To be honest, 512x is prone to crashing and lags the game, and the benefit you see from it is minimal, considering it's spread across a single block anything over 256x is honestly pointless, and even going over 128x is not that big of a gain.
For the second question, do you think programmers should program a different way of feeding textures into the game? Most games feed in one large 2000x3234 or something similar but on a larger model, maybe we should do the same? Use less textures but bigger and make them cover more blocks then before?
ie: One texture for 100 blocks, etc'.
To be honest, 512x is prone to crashing and lags the game, and the benefit you see from it is minimal, considering it's spread across a single block anything over 256x is honestly pointless, and even going over 128x is not that big of a gain.
Well... unless you have a great system and a gigantic monitor. Preferably one of those setups that have multiple monitors that cover you entire field of vision. Then you can have an absolutely amazing Minecraft experience!
Point is, someone likes them so there's a purpose. It's not pointless... it's just point-limited.
For the second question, do you think programmers should program a different way of feeding textures into the game? Most games feed in one large 2000x3234 or something similar but on a larger model, maybe we should do the same? Use less textures but bigger and make them cover more blocks then before?
ie: One texture for 100 blocks, etc'.
So... basically the way Minecraft used to work then? No, Minecraft has now moved beyond that for the better. Although... a mix of the two methods might work better. Hmmm...
Well... unless you have a great system and a gigantic monitor. Preferably one of those setups that have multiple monitors that cover you entire field of vision. Then you can have an absolutely amazing Minecraft experience!
Point is, someone likes them so there's a purpose. It's not pointless... it's just point-limited.
So... basically the way Minecraft used to work then? No, Minecraft has now moved beyond that for the better. Although... a mix of the two methods might work better. Hmmm...
No, you got it all wrong.
The way Minecraft handles textures is that it spreads them per block, but we could instead make one texture spread across multiple blocks of the same type.
CTM allows for a option called repeat, (i.e. Best guide I ever used for MCPatcher features) , taking one big texture and spreading it over multiple blocks, so you get a random texture each block, but together they look amazing.
The way Minecraft handles textures is that it spreads them per block, but we could instead make one texture spread across multiple blocks of the same type.
Ah, I see. I thought when you said 100 blocks, you meant 100 types of blocks, not literally a 100 block square area in the world. Your phrasing was a little bit hard to understand there.
Anyway, yea, as others have said CTM is the way to do this. It doesn't need to be in core Minecraft. That would change the entire aesthetic of the game. I see no reason to force this on people.
Ah, I see. I thought when you said 100 blocks, you meant 100 types of blocks, not literally a 100 block square area in the world. Your phrasing was a little bit hard to understand there.
Anyway, yea, as others have said CTM is the way to do this. It doesn't need to be in core Minecraft. That would change the entire aesthetic of the game. I see no reason to force this on people.
CTM isn't still exactly there, I'm thinking about texture efficiency, something CTM doesn't really help with.
Helping reducing lag and allow much higher resolution textures to be used.
I think its worth it, I have a really powerful setup and I know serious gamers like me LOVE the eyecandy and effects, so it is worth it if you want to get attention from more people!
Ehh, truth be told you'd be better off lower. You really can't see any diffrence in textures after a while.
Lets actually talk a little about one of the main reasons going above 128 per block doesn't really work well.
Monitor resolutions.
Lets say your monitor does 1280x1024, in order to actually see all 512^2 pixes you would be limited to looking at just over four blocks on your screen. Any smaller than that and you start to lose pixels in your texture. Put 16 blocks on your screen and you are getting the same texture resolution as you would from a 256x texture. Pull back to 64 blocks and now you are looking at a 128x texture.
Even if you double that pixel count on your display, you are still only looking at a max of 16 blocks before you would be better off using a lower res texture. (Unless you happen to really like the grainy noise you get from the data-loss as your texture is squished. Then go for it.)
Now if minecraft had proper mip-mapping (or if you use something like CTM to make a texture span multiple blocks) it changes things and opens up really being able to appreciate the higher resolution textures. (or if you have a monitor with an insane pixel count I suppose.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
For the second question, do you think programmers should program a different way of feeding textures into the game? Most games feed in one large 2000x3234 or something similar but on a larger model, maybe we should do the same? Use less textures but bigger and make them cover more blocks then before?
ie: One texture for 100 blocks, etc'.
Are we seriously going to have this discussion again?
Point is, someone likes them so there's a purpose. It's not pointless... it's just point-limited.
So... basically the way Minecraft used to work then? No, Minecraft has now moved beyond that for the better. Although... a mix of the two methods might work better. Hmmm...
No, you got it all wrong.
The way Minecraft handles textures is that it spreads them per block, but we could instead make one texture spread across multiple blocks of the same type.
Servers Rules|Support Forum Rules|Show Your Creation Rules|Off Topic Rules
Anyway, yea, as others have said CTM is the way to do this. It doesn't need to be in core Minecraft. That would change the entire aesthetic of the game. I see no reason to force this on people.
CTM isn't still exactly there, I'm thinking about texture efficiency, something CTM doesn't really help with.
Helping reducing lag and allow much higher resolution textures to be used.
Ehh, truth be told you'd be better off lower. You really can't see any diffrence in textures after a while.
Monitor resolutions.
Lets say your monitor does 1280x1024, in order to actually see all 512^2 pixes you would be limited to looking at just over four blocks on your screen. Any smaller than that and you start to lose pixels in your texture. Put 16 blocks on your screen and you are getting the same texture resolution as you would from a 256x texture. Pull back to 64 blocks and now you are looking at a 128x texture.
Even if you double that pixel count on your display, you are still only looking at a max of 16 blocks before you would be better off using a lower res texture. (Unless you happen to really like the grainy noise you get from the data-loss as your texture is squished. Then go for it.)
Now if minecraft had proper mip-mapping (or if you use something like CTM to make a texture span multiple blocks) it changes things and opens up really being able to appreciate the higher resolution textures. (or if you have a monitor with an insane pixel count I suppose.)