You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Change the three checkboxes at the top of this page to two and name them Release and Preview.
原因 | Reason
At present, the page for choosing the OptiFine version has similar logic to the page for selecting the Minecraft version, and both allow users to filter by Release, Snapshot & Historical types.
However, I checked the official website of OptiFine and the file list of BMCLAPI and found that this filtering method does not seem to be suitable for OptiFine:
I have only seen that OptiFine provides two types of versions, namely versions with/without pre (Release & Preview).
These three checkboxes look like they were originally designed for selecting the type of Minecraft version, not for selecting the OptiFine version. In fact, when choosing the OptiFine version, basically no one will choose the Historical type, which is useless.
In the past when I was using HMCL, I never thought about it that much. When I saw the related translation again recently, I suddenly felt that the logic was very strange, so I raised this issue.
Ah, I chose Feature Request because I was not sure if this was a bug. If I am wrong, please let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
描述 | Description
Change the three checkboxes at the top of this page to two and name them Release and Preview.
原因 | Reason
At present, the page for choosing the OptiFine version has similar logic to the page for selecting the Minecraft version, and both allow users to filter by Release, Snapshot & Historical types.
However, I checked the official website of OptiFine and the file list of BMCLAPI and found that this filtering method does not seem to be suitable for OptiFine:
In the past when I was using HMCL, I never thought about it that much. When I saw the related translation again recently, I suddenly felt that the logic was very strange, so I raised this issue.
Ah, I chose Feature Request because I was not sure if this was a bug. If I am wrong, please let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: