[1.6.4]Crash Landing [Hardcore, HQM] version 1.1.x BETA STABLE

  • The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord

Bril

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
45
0
0
CL was introduction to HQM and the first hardcore mod pack I ever played and damn I loved every second of it. I check out various packs looking to recreate that experience but there just isn't anything out there. Blast Off can be challenging but the mod author went a bit over board upon some of the recipe changes and does force you down quest chains and mods that are either completely worthless or just annoying as hell. Still it is good if you want a challenging pack.

Hopefully we will see a new version of CL some time in the (near) future, Grats on the twins Iskandar!
 

Brenn_

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
114
0
0
Um every part of this pack is custom recipe. Not including the pack itself was becoming to buggy to my understanding and that is why the pack stopped development. He would have to start new on a 1.7. Build and redo the custom recipes and all for a 1.7.10. His plan as he has posted before was to do a part 2 to CL that was more stable then the first one was. I am looking foward to the magic edition of CL my self which will never happen saddily. :)
First off, I had never experienced any bugginess (except for one thing with city generation which I think was FTB not updating properly).

Secondly, no, the recipes wouldn't really have to be redone that much. The pack uses the minetweaker dictionary functionality-- meaning that most of the item ID changes could be done via changing
"PRC100 = <####>" to "val PRC100 = <MineFactoryReloaded:upgrade.logic:0>;" and then every recipe which uses the MFR circuit would be automatically updated. Most of the rest of the inconsistencies could be fixed with a run through with find&replace-- "minetweaker.addShaped" to "recipes.addShaped" "thermalexpansion.pulverizer" to "thermalexpansion.Pulverizer." Yes, there are some items which wouldn't be in the dictionary, but if you run CL1.6.4 simultaneously with an instance of 1.7.10, it's fairly simple to fix those few recipes (Enter the item ID in 1.6 NEI, find its name, stick the name in 1.7 NEI, find the new ID). And then you would need to create new recipes for the TE machine frames.

So in other words, it would take a few hours, unless you wanted to change most of the recipes from what they were in 1.6.4, in which case it would take much longer.
 

joshuad156

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
235
0
0
One thing that's changing a LOT is PneumaticCraft. Its progression and mechanics are being rewritten to not use plants/seeds anymore, and instead use oil. I suppose you could grab a dated version of the mod to keep the same mechanics, but at some point it's going to be too old to update forge or other mods that work with it.
 

Type1Ninja

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,393
-7
0
If I may ask, what difficulties are there, really, in directly porting the pack up to 1.7.10 without changing any functionality, other than using lots of time?
That is the issue. :p
Nothing in the world is hard. You just need ever-increasing amounts of time to learn and master the skill. If you wanted to learn to program your own game, right now, you could - just google stuff as you need to know it (as an aside, I have actually learned program entirely from resources found on the internet - this method does work). It would take a long time, though; it would take multiple years if you took time to eat/drink/sleep/fulfill other RL obligations such as school and work/have a life (which is why I'm not a big name dev yet ;)).
First off, I had never experienced any bugginess (except for one thing with city generation which I think was FTB not updating properly).

Secondly, no, the recipes wouldn't really have to be redone that much. The pack uses the minetweaker dictionary functionality-- meaning that most of the item ID changes could be done via changing
"PRC100 = <####>" to "val PRC100 = <MineFactoryReloaded:upgrade.logic:0>;" and then every recipe which uses the MFR circuit would be automatically updated. Most of the rest of the inconsistencies could be fixed with a run through with find&replace-- "minetweaker.addShaped" to "recipes.addShaped" "thermalexpansion.pulverizer" to "thermalexpansion.Pulverizer." Yes, there are some items which wouldn't be in the dictionary, but if you run CL1.6.4 simultaneously with an instance of 1.7.10, it's fairly simple to fix those few recipes (Enter the item ID in 1.6 NEI, find its name, stick the name in 1.7 NEI, find the new ID). And then you would need to create new recipes for the TE machine frames.

So in other words, it would take a few hours, unless you wanted to change most of the recipes from what they were in 1.6.4, in which case it would take much longer.
IIRC, Minetweaker changed a lot in how you do recipes. It's no longer done through IDs, but actual names; this would make the recipes much more tedious - copying and pasting would be out of the question. I think you realize that, but the actual amount of time it takes is much larger than you estimate. Distractions are huge - it's much easier to play MC than it is to actually buckle down and do recipes; when I spend time developing my pack, I often find myself just blowing stuff up in creative instead of doing recipes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brenn_

Brenn_

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
114
0
0
IIRC, Minetweaker changed a lot in how you do recipes. It's no longer done through IDs, but actual names; this would make the recipes much more tedious - copying and pasting would be out of the question. I think you realize that, but the actual amount of time it takes is much larger than you estimate.

Yes, I am aware of the ID# -> names change in MC.
MFR.cfg said:
recipes.addShaped(PRC100,[[oreDict.dustRedstone, oreDict.sheetPlastic, oreDict.dustRedstone],
[oreDict.sheetPlastic, PCB, oreDict.sheetPlastic],
[oreDict.dustRedstone, oreDict.sheetPlastic, oreDict.dustRedstone]]);

recipes.addShaped(PRC300,[[oreDict.ingotElectrumFlux, oreDict.sheetPlastic, oreDict.ingotElectrumFlux],
[oreDict.sheetPlastic, PRC100, oreDict.sheetPlastic],
[PCB, oreDict.ingotElectrumFlux, PCB]]);

recipes.addShaped(PRC500,[[oreDict.ingotEnderium, oreDict.sheetPlastic, oreDict.ingotEnderium],
[oreDict.sheetPlastic, PRC300, oreDict.sheetPlastic],
[PCB, oreDict.ingotEnderium, PCB]]);
Above are the recipes for the PRC cards, as of 1.6.4
The relevant dictionary entries are
PRC100 = <12277:0>;
PRC300 = <12277:1>;
PRC500 = <12277:2>;
PCB = <5366>;

I did some testing; the "oreDict.___" style recipes do seem to still work.
So, in other words, updating the dictionary could result in a fair number of recipes working. They'd still use "PRC100," but PRC100 would represent the 1.7.10 version.
(Also, there may or may not be a (poorly and inconsistently formatted) txt file attached which contains most of the recipes from 1.6.4, all updated to 1.7.10 (no EnderIO, and AE stuff is changed...))

Distractions are huge - it's much easier to play MC than it is to actually buckle down and do recipes; when I spend time developing my pack, I often find myself just blowing stuff up in creative instead of doing recipes.
Ah, true, true....


Edit: Darn, 1.7.10 Iguana Tweaks clay buckets no longer seem to be able to pick up pyrotheum (& change it to lava!). There goes my strategy of a day-1 safe cobble gen.

Edit2: I was right, getting the cities up and running wasn't too difficult (with a short computer program). See attached picture, which also has some crafting stuff
 

Attachments

  • Changes.zs.txt
    25.6 KB · Views: 105
  • CL1.7.10.png
    CL1.7.10.png
    720.1 KB · Views: 111
Last edited:

Iskandar

Popular Member
Feb 17, 2013
1,285
685
128
Yeah, the pack would have to be rebuilt from t he ground up, more or less. Yes, I could do a direct port, but there are enough new tools in 1.7.10 that I could eliminate some of the more egregious hacks and make a much more stable play experience/ Plus there would be some mod changes and additions. For instance, using biometweaker to make an existing biome be made out of dust would allow me to use a vanilla desert biome in place of a flat map, which means I could actually place ores and get actual terrain gen. Using Recurrent complex to replace Ruins AND the City generator (to look better and be less buggy) and a few other bits and pieces.

It could be done. It may yet be done, but at this point I have more or less the Minecraft community. I've been playing Minecraft for 5 years and I think I'm done. The modded community is just toxic and I'm just not having a lot of fun playing Minecraft. Shane is in about the same position. Someome may step up and carry the torch, but this project is dead in the water for now. sorry guys.
 

Magzie

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2014
1,395
210
78
First off, I had never experienced any bugginess (except for one thing with city generation which I think was FTB not updating properly).

Secondly, no, the recipes wouldn't really have to be redone that much. The pack uses the minetweaker dictionary functionality-- meaning that most of the item ID changes could be done via changing
"PRC100 = <####>" to "val PRC100 = <MineFactoryReloaded:upgrade.logic:0>;" and then every recipe which uses the MFR circuit would be automatically updated. Most of the rest of the inconsistencies could be fixed with a run through with find&replace-- "minetweaker.addShaped" to "recipes.addShaped" "thermalexpansion.pulverizer" to "thermalexpansion.Pulverizer." Yes, there are some items which wouldn't be in the dictionary, but if you run CL1.6.4 simultaneously with an instance of 1.7.10, it's fairly simple to fix those few recipes (Enter the item ID in 1.6 NEI, find its name, stick the name in 1.7 NEI, find the new ID). And then you would need to create new recipes for the TE machine frames.

So in other words, it would take a few hours, unless you wanted to change most of the recipes from what they were in 1.6.4, in which case it would take much longer.
I'm sure that you took the time to review post dev post before hammer me for posting as I only posted what was posted by dev in past pages. I'm sure if you read back far enough you will find where the current dev along with iskandar both saying that there were to many bugs on their end that could be the fix in a reasonable amount of time with the current build and every time they fix one more pop up.
 

Brenn_

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
114
0
0
Yeah, the pack would have to be rebuilt from t he ground up, more or less. Yes, I could do a direct port, but there are enough new tools in 1.7.10 that I could eliminate some of the more egregious hacks and make a much more stable play experience/ Plus there would be some mod changes and additions. For instance, using biometweaker to make an existing biome be made out of dust would allow me to use a vanilla desert biome in place of a flat map, which means I could actually place ores and get actual terrain gen. Using Recurrent complex to replace Ruins AND the City generator (to look better and be less buggy) and a few other bits and pieces.

It could be done. It may yet be done, but at this point I have more or less the Minecraft community. I've been playing Minecraft for 5 years and I think I'm done. The modded community is just toxic and I'm just not having a lot of fun playing Minecraft. Shane is in about the same position. Someone may step up and carry the torch, but this project is dead in the water for now. sorry guys.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that you guys are done with the pack, but it does make sense. I wish you luck in whatever you do next.
It's been fun.
---
Let's hope that someone/some people is/a willing to remake it for 1.7.10.
 

Iskandar

Popular Member
Feb 17, 2013
1,285
685
128
Yeah. I feel bad walking away like this. I'm no Jaded, though, and pack dev took more out of me than I expected. That and the general discontent I've been having with Minecraft in general, sigh. I tried to fight it and I managed to get Atonement out, but that has more or less burned me out completely. I'm not happy about it, but it simply is what it is.

I'm glad for all who got at least some enjoyment out of the pack. The response has been overwhelming and a very positive experience overall. It is nice having fans. Don't count me out completely, I may yet come back. Though it probably won't be for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

Brenn_

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
114
0
0
Yeah. I feel bad walking away like this. I'm no Jaded, though, and pack dev took more out of me than I expected. That and the general discontent I've been having with Minecraft in general, sigh. I tried to fight it and I managed to get Atonement out, but that has more or less burned me out completely. I'm not happy about it, but it simply is what it is.

I'm glad for all who got at least some enjoyment out of the pack. The response has been overwhelming and a very positive experience overall. It is nice having fans. Don't count me out completely, I may yet come back. Though it probably won't be for a while.
Don't feel bad for leaving :)
You took an innovative idea and turned in into a complete and pretty stable modpack, while working with the limited tools available for 1.6.4, creating something which, as far as I know, is still unique. You have absolutely no obligation to keep updating it, especially since the 1.7 updates completely ruined most of the config files.
(Similar thing with Atonement--a novel idea which you turned into a complete pack; an idea which has been reused by multiple other packs)
With all of CL's popularity, if you wanted to try (again, no obligations) you probably could find someone willing to recreate the pack in 1.7.10.

Take a few months. Don't play minecraft, don't watch minecraft videos, don't even think about minecraft. Play a game which as much dissimilar to minecraft as possible. Who knows? At some point in the future you may spontaneously decide to boot up minecraft for old times' sake, and find it fun again.

If you come back, great. If not, have a good life*.
----------
*Yes, "have a good life" sounds slightly morbid. I just can't think of a better way to express the same message as concisely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

mitelk

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
24
0
0
it sucks that you wont be making a sequel. it was my favorite mod-pack. well i have never done one this large scale before, but i am going to attempt to make a new crash landing. i am thinking of calling it crash landing 2: the return home. and when you land (crash) you have missed a nuclear holocaust. and must try to make a living in the wasteland, where even the rivers have turned into undrinkable water!

however as i said i have never tried to make a mod-pack this big before so it may take me a while and i might need some help. i will keep everyone informed and start a new forum when i have a release for it. for those who want dates...... i have a wife 2 kids and a job and this will be done in my spare time. it could take weeks or months i dont know. i will try to keep you informed but for now nothing is certain (i cant even guarantee that i will finish it).

ps if you are interested in helping me and have some knowledge about modding pm me and i will get back to you as soon as i can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,191
383
Waterloo, Ontario
it sucks that you wont be making a sequel. it was my favorite mod-pack. well i have never done one this large scale before, but i am going to attempt to make a new crash landing. i am thinking of calling it crash landing 2: the return home. and when you land (crash) you have missed a nuclear holocaust. and must try to make a living in the wasteland, where even the rivers have turned into undrinkable water!

however as i said i have never tried to make a mod-pack this big before so it may take me a while and i might need some help. i will keep everyone informed and start a new forum when i have a release for it. for those who want dates...... i have a wife 2 kids and a job and this will be done in my spare time. it could take weeks or months i dont know. i will try to keep you informed but for now nothing is certain (i cant even guarantee that i will finish it).

ps if you are interested in helping me and have some knowledge about modding pm me and i will get back to you as soon as i can.
Using the name crash landing 2 would be somewhat similar to stealing intellectual property. A good thing to do might be to privately contact the owner of said property (iskandar) and ask permission.

Failing that, nobody can stop you from totally ripping off every idea you like from the modpack, but you should at least consider giving it your own name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

Brenn_

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
114
0
0

To be honest, rather than a sequel I would prefer an improved, 1.7 version of the original-- I feel like there's still more than could be done to "finish off" the 1.6.4 storyline.
---------
Not to say that you shouldn't go ahead with this idea (I, personally, would be happy to give it a try, if/when you finish it)... it's just that I really don't think it should be created as a sequel. The base game would just be too different from the original CL (There would be no way to explain the world being dust. The rivers are too different from a desert planet, and the water would be easily made potable--trust me.)

Again, it sounds like it could be a really cool pack, it's just that your description sounds too different from CL 1 to be able to be reasonably called a sequel to the original.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

Iskandar

Popular Member
Feb 17, 2013
1,285
685
128
Yes, please don't use the Crash Landing name without permission. There may yet be an official sequel either from me (unlikely at this point) or someone specially granted permission (decidedly possible).
 

mitelk

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
24
0
0
Yes, please don't use the Crash Landing name without permission. There may yet be an official sequel either from me (unlikely at this point) or someone specially granted permission (decidedly possible).
ok well i will find a different name. i still like the nuclear holocaust idea. and might do a name around that. but this was my round about way of asking for permission. i could have done it alot better and i am sorry, but it was an idea. i do have all of the mods together for the pack, however i am just trying to get them all to want to work together. (you cant even start it up something with minetweaker 3 and another mod crashes all mods). i just want you to know i was not trying to steal your thunder or ideas, i just wanted to try to continue the best pack out there.
 

TheRonin

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
108
0
0
Yes, please don't use the Crash Landing name without permission. There may yet be an official sequel either from me (unlikely at this point) or someone specially granted permission (decidedly possible).

Why no sequel :(?

Right in the dreams mate... You got me right in the dreams.
 

Iskandar

Popular Member
Feb 17, 2013
1,285
685
128
Pretty much that, yes. You have no idea the work that went into getting Crash Landing into the buggy, unfinished, half polished state it is in now. And, unfortunately, it is about as good as 1.6.4 would let it be. To fix and improve things further it needs to be moved to 1.7.10, which would mean redoing roughly 90% of EVERYTHING. Again. No. Just...no. I've done some exploratory work that proves it is possible, but I just don't have the drive to go through that again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja