I would definitely say the old shale looks better, more shape to it and easily identifiable. The new one has some harsh horizontal tiling eye hurting line.
And here some more of my stuff in before I die of sleep deprivation:
Embedded the ores a bit more
New plank types above the corresponding log type
New stone brick
New netherrack next to the obisdian-top right
I know there's tons of solid colors, I still have to do shading with only 4 colors.
Anyway, I'm overhauling and redoing some of my older textures. Opinions?
I'm liking that moss on the mossy stone brick, there's a good sense of depth. Maybe it could do with some moss in the center of the bricks though? Or perhaps up the contrast on the base stone brick texture, the stone brick feels a bit flat in comparison.
In the future, I would suggest using imgur instead of photobucket, as imgur makes viewing images and albums easier and doesn't do annoying things such as provide direct links through copy fields with ~original appended to the file type (not all forum softwares recognize that blah.png~original is actually a png)
VVarMachine gathers the players of the games, and who better to include than those that develop changes for the games? samohtj hit the nail pretty square on the head. VVarMachine and the TAU are two separate entities, but because of the resources and playerbase of VVAR we have more abilities to host and provide, such as the server, website, etc etc. The main business of the TAU will continue on here just as it always has. On another note, I must be doing something wrong. What is the data value for the grass side overlay and the dirt with snow block?
Okay, I was just getting a little bit concerned looking at this.
Currently, I don't really see how vvarmachine is beneficial to texture artists. Because if the intent is to move the discussion of textures function of this thread over to vvarmachine forums, I'd say that would only decrease the audience we could reach (or we could post the same thing on both MCF and vvarmachine, but that's just adding more work.) If only the administration of TAU is moved over, then that would just make things confusing, opaque, and increase the barrier to entry.
I'd support having a branch at vvarmachine, but I'd much rather the main base of operations stay here.
Instead of edting every texture to be black and white, I'd suggest editing the desaturate shader to be full greyscale. It would mean editing a lot less files and would take up much less space, plus it would avoid the issue of hardcoded colors.
All you can really do at this point is shoot off some DMCA notices. I can pretty much guarantee the Russian sites won't care, I doubt the webhosts would care either assuming they're Russian, but Google might remove the offending pages from the search results.
Disclaimer: I have never actually tried this, or heard of a texture artist trying it.
Generally, if someone is making any significant build, they would get a resource pack specifically for it. In normal gameplay, you could stray far from the default and not cause issues. That's what I count on, because some of my textures are far from the defaults.
That stone looks really nice though. And the stone brick looks pretty good, but I think the texture on the bricks merges a bit too much into the mortar. Maybe have a bit less contrast within the mortar, but at the same time a bit darker than the bricks.
True. I was just pointing out another viewpoint to consider.
In answer to your question though, the default Sandstone top and bottom textures are supposedly seamless. However, there are no rules to your textures, so you can choose if you want them to be tiles or be seamless. Be creative and use your own mind, try to avoid using default textures as an influence, because frankly, they aren't good.
Only problem is that if you stray too far from default, builds made with default have the potential to look bad with you texture pack and vice versa.
It has a vertical pattern because they are wire-cut bricks, which are a very common universal type. There are several buildings in the town I live next to made entirely of bricks, and that is the type they all use. Wire-cut bricks are bricks formed by slicing a brick-sized piece from a bulk-length of clay with a wire tool. After the clay is formed into a large, rectangular piece of material, it is sliced into several brick sized pieces by pushing wires through the material. The slicing of the clay in wire-cut bricks leaves a sign in the cured surface of the brick that renders them easily recognizable. A rough surface, created during the slicing procedure of wire-cut bricks, is produced through the stretching of the clay as the wire is pushed and forced through the material. These wires are pressed through vertically, leaving the pattern on the bricks as they are seen on many buildings.
yes corner_g is correct about the bricks. However, you wouldn't normaly use those bricks on the facade of a building. They are most commonly used as a foundation and you later put polished wire-cut bricks facing the street/outside. Maybe you just live in a really fancy neighbourhood, where they can afford to use the wire-cut non polished bricks the way they are suppost to.be used. And thus you have not seen them since htey are inside the walls of various buildings.
EDIT: Most of the time they are only polished on one side.
Well, that was "gathered" information.
I found the information through several sites. I was surprised to see that Wikipedia only had a page for bricks in general, and it didn't mention wire-cut bricks.
Anyway, the buildings using those types of bricks around where I live are a few schools and business buildings. There is one building, a post office I believe, that was only recently constructed. That building may have had those bricks, but they applied some sort of lacquer and actually painted them before they opened the building, so I couldn't tell.
Probably just something that depends on the area you're in. Stone-textured bricks (not sure of the technical name for such a type) sound like they would be expensive, so places in a financial slump would probably not use them. Or vise-versa. Anyway, I tried making a simple stone texture on it before, but it didn't really look great. Likely because that would require small, subtle detail that I couldn't fit into a 64x64 texture. Maybe I just happened to have a good day, or maybe that style works better, but for whatever reason, they came out much better than my old ones and much better than my other attempts, so I'm fine with it.
1
Yes, about that...
2
I'm liking that moss on the mossy stone brick, there's a good sense of depth. Maybe it could do with some moss in the center of the bricks though? Or perhaps up the contrast on the base stone brick texture, the stone brick feels a bit flat in comparison.
-+-
Also, after (yet another) hiatus, obsidian!
0
On a side note, does anyone here know what exactly the distinction is between regular packs and pvp packs?
1
Also, this should work for embedding images.
In the future, I would suggest using imgur instead of photobucket, as imgur makes viewing images and albums easier and doesn't do annoying things such as provide direct links through copy fields with ~original appended to the file type (not all forum softwares recognize that blah.png~original is actually a png)
0
Okay, I was just getting a little bit concerned looking at this.
0
I'd support having a branch at vvarmachine, but I'd much rather the main base of operations stay here.
0
Remember the good old days when mob skins were simple?
Mossy cobble.
0
EDIT: ninja'd
2
0
0
Disclaimer: I have never actually tried this, or heard of a texture artist trying it.
0
Please take down the adf.ly link w/ faithful textures.
0
True. I was just pointing out another viewpoint to consider.
Better?
0
Only problem is that if you stray too far from default, builds made with default have the potential to look bad with you texture pack and vice versa.
The white of the text is a bit hard to see against the pale buttons, might want to make the buttons a bit darker.
Bedrock and regular and cracked stone brick.
0
See: