Leaderboard

Minecraft 1.12: The newest version of Minecraft has been released. Forge has been updated to support this new version. However due to the way Mojang implemented the Recipe changes there are a lot of under the hood changes that we need to do. Most notably re-writing on of the largest/most intricate systems of Forge, The Registry system. This will take some time, so do not expect a recommended release quickly. However if you are a modder you can start using the current versions to build against. Some API's may change in the early days of Forge so be sure to be ready for that. I'm sorry, I usually try my best to maintain binary compatibility, but it's just what will need to happen. For users, you can use the current builds. But just be warned that things are actively being developed and we ask to please responsibly report issues on the forum. Once I finish the rewrite and get a stable recommended build of Forge out I will make a more detailed post listing all the major changes like I always do. New Policy on Coremods: Sadly core modding is still a thing. As always we request that you guys attempt to work with us to get changes into Forge instead of core modding it yourself. However, if you MUST we have decided to put forth to the community a few 'Best Practices' for core modding. The intention is that large communities such as FTB, Technic, and Curse work with us to promote these best practices. 1) Coremod must be the coremod only, and no extra library/features/apis/etc. There are far too many coremods in the community that package tons of classes that have nothing to do with the modifications they make to the game together so that people will be forced to use their coremod just because they want a utility. This is bad. So Coremods themselves should be limited to JUST the IFMLLoadingPlugin, and IClassTransformers, and as few utility methods needed to make those hooks run. 2) Coremod binaries must be signed. This is a very basic thing that just verifies the person/organization we think made the coremods actually did. It also verifies that the file that was downloaded has not been modified in any way. As it sits there will NOT be any central authority on the keys used to sign things. So Self-signing will be allowed as long as you provide the community your signature. Starting in 1.13, with the loading system rewrite, users will be prompted to accept signatures of coremods. It is our intention to work with people like FTB, Curse, and others to make these signatures easy to use and manage. For example a user would say they trust FTB, and wouldn't be prompted for every coremod that exists in a FTB modpack. For the technical side you can read more about Jar Signing here: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/jar/signindex.html 3) Coremods should be visible source. This will be a controversial standard, but my thoughts on it is that if you're screwing with someone else's code (which is the only reason to ever write a coremod), then you should be willing to show what you are doing. It is stressed that this is VISIBLE SOURCE only. It is not a requirement that you allow others to use your code, or modify and distribute it. It's simply that we can see it. The signatures and visible source are NOT designed to be security measures. As there is nothing preventing malicious code from being signed and a user accepting it. This is just the risk you run with Minecraft modding as you're running compiled code from random people on the internet. This is however designed to make the community more open and try and stem the number of coremods out there that have no reason to be coremods. Major Policy change: I am happy to officially announce a new member of the Forge team. Everyone welcome Mezz. His official responsibilities are to be the Pull Request, and Issues manager. Basically, he's the guy you yell at if your PR/Issue is rotting on github. He's the guy who is tasked with reminding me that they exists. He will be the one responsible for filtering all the PRs/Issues before they get to me. So I don't have to deal with telling you guys to follow the standards like making a test mod, posting logs, etc.. In addition, he is also the one who decides if old versions will have PRs accepted. Yes this means there will be a limited development system for older versions. How far back that means is ENTIRELY up to Mezz. However the rules are that ANY pr adding features for a old version MUST be applied and accepted for the current version FIRST. Save for features that would have no place in the new version. Example being adding a new achievements hook when the new version removed achievements. It will still be our official stance on this forum to only provide support for the Current version, and the previous version. However, if the community wishes to have a few dedicated people step forward and become our Legacy support team them I am willing to work with them and see what we can set up. The main reason we do not provide support for old versions is simply we do not have the manpower. So start helping out! Response From Sponge:

Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot set property PropertyBool{name=powered, clazz=class java.lang.Boolean, values=[true, false]} as it does not exist in BlockStateContainer{block=null, properties=[]} You haven't overriddencreateBlockState

serverSideOnly just tells the client to skip loading the mod if it's installed, you need to set the acceptableRemoteVersions property to "*" as well. This tells it to accept any remote version, including none.

Perhaps. What program do you use to create the OBJ models? I know that in Blender, with default settings, a normal sized block corresponds to a cube at x 0.5 y -0.5 z 0.5 at scale 0.5. While I know that you are not using a block, this should help you narrow down issues with size and/or translation The ObjLoader also only support faces with a maximum of 4 vertices. Be sure to have the checkbox for "triangulate faces" marked, though issues with that should be logged. This could also be an issue with the texture. Are you applying the texture to the material, or to an actual UV-map? The second option is the one I use. Try setting the render to "textured" at the bottom of the screen, to get a (bad) preview of the model with texture. Also be sure that the Normals for this item are OK. If the model is rendered inside-out, you wouldn't be able to see it.

Ahh, that explains why I don't like it much. Too sporty for me. I don't need to go 230 mph down the highway, I just need to get there in a reasonable time. (Case in point, my actual car right now is a 1997 Honda CR-V, I bought it about a year ago and it had 112,000 miles on it, its now got 127,000 or so)

While I do support changes regarding coremod as the idea (and completely agree with points 2 and 3 as-written), I'm a bit confused as to what the first part says about coremods that just can't have the mod and coremod part separated without the whole thing blowing up when any part is used without the other. While I know it's probably nto common, I want to know what the first policy says about my mod. With cubic chunks I can't for example have my any part of the mod working without coremod, and the coremod part can't work without other parts of the mod. Well, I actually use mixin which uses a tweaker, but this is outside of my control (and I could stop using mixin but it would be huge amount of work and has more potential for me breaking things). While in principle I could make the "coremod" part work by itself, it's not going to be of any use. If this really still applies in my case, I really hope it never becomes anything close to a requirement.

I really like the changes, mainly the open-source coremod requeriment. This is good because it encourages the open-source development.

You certainly have my support in regards to the changes regarding coremods. For too long have mod authors, written coremods that prevent Forge doing its thing: promoting mod compatibility. It's inevitable that this new policy won't eradicate coremods, but perhaps it will make their authors think more carefully about the repercussions of making changes. And in closing, I would like to congratulate Lex on reaching 7777 posts

For future reference If I understand this correctly, we would be allowed to put the coremod into its own jar and put that jar into the actual mod jar. While this might not be very useful for modders that use a coremod in multiple mods, it might be useful if its only a change for a single mod. Question I have: could you point me and others to the jar extraction mechanic FML provides? I dont intend on using a coremod at all, but just in case.