+- Kiwike forums (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum)
+-- Forum: Community (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Games (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+---- Forum: Minecraft (http://kiwike.yottabyte.nu/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Thread: [Question] About size of texture packs (/showthread.php?tid=2182)
[Question] About size of texture packs - nsanexer0 - 11-17-2011
Ok so...
Back long ago pre-2.0 I was using 32x32 and I tryed 64x64 but it was just too laggy...
Now I just went and grabbed one (64x64), I get 125 FPS using the dynamic lighting and better grass normal render distance... On far I get 65FPS.
So on normal render distance I believe I can use a 128x128 or maybe even dare I say 256x256?
Thoughts on this?
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - Sir Prize - 11-17-2011
Try it, if it doesn't work, fuck it.
I used 256x256 before said patch and it worked fine. Not on this server though if that's what you're getting at.
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - partyars - 01-27-2012
I use a 256x256 texture pack with smooth lightning on far render distance and I get about 125 fps on a 3yr old computer.
I once tried a 512x512 and my computer bluescreened.
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - MainDigger - 01-27-2012
Why are you replying to this old thread?
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - Leech - 01-27-2012
It's Main's archenemy, necro!
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - partyars - 01-27-2012
(01-27-2012, 16:25)MainDigger Wrote: Why are you replying to this old thread?
Oh I'm sorry about this, as you might've noticed there was a guy randomly spamming all the threads earlier today and I didn't notice until after I posted.
RE: [Question] About size of texture packs - MainDigger - 01-27-2012
It's k. That spambot got what it deserved.
