IC2 is not in alpha. They arnt even in beta, they dont have that much more to do.[DOUBLEPOST=1367501651][/DOUBLEPOST]Buildcraft needs another update, IC2 is still in alpha, railcraft has a public beta but thats it, Its still raw Forgecraft is about the future. They play test them there before making a mod pack for us.
Read their instructions. It isnt that hard really. Hardest part is installing ant.[DOUBLEPOST=1367501698][/DOUBLEPOST]Need to get a recompiled BuildCraft after the 3.5.0 update as they have fixed the pipe texture bug, anyone know how to do it ?
Which is hilarious it being a beta pack and all.I believe that they are currently waiting for some of the core mods to stabalise before releasing a beta pack thing.
In a sense, yes, but releasing something with a swathe of bugs would just cause more trouble. For example, if they released the pack with one large known bug, lets say that if you placed a pattern table in the border of a nexus, it turned into a fish. This isn't really a game-breaking bug, and they could tell people in the description, on the forums, and as a pop-up when they downloaded it. They would still be spammed by topics/posts/messages about the fish bug, which would be useless, and damaging, because it would stop them seeing the stuff that actually mattered.Which is hilarious it being a beta pack and all.
Beta releases should be "stable" - they should have no known major bugs at the point of release.The point of a beta release is to get it out to a large number of users that can find the more subtle and less obvious bugs that alpha testing didn't show up. So yes, a mod should be stable before including it in a beta pack. Stable doesn't mean entirely bug-free.Which is hilarious it being a beta pack and all.
Which is hilarious it being a beta pack and all.
mdayo new mods and the new magic mods also there beacuse if there is a beta relese pack that good for multiplayer i wants it
Good thing that wont happen. So wheres the beta?[DOUBLEPOST=1367517691][/DOUBLEPOST]Beta means "we've ironed out the bugs we could find ourselves and it's pretty stable" not "if you connect a BC pipe to this thingemajig your world explodes"
Ive had a "stable" personal "beta pack" for weeks. So.... ?????Beta releases should be "stable" - they should have no known major bugs at the point of release.The point of a beta release is to get it out to a large number of users that can find the more subtle and less obvious bugs that alpha testing didn't show up. So yes, a mod should be stable before including it in a beta pack. Stable doesn't mean entirely bug-free.
They are at least mostly stable. Have been for days on days, son. Wheres da pack?In a sense, yes, but releasing something with a swathe of bugs would just cause more trouble. For example, if they released the pack with one large known bug, lets say that if you placed a pattern table in the border of a nexus, it turned into a fish. This isn't really a game-breaking bug, and they could tell people in the description, on the forums, and as a pop-up when they downloaded it. They would still be spammed by topics/posts/messages about the fish bug, which would be useless, and damaging, because it would stop them seeing the stuff that actually mattered.
Having a beta pack is fine, but they won't be doing it before the mods are at least mostly stable.
The way I understood it, that was the intention. The beta part of the beta pack doesn't refer to the mods, but to the pack itself. Once the mods are settled, the beta pack is there to test the configs, and make sure that everything works together before putting the packs out proper.They are at least mostly stable. Have been for days on days, son. Wheres da pack?
If they keep waiting, their beta pack wont be beta anymore, it will be full of non-beta mods.
Some of you act like I dont know the status of FTB mods.