Skip to content

Conversation

@throckmorpheus
Copy link
Contributor

Previously, we were generating all the vertical slab models by rotating the bottom slab model, which made certain vertical double slabs look strange. I've switched it to using the top slab model for the positive half and the bottom slab model for the negative half.

Before:
2025-10-04_15 53 52

After:
2025-10-04_16 36 28

This rotation method still leaves us with weird-looking differences between how vertical slabs behave as opposed to normal slabs & stairs, so we should probably switch to attempting to load a dedicated vertical slab model and then falling back to the rotated horizontal slab model (so one could fix that with a resource pack), but I don't know how to do that so I'm leaving it here for now.

@CJMinecraft01 CJMinecraft01 added the 1.21.x MC 1.21.x label Jan 3, 2026
@CJMinecraft01 CJMinecraft01 self-assigned this Jan 3, 2026
Copy link
Owner

@CJMinecraft01 CJMinecraft01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The slabs look soo much better with these changes but I'm a bit unsure on the approach here as it relies on the fact that the top variant of the slab has the _top suffix in the resource name which cannot always be guaranteed. Also, swapping from using the BlockState as the key to using the Block means that if a modded slab uses a variant property on the state (e.g., an enum for the direction of the slab), we only use the default variant. I'll have a look at doing this and I'll put up a PR - thanks for raising this!!

Also, could you expand on what you mean by "weird-looking differences between how vertical slabs behave as opposed to normal slabs & stairs"? Could you show an example?

@CJMinecraft01
Copy link
Owner

I've had a shot at doing this by using the correct model for each half - see #326

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

1.21.x MC 1.21.x

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants