A curious inquiry

[LEVaughn]

I've seen a lot of "Hate" for MCPatcher around here and I honestly don't understand why. I won't complain, but I'm going to ask quite simply one thing.

 

Would it be so hard to update Forge (on your own time) to help run with MCPatcher? As far as I can tell - it wouldn't be exactly hard, as much as it would be about getting over some bias problems with the owner or the software. If you can make Forge run with Optifine and other various things, no reason why you can't with MCPatcher - you'd get a lot more customers that way.

 

Just a thought - not trying to start a flame war here. Reason I asked is because I like MCPatcher and for me it seems to be the only thing that's worked incredibly smoothly for me. Everything else was a jumbled mess and I had to go through hell for anything to work. MCPatcher helps me drastically.

[OvermindDL1]

The issue with MCPatcher is that it does things wrong.  It makes base edits when it should not be making base edits, and most users are not knowledgeable enough to know how to disable those modifications.  MultiMC is far superior as it actually does work properly without making any base edits.

 

Also, Forge is not made to run with Optifine, Optifine uses Forge's hooks.  And MCPatcher could use Forge's hooks just as well.  There is nothing Forge can do to become compatible with MCPatcher, it is on MCPatcher to actually do things properly.

[Pablare]

id suggest using magiclauncher http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/939149-launcher-magic-launcher-099-mods-options-news/

it doesnt touch the jar when installing a mod you will always have a clean minecraft.jar

and optifine http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/249637-132-optifine-hd-b3-fps-boost-hd-textures-aa-af-and-much-more/ which also does provide connected textures and hd texture support

and as already said it  uses forge hooks

[julialy]

What the two users above me said.

[LexManos]

The simple truth is that MCPathcer does things in a very very incompatible way. Its concept is good, of just injecting the little bits that ity needs here and there viz direct bytecode patching. But it's implementation is bad. Last time I looked it 1) Injected crap even if everything else was turned off by the users, 2) Overwrote certain things that it assume was there, or assumed that where it found was the only place. Which doesn't work.

The simple truth is MCPatcher needs to be a bit more robust. And, in all honesty. MCPatcher's interface isn't all that great. Tools such as MagicLauncher or MultiMC are better in both interface and functionality.

There is no hate twards the author, Back in the day i've actually made quite a few mods using MCPatcher's bytecode injection. But the program itself simply has not aged well.

 

 

As for being hard to make it compatible. Unless I do major work to shape the bytecode so that MCPatcher would behave properly, it'd be a bitch and a half. It would be FAR less work and FAR more stable and FAR more proper to do it on the MCPatcher side.