Minecraft Wiki talk:Standardized views

Possible CC license violation
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This post is not legal advice.

The "intended solely for use in the Minecraft Wiki" may not be compatible with the specified CC license. Specifically, it either is just information about what site the templates were made for (in which case the sentence should be worded differently), or an additional restriction on the use of the templates, which contradicts Section 4(a) of the CC license, specifically, the following provision:

In addition, presence of both the CC license template and the Mojang license template on render file pages may not be acceptable. The renders are based on both the model (CC-licensed) and Mojang-copyrighted textures (special license or fair use, in either case most likely not compatible with CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). I have been informed on the Slack community that the Mojang license, if more restrictive, takes priority. This may mean CC license templates on render file pages should be removed. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * translated that text from the German wiki; I'm not sure who the original author of the text and Blender templates is. If they can be identified and agree to remove the exclusivity clause, that should resolve the first issue. -- Orthotopetalk 19:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * created the page in the German wiki, so it is highly possible that the templates are his. – ITechieGamertce 10:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an isometric render with Blockbench?
I don't like to use mods, nor is the mod needed updated to 18w50a. But I do have a 3D modeling software designed for Minecraft called Blockbench (https://blockbench.net), so is it possible to get an standardized isometric render with this program?

Maybe yes, similar to Mineshot. HaydenBobMutthew ( talk, contribs ) 03:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update tutorials for Blender 2.8
Certain steps and images don't make as much sense in Blender 2.8. It might be because I'm new to this, but I followed the instructions as close I could, and it's still not working. Even if I am just new, the images could still use updating. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No worked by Blender 2.8 Trollebas (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Add templates for 1.14 and 1.15 blocks
Many newer blocks such as lecterns, bamboo, scaffolding, stonecutters, etc, are missing render templates. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Item Model Generator
I have created the 3D Item OBJ/MTL Generator. May I add this link? https://codepen.io/pneuma01/full/mdepbjx The output file can be imported by Blender. Pneuma01 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Items are not rendered in isometric view, but sure - go ahead, it will be usefull as general tool I think. Oakar567 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A new section has been created, linking to the 3D Item Generator. But the information may need to be expanded. Pneuma01 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mine-imator useful for Isometric views?
As the topic title asks, do you think Mine-imator is suitable for Isometric views, provided one has the dedication to utilize it? As an example, I created an Isometric view of the Snowy Cartography building. Reckon this is any good for the related pages, such as Structure Blueprints? The Nightmare Tank (talk)


 * Lighting seems different to actual in-game one, also looks like this is perpective, not isometric camera view. Oakar567 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The software uses lighting based off Minecraft's, as far as I know. Even has a night-and-day system. It could be me not configuring that properly which is responsible for that. I also of course need to find the sweet spot for Isometrics. Easier said than done for this structure, since its roof veils most of its appearance from this angle. Probably not the best structure choice to do it justice. The Nightmare Tank (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Update to this. Got an actual isometric view, after a load of messing around and looking one or two things up. I dunno about you, but there seems to be a seaming issue (And a small bit of z-fighting). But I can't be certain if this is simply because of the size of the structure in question, or not. Like, if I were to do this with a smaller structure, would this still be a thing? The Nightmare Tank (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proper Lighting
I'm making a isometric renderer for block models and was wondering how I would be able to get the correct lighting BayYouGoon (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How to achieve above 1.13?
I only know below 1.12, How are the new features above 1.13 achieved in isometric rendering? (Except Blender)--Duowan channel (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Blockbench should work --BayYouGoon (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's Mineshot project for 1.15: mineshot-revived. Oakar567 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaders method
Someone made a shaderpack for orthographic rendering in the new snapshots: https://github.com/onnowhere/core_shaders/releases Here's a demonstration video: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/507995770109165579/828668927038455828/OrthoShader.mp4 I think this could be used to create these "standardised views" directly in the game. Fabian42 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Have wondered about this for awhile and luckily someone else has the same idea here. Since I have seen several authors who have made the orthographic shaders, I wanted to make the tutorial myself. Although would be better to consider more suggestions on the specifications. Some steps that are necessary to have is proper viewing angle using the teleport command, and perhaps the proper distance from the reference. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 07:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Block Renders
The 2.8+ Blender models are not ideal for Blender 2.92. The lighting is not the proper 98%, 80%, 60.8% for the top, left, and right sides respectively. I'm brand new to Blender, so in trying to fix the problem myself, I realized I have no idea how to shimmy the numbers to be what they should. Please help.

On another note, I've noticed many renders are of poor quality, probably because they were optimized after uploading. To prevent this, I recommend adding a link or something to FileOptimizer so that renderers can do it themselves to upload files that won't be as compressed by the site. ~DΦC (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lighting didn't change between those versions. The true problem is that most of current templates are based off old single block template file, that had slightly incorrect and darkened values. Even if it gets fixed, probably majority of block renders would need updating. Oakar567 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be be willing to do that if someone else could fix/tell me how to properly fix the lighting values. I mean, I could also do trial and error... ~DΦC (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I can do this myself, as I have huge experience in Blender, but it will take some time. Maybe when I update the single.blend and multi.blend files you will be able to fix rest of the templates, it's mostly about sun rotation and strength alongside with background color and strength. Oakar567 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good! ~DΦC (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated single_300px and multi_300px files, you can update rest of the templates from the table if you want - I changed sun rotation and it's strength and background color. Oakar567 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dungeons Views
I have finished my Dungeons Views article and would like to move it to being the subpage of Standardized Views article and put Template:About that will be linking to the subpage. Just wanted to ask if you agree and are okay with that. Oakar567 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe move it to the Minecraft Dungeons namespace if possible, as it talk exclusively about Minecraft Dungeons. James Haydon (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about moving it to Dungeons namespace and put Template:About on both articles linking to each other? Oakar567 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's a great idea, so people don't get confused. James Haydon (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Oakar567 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Minecraft Dungeons is a proper namespace for this article. Minecraft Dungeons is a content namespace, Minecraft Wiki is a meta namespace. Content namespace should contain only articles about the game itself, while meta namespace should have articles that are outside of the game itself. Frisk (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay but it still involves dungeons content as it's used for making renders of dungeons mobs. James Haydon (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you use this page as a player looking for information about the game? Not really. It's used internally by wiki editors so content for the wiki can be made. You wouldn't use the same argument for putting Minecraft Wiki:Standardized views into main namespace, and I argue it's literally the same case as in here. Again, content namespaces are content which we want to get to the reader, it's content we want to present to users reading the wiki, it's where Special:Random will take people to, it's also grouped in maintenance tasks as content. I'm still of opinion meta pages have no place in content namespaces like Minecraft Dungeons. Frisk (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay then now I get your point. James Haydon (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then in this situation we should Move it again, but to Minecraft Wiki namespace I think. Oakar567 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay then I moved it to the Minecraft Wiki namespaces. Let me know if you're are unsatisfied with its new title. James Haydon (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would shorten it to just "Minecraft Wiki:Dungeons standardized views". Oakar567 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay but writing it as Minecraft Dungeons is more descriptive as it isn't in the dungeons namespace. James Haydon (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's leave it as is. Oakar567 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)