[128x/64x/32x] Tekkit [MC1.5 - 1.6]

Tekkit? Feed the Beast? All texture compilations (WIP and full releases) for mod packs go in here.
Post Reply
User avatar
117 Posts
 x 0

Post 02 Jul 2014, 12:29

Or buy new ram ^^;
I'f heard often, that MC out of the blue sky stops working. And the cause?
Defect Ram-Blocks...
If you like our work please consider becoming a Supporter and get an ad-free experience.
User avatar
BDcraft Web Admin
6223 Posts
 x 290

Post 02 Jul 2014, 12:56

ChaoGirDja wrote:Or buy new ram ^^;
I'f heard often, that MC out of the blue sky stops working. And the cause?
Defect Ram-Blocks...
Well that's true for any program, or indeed the whole PC, but there's a simple test for defect RAM.
If you like a post give it a diamond! :arrow_heading_up:
:speech_balloon: Join the BDcraft Discord server to keep updated with news and chat with other fans!
User avatar
117 Posts
 x 0

Post 02 Jul 2014, 13:24

True.
But not everybody knows it :)
User avatar
2 Posts
 x 0

Post 10 Jul 2014, 15:01

I checked the crash logs, it was indeed throwing up 'out of memory' errors. So I upped the memory from 1GB to 2GB (my machine has eight). Now Tekkit doesn't crash, but the resource pack simply refused to load. It just hung for about a minute and kept the default textures.

So I switched from 128x to 64x and it worked well. I never had trouble with 128x before...

Oh well, thanks for the patch and all your help!
Last edited by Ishikiri on 10 Jul 2014, 17:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
12 Posts
 x 0

Post 10 Jul 2014, 15:07

I have the same issue. 8GB of RAM, 128x is switching back to default, so I used 64x and that is working.
User avatar
Patch Creator
271 Posts
 x 1

Post 11 Jul 2014, 02:00

Ishikiri wrote:I checked the crash logs; it was indeed throwing up 'out of memory' errors, so I upped the memory from 1GB to 2GB (my machine has eight). Now Tekkit doesn't crash, but the resource pack simply refused to load. It just hung for about a minute and kept the default textures.

So I switched from 128x to 64x and it worked well. I never had trouble with 128x before...
Honestly, you're lucky that you're able to run 64x with just 2GB of memory.
Targens wrote:I have the same issue. 8GB of RAM, 128x is switching back to default, so I used 64x and that is working.
Using 8GB would be much more likely to allow to you to run 128x (however, evidently still not enough in this case). I'd put up a note next to each download suggesting a minimum RAM requirement, but as HanFox says, Minecraft (especially when modded) is very unpredictable and so I'd probably get many complaints of "I allocated the amount of memory suggested in the OP and it still didn't work".

Ultimately, when it comes to mid-to-large sized modpacks (I'd classify Tekkit as mid-sized), you really need to allocate as much memory as you possibly can (1GB or even just 512MB less than your total). For many users, that still won't be enough to run their desired resolution, but alas that is unfortunately the state of the matter for a poorly-optimised Java game. Perhaps in future versions of MC it may improve somewhat (given that Mojang appear to have been doing a good deal of work on optimisation recently), but that remains to be seen.

-- 11 Jul 2014, 09:59 --

Just did a quick check on approximate pack sizes, and came up with some rather interesting results...
Vanilla resource pack (unzipped) - 128x: 28.1MB
Patched resource pack (unzipped) - 128x: 96.1MB
Patched resource pack (unzipped), with unnecessary textures removed: 86.5MB

Note: By 'unnecessary textures', I am referring to those that are literally not used in the game (not just ones that I personally do not use). Here's a list of exactly what I removed:
  • /mcpatcher in /minecraft (given that Tekkit doesn't include Optifine or MCPatcher).
  • Not a removal: Switched animated textures for static textures (and removed .png.mcmetas) in /minecraft /textures /blocks.
  • bdcraftnet.png in /minecraft /textures /blocks.
  • stonecutter textures in /minecraft /textures /blocks.
  • netherreator textures in /minecraft /textures /blocks.
  • /blocks_alt1 in /minecraft /textures.
  • /blocks_alt2 in /minecraft /textures.
  • alternative font in /minecraft /textures /font.
  • /items_alt1 in /minecraft /textures.
  • Aether armours in /minecraft /textures /models /armor. (E.g. neptune, obsidian, phoenix armour, etc.).
  • Herobrine, pigman, christmas chests and green villager in /minecraft /textures /entity.
  • /alt folder in /buildcraft.
  • Adamantium, iridium, mythril, nikolite, platinum, rutile, salt, steel, tennanite, titanium and tungsten in /netherores /textures /blocks.
  • /alts in /mystcraft /textures /blocks.
  • Alts in /dimanchor /textures /blocks.
I'll consider this a little more, then perhaps just go ahead and remove unused textures throughout the patches and release the patch with these removals. I'd normally not consider removing alts that artists have specifically included for a reason, but it appears that removing textures might have a decent effect on memory requirements (of course, people would have to remove alternate textures in /minecraft on their own, but still).
User avatar
12 Posts
 x 0

Post 11 Jul 2014, 08:35

If you would like to test it, I'm willing to do it :) .
You already know my specs:
Notebook Lenovo IdeaPad Z580, 8GB of RAM, i5 and GeForce 630M. Windows 7 64bit.
User avatar
BDcraft Web Admin
6223 Posts
 x 290

Post 11 Jul 2014, 15:15

Llama Farmer, I'd be interested if you could do some simple RAM benchmarks, too. Just load up a world (or make a new one), don't move at all, wait until the chunk updates settle down on F3 and see what the RAM usage is at it's peak.

I just tried a few quick tests with clean MC1.7.10 and the 256x pack. Removing the mcpatcher folder in it's entirety saves about 25MB of RAM when using a zip instead of an unpacked folder. For some reason I expected MC to be more intelligent with unused files when zipped up.

Code: Select all

zip with mcpatcher folder: 530mb
	- unpacked folder: 505mb
zip w/o mcpatcher: 505mb
	- unpacked folder: 505mb
So, it'd be interesting to see what removing other unused files (and indeed static files instead of animations) does to RAM usage. ;)

If you can be bothered of course :P
If you like a post give it a diamond! :arrow_heading_up:
:speech_balloon: Join the BDcraft Discord server to keep updated with news and chat with other fans!
User avatar
1 Post
 x 0

Post 09 Aug 2014, 00:57

I followed the instructions exactly and allocated 2 GB of RAM, but every time I attempt to load the texture pack it does not load, not a single change happens, I have checked the log and it appears that it is claiming I have missing textures. :(
User avatar
Patch Creator
271 Posts
 x 1

Post 09 Aug 2014, 02:56

HanFox wrote:~Benchmarks, chunk updates, RAM usage, other smart talk...~
Woah, sorry for the late reply; must've missed your message somehow. Anyway, I'll give it a shot at some point but I'm horrendously busy this weekend (I have 4 tests and an assignment due at school on Monday) so perhaps I'll get to it next weekend. :)
jakalaka223 wrote:I followed the instructions exactly and allocated 2 GB of RAM, but every time I attempt to load the texture pack it does not load, not a single change happens, I have checked the log and it appears that it is claiming I have missing textures. :(
What you are experiencing is due to a lack of RAM, which will consequently impose limitations. With 2GB of RAM allocated, it's likely you'll only be able to run 32x or maybe 64x. Your choices are to either allocate more RAM (if you have any), or to use a lower resolution of resourcepack/patch.
Post Reply