While I have used Optifine before when I first played Minecraft(back when I had a bad computer, and before Minecraft 1.2.5 came out). But after a few months I started using MCPatcher and it slowly got better than Optifine(at least I think so). I also got a (somewhat) better computer since then too.
To this day, I believe MCPatcher is better than Optifine. Optifine is suppose to reduce lag, but for me it doesn't reduce it, it increases it. MCPatcher doesn't give me lag, and it also has better texturing options than Optifine.
But that is what I think. I was wandering what you think about the subject. Is Optifine better than MCPatcher, or is MCPatcher better than Optifine?
State your opinion, why you think that. I would like to know your opinion on the subject.
MCPatcher over Optifine any day. Optifine is pretty simple, and may become obsolete in future updates of minecraft with all the new menu options that Mojang've already added. MCPatcher is an upgraded version of Optifine-minus the 'lag-reducing' options of Optifine.
Both have their own features, with optifine indicating that a new update is released, or MCPatcher with its in-built pack converter. I'm not sure about who owns CTM (I believe it's Kahr), but with both having it, they seem even. MCP does come with additional features, as does OF, with the first having more texturing, and the second having more in-game features.
When I started I did not differentiate. My focus was on the options for texturing not performance and way back the CTM was virtually the same. Over time the CTM of MCPatcher has proven better and I have dropped support for Optifine on one of my texture packs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(koo-star-neek) The real numbers are countable and I CAN prove it. Cantor was wrong!
I'd have to say "in what context?" on this one. Optifine has it's place in performance tweaks... but MCPatcher is clearly superior for resource packs with it's myriad of features.
Despite the fact that they both have strong point, and their own place in Minecraft, I'm going to say that MCPatcher is superior for two reasons.
First, Optifine isn't focused as a mod. The stated goal is to make Minecraft run faster, but Optifine itself has become so feature-heavy that it often fails to accomplish this. The fact that it's also tried to take a lot of MCPatcher's features as it's own - features that can be detrimental to performance like CTM and Random Mobs in particular - means that it often has the opposite effect since it enables performance hogging pack features; relying on the end user to know that they're not supposed to do that if they want the performance boost.
Second, Optifine isn't even as good as it says it is. In Optifine's OP, it shows several features that it doesn't have like complete Custom Colors support. Why does it claim to have these? Because the entire "Information for Texture Pack Authors" was plagiarized directly from MCPatcher without regard for what features Optifine actually has. While we, the resource pack community, constantly rail against people stealing textures nobody seems to have a problem with theft of text. Plagiarized written words are just as serious as plagiarized textures... and yet Optifine has gotten away with this while misleading people into thinking that it's just as good as MCPatcher in regards to features. Frankly, this makes me sick.
TLDR: Optifine is a mess, and really needs to be cleaned up in several regards before I'll consider it competition to MCPatcher.
I would of said "In any context.", you just gave your reason with out having me to say anything.
I kinda figured that would be your response, so that's why I answered in the way I did.
I just wanted to preface it with that question, because they are two different animals. If you want to be able to tweak every aspect of performance, for example, Optifine has more features for that. It really is an "apples and oranges" sort of thing in that they're both fruit, but one makes better pies and the other is tastier in drinks.
I kinda figured that would be your response, so that's why I answered in the way I did.
I just wanted to preface it with that question, because they are two different animals. If you want to be able to tweak every aspect of performance, for example, Optifine has more features for that. It really is an "apples and oranges" sort of thing in that they're both fruit, but one makes better pies and the other is tastier in drinks.
Yeah it's rather expensive to get going with a new computer, but with the prices/power of machines going down, getting a decent enough machine to play Minecraft shouldn't cost more than $600 (Just the machine, not including peripherals/monitor/ect.)
Speaking of which, when I get my new pc, I'll probably do some testing and set up a comparison chart for MCPatcher/Optifine.
Although I still remember when you can have BOTH! whew... that was fun!
Back in the day, I would've said Optifine all the way. I mean, in-game menus, removing fog, and making Minecraft use more of my computer's potential, wow! I had tried MCpatcher, but it caused my game to crash when reloading textures via f3+t, so I generally didn't like it (EDIT: this has been fixed for a while).
For a while, I wouldn't actually use EITHER. I just wouldn't use any mods, staying to vanilla. I would add in the support for Optifine/MCpatcher in my pack, and then quickly go back to vanilla when my work was done. As time went by, I grew accustomed to these changes, particularly classic glass CTM (more on this later), and the "final straw" was Mojang breaking my custom Mojang logo, so now I use MCpatcher when I can because it makes the game (visually) better and re-enables that.
So why do I like MCpatcher better? Besides more features, it updates much faster, supports snapshots , and Kahr is much more open and involved into the community. Remember me talking about classic glass CTM? Well, it used to be I quite disliked it, due to the fact that corners didn't show up. At the time, I really liked Optifine, and I personally messages the creator, and he never did it. Not long after, someone ELSE suggested the very same thing to Kahr, which was added into the "innerSeams" feature we have today. While I haven't had any suggestion given out implemented (yet, that I know of), I have had bugs fixed that I told Kahr about.
So that's why I think MCpatcher is "technically superior", because it has better development. No doubt if the whole de-obfuscation scene weren't so grim, things would look a bit more competitive at the moment, and likely Kahr would be doing a lot more feature-wise. However, much of the issue lies with Mojang to fix, such as no depth buffer on particles, and it's not Kahr's responsibility to fix that. Similarly, there is much with optimization and ideology (especially with chunk generating/rendering) that can be done on Mojang's part that would make the game run better. I generally don't need Optifine, but my performance widely varies per game version. I've been getting very poor performance with chunk loading in 1.7.2+ (especially now in the snapshots) when in 1.6.4 IIRC I was getting quite good performance.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Technically, one could install Optifine light with mcpatcher, but the light version isn't compatible with Forge. Most people, if at all, use standard for mod compatibility.
On the topic, mcpatcher is superior for one simple reason. MCPatcher recognizes string IDs. Optifine does not.
I have personally used Optifine since I started using Minecraft. Back then I did actually need the lag reduction, but now I just use it because of the extra video options. All the extra features I need for texture packs are connected textures, and Optifine is perfectly capable of doing that.
However, I haven't given MCpatcher much of a chance. I did attempt it once, but back in those days I was a computer newbie so I didn't understand it at all. I'm still not really sure what it IS exactly (a mod, an API, or what?), let alone how to install it. I probably will give it another shot some day, but Optifine works for now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you say "plz" because it is shorter than "please", I will say no because it is shorter than yes.
for texture pack making i prefer mcpatcher, because some of the features dosen't work properly in optifine. if i'm running mods that are causing a lot of lag i prefer optifine because of all the options. i would prefer to have both though.
I prefer MCPatcher because Optifine has a buggy mess. I remember using a 1.6.4 version that gave me a memory leak and it was supposedly a stable version. There is no excuse for your 'stable' mod to repetitively crash the game because you can't spend a little more time correcting your mod's memory use. Then there are the futures is 'has'. Oh, you have custom colors? No you don't.
To this day, I believe MCPatcher is better than Optifine. Optifine is suppose to reduce lag, but for me it doesn't reduce it, it increases it. MCPatcher doesn't give me lag, and it also has better texturing options than Optifine.
But that is what I think. I was wandering what you think about the subject. Is Optifine better than MCPatcher, or is MCPatcher better than Optifine?
State your opinion, why you think that. I would like to know your opinion on the subject.
Both have their own features, with optifine indicating that a new update is released, or MCPatcher with its in-built pack converter. I'm not sure about who owns CTM (I believe it's Kahr), but with both having it, they seem even. MCP does come with additional features, as does OF, with the first having more texturing, and the second having more in-game features.
MCP for me.
Despite the fact that they both have strong point, and their own place in Minecraft, I'm going to say that MCPatcher is superior for two reasons.
First, Optifine isn't focused as a mod. The stated goal is to make Minecraft run faster, but Optifine itself has become so feature-heavy that it often fails to accomplish this. The fact that it's also tried to take a lot of MCPatcher's features as it's own - features that can be detrimental to performance like CTM and Random Mobs in particular - means that it often has the opposite effect since it enables performance hogging pack features; relying on the end user to know that they're not supposed to do that if they want the performance boost.
Second, Optifine isn't even as good as it says it is. In Optifine's OP, it shows several features that it doesn't have like complete Custom Colors support. Why does it claim to have these? Because the entire "Information for Texture Pack Authors" was plagiarized directly from MCPatcher without regard for what features Optifine actually has. While we, the resource pack community, constantly rail against people stealing textures nobody seems to have a problem with theft of text. Plagiarized written words are just as serious as plagiarized textures... and yet Optifine has gotten away with this while misleading people into thinking that it's just as good as MCPatcher in regards to features. Frankly, this makes me sick.
TLDR: Optifine is a mess, and really needs to be cleaned up in several regards before I'll consider it competition to MCPatcher.
I would of said "In any context.", you just gave your reason with out having me to say anything.
I just wanted to preface it with that question, because they are two different animals. If you want to be able to tweak every aspect of performance, for example, Optifine has more features for that. It really is an "apples and oranges" sort of thing in that they're both fruit, but one makes better pies and the other is tastier in drinks.
True.
I am an artist. All the art you see on my profile is by me, if it's not I will say so and whom its owner is.
I would agree with you, but some people can't afford to get a better computer.
Yeah it's rather expensive to get going with a new computer, but with the prices/power of machines going down, getting a decent enough machine to play Minecraft shouldn't cost more than $600 (Just the machine, not including peripherals/monitor/ect.)
Speaking of which, when I get my new pc, I'll probably do some testing and set up a comparison chart for MCPatcher/Optifine.
Although I still remember when you can have BOTH! whew... that was fun!
*Sigh* I miss those days
For a while, I wouldn't actually use EITHER. I just wouldn't use any mods, staying to vanilla. I would add in the support for Optifine/MCpatcher in my pack, and then quickly go back to vanilla when my work was done. As time went by, I grew accustomed to these changes, particularly classic glass CTM (more on this later), and the "final straw" was Mojang breaking my custom Mojang logo, so now I use MCpatcher when I can because it makes the game (visually) better and re-enables that.
So why do I like MCpatcher better? Besides more features, it updates much faster, supports snapshots , and Kahr is much more open and involved into the community. Remember me talking about classic glass CTM? Well, it used to be I quite disliked it, due to the fact that corners didn't show up. At the time, I really liked Optifine, and I personally messages the creator, and he never did it. Not long after, someone ELSE suggested the very same thing to Kahr, which was added into the "innerSeams" feature we have today. While I haven't had any suggestion given out implemented (yet, that I know of), I have had bugs fixed that I told Kahr about.
So that's why I think MCpatcher is "technically superior", because it has better development. No doubt if the whole de-obfuscation scene weren't so grim, things would look a bit more competitive at the moment, and likely Kahr would be doing a lot more feature-wise. However, much of the issue lies with Mojang to fix, such as no depth buffer on particles, and it's not Kahr's responsibility to fix that. Similarly, there is much with optimization and ideology (especially with chunk generating/rendering) that can be done on Mojang's part that would make the game run better. I generally don't need Optifine, but my performance widely varies per game version. I've been getting very poor performance with chunk loading in 1.7.2+ (especially now in the snapshots) when in 1.6.4 IIRC I was getting quite good performance.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
While i prefer MCPatcher's quick development cycle and superior texturing features, it is a lot easier to get a mod pack with Optifine.
• Follow Lithos on Twitter for release announcments
* Join the Lithos Discord for previews and to help
Technically, one could install Optifine light with mcpatcher, but the light version isn't compatible with Forge. Most people, if at all, use standard for mod compatibility.
On the topic, mcpatcher is superior for one simple reason. MCPatcher recognizes string IDs. Optifine does not.
Putting the CENDENT back in transcendent!
However, I haven't given MCpatcher much of a chance. I did attempt it once, but back in those days I was a computer newbie so I didn't understand it at all. I'm still not really sure what it IS exactly (a mod, an API, or what?), let alone how to install it. I probably will give it another shot some day, but Optifine works for now.
hello, check this out!