Why do so many texture pack creators say the pack "is for 1.7.2" but its actually missing ALL the 1.7.2 textures?
Are the people being lazy? IM TIRED OF IT
They probably mean that the format is compatible with 1.7.2. Resource packs have been changing a lot lately, so that seems like a pretty useful detail.
Not to mention that not every pack is 100% complete, and it may be missing more than just 1.7.2 textures.
Yes. I hate when this happens! I hope they will learn to update with no lies!
Lies? The version number is for compatibility, like the others said. It has nothing to do with what textures are actually in the pack. I challenge you to find me a pack on this forum that has 100% of the game's textures, and has been around for less than two years.
The version numbers were a leftover from before 1.5, when you had to put out a pack update every time Minecraft got a snapshot or a new release, or the pack wouldn't work and some textures wouldn't show up. Now with the new format, you don't have to do that anymore. Any pack with the resource pack format will work for any version after 1.6, and any new textures added since then will just be filled in by the default.
In fact, unless they go changing the system again, we probably don't even need version numbers anymore.
I both agree and disagree with you. While you're certainly correct as far as blocks and items go, changes to the GUI or particles can render a pack without a proper feature. A good example of this is the horse jump bar. A lot of packs that are "updated" to the current version still lack that. While they function, you can't see how high your horse is jumping so they're not fully compatible.
Ehhh... starting to cut that one close now aren't you Al? But because you produced the winning component, you have earned one of these fine shrubberies from Tim's! Next time you're in need of a good shrubbery, look up Tim the Shrubber today!
(jk)
Yeah, formatting for the resource packs have both made thing easier and harder, heck some of us are still reeling in the madness from the conversion @ 1.5!
I both agree and disagree with you. While you're certainly correct as far as blocks and items go, changes to the GUI or particles can render a pack without a proper feature. A good example of this is the horse jump bar. A lot of packs that are "updated" to the current version still lack that. While they function, you can't see how high your horse is jumping so they're not fully compatible.
Dang it, I forgot about all that stuff. I guess you're right. And they have been adding a lot of gui elements lately, haven't they? And I've got none of them! D: I'll have to fix that.
Lets put it this way. A lot of the last version packs, or even the ones before then will still work just fine on 1.7. Shoot even my pack will work fine in 1.7.
The deal is any textures that isn't there will revert back to default, or use another packs files if it's layed below it. You don''t have to have everything 100% done for it to be a 1.7, or even a 1.8 pack, as long as it WORKS in it it can be marked as such.
But yes, the version number for packs are for compatibility with the game version, not that it's 100% finished and set up for said version. Now if someone miss's a UI feature well thats on them but it don't make the pack unplayable.
Like I can still tell what I'm chanting in 1.8 even though my set ups still for 1.7. Some of these minor UI changes can easily be over looked.
Horses? Yeah m y pack lacked that bar for a while as well... but then I personally never have used horses. Not with how rare it is to find freaking saddles I'd rather hold onto them like trophies then plop one on an easily killed horse.
Hey Sam my packs close to 100%, just need to do....horses and the polished stone for 1.8. But you can call me lazy sense RL works eating up most my time and the flu is eating up the rest.
My pack is 100% after roughly 6 months of work, but I guess that may or may not show in quality.
Regardless, I think the labels of 1.7 and such shouldn't be used if much of the features of each update aren't there. Like, it may be compatible, but if it's missing everything new, it can be misleading. Although it used to be much worse, before the reformat. I'd get a 1.4 pack and it'd be 1.2 or something, just renamed to keep downloads flowing. Never on this forum, though.
Well it is just hard to keep up. Especially those pesky GUI-Changes, you have to literally compare the versions of the files. Also doing mobs for me is very tough, so i still haven't done the horses. Tons of cubes and I don't know of a way to spawn the right one.
But doing a texture pack is a lot of work, my pack contains 918 i all had to work on at one point. And 376 textures only for the blocks, some of them animated, not including CTM. For my part I dont even get a lot of feedback, wich is a bit disappointing since me and other authors put a lot of effort in their pack. If Some parts of the GUI are missing just tell me. It may be a part I dont use, when I play. Also tell the authors, that you appreciate the effort they out into it. Most of them don't earn any money, so show them some love to keep them happy^^
Well it is just hard to keep up. Especially those pesky GUI-Changes, you have to literally compare the versions of the files.
Yeah, I went several versions without realizing they added a second slot to the enchantment table. I did a run-through of my pack recently and found several issues from a while ago. Most of the time I only compare the number of textures rather then comparing the textures themselves.
My pack is 100% after roughly 6 months of work, but I guess that may or may not show in quality. Regardless, I think the labels of 1.7 and such shouldn't be used if much of the features of each update aren't there. Like, it may be compatible, but if it's missing everything new, it can be misleading. Although it used to be much worse, before the reformat. I'd get a 1.4 pack and it'd be 1.2 or something, just renamed to keep downloads flowing. Never on this forum, though.
How would someone label their pack compatibility then? When i see something like 1.7, i think the pack works with that version, not that it is 100% complete for that version. My pack (privately) is compatible with 1.8, but is probably only 70% complete. How can I easily represent compatibility version in a thread?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
How does one deem if a pack is 100% complete? I have no intention of completing the mobs in my textures, so once the items are done, then I will consider it "100%" complete. It may not have ALL of the texture assets, but it will have the ones I planned to have changed. So, completeness is somewhat relative.
How does one deem if a pack is 100% complete? I have no intention of completing the mobs in my textures, so once the items are done, then I will consider it "100%" complete. It may not have ALL of the texture assets, but it will have the ones I planned to have changed. So, completeness is somewhat relative.
Perhaps, since something being 100 percent typically implies the general sense -as in completely modified textures, gui, mobs, etc. - it probably would be poignant to notify your audience of which changes you have made, so they get a general sense of what you're offering without any misconceptions. I don't think things like sounds, etc., and other animation stuff matters much.
Are the people being lazy? IM TIRED OF IT
Not to mention that not every pack is 100% complete, and it may be missing more than just 1.7.2 textures.
Can you give us an example?
I'm just a Minecraft player that likes to give my opinion. Nothing special to see here.
Lies? The version number is for compatibility, like the others said. It has nothing to do with what textures are actually in the pack. I challenge you to find me a pack on this forum that has 100% of the game's textures, and has been around for less than two years.
The version numbers were a leftover from before 1.5, when you had to put out a pack update every time Minecraft got a snapshot or a new release, or the pack wouldn't work and some textures wouldn't show up. Now with the new format, you don't have to do that anymore. Any pack with the resource pack format will work for any version after 1.6, and any new textures added since then will just be filled in by the default.
In fact, unless they go changing the system again, we probably don't even need version numbers anymore.
BOOM! What do I win? :3
(jk)
Yeah, formatting for the resource packs have both made thing easier and harder, heck some of us are still reeling in the madness from the conversion @ 1.5!
Dang it, I forgot about all that stuff. I guess you're right. And they have been adding a lot of gui elements lately, haven't they? And I've got none of them! D: I'll have to fix that.
Yeah, okay, besides that one.
Lets put it this way. A lot of the last version packs, or even the ones before then will still work just fine on 1.7. Shoot even my pack will work fine in 1.7.
The deal is any textures that isn't there will revert back to default, or use another packs files if it's layed below it. You don''t have to have everything 100% done for it to be a 1.7, or even a 1.8 pack, as long as it WORKS in it it can be marked as such.
But yes, the version number for packs are for compatibility with the game version, not that it's 100% finished and set up for said version. Now if someone miss's a UI feature well thats on them but it don't make the pack unplayable.
Like I can still tell what I'm chanting in 1.8 even though my set ups still for 1.7. Some of these minor UI changes can easily be over looked.
Horses? Yeah m y pack lacked that bar for a while as well... but then I personally never have used horses. Not with how rare it is to find freaking saddles I'd rather hold onto them like trophies then plop one on an easily killed horse.
Hey Sam my packs close to 100%, just need to do....horses and the polished stone for 1.8. But you can call me lazy sense RL works eating up most my time and the flu is eating up the rest.
Regardless, I think the labels of 1.7 and such shouldn't be used if much of the features of each update aren't there. Like, it may be compatible, but if it's missing everything new, it can be misleading. Although it used to be much worse, before the reformat. I'd get a 1.4 pack and it'd be 1.2 or something, just renamed to keep downloads flowing. Never on this forum, though.
But doing a texture pack is a lot of work, my pack contains 918 i all had to work on at one point. And 376 textures only for the blocks, some of them animated, not including CTM. For my part I dont even get a lot of feedback, wich is a bit disappointing since me and other authors put a lot of effort in their pack. If Some parts of the GUI are missing just tell me. It may be a part I dont use, when I play. Also tell the authors, that you appreciate the effort they out into it. Most of them don't earn any money, so show them some love to keep them happy^^
Yeah, I went several versions without realizing they added a second slot to the enchantment table. I did a run-through of my pack recently and found several issues from a while ago. Most of the time I only compare the number of textures rather then comparing the textures themselves.
How would someone label their pack compatibility then? When i see something like 1.7, i think the pack works with that version, not that it is 100% complete for that version. My pack (privately) is compatible with 1.8, but is probably only 70% complete. How can I easily represent compatibility version in a thread?
Cast aside your festive doylaks: dragon stuff is about to happen.
Multiplayer is lonely once you understand how it actually works.
Alpha 1.0.4
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
Perhaps, since something being 100 percent typically implies the general sense -as in completely modified textures, gui, mobs, etc. - it probably would be poignant to notify your audience of which changes you have made, so they get a general sense of what you're offering without any misconceptions. I don't think things like sounds, etc., and other animation stuff matters much.