You are not logged in.

IC2 Experimental builds (jenkins):
v2.0/2.1/2.2 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.6 (For Minecraft 1.6.4/1.7.2/1.7.10 / 1.8.9 / 1.9.4 / 1.10)
IndustrialCraft² recent version: v1.117! (For Minecraft 1.5.2 → topic)

Dear visitor, welcome to IC² Forum. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Chocohead

Drowning in mods.

  • "Chocohead" is male
  • Korea, Democratic People's Republic of United Kingdom

Posts: 5,979

Location: Badly generated chunks.

  • Send private message

741

Thursday, May 7th 2015, 5:10pm

Also do you have a handy link to that issue around? Unless it was deleted(wouldn't surprise me) I can't seem to find it.
https://github.com/CoFH/Feedback/issues/481
145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
// I just don't know what went wrong :(

I see this too much.

742

Thursday, May 7th 2015, 6:39pm

Thanks chocohead. Tis sad as I suspect FC and Tweaks working together would be amazing.

743

Thursday, May 7th 2015, 11:07pm

I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).

Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?

744

Friday, May 8th 2015, 1:54pm

I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).

Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?
You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...

745

Friday, May 8th 2015, 2:04pm

Entoarox: Try also comparing the value after C: in the F3 screen between FC 1.21 and FC 1.22. You need a normal (non-flat/void) world, not use Optifine and VSync (implicit/explicit) disabled to see a difference I assume. Bugs may be another cause.
The first value after C (before the slash) is smaller with 1.22, that is good right?

746

Friday, May 8th 2015, 5:18pm

Yes, that'd be the amount of 16^3 areas being rendered.

Two: It's not up for discussion atm, the 3 weeks are only after a newer official FC version is released, which doesn't happen very often. A mod pack should be able to easily meet that regardless of FC unless letting the users suffer from fixed bugs is part or the idea..

747

Friday, May 8th 2015, 6:44pm

You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...

And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.

So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.

748

Friday, May 8th 2015, 7:13pm

You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...

And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.

So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.
Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually. (The license is for DISTRIBUTION, not usage)

Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed, by doing your research properly instead of being lazy.
As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?
Because basic banner ads ARE, it is only "wait x seconds to continue" type advertisments or "so much junk we cant see the darned download link" type that are disallowed. (Again, did you even READ the requirements???)
Next, if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place, because you wont be able to support a user-base either.

When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place. (It isnt just "put online and forget it" you know, it requires you to actively take responsibility as the first person for your users to report ANY and ALL issues to!)

749

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 11:32am

]Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually.

That is exactly what I said: I cannot include Fastcraft because of the license issue, so I can only recommend it but not include it. This however is rather annoying for the users of the pack and many are either not reading that part or it is too annoying/complicated for them to do.

Quoted

Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed

I do not choose a launcher for my pack, I can select one of those available. This is an important difference, because I cannot make sure that a launcher will have the required options and I especially cannot make sure that a launcher still has such an option in 1 year. So if I have to limit my options just because of one mod, that mod won't be in the pack.

Quoted

As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?

Yes I did, but you are obviously not a legal expert.
"The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free"
Free of charge I can do, but ad-free is beyond my abilities if I host that mod let's say on Curse, because it is up to them to decide whether there will be ads or not. And again I cannot guarantee that it will be ad-free now or in the future, so I cannot include Fastcraft again.

Quoted

if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place

For once have you considered that this is not my job? I might have other things to do or be on a business trip for a month or two, or even just have vacation somewhere, where I can not check this. And then the license also says that I would be forced to include the latest Fastcraft version even if that completely breaks the mod-pack. So again, as the license is very strange here, it is better to not have it in the pack in the first place.

Quoted

When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place.

Here is another theory: I am an expert on software development and project management and just know a lot more about licenses, legal issues, update hassles and potential pitfalls than you are even aware of. And because of that my request is actually very valid. The fact that most other mod-packs do not include Fastcraft for the very same reasons is a good hint that the license as it stands right now is probably not very fitting.

750

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 4:57pm

]Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually.

That is exactly what I said: I cannot include Fastcraft because of the license issue, so I can only recommend it but not include it. This however is rather annoying for the users of the pack and many are either not reading that part or it is too annoying/complicated for them to do.

Quoted

Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed

I do not choose a launcher for my pack, I can select one of those available. This is an important difference, because I cannot make sure that a launcher will have the required options and I especially cannot make sure that a launcher still has such an option in 1 year. So if I have to limit my options just because of one mod, that mod won't be in the pack.

Quoted

As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?

Yes I did, but you are obviously not a legal expert.
"The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free"
Free of charge I can do, but ad-free is beyond my abilities if I host that mod let's say on Curse, because it is up to them to decide whether there will be ads or not. And again I cannot guarantee that it will be ad-free now or in the future, so I cannot include Fastcraft again.
[/qo

Quoted

if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place

For once have you considered that this is not my job? I might have other things to do or be on a business trip for a month or two, or even just have vacation somewhere, where I can not check this. And then the license also says that I would be forced to include the latest Fastcraft version even if that completely breaks the mod-pack. So again, as the license is very strange here, it is better to not have it in the pack in the first place.

Quoted

When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place.

Here is another theory: I am an expert on software development and project management and just know a lot more about licenses, legal issues, update hassles and potential pitfalls than you are even aware of. And because of that my request is actually very valid. The fact that most other mod-packs do not include Fastcraft for the very same reasons is a good hint that the license as it stands right now is probably not very fitting.
Directly from the license:

Quoted

- The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.
So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".

The three weeks rule counts for stable releases, if a thought-stable release interferes with the functioning of a mod-pack, it obviously is not actually stable and thus no longer falls under the license agreement. (And you should be reporting the issue here so Player actually knows it needs fixing.)
Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.

751

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 7:06pm


Quoted

- The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.
So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".

So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
Now if my mod-pack is on Curse, and Curse puts a shitload of ads on their page, is that way to download then ad free?

Quoted

Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.

Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.

Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.

Chocohead

Drowning in mods.

  • "Chocohead" is male
  • Korea, Democratic People's Republic of United Kingdom

Posts: 5,979

Location: Badly generated chunks.

  • Send private message

752

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 7:40pm

So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
No, it means that it mustn't use more than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display for basic banner/text/sponsor ads. That's the except bit right after the bit you highlighted.
145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
// I just don't know what went wrong :(

I see this too much.

753

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 7:45pm

Mod usage

Player: I just wanted to let you know that we plan on using FastCraft in a public mod pack, "M4thCr4ft^2", that will be distributed via the FTB Launcher. Thanks for your work!

Nick_77ab2

Tree Cutter

  • "Nick_77ab2" is male

Posts: 72

Location: HOGWARTS BITCH!

  • Send private message

754

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 8:36pm


Quoted

- The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.
So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".

So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
Now if my mod-pack is on Curse, and Curse puts a shitload of ads on their page, is that way to download then ad free?

Quoted

Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.

Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.

Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.


Quoted

- The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.
So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".

So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
Now if my mod-pack is on Curse, and Curse puts a shitload of ads on their page, is that way to download then ad free?

Quoted

Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.

Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.

Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.

dude stop complaining, your being a lazy person and you're trying to make it complicated and complex, if you don't like his mod and the way it works, just don't use it, got it? now go and stop being a whining baby b/c you can't or won't be able to get him to fix a bug within one second of it's creation, and the fact that you're probably going to answer this saying I don't get a thing, but you know what, I don't care, if you think player will change his license just because you wan't him to, you're wrong, you're not the creator of this mod and therefore you do not have control over it. Even if you are "suggesting a change" it sounds more like you are forcing a change and are trying to confuse us as to what the license actually says.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Nick_77ab2" (May 9th 2015, 8:43pm)


Nick_77ab2

Tree Cutter

  • "Nick_77ab2" is male

Posts: 72

Location: HOGWARTS BITCH!

  • Send private message

755

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 8:38pm

I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).

Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?

another thing you can do is create the modpack on the Technic launcher as it is much easier than trying curse when you have FastCraft in it.

756

Saturday, May 9th 2015, 10:39pm

Mod Use

Thanks for the great Mod Player keep up the great work. And to give you a heads up ill be using this great Mod in my pack .... Tri-Storm on the Feed The Beast Launcher.

Thanks again and keep up the great work Mod Devs

757

Sunday, May 10th 2015, 6:08am

Player: I just wanted to let you know that we plan on using FastCraft in a public mod pack, "KHOM | Realm of Insanity", that will be distributed via the FTB Launcher. Thanks for your work!


you can visit our website at http://kidshookedonminecraft.com/ :)

758

Monday, May 11th 2015, 10:45pm


Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.

Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.
And once more you fail to read properly, As the very issue you bring up I already answered not even 2 paragraphs before, player promotes a build as 'stable' if no issues have been reported with that build, thus, the second anyone runs into repeatable issues with that build, it no longer counts as stable, thus it no longer counts for the licence terms.
(Of course, you will be required to report the issue in order for that build to be able to be marked as problematic, but if you fail to do so it is your own mistake and not in any way Player's fault.)

759

Tuesday, May 12th 2015, 1:31pm

And I have a new test build: (outdated, see new link in a later post)

Besides a few more tweaks this should fix compatibility with Optifine (at reduced performance benefits), ShadersMod and add compatibility for Cauldron (needs testing).

760

Tuesday, May 12th 2015, 10:25pm

Player with the new test build 1.22ctest7 I get a crash loading my home server side not client side

http://pastebin.com/hgSgrzkZ

If I remove fastcraft it loads fine

Previous version of fastcraft works fine.

Counter:

Hits today: 17,526 | Hits yesterday: 80,423 | Hits record: 152,331 | Hits total: 65,182,217