand its capability. Why keep it so limited. This opens up so many more possibilities. Sandbox game, play as you like and all. Maybe this is a positive progression of the game.
If you donโtโ allow more complex models and such, someone else will. Youโre base is thrusting for more. Keep it as an option, not allowed in default. See, simple fix to make everyone happy.
Le_SweeT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:02:58 on February 23, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Ikean try to import whole new york on cactus x) you will beat everyone and will get 1st in minecraft!
Wouldn't it do so in reverse, however? If I recall, Roblox had support for custom model uploading early-on, and then eventually stopped allowing uploads, leaving people with only whatever models already existed by that point.
Unless, of course, they changed it so you could spend money to upload models or something - It's been a while since I've played that game.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:30:27 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cagenado ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:12:00 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I meant the fact that it had blox in the name, and veered away from what made it unique. Blocks.
I thought you were referring to, rana, steve, black steve, and beast boy. which were actually models that were in the game during Indev, not 1.4. i made a mistake there.
_Grum ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 21:15:44 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Right now 'cube' looks like:
And for example cross is:
Absolutely not final, but roughly what to expect in the next snapshot. It has quite some limitations added:
You can apply rotation to a 'whole' model, so to get the 'slanted' wall-torches you'd use (where torch5 is the standing torch):
If you inherit you can only translate/rotate and not create additional elements.
This will obviously not be final, but so far this is allowing us to make all the blocks (not block entities!) in Minecraft.
WolfieMario ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:08:24 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Are these restrictions only intended for resource packs, or do you intend to also apply them to the API, preventing plugins from adding models seen in the video?
Also, are these changes due to technical/efficiency concerns, or artistic/design choice (and the related complaints by players)?
enderman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:57:46 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
So if I wanted to make rails 3D, I wouldn't be able to say what parts of the rail texture to use? How will textures for 3d blocks work?
TheMogMiner ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:54:48 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Sure you would, you would just have a whole bunch of planes that span a 1x1 area in both their UVs and positions, with the fifth item in their UV definition specified as "down" (since that's the default face used for texture requests with things like rails). Eventually the whole "down" / "north" / etc. bit will be removed from the UV definition and you'll just specify an actual texture resource to use, but we're not there yet.
Sphax84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:37:53 on February 19, 2014 ยท (Permalink)*
So it's impossible to rotate a cube in a Model?
Also with those limitations, a Mod like "Carpenter's Slopes" seems to be impossible to achieve... true?
Edit: For rotating cubes, I think it would be very nice to implement it, this is necessary for Rails Corner for example...
Meat_Sheild ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:38:40 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Are you able to clarify as to which does which? as in "useAmbientOcclusion", vs the "cull" in each of the plane definitions? does "cull" mean cull that only one side of the plane is shown, and does "useAmbientOcclusion" mean that you cull whichever plane is facing down if there is a block below it?
TheMogMiner ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:51:52 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Ambient occlusion has nothing to do with culling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_occlusion
autowikibot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:52:06 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Ambient occlusion:
Interesting: Screen space ambient occlusion | Global illumination | Shading
/u/TheMogMiner can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words | flag a glitch
Meat_Sheild ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:23 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
My mistake (mistook it for occlusion culling for some reason), however, I'd still like to know whether "cull" would mean whether or not the side is not rendered if there is a block on that particular side, or is it something else?
Elite6809 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:47:50 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why is this?
_Grum ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 05:13:26 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Because more is not needed.
Elite6809 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:34:37 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Still it seems like an arbitrary limitation.
TheMogMiner ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:52:46 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Just like Minecraft's visual style is completely arbitrary, which is exactly why the model format enforces it.
Elite6809 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:01:19 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
So you're limiting development of texture packs to Minecraft's art style? Why bother supporting HD texture packs then? They certainly don't follow Minecraft's art style in most cases.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 19:43:32 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
you should limit texture packs to 16x16 and remove half blocks too, while you are at it.
ArtisanVirgil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:19:00 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I'm willing to bet it's an optimization step. That it will make it faster even for folks who aren't using full rotation. That perhaps just having that capability is taxing in a small fashion.
PrincessTia ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 19:19:27 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone saying it doesn't feel like Minecraft anymore... This has always been possible with mods and everyone is wanting the modding API. Now that we are getting cool features you say you don't want them? This is an optional feature...
Yachtnaught ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 20:34:31 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
It seems that Jeb's Law is in effect again.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:35:16 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Torint ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:08:07 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I think it would take too much effort for the average mapmaker to make use of it. Why would I make a 3d model in blender and export it when I could just make do with what I have already?
FancySloth ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:09:12 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
It would be cool to have 3D player statues with custom maps though..
theravensrequiem ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:37:56 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
This! I'm keeping my eye on these latest updates for this very reason. Instead of requiring my adventurers to install mods to see smaller sized statues and sculptures, I just have to give them a resource pack.
thegrizzler ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:04 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea what the people say, i dont follow the community. But I cant wait to replace my horses with chocobos
MadCowGamers ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:58:52 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
some people hate this but i love this, they hate it because it is not a block....They do not have to use this at all just like in tf2 you dont have to have all player models be ponys and all sounds be farts but the engine allows it and that is what is great. also some people say it will destroy maps but i think that it will be amazing and cant wait to see the kinds of maps which use this feature
DMthePerson ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:28:12 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Now there can finally be an aliens mod where they're a species composed of triangles and their UFO's/resources are triangular instead of blocky.
Noerdy ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:18:25 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Woah. Can we have a download for the resource pack?
burgercan ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:09:51 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Loving the Erik Satie.
Lerola ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:25:52 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, the first thing that comes to his mind when having a human model is to human-centipede them all together..
Minecraftiscewl ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:35:26 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
... This is intensely strange. Idk if I like this kind of power, but it is a sandbox game so you can do whatever you want :P
[deleted] ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 19:00:19 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 19:11:16 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Arrow2Nee ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:31:40 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Except these aren't in Minecraft. Unless they start adding this sort of thing into the vanilla game (They won't) there is nothing bad here.
Jeb's law in full effect.
TheDukeofSpoons ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:47:51 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I've been absent Minecraft for some months now so this feature here confuses me. In the video description OP stated that he didn't use any mods to put that custom model into the game. So is it actually possible to do this in the vanilla game now without mods or not?
Kreamator ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 21:55:09 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
The latest snapshot adds a new little bit to Resource Packs that people have been messing around with a LOT. There's now the ability to mot only change textures and sounds, but models too, leading to people making Lego Blocks, Hexagonal blocks, detailed blocks, and, well... this.
People do not need to use this feature, and they don't have any reason to even acknowledge it's existence if they dont want to use it or dont like it. It's just another tool for people to customize thier games as they like it.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:58:31 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
The short of it is this is a step to making modding and map making easier. Mojang for years has been claiming a modding API was forthcoming. We are now, with things like this, starting to see the fruits of it.
ArtisanVirgil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:59:18 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Effectively it's like an easier modding. That model is not in the game. It always could have been. It used to be slightly harder to do, now it's easier. Always possible, doesn't effect you if you don't mess with it, doesn't effect servers, nothing. Nothing has changed.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:54 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Arrow2Nee ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:35:51 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't like block shape manipulation then don't install a resource pack that includes it. Seems pretty simple to me.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:42:40 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Kreamator ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:58:46 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I doubt many mapmakers will make effective use of it in a noticable way. It's been mostly proven that it's very difficult to make block models that actually look good for large-scale building. Much of it so far has been unable to go further than the small-scale (See the Hexagonal-Blocks and Command-Block-Control-Panel-Jutting) aside from Lego-style blocks. Which, in most maps, wouldn't look too great.
Arrow2Nee ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:29:21 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
That's quite a claim. You're assuming map makers have no sense of keeping art style consistent. They're generally pretty creative people. I really don't think it will be a problem.
The potential positive uses of this feature outweigh the small number of map makers which will use it recklessly.
Who's arguing? We're having a discussion. If that is frustrating you why contribute?
BleakPhoenix ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:30:30 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, kinda feels like the whole building things that aren't blocks, out of blocks part of aircraft is fading. Nevertheless, I'm sure some crazy stuff will be happening with this feature.
monster860 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 20:49:00 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Notch's golden rule has been broken.
TMud25 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:45:11 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Can these be animated?
IForgotMyPassword33 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:20:26 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I guess you could display nude models on a server, getting the server to ask players to automatically download the resource pack on joining. Get ready for porn servers.
QwertyuiopThePie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:21:40 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
You can already do that with texture packs.
IForgotMyPassword33 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:05:16 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
"Models" like the ones now possible in 14w06b. Before it would have taken modding of the client.
QwertyuiopThePie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:58:47 on February 22, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean specifically nudity. You could already get players to automatically download a resource pack for nude textures, and models (which have much less clarity might I add) aren't really worse than pictures. Considering that's not an issue now, I doubt it'll become an issue.
IForgotMyPassword33 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:13:12 on February 22, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, well I wouldn't really think of it as an issue, I for one would like to see a porn server. XD
iceykitsune ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:22:02 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
BURN THE WITCH!
TheFiredude50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:45:45 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
But we haven't seen if she weighs more than a duck yet.
OrionH ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:10:03 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't like it, don't add it to your game. Simple as that. It's optional.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:21:10 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
๐๏ธ MrIkean ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:23:22 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed it does! I could change the model to a big detailed house or even a giant castle. But if you don't like it, you don't have to use it, I'd say.
runnin_round ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:31:55 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Has anyone found a way to change the player model? I know there would be some glitches with the texture maps, but is there an editable Json for player models?
๐๏ธ MrIkean ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:35:24 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Not yet, but I think in the next snapshot or in the final 1.8 version, we will be able to change a lot. If not there is surely a mod for it.
WeeHeeHee ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:44:24 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Is the converter written in MEL or standalone?
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 18:27:21 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
runnin_round ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:29:19 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Adventure map makers would still be required to create the model outside of minecraft, and as someone who does small amounts of 3D work, it's not easy. I think that this is a tool that will seperate the good map makers from the amazing map makers.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:44 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
As for the part about everything being one block, I don't really like this new feature.
It doesn't feel like minecraft.
k-o-x ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:06:14 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
You already had non-block models before.
Levers, torches, redstone wire, repeaters, pressure plates, slabs, stairs, fences, doors, panes, brewing stand, anvil, ender portals, crops, flowers, mushrooms, bushes, cactus... Must be forgetting some.
This is just a way to make authoring and maintaining those models easier. Think about mod API. Dinnerbone told a few months ago that mods will basically be resource packs. This enables them to define new non-block models.
Of course it will not prevent people from doing non-blocky-at-all models. But nobody forces you to use them.
_Grum ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 05:23:33 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
FYI This is not going to last.
MegaScience ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 07:19:28 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Is it because you're adding a vertex limit or similarly? It'd be nice to elaborate why you're undoing a possibly extremely useful tool.
I was thinking that beyond general models, you could name files after specific blocks to only replace the model for that block. Less issues than replacing EVERY block of a kind. Less complex vertexes floating around. Can't say it wouldn't be interesting...
3z3ki3l ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:37 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yes please! Late comment, I know, but I have been wanting to replace the furnace in my house with a brick texture, to match the chimney, but I certainly don't want all my furnaces to be brick!
TheGruff64 ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 05:43:31 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why not?
๐๏ธ MrIkean ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 20:12:52 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
In this case I still have my particle animations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwt9xRlJvwk :P You're not going to stop me :D
Kreamator ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 17:47:43 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Man you really like that song dont you? :p
Pyrollamasteak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:28:57 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Are you willing to make a tutorial on this? or maybe just say the filters you used?
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 21:44:40 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:21:21 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
What is that from?
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 07:27:46 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
BeardyMcBeardster ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:29:11 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Shit.. we're old, man.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 13:47:19 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Well this has an unexpected amount of downvotes
[deleted] ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 14:32:03 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
First time I've seen a dev's comment end up with less then 100 points, don't even begin about having negative numbers.
We want this to stay, why remove it?
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 03:39:39 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
SquareWheel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:18:22 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yep. You have to be 13 to use this site, looks like /r/Minecraft didn't get the memo.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 08:52:07 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Because his comment is opinion.
/sarcasm
KnashDavis ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 08:11:57 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Quoting reddiquette is not usually welcomed.
debugman18 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:39:18 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand.
I don't think you would remove something so incredibly awesome and liberating without a very good reason. The only possible reason I can fathom is that you guys are going to be drastically changing the way the model loading system works.
WolfieMario ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 05:54:44 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Does this only apply to resource packs, or will there be a hard limit on the sorts of models plugins can add when using the official API?
And is this because of technical issues, or design choice?
EzerArch ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:29:27 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think this feature should be removed. But a polygon limit per model could be set to preserve the "low-poly" aspect of the game.
YM_Industries ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 04:12:52 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
And while we're at it, let's ban mods like optifine.
What's the point of limiting something like this, let the users decide how low-poly they want their resource packs to be, don't arbitrarily limit the creators.
EzerArch ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 05:20:18 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why to ban mods? We are talking about non-modded Minecraft. Mods exist for people who decide to have something else, like hi-poly models.
YM_Industries ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:22:40 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
It was a joke. If we aren't going to ban high-res texture pack mods like OptiFine, we shouldn't be banning high-poly models in resource packs.
The way things are going now, resource packs are slowly turning into mods.
EzerArch ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:32:50 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I got it was a joke.
There's a difference between a resource pack and a mod. The resource pack uses features that are already implemented in the vanilla base-game while a mod adds new features to the vanilla base-game.
If I decide to have or create hi-poly models in the game, I'd better install a mod that removes the limitation.
YM_Industries ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:41:47 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why? Why not just have it unlimited by default? What good does it do to limit it arbitrarily, forcing users to install a mod?
keiyakins ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:07:59 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
For one thing, the blocks should probably stay at least mostly inside their block :P
More seriously, I bet they're planning something other than a simple "load an .obj" for compression reasons or something.
Plo-124 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 04:36:43 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
People are downvoting because we want it to stay!
WhaleTaleMan ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:28:11 on February 15, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
People are downvoting because they don't understand reddiquette..
lendrick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:50:52 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I suspect people are downvoting it because it's very terse and doesn't give any sort of reason.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:32:09 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please do not take away the custom models!
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:24:45 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
zSync1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:57:11 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please don't remove this, as this will allow resource pack makers to easily make things that would otherwise require modification of the game.
Even if you remove this though, someone will make a mod that reintroduces this feature.
bioemerl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:36 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, I can understand why. Yes, models like this are cool, but if it's an official feature it has to be supported, meaning collisions, no graphical glitches, etc.
It's understandable that that would be a huge, lag causing pain to put in, and it makes sense why it should be nerfed.
Le_SweeT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:52:48 on February 23, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Grum were so sad we did try to create custom maps with these blocks :( now we need to use special mc
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:45 on May 3, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why? There's no point. If a player does not want to use these, they don't have to use them. Nobody is forcing players to use these models. It doesn't degrade the game, it expands it. Removing it is just wasting your time and code because someone will either re-implement it with a mod. Besides, you are literally making your game less functional. Why?
hi9580 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:38:28 on May 29, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Logstone ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 17:25:08 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with removing it!
-dead_slender- ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 11:57:58 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why?
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:19:20 on February 14, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Keep this crap to mods
Midnight_Gear ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:42:49 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
guys, how about we let the devs do what they want with THEIR game for once? is that not possible?
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:40:35 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Have you ever heard of industries existing to serve their consumers?
No?
I suggest you look it up. Minecraft is a development studio that makes games for the community. They could make it into a fancy dress simulator, sure, but it would make a ton of people mad, end all trust in mojang, and nobody would keep buying minecraft.
You can scream entitlement all you want, but at the end of the day games exist so the gamers can have fun, not so the devs get to "have their game"
Midnight_Gear ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:18 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Sure ignore the shit we give them for doing ANYTHING. they all only exist to please us /s
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:45:15 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
They exist, as a company, only to make an amazing video game that people like to play.
If people want a feature, they should add it. If they are just going to ignore the consumers then the company is not doing as it should.
Midnight_Gear ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:18 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
What are they to you, pets? they aren't ingoring the consumers, they made the game, they do what they wish with it.
They wouldn't remove something without reason either, they add what they think is best for the game. sure, it might not always be the best for the game but let them try.
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:53:10 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I'm talking about mojang as a company, which is the true owner of minecraft. The people who work on it, the devs, are a group of people who all probably have different opinions and different ideas on the game and what it should be.
They can, but if they did they wouldn't be in possession of one of the top selling games of all time. Free market exists for a reason, and that reason is to keep people in a business and/or businesses in service to consumers. Mojang as a company exists to make an enjoyable game, and if the people think X is enjoyable (and it actually is/doesn't harm gameplay), then they should add it in.
Midnight_Gear ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:56:08 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
They actually already DO do what they want withthe game. Did we suggest pistons? withers? spawn eggs? dark oak? nope. they thought they were good edditions to the game, and wanted them in.
bioemerl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:59:15 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Horrible irony there. Were you active in minecraft when pistons were added by any chance? It started as a mod. People liked it so much and wanted it so much that it got added.
Item frames, pots, horses, hoppers, iron pressure plates, iron trap-doors, the mod API?
Minecraft is as much community driven as it is developer driven.
Midnight_Gear ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:01:00 on February 21, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
No, I wasn't I was just trying to get my point accross.
[deleted] ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 15:53:03 on February 12, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
StickDemonic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:26:38 on February 15, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
You removed the "Mine" from Minecraft. That means no block breaking. That's why. It'd still be Minecraft, just with different shapes. I know it removes the blocky aspect, but that's nowhere in the title. And it would be used for different things too, like torches or fences or iron bars, just for asthetics. The more you know!
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 19:10:24 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
THE REDDIT HIVEMIND HAS SPOKEN!
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:07:18 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Please stay DDDDDD: I beg of you. Think about the potential!
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 13:51:05 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 02:31:09 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
its a tl;dr you assheads. You never got the joke.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:10:47 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
it's a shit joke if no one got it.
Scribblenautz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:39 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Could we possibly get a download link for the converter? :)
๐๏ธ MrIkean ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:49:46 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
It's not ready for release yet. Also you need large experience with 3d modeling software to use it. But in the next couple days I will release it.
Scribblenautz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:52:10 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, thanks for the response!
MegaScience ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:02:53 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, understood. That along with the fact the format will likely change for accommodations.
Random question, but do you think they should add a version parameter for the files? Even if not for legacy support, just to make it easier to identify outdated/incompatible files. I can see files like this needing a lot of information changes for functionality, and considering that, I think versioning the files would be helpful.
WeeHeeHee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:43 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
What 3D program are you using?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:27:01 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Ruskraaz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:33:47 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
The light shall burn you!
negative274 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:29:54 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I can't wait for custom mob model support. My horses are going to be so much less detailed.
StingAuer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:46 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I know this song! Erik Satie, Gymnopedies 1. Great choice of music.
arbitrary777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:11:29 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get why eveeyone who dislikes this new feature is being downvoted. They are legitimate, useful comments, even if most people don't agree with them.
BryGuy-AK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:23:04 on February 13, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Why remove it. Minecraft needs to grow and expand its capability. Why keep it so limited. This opens up so many more possibilities. Sandbox game, play as you like and all. Maybe this is a positive progression of the game.
If you donโtโ allow more complex models and such, someone else will. Youโre base is thrusting for more. Keep it as an option, not allowed in default. See, simple fix to make everyone happy.
Le_SweeT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:02:58 on February 23, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Ikean try to import whole new york on cactus x) you will beat everyone and will get 1st in minecraft!
RottenNugget ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:45 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
can't wait untill you make the converter public
2001Javman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:30 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Does this mean MC animation style characters Reascorce pack? :3?
Cagenado ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 20:33:06 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
This game will turn into Roblox... I can feel it.
WolfieMario ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:03:03 on February 9, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't it do so in reverse, however? If I recall, Roblox had support for custom model uploading early-on, and then eventually stopped allowing uploads, leaving people with only whatever models already existed by that point.
Unless, of course, they changed it so you could spend money to upload models or something - It's been a while since I've played that game.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:30:27 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cagenado ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:12:00 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I meant the fact that it had blox in the name, and veered away from what made it unique. Blocks.
Diabeetush ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:12 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)*
This isn't new. It has been done in 1.4, but that model looks really nice.
I'm talking about 3d model importers. That's how it was possible.
WeeHeeHee ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:03:13 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
The ability to change block models just came out; it definitely wasn't in 1.4, unless you mean something different.
evildustmite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:47:09 on February 10, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
Think he may be referring to the original player models, and I say models because I believe there where three of them.
Diabeetush ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:19:15 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I'm talking about 3d model importers.
evildustmite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:05:20 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
I thought you were referring to, rana, steve, black steve, and beast boy. which were actually models that were in the game during Indev, not 1.4. i made a mistake there.
Diabeetush ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:54 on February 11, 2014 ยท (Permalink)
It's OK :)