Enzer

Again, looks like the OP is testing mod compatibility using MultMC: "First off, let me start by saying that this is based on the downloads based off the launchers of the new Tekkit pack, and the launcher of TFC. They were both on Minecraft 1.5.1... I think. And I'm using MultiMC to manage the mods to make this possible." Not sure for what purpose, but I assume he is trying to make as close a list to mimic what Tekkit offers for a similar experience, a "Tekkit+TFC", but instead of using Platform to distribute a mod pack, he's just showing what people can put together themselves using MultMC? Unsure until OP comes out and explains in clearer detail what he is doing, just general speculation right now from me, don't really see the harm in what he is doing, especially since he isn't providing a download link to a mod pack.

Looks like he is using MultiMC to test mod compatibility with TFC using a list of mods used in the latest Tekkit?

Should be better in future snapshots, DB has been repeatedly saying to ignore it for right now since it isn't working as intended at all and is just the basic framework. From what he said the spawning will be from player damage only and the spawning will not be "falling from the sky".

If it is TPS related lag, something is eating a ton of processes in the game. Are you playing on a freshly generated world (lots of new chunks loading)? It could just be something with the current version that is out, did you get the same issue on the last stable version of TFC? Again, at this point it sounds like its more a processor issue than a graphical one. I'm usually pretty good at pinpointing this stuff when it comes to server TPS issues, but I am not fully familiar with TFC enough to figure out what exactly could be the TPS issue.

So the meter is telling you are getting low TPS (ticks per second), if that is the case, something is eating up a lot of processes. Usually you only see this when you have a lot of stuff going on, like if you have a lot of technical mods running or if you have a shit ton of item frames with zoomed out maps put into them. In this case, it isn't so much a GPU issue, but a processor issue. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you by what you mean on tick lag. Out of curiosity, on a fresh install, same set up that you have up there, but without optifine, what kind of performance are you getting?

Awesome. I've noticed that, with laptops, MC defaulting to integrated video cards has been a major issue. This has been especially cropping up with the new launcher. So just a reminder when the game updates to 1.6 and you have to use the new launcher, double check if your laptop switched back over to integrated graphics! DB had to answer this graphics issue like ten times yesterday. Wonder how EpicOrange is fairing.

Again, 32 or 64 bit java and what OS are you using? (for example windows 7 32 bit or 64 bit). Also, are you on a laptop or pc. If you are on a laptop, are you restricted to integrated graphics (if not make sure that Minecraft isn't defaulting to that), if you are using a PC, what graphics card do you have? Though you've gotten some improvement, it seems very odd that you are getting such low performance. Is this also with optifine installed still?

Good to hear you found a solution. Not to long ago MC had a big red text that would pop up in the graphics menu if it detected you were using 32 bit java when you should be using 64 bit. Wonder if that went away or if Optifine hid it. Rather odd.

One nice thing is that I believe Forge implemented a way to import .obj files recently, so there are a lot more options for making new models for MC mods now. While I've haven't done anything model related in ages, I wonder if Bioxx and Dunk would be OK if people submitted models for them (with no promises to use them of course). If memory serves me right, I think we have a few people who hang around here who are good with rendering models.

As Dunk said, it may be what version of Optifine you are using, I would also like to throw out that not all hardware set ups work with any version of Optifne. I am one of those people, regardless of what type of Optifine I use, it makes the game unplayable. Gwtheyrn also makes a good point about RAM allocations. How much ram does your system have? If you open up notepad and put in: java -Xmx2048M -Xms2048M -jar "Minecraft.exe" or java -Xmx4096M -Xms4096M -jar "Minecraft.exe" And then save save that file as Minecraft.bat, you can use that file to launch minecraft with higher ram allocation. The first part I listed is for allocating 2 gigs or ram, the second 4 gigs or ram, don't allocate more than your system is able to give. You will also want to put the bat file where ever your launcher is (your minecraft.exe), which is probably on your desktop. Another thing to try is see if you have up to date drivers for you graphics card (what graphics card are you using? Also are you on a PC, Laptop or Mac?). Are you just using Optifine for the performance upgrade it gives? You may be better off trying allocate more RAM and running it without Optifine. The good news is that the Rendering update should be out sometime between 1.6-1.7 for vanilla Minecraft, so you may see better performance then. Keep us updated on how these changes affect you, will try to give more help if needed.

It can be really finicky and breaks if you move to sharp/fast, but I have had luck leashing a horse or another passive mob, then mounting another horse and dragging the leashed animal as I ride.

Horses have a lot of advantages over pigs. -Horses do not require an item that degrades over time, to be used as a mount. -Horses trotting speed is as fast if not faster than a fully sprinting pig. -Horses use WASD controls instead of horrible mouse look that pigs use. This means that your hands are free to use another tool such as a sword. Or better yet, you can use a rope while on horse back to leash passive mobs and drag them with you. That's right, they added wrangling to the game. The keyboard control is a lot more fine tuned than what pigs allow, which often take a moment to either adjust to a turn or come to a complete stop. -Horses can jump. They can jump pretty damn high at that. It seems that each breed of horse has a separate max jumping height. -Horses can be ridden across water, pigs become dead in the water. -Horses have a ton more health than a pig does, and it varies with each breed. Horses also can equip armor, combine that with the fast movement speed, controls, and the ability to use a sword while mounted on a horse, they are so much better for using to explore dangerous terrain. -Donkey/Mules have been shown to be able to equip chests. While this is only a visual change right now, this will likely be a full feature. This means that those breeds will be great for item transport, a thing that pigs cannot do, even more so when you consider riding on a donkey and having a second one leashed to you as you ride. While rideable pigs seemed a neat idea, if silly, their controls are god awful and the fact that you are limited to use them based on how many carrot on a sticks you decide to stuff into your inventory makes them a poor choice of transport. Compared to the controls and abilities of the new horse, there really is no comparing they are that much better.

One way to go about this is limiting how long you can fully draw your bow. I'm not suggesting adding a stamina gauge (though that could do the work. I am a fan of archery changes made by the Skyrim Redone mod for, well, Skyrim), but having an archer fully draw his bow and then just hold it like that until he has perfect aim doesn't seem to be very balanced. The arm would get fatigued and thus the aim would wavier more, you'd think. So instead of making aiming more difficult, you could limit the how long one is able to draw the bow. Which means you need to learn to be a quick aim. Another thing to consider is different types of bows and how long they take to draw. While I am not suggesting flint arrows be able to pierce plate armor, I would think that to penetrate plate you'd need at least a basic metal head and a bow that has a lot of strength behind it. Of course such a bow takes more physical strength to draw, longer to draw and more straining to keep fully drawn. So to pierce plate it could be that you'd need a strong bow and to hit at full draw to pierce armor to a useful degree. Drawing the bow should drastically limit the players movement speed, making the player make sure they have a good aim before they reach full draw or else lose strength in the shot. This will slow them down a bit, giving a potentially slower full plate player time to close in with his sword or big ass hammer. You could also throw in a slight wavering to the aiming reticule depending on how various factors in the current bow and how long you have been holding the shot. This kind of scenario means that to fight against fully armored enemies while being light on your feet and keeping your distance will be more on player skill then penalty mechanics. Like the smithing system, players who are interested in being an archer will learn the system and find the right timings on when they can move and when they should fire. In fact, I think that if done right archery could very well be one of the most in-depth fighting mechanics TFC could improve on. To balance this all out is the fact that archery is pretty shit in closed confines such as narrow hallways or caves and arrows with strong, piercing, heads is very expensive material wise. While it might take a ton of materials to make great plate armor, it will take a ton of material for an archer using cheaper leather armor to make enough arrows to comfortable take on a well armored opponent. And while the armor the enemy is wearing might get damaged, it will still be functional unlike the arrows that may break and shatter, thus lost forever. Of course this is all talking about fighting a slower heavier armed enemy. There should be lighter bows for dealing with those using lighter armors or wild life that are faster to fire since you are more worried about penetrating flesh and keeping aim on a faster target. Combat in games like this fascinates me and I am really wondering what the dev team will come up with since it has been a hot topic among our server community.

Yeah, I only deal with texture work so I'm not affected by the rendering stuff, but I can only imagine how bad it is going to be for you when that update drops. That said the hard work you (and Dunk) put in to this mod is greatly appreciated.

Outside of the initial conversion, from a texture artist standpoint this is actually a smart thing for Mojang to do. Relying on several sheets to contain all your texture is pretty poor practice. The new format allows Mojang to add new blocks to the game without instantly breaking 3rd party textures. A new block gets added? That is cool, I don't have to wait for the snapshot to come out that has the texture in it, redo it in whatever style my pack is in, and hope that its location doesn't change on the sheet when the patch is finally pushed out. Texture artist are able to breath a little, knowing that new blocks or items will use the default textures and not break the rest of the texture pack. The other benefit of the new format is not only was support for higher resolution textures added, but you can now mix resolutions. I can have 16, 32 or 64 textures in the same pack without issue, this was not possible with the old sheet format. From the perspective of a texture artist making support for mods in their texture pack, it is also very handy. I know a few big texture artist who wished that modders didn't rely on texture sheets since it makes keeping mod support maintained really hard. A lot of mods update rapidly, adding new items, changing blocks and sometimes changing the location on texture sheets for various blocks. It is a right pain in the ass. So yeah, is the intial change for converting textures over a big pain in the ass? Yes, but the benefits and long term impact the new format has, is worth the effort, I think. Also, Bioxx, you are saying changes in rendering is causing issues, are you aware of the new rendering engine (a complete rewrite of the rendering engine, they've been talking about this since a little before the 2012 Minecon) that they will be implementing possibly between patch 1.6 and 1.7? Can't find the other tweet, but Jeb indicated that a new launcher and LWJGL update are required before they can push the render. A recent tweet from Jeb stated that 1.6 is aimed for a May release. This tweet ( https://twitter.com/...256269926117376 ) reveals that the LWGJL and launcher will be pushed with 1.6, or at least planned to be, and recent talks on Jeb and Dinnerbone's twitter gives a good indication that the rendering engine is more than likely done and ready for testing (engine is being done by Grum). While this sounds like its going to be a nightmare again with trying to get things working again with the new engine (it will), before people start bashing it because it is going to cause issues in the modding community (like the texture update), keep in mind that MC's current rendering engine (the one written by Notch) is really bad and is in dire need of an update. Furthermore, this rewrite will mark another step done in the process of them being able to get an API together (they need to get all the background engine stuff hammered down and working write before they push out an API.. otherwise if they push out the API then have to rewrite parts of the engine, guess what, the API breaks as does everything that uses it. This update will also allow the rendering engine to be more open to modders trying to tinker with it, while this may not be fully accessible until an API is out that allows the interaction, it is a step in the right direction).

Yeah, gotta say that is pretty awesome. The TFC devs are some of my favorite in the community for a reason.

The issue is how Platform works. Platform provides, well, a platform for people to create mod packs, share them via their own hosting, and automatically do the installation for the end user. Platform, and to that extension Technic, have no legal means of policing data not stored on their own owned servers. While I understand that this may not be the most ideal thing, it is similar in ways to torrent software, some people use it for 'legal' intended purposes, others take advantage of it. The developers of torrent technology should not be held reliable for how their work is used, if someone wants to protect their copyright material, they have to do it themselves, there are legal tools for them to do so. Technic does not have the man power, let alone the means, to see if permissions were actually granted as in some cases permission is just granted in informal agreements in IRC rooms, there are also many other reasons why it would be impractical. Technic is only reliable for the works of mod developers they themselves host and distribute such as the Tekkit Lite Pack. The staff responsible for maintaining open channels with developers, Ice Wolf I believe is his name, does a fairly good job. But again, that is up to personal opinion based on IRC conversations I have witnessed and I do not wish to get into an argument over matter of opinions. The legal option for mod developers is to contact the hosting provider (by seeing what the mod pack's URL links to) and contacting them with a DMCA. I will not, knowing a bit about this subject, that a Counter Notification Letter can be easily written up in less than an hour to protect the rights that the mod pack maker has. (I will not go into discussion on that subject, far too off topic and I don't think anyone wants to hear about it anyway.. Let us just say that, legally, derivative work and software modification is a very nasty thing to deal with legally. The laws need to be redone completely as everyone's rights get stepped on with the current system). Again, hopefully Mojang will come out with a similar first party system with their Mod Repository and all this nonsense will be finally be over with. Anyway, I'll hush up now about this, sorry the derailment. Bioxx, thank you for answering my questions, and of course thank you to you and Dunk (and the rest who have helped) for making such an awesome mod.

Fair enough and I can understand your reasoning for your decisions. I will admit that I am slightly disappointed in the decision. I can respect your wishes with not wanting to be associated with Technic (though they have been working hard to comply with developer wishes for some time now and, as far as I can tell, are in compliance with their current supported packs), they have been more driven on developing tools for the community to use with Platform being one of the biggest changes I can see coming to the field of personally modifying how you want to play minecraft and then sharing it with others. As for Technic, they seem to be trying to separate their name from Plaftorm the best they can. They understand that there are people who just wont work with them because of their past, but they are trying their best to provide a great tool to help the client/user side of the modding community and I really cannot find fault in them trying to help improve things. Again I would suggest looking at http://www.technicpack.net/modpack/details/big-dig-pack.57 as an example of the community using these tools right, but your opinions are your own. As a hypothetical question, Platform allows you to set a pack as private, this is for distributing the pack to only whoever you give the pack url code to as opposed to anyone who sees the pack on the Platform directory. Are you OK with people using Platform to create private instances of TFC to be handed out for either a personal server or on a forum they are part of the community of? Would you still require people to get permissions ahead of time for that? Sorry for all the questions, just generally curious is all. I think the usefulness of Platform is astounding regardless of who created it and I hope that Mojang is able to make a system half as useful for their Mod Repository/Server-Client mod installation system they've hinted about in the past and most recently discussed at the 2012 Minecon. Maybe then all this mod pack nonsense will finally die as it will be integrated in vanilla's systems.

Not to stir up shit, but where is TFC's license agreement? I thought it used to be under the download section, but after one of the more recent revisions to the pages I cannot seem to find it under Credits, the Wiki, the front page, downloads. It is not clearly stated under the forums from what I can see either. Isn't TFC under an open software license? While yes, Honkfish should have asked for permissions first, I am kind of confused by the dev's team sudden waffling on mod packs. Bioxx has stated that he does not support mod packs of any kind. "Closing this thread because the thread title suggests an illegal activity. Also, I do not support modpacks of any kind. This includes technic. As to MDub's installer, I am not against automated installers as long as the mod zips or not distributed along with it and the source is available for interested parties to look at. I have thought about doing something like that at some point anyways. That said, MultiMC is extremely easy to use. There is no real NEED for a one click solution. Maybe some wants because a few folks can't be bothered to read 4 lines of instructions, but not a need for one." http://terrafirmacra...license__st__20 What changed the developers' minds on this, if I might ask? I really do not see the benefit myself when they (FTB) do not properly credit mods (all mods listed on their site have "Some Info" and "Version X.xx" for all mods listed on their homepage and their promised donation links are still not set up when that would take, what, 30 min to an hour of html work at most? I just don't understand making a standpoint of not wanting TFC to be in any modpack, then suddenly jumping on the FTB train with no real reason given and then shooting down others who are attempting to spread TFC to those who refuse to use FTB (while I do not play Tekkit nor use Platform since most of the mods available through those services are not my cup of tea, FTB by no grounds has clean hands in not holding up the standard's their fanbase seems to warcry about as well as have been quite assholes to several modders themselves, such as MachineMuse). I mean at least Honkfish, though he did not ask for permissions, had the decency of including credit to Bioxx which is more than FTB has done for their own listed mods. "As to MDub's installer, I am not against automated installers as long as the mod zips or not distributed along with it and the source is available for interested parties to look at. I have thought about doing something like that at some point anyways." This is another thing I am confused about. Platform doesn't host any of the content, its more or less an installer wrap for Minecraft, you input a URL and it downloads and installs a mod. It is a bit of an iffy situation, but where is the line between mod pack with the mod zips distributed with the pack and an installer that downloads the pack from offsite? It sounds like Platform, for how I understand it works, would satisfy the conditions Bioxx set forth for an automated installer, in principle. So yeah, I am just kind of confused. I see a lot of drama in the modding community over mod packs and it is always just interesting to read. Again, I don't mean to stir shit up or cause any wars, but I'd really like to know what is going on. One finale question, I do have, and would honestly like to have this at least listed. If someone approaches Bioxx and Dunk either in private or public and asks for permissions with an agreed upon usage license between said person and the developers of TFC, would they be allowed to form a pack for Platform as Platform follows the rules of "I am not against automated installers as long as the mod zips or not distributed along with it and the source is available for interested parties to look at". As, again, Platform only installs packs, does not host them, all packs would be stored separately off site. It also has its source code open for anyone to look at. Would the developers consider it under the following license agreements? -Credit is clearly stated using the information found on the website's credit page. This information would be included under the Permissions & Licensing tab available on all Platform Packs. -Credit mentioned a second time to at least Bioxx and Dunk under the Description's Tab as well as a direct link to TerraFirmaCraft's Web Page and a direct link to the TerraFirmaCraft Donate link, with a throw out to support the developers if you enjoyed the mod. -Specifically stated instructions to not bother the developers of TerraFirmaCraft for issues that arise from using the pack and include specific instructions on how to contact the Pack's maintainer for any help the user base may need. I believe that would be a fairly reasonable license between the developers and the pack maintainer. There is nothing wrong, at least I feel, with allowing a permission granted pack on Platform, the [/url=http://www.technicpack.net/modpack/details/big-dig-pack.57]most popular pack on Platform currently holds permissions with his mods, has a very well put together mod list using the Solder API, a decent change log, and actively promotes and asks users to support the developers in his description page as well as actively trouble shoots under the discussion tab. So would the developers be OK with that? Not saying that I am asking to do this myself, I simply do not have the time right now, but with TFC coming to FTB in the future and the increasing popularity of Platform (there are already 3 ''unoffical" TFC packs), maybe setting the ground rules clear for what is and isn't allowed, how to go about asking for permissions, having stated license for TFC (again, am I being blind, I can't find it anymore) and looking into getting someone from this community to set up a Platform pack so that the developers have better control over an "official" Platform option for those who do not wish to use or associate with those behind FTB for whatever personal reason. If putting the mod on FTB is even partially about getting the mod out to more people, why not play both fields?

Ideas are not uniquely your own. That is why you cannot slap a copyright on ideas. For programs, you can copyright code (as long as it is not derivative work, there are other copyright processes for that) and you can copyright your art assets, but ideas cannot be copyrighted. Dude adds materials found in the real world, just because TFC does the same thing, doesn't mean that it is copying TFC. It would be like one technical mod yelling at another for using electrical systems or cables, just because their mod "did it first". Heck, even the MC dev team had to bring this up at the 2012 Minecon that ideas are not uniquely owned by people, so stop freaking out when they add features to vanilla MC that other mods have done. Same goes for mods having features other mods have implemented. Underground Biomes looks to be using his own art assets, and I am pretty sure he doesn't have any of the world gen code from TFC b/c that would be very easy to spot (change in sea level for one), and it would be way to much a pain in the ass to reverse engineer the TFC code.

Its cool Dunk, maybe you should just keep a standard reply to suggestions like these? Something along the lines of "Suggestion noted, however it doesn't fall within the scope of the mod/our current capabilities/MC engine's capabilities". Either way, we can see where you are coming from on this and how it can be frustrating, being the main voice on the forums.

No, I got the TFC site whitelisted for adblock and I've tried disabling the plugin completely. I'll have to double check to see if there is something else I'm running blocking them. :/

That isn't how config files work. They do not contain any real code themselves, they are just a list of values that the mod code refers to to see if certain functions are enabled. Adding config files does not give a person open access to the code, let alone the ability to copy code. If someone rehosted the mod with their modified config files, it would still be infringement on the mod's code as the config file, even with values changed, is still the original code, not to mention the other 99% of the mod's code. There would be no hiding that it was TFC and config files do not give you enough access to anything to alter enough to hide it so. Adding configs for tree growth rate or ore generation isn't posting a file with the code for those items, it is just a spot you can insert a variable that the actual code will check when needed to. It is how the hoe's color values are changeable by the players for the farming systems. Not to sure what you are getting at really, most mods have config files for a rather large list of things pertaining to their respective mods and every commercial game I own has config files. The proper argument for not including config file options for what the OP was asking for is because the developers do not wish to have that aspect of control in the player hands. If it is something they wish to edit, they would be free to write a plugin that works on top of TFC (as the core mod) after TFC is out of Beta and Bioxx has given permission for open add-on development (like in the case of IC2 and fan made IC2 add ons).

API is not slated for 1.5 (wild rumored started on a few places including the MCF's new section which incorrectly reported such and took a day to correct their info), which has a tentative release date of January. However some things they discussed on the API panel will be in the 1.5 update. This include updates to the rendering engine, the support for HD textures of all sizes, custom water/lava/fire and support for animated textures. Dinnerbone's twitter confirms this as well. They also talked about a new system where block IDs and the such were no longer going to be hard coded (something to do with the future plugin system and bettering modding, however they did note that this would impact texture packs so that future patches would not break textures and if Mojang pushed new items or blocks, instead of rendering as pink cubes with unupdated texture packs, the game would automatically use the vanilla texture for the new items). It really wasn't all that clear if this system was being pushed with the rendering/texture stuff for the 1.5 update or was something that would come in the future with the API.

Hey, Dunkleosteus, I know this question is kind of out there and you can answer me in PM (or not at all, it is kind of private I guess), but what kind of ad system does Bioxx use? Is he using Google adsense? One suggestion I could throw out is maybe redoing the actual website. A little restructuring of the pages and a little bit more information posted on the main web page would get more users browsing through it and I am sure no one is going to have issues with a discrete vertical ad on the side and a horizontal one tacked onto the bottom of the pages, if it is provided by a trusted service (again, my major suggestion is Adsense). I'm looking through your website and I'm not seeing a single ad, nor are there any on the wiki that I see. Now that the wiki has really improved over how it was a few months ago, I can see the download page, the change log, and the wiki being hit by a lot of people, that should generate more than what ad.fly provides and should, depending on who you go with, be safer than ad.fly as well. Just a suggestion, maybe something to look into, I know you guys are super busy with the mod, let alone personal life. EDIT: I should probably reword about redesign of the website, it is nicely done and I do like it (clean, simply laid out, isn't cluttered), however there could be some improvements made on it, didn't mean to come off as offending or stepping on toes.