Yeah, I was trying to avoid the whole "obnoxious high-contrast" thing that can happen with white mortar. I'm not super satisfied as it stands, but how's this?
- Registered Member
Member for 10 years, 1 month, and 9 days
Last active Sun, Oct, 30 2016 20:27:01
- 1 Follower
- 232 Total Posts
- 38 Thanks
Dec 27, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack DiscussionQuote from eleazzaar
Finally getting around to experimenting some not-so-faithful stained glass.
Which treatment do you like, (if any) and why?
Ooh. Are you going to use some CTM to do larger pattern work on it? I really like the two-tone (or three, or five, or however many colors) glass though.
On a side, opinions on my brick?
Dec 27, 2013Posted in: Creative ModeQuote from CreeperCooperBlock
You think thats bad ?
Have you seen the amount of "viking/nordic" (sarcasm quotes) buildings ? What ?
Dec 26, 2013Posted in: Creative ModeQuote from Blitzgrutel
The real problem is that you are devaluating Minecraft stuff from a university point of view. We are not studying architecture in university here, we are playing a video game on a computer that is so different from the real world that the smallest usable measure is 1 meter. The evaluation is correct and consider game stuff as it should be here, in the Minecraft forums. I think on the contrary that is you, that have a very close-minded point of view, because you are limited by the type of knowledge that you are currently learning and cannot seem to be able to get out from there and just do game stuff or just accept that here, the law is fantasy.
My critique was not made to devalue Minecraft buildings. My whole point was that a person should not speak as though he knows what Modernism actually entails, and then give an entirely wrong depiction of the movement. I don't think it's wrong of me to point out huge fallacies in someone's argument, especially when they're treating these fallacies as facts of history. The only time I get into a discussion about this sort of thing is when people come along in the Minecraft Forums speaking about my field, architecture, and then misrepresenting architects and architecture itself.
The fact of the matter is that Minecraft buildings are not architecture, for the most part. Many people are not working for any sort of client, real or fictional, they do not use the design process. Mostly they just look up precedents and copy them in Minecraft. The fact of the matter is that many "architects" in Minecraft are simply really good builders, not architects. Would you like it if someone came along claiming to know all about environmentalism, then said things that were totally wrong, passing them off as truth? I think you'd stand up and debate that just as I am with architecture.
Dec 26, 2013Posted in: Creative ModeQuote from BZAnathema
So, this is purely my sleep-deprived, recovering-from-a-cold, holier-than-thou, unnecessarily intolerable inner goblin coming out to rear its ugly head, but I have a short rant to make. So, here goes:
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF "MODERN" BUILDS.
I'm not saying they're all bad. I'm not even saying they're mostly bad. I'm not even necessarily saying any of them are particularly bad, they're just overused. And why are they overused? Well, let's look at why "modern" architecture is what it is.
I'm not sure why you're putting it in quotes. Modernism was a movement in arts, fashion, and architecture that ran from the 1920s(ish) until the late 1950s or so (ending with high modernism and with architects like Mies van der Rohe). Your explanation is also flawed.
For all of human history, when we've built shelters, they've had curves and/or angles. Sloped roofs and curving domes have represented classical power and status for centuries. The modern architecture movement countered that (in the 1950s, I'd like to add, seeing as that's really not "modern" anymore, is it?) by putting forth the blockiest, flattest, most basic shapes that could be offered by the materials available. It was based on boxes because boxes are the essence of simplicity. It was often white and glassy because white and glass are neutral and add very little shading or depth. It was blocky and boxy and flat because it was new and different to do so, and people loved it.
Wrong. Modernism was (as I just said) a movement that began around the 1920s with pioneers like Le Corbusier), and ended around the late 1950s/early 60s, moving into post-modernism (which is all , different story for a different time). Modernism did not try to "bring forth the blockiest, flattest, most basic shapes...because boxes are the essence of simplicity". The majority of modern architecture was sparked with Le Corbusier's treatise, "Vers Une Architecture", which declared that architecture should mimic the (at the time) current age of technology and machinery, and that architecture should work and look like a machine.
Modern construction was not white and glassy "because white and glass are neutral colors and add very little shading or depth." Modernist construction was often concrete and steel because those were (at the time) modern construction materials that allowed for up-to-then impoosible feats like free-standing walls that weren't load-bearing. Lots of glass was used by certain architects after World War I who subscribed to a belief that if they opened the world to as much actual light as possible, then everything would be fine from then on.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM:
Thank you. But you're still not hitting the nail on the head with your following statement of what you think the problem is. The problem is not whether or not people are not challenging themselves to build things, and so are relying on what you think modernism is as architecture.
The problem is actually that people don't educate themselves on what modernism as a movement was, and instead of trying to draw inspiration from the architecture and architectural doctrine and treatises of the time, they just default to some ugly boxy crap thinking they're the next Frank Lloyd Wright. Modernism produced some absolutely astounding ideas and advancements towards the development of architecture. It also produced some gorgeous buildings that are still around today by some of recent history's most revered architects. The problem is that people have one very close-minded idea of what Modernism is, and since that idea fits in with the boxiness of Minecraft, they figure that it'd make a perfect Minecraft build. Which it does. But it's nothing unique or new.
I wish you would have mentioned this, but I guess not everything can be expected to go as planned all of the time.
--Architecture student at Syracuse University School of Architecture,
Dec 23, 2013Posted in: Creative ModeQuote from Blitzgrutel
Thanks for the answer. You made a good fly-by of the current architecture notions. I know all these things because I've personnaly studied eco-friendly building, but I'm french and describing that is very hard for me, so I thank you also for that. So all that you are stating there is true, and it's from this that I start to try to imagine what it could be in 200 years from here!
Thinking that, I also try to consider that the humanity would not have consume the world as it did, and so not having to transit from the world current state to a more eco-friendly world.
So basically, what you're saying is that "I'm only imagining some new time period in an entirely different universe where humans decided not to industrialize the world." With this logic, you could basically ignore anything up to this point, and really in this case, environmentalism doesn't matter at all, because environmentalism wouldn't be a thing if industrialization weren't a thing. Do you see what I mean? It's almost entirely useless to argue that your city is being environmentally friendly and all that if you're basically imagining an entirely new world.
So in 200 years, we will be inside the nano golden age for sure. So I will take each statement, and I will write what I think that it will be in 200 years. So I will use it as a base reference to make a more presice and pertinent talk!
Ok so what could be the materials in 200 years... With the help of nano technology, I think that we could have for example, rubbery concrete, or diamond hard plastic. We would be able to re-arrange molecules of any materials to make the structure more solid, and why not bendable at the same time?? We could create materials that could be 5 times the size of a bus, but being enough light to be pushed by a couple of mens.
Where are you getting this information from? Anything that's 200 years from now is purely hypothesis, and is really just science fiction. Think back to what life and technology was like in the early 1800s. People were using horses, and guns that held more than one bullet were still a fairly new invention. Cars weren't a thing, and neither was electricity. Gas-powered lighting was still the norm, and "environmentalism" wasn't even a word. Modern medicine and the germ hadn't been invented yet, and even Darwinian evolution (which is now considered outdated) hadn't come around until the mid/late 1800s). Therefore anything you're saying now is purely fantasy and has no basis against my architectural claims.
Ok so it would not be concrete. I think that it will be a special polymer that react to ions. What I mean is about vines. Some vines use parts of themselves to hang to a material. But some of them just "stick" on walls. To a molecular size, the plant is changing the ions of the cells that will touch the wall to magnetically stick!!! So I think that the material used in 200 years will be some sort of polymer that react to these kind of things, and any other nature thing that would try to climb, stick or live on it, just letting the surface completely sterilised of anything. Not destroying but just basically repelling living things.
This still doesn't get to the point. My point is that your idea is to have this ugly white building plopped down onto a natural landscape, which deters any life from it. Whether or not climbing vines will make their way onto it (because those already do that with pretty much any building nowadays) is irrelevant. With a heavy white building (made from whatever you wish to imagine), you're effectively dominating nature and claiming the land as your own. Does that not go entirely against environmentalism? For centuries, people did without concrete and steel, and made their homes and buildings out of the natural materials around them. Is that not more in the spirit of being environmentally friendly?
What I am thinking about this option is all that huge amount of earth that will have to be moved somewhere. The roads would have to let trucks pass. Just think about the volume of earth for just a small town... Where would we put all this earth?? Perhaps using it to make some new materials...
And also, but this is not some realty considering, it will take less time to build the roads like that in Minecraft.
All of the earth that you'd dig up in order to make underground tunnels could easily be turned around to make houses that are similar to adobe houses of old (i.e. take all of the clay and dirt you mined up, wet it, and turn it into bricks to build with). If you don't put your transportation underground, you'll be doing lots more damage to the ecology by having to mine out tons of iron and coal to manufacture steel beams, process tons of sand in factories to manufacture glass, throw tones of waste and smog into the air to produce cars people can drive, and ultimately put out tons of noise and smog pollution into the overworld.
I will build a city center. This place is something just beside a botanical garden and near a protected island. So with just a few houses because of some high level normes of zoning. I'm even thinking to destroy the domes pillar of the botanical and just let low height scattered houses. The city center, I've just started to build it, and it will be a real challenge hehe!
This totally ignores my statement. My point is that you use way more land, and way more energy to try to create small scattered housing for people than if you create condensed urban housing (such as an apartment complex, or the idea of collectivist housing that was popular in Russia in the 1920s). Imagine your current street. On my own street, there live maybe 150 or 200 people. For a whole street. If everyone were to live in a condensed apartment complex, we'd all still live comfortably and happily, but we'd take up only an 1/8 of the space, therefore saving the world of less pollution, less energy and resource consumption, and less land use and waste.
Dec 22, 2013As far as Minecraft buildings go, you've produced some really beautiful things here, and have some cool ideas.Posted in: Creative Mode
As far as realism goes, and my concerns with this as a student of architecture (and mind you, I'm no professional, nor do my current opinions reflect those of the majority in the profession):
- Most of your buildings could not support things like running rivers and large groves of trees on their roofs; this is why the majority of "green roofs" that you see being built have gardens on top with grasses and maybe small fruit trees, but nothing like these large oaks you're putting in. It's just too much weight to be practical with the structure.
- Using white as a main material. Blah. No. White is great if you're concerned with making things look super sleek and modern and clean. But if you want something that blends in with nature and really alludes to its environment, go for natural materials, like cobble that mimics the stones found in the river, or trees that mimic the forested environment. And these materials you're using can be just as eco-friendly as using white concrete (which is the material I assume you're using), because they'll attract wildlife and foster growth of the natural community more so than clearing a site to plop white buildings on.
- Roads should not be done above ground. As another person stated before, if you're trying to be environmentally friendly, build your infrastructure below ground using a tunnel system, which is much less likely to affect the trees up top (given you go deep enough).
- Useless features like "water as a design feature", or those twisty-turn-ey bridges you've got are entirely that: useless. They don't save anyone money or resources, or time or energy. Don't do it.
- While we're on the topic of wastes of energy, resources, money, and time, let's talk about your houses. Individual houses like suburban are costly in real life, way more than an apartment in the city. The reason for that isn't just because they're privately built for private owners. It's also because they take up way more space and use way more energy to build and maintain than slotted housing in urban environments.
To sum up: The designs are really cool as far as Minecraft buildings go. But if you're really trying to be environmentally friendly, don't focus on de-urbanization. Urbanization is what works best for efficiency and ecology for people. Focus more on trying to refit the urban environment, rather than trying to dismantle the urban environment.
Dec 21, 2013Posted in: ScreenshotsQuote from tembrook
I'm glad this post was brought back up to the top, these are some sweet ideas! I never thought to put furnaces under lava, that's a cool way to hide them!
Why thank you! I might start doing these again when I find time and inspiration.
Dec 20, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack DiscussionQuote from insomniac_lemon
Ok, softened dirt. Stone.... isn't so bad and doesn't bother me like dirt did. Like I said, I will redo it hopefully soon.
Oh my god this pack is looking better and better by the minute.
Dec 19, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack DiscussionQuote from insomniac_lemon
Another update on this, heavily changed wool reducing contrast (also redid nether brick):
I like the wools and the nether brick. Good job there! Now maybe try softening the stone and dirt?
Dec 18, 2013Rillian posted a message on Anyone here a Minecraft builder? You'll like this. [Minecraft Builder Pack 11.2013]If you want builders to use this pack, add more screenshots that are closer up of the actual blocks. Show pictures of landscapes, and builds, and all of the new things you do with your work.Posted in: WIP Resource Pack
EDIT: Also this is totally not a texture pack.
EDIT2: Just checked the post date. Oops.
Dec 18, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack DiscussionQuote from Goodlyay
I want to use CTM on the west and east sides of grass for a separate texture, to achieve this effect:
However, I have never used CTM. I read some of Deonyi's guide and did the best I could, but the texture is not appearing.
Here is my folder structure, file names, and properties file:
Any help is appreciated!
Grar did this with one of his shaders he was working on for his pack. Not sure if he still has that version.
Dec 18, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack HelpQuote from Festusmail
Do not get ravands realistic it sucks if you want a good pack just get john smith.
Nope. John Smith is not really a "realistic" texturepack. More like stylized and rugged. The most realistic one out there (or at least, the one used for lots of terrain things currently) is Conquest. And for modern stuff, most use Flows HD.
Dec 18, 2013Posted in: Resource Pack DiscussionQuote from XSSheep
EDIT: Also for some reason peyt, I keep thinking your logs are wider than 16x. Every time I see them I just think 'gee, that's one wide log'. Don't ask me why, I think I'm starting to lose my mind...
That is so true though. But you know what they say about wide logs...wide branches.
By the way, how does one go about making a custom skybox?
- To post a comment, please login.