Posts by mtesseract

    His stuff on its turn is based on other textures, such as redpower (the canvas/clothspins) and buildcraft/vanilla and the general style he uses is based off of unity.

    I haven't seen Zerrens online for a while though. And I am personally working on a ZTech/Unity styled resource pack that is for the GTNH Coremod and GalaxySpace/Galacticraft (He misses a lot of textures in the latter).

    And I am also working on the circuits for the coremod atm:

    There is still a lot left to do though

    Hey, amazing work on the textures, I have been using them for over half a year (probably even longer), and it's lovely how well it works with unity.

    some new items added to GT don't have textures yet (some of the LuV+ items (motor, robot arm, pump, etc) don't have textures for example. Also it looks like some of the new items added by the advanced plastic/oil refining chain (like the boards) don't have textures. The gregtech sensor kit has a high res texture. The quantum and gravi star textures are very different from the Unity nether star texture (if you want to make that consistent) and lastly the modular armor currently has a strange high-res texture.

    For IC2, what is the reason to keep some of the textures flat 32x while turning others pretty like the rest of your textures? They seem super out of place next to the rest of your textures. :)

    That because it is in Seting up alpha right now, Bear made that clear in the tour de Server video. May be i should add ths vid as well.

    Ah okay, I didn't get that from the video (I was busy programming on the side while watching/listening ), I just heard he got a chance to try it and that it was closed /whitelisted otherwise.
    When it becomes more open, I'd be interested in joining the fun, if possible. :p

    As someone who does not know, can someone please explain to me how EU differs from RF, and how the IC2 power system differs from other tech mods?

    I do have familiarity with Reika's RotaryCraft, if that helps.

    Well, a big difference between RF and EU is that EU can overload machines since it comes in packets. You can see these as the voltage of the cable.
    For example, you can have packets of 512eu/t or 32eu/t. You can also transport RF at xxxRF/t, but these packages have no influence on the machine they are connected to.
    An important thing to keep in mind is: without upgrades/transformers, you can blow up your machines, smelt your cables, etc.
    RF on the other hand is a pretty consistent flow that doesn't have any impact on the machines.
    In short: EU challenges the player to set up a proper electricity net, where he/she has to think about things like losses (higher voltage = lower losses), right voltages for the right machines, the correct energy buffers, etc. RF is just creation > storage > usage and for each (including the transportation) you can use pretty much whatever you want and connect it to whatever machine you want. This requires no real thinking.

    It's a shame this was an April Fools joke. I stopped using IC2 after MC 1.4.7. This would have made me consider using it again. Oh well.

    Well, let's all be happy that there are actually people who won't stop playing it now, instead of you maybe, possibly, considering trying it again. x)

    Edit: Gotta hand it to the people from IC2, BC & DW20, you got everyone x) After those videos from DW20, you had me.

    I know a energynet is not the easiest part of a mod, but i followed a guy on Youtube, that builds a energynet from scratch( cables, consumer, provider,etc). Its very basic but it works flawless. How hard could that be for a team that does that
    for a very long time?

    Probably Scratchforfun x) I remember him doing a small video series about energy nets.

    Make a pack with Buildcraft, Forestry, IC2, and Railcraft as the main tech mods and things will feel great!

    I'm honestly skeptical about that. IC2 always felt really unique because it had its own power system and now you can just set up some RC HP boilers, and that's all you need for power in that case.

    I am really sad for dropping EU. WHY you rather won't incorporate Greg's EU system???????????

    Because Gregtech 6 is for MC 1.7.10, I'd guess.
    But who knows, maybe greg kept it in mind and made it so it would be easy to carry over, he's our evil German genius after all :D

    Something that is kinda... Problematic is that it's almost impossible to see which ores you can use in a chemical bath.
    If you look up the recipes of the chembath, you will almost only see things like: arrows, firesteel stuff. Wouldn't it be a nice idea to, instead of having the ores bathed in the chembath, to have them bathed in the ore washing plant, with mercury/sodium persulphate instead? It would make more sense (seeing that it's an ore washing plant) and the recipes would be easier to find (since they wouldn't be hidden in a 1700 recipe pile, but "just" like... 100 recipes).

    If this has been changed already, I am sorry. Our Beyond Reality server had some problems with the more recent version of GT/BR, so we had to roll back until version 2.3.4, which doesn't even have the new GT multiblocks. But our admin plans to try a new version again soon.

    Something that sort of caught my eye is that uranite and pitchblende seem to have the wrong colors (if they are even a different element at all). I believe the name PITCHblende came from the fact that it was black.
    Also, if you are going to add some boosts to the reactors, it would be super nice to have some extra processing options for radioactive materials, maybe slightly more realistic, a la reactorcraft for example, using hydrofluoric acid(or some other acid) > mix that with uranium > uranium hexafluoride > centrifuge that, into either usable or unusable isotopes (you could use those for different things). That might be a way to kinda... balance the reactor boost out again.

    You are not using a resoure pack, right? Are there other Mac users that have the same problem? Any bug i can not replicate in my dev setup is extremely difficult to fix. Like trying to defuse a bomb 20 m away by throwing stones at it...

    Yeah, as I said, it was posted on the original gt thread. I believe it was another mac user but greg said he didn't know because "he didn't apple and he never will", or something along those lines. x)
    Funnily enough (And at the same time annoyingly), it doesn't matter at all if I use a texture pack or not. With or without it, the gem textures are never shown.

    Hello Blood,
    Great work on GT5U, I absolutely love the things you have added and how you actually made GT5 properly playable.

    For a long time, there has been a strange rendering bug. Every gem ore, with the exception of opal, seems to render as plain stone (or whatever base stone is used to render on top of). I believe at some point, someone pointed this bug out on the original Gregtech thread by GregoriusT, but since GT5 is in your hands now and GT6 doesn't seem to have this problem I thought it might be a good idea to tell you about it.
    The bug may be mac/osx related (since that is what I use at the moment), and it seems to have little to do with the version of the OS (it's been there for at least 4 iterations of OSX now). Is there anything that Gem ores do different in their rendering than metal ores? If so, it might be a bug somewhere in there.

    Edit: Opal has the metal ore mask, not the gem one, so that is probably why it renders properly. Ores with other masks, like lignite and bastnasite render just fine.