Europe, my new map

Hi, this is my first post, I dont speak english very well because Im spanish, but I am going to try to speak the correct that possible.

The reason for this post is my new map "europe", it is a giant, difficult and full of details map.

I would like that proof it and if it is possible said to me that it seems to you, I only used the original textures of DooM, except the sky. The map only works in ZDooM 2.0.96, because it is very big and the DooM2.exe dont support it.

Here it is the Link:http://doodoms.xoopiter.com/Mapas/Europe.zip

Enjoy


Edit: Link Updated

xDDDDDDDDDDD

No, the map not inspired in the group, check the map and look around, Its a european castle, european city and european subway, all in one map.

All joking aside, this is a surprisingly decent level. Like a Dystopia 3/UAC Dead mix. Too many monsters for my liking however (Zdoom's kill monsters revealed 1600)

I tried it and its a pretty big map, but a bit too big for me to keep me interested.
Its an decent looking map, it had some interesting architecture I have to say.
Welcome to these forums and keep making more wads, maybe a bit smaller and with one theme would be nice:)

Thanks for your good review :D

Im working in this moment in DM pack for ZDaemon and my Mod "Submarine UAC Plant" whit small one ambient levels.

Also In the second part of this map, with more city ambient like Action DooM or DooMCity

o_O

I get lost in E1M7...

jesus christ thats one hell of a big map

I thought the music was catchy. :)

Very big map but, you should join the sectors that have the same attributes.. No reason to have lots of sectors when you only need a "few" -select sectors and press j to join. And is this one of your first maps? its huge but also has issues. well done anyway :)

There's no reason NOT to have alot of sectors. The way I understand it, doom doesn't care about sector count, it's mostly visible linedef count that takes its toll on the processor, and wad space.

I like this map, and as difficult as the monsters make it, it's still great, a nice addition to the community, I still haven't taken 10 minutes out of my day to read a mapping tutorial.

Pretty nice, but it would help if you didn't completely stop giving out health 3/4 into the map.

Kinkyfriend said:

Very big map but, you should join the sectors that have the same attributes.. No reason to have lots of sectors when you only need a "few" -select sectors and press j to join. And is this one of your first maps? its huge but also has issues. well done anyway :)

No, you don't want to join the sectors with the same attributes. This leads to odd behaviour.

kristus said:

No, you don't want to join the sectors with the same attributes. This leads to odd behaviour.

No it doesn't. If you have 5 sectors with same floor height and ceiling height and same brightness then you could just as well use same sector, however if you use some teleporter thingy then it might be best not to have them all as one sector...

To Scuba Steve:
I know, it's linedefs that really matters but It's like a thing you just do... looks more "professional" to have 1 sector instead of 100 when it's possible.

Kinkyfriend said:

No it doesn't. If you have 5 sectors with same floor height and ceiling height and same brightness then you could just as well use same sector, however if you use some teleporter thingy then it might be best not to have them all as one sector...

It's still a bad idea. There are other things that depend on sectors that are not obvious to those unfamiliar with the internals of the engine (e.g. sound handling.) And it can create instabilities if the bounding rectangle of a sector gets larger than necessary. All you save is a few bytes in the WAD and that isn't worth the trouble.

To Scuba Steve:
I know, it's linedefs that really matters but It's like a thing you just do... looks more "professional" to have 1 sector instead of 100 when it's possible.

So speaks the amateur...

Graf Zahl said:

It's still a bad idea. There are other things that depend on sectors that are not obvious to those unfamiliar with the internals of the engine (e.g. sound handling.) And it can create instabilities if the bounding rectangle of a sector gets larger than necessary.

I normally join sectors if I can as it can save quite a bit of time editing if you decide you want to change some sector properties. I was wondering what effects it might have though. Obviously you don't want to join sectors either sides of a door or something, but I was thinking joining say, four sectors used as lights inside a room wouldn't make much difference, as they're surrounded by the same sector anyway. And wouldn't it effect any sidedef packing you might do?

Anyway, not bad big map. I haven't gone through it all yet, and I found some of the long dark tunnel/maze bits a bit boring, and but overall not bad. Maybe downsize some of the rooms in your next map.

Graf Zahl said:

So speaks the amateur...

You don't know what I can or can not do so I would prefer if you don't flame.

The Flange Peddler said:

I normally join sectors if I can as it can save quite a bit of time editing if you decide you want to change some sector properties. I was wondering what effects it might have though. Obviously you don't want to join sectors either sides of a door or something, but I was thinking joining say, four sectors used as lights inside a room wouldn't make much difference, as they're surrounded by the same sector anyway. And wouldn't it effect any sidedef packing you might do?

If you are joining a small number of sectors that somehow belong together it is ok. It gets problematic when they are too far apart, separated by something or when you are joining too many sectors. One map of KDIZD developed severe stability problems because too many small sectors were joined. At some point it became quite hard to build nodes for it.

Kinkyfriend said:

You don't know what I can or can not do so I would prefer if you don't flame.

You talked about being 'professional' when suggesting a hack. I merely pointed out the contradiction.

Graf Zahl said:

If you are joining a small number of sectors that somehow belong together it is ok. It gets problematic when they are too far apart, separated by something or when you are joining too many sectors. One map of KDIZD developed severe stability problems because too many small sectors were joined. At some point it became quite hard to build nodes for it.



You talked about being 'professional' when suggesting a hack. I merely pointed out the contradiction.

I merely said that it can look more professional... and we're not all coders so we wouldn't know all aboutt the engine as those who do.. (the coders) And I have never been told that its a bad thing to do before, rather the opposite from people who do know doom mapping!

Mmmm, the map is too big, and I have tried to emulate a castle with detailed shadows, city, and subway, for this reason I have used so many sectors. When I began the map it wasnt going to be so big, but later I proposed to make it giant to see what was capable the engine.

I am experienced in maping, have published some maps, not so big, but always looking for the realism in them. For this reason I use many sectors to put shadows, small details and objects.

Kinkyfriend said:

And I have never been told that its a bad thing to do before, rather the opposite from people who do know doom mapping!

This is one of the biggest misconceptions of Doom mapping based on the erroneous assumption that 'less resources = less overhead'.

In the case of sectors and sidedefs this is wrong. These items are merely property containers that have no effect whatsoever on performance. They only cost a little memory (and in the case of sidedefs and ZDoom not even that because it unpacks the sidedefs because packed sidedefs can make some more advanced things quite hard to control.)

Graf Zahl said:

This is one of the biggest misconceptions of Doom mapping based on the erroneous assumption that 'less resources = less overhead'.

In the case of sectors and sidedefs this is wrong. These items are merely property containers that have no effect whatsoever on performance. They only cost a little memory (and in the case of sidedefs and ZDoom not even that because it unpacks the sidedefs because packed sidedefs can make some more advanced things quite hard to control.)

I did know that Sectors nor probably sidedefs would make a different for speed. I know the "bad guy" is linedefs.
So don't throw me into any lessons, please.. if I wanted to, I would ask.

I think that the form of mapping from every person belongs different, because each mapper have own tricks.

In addition I prefer a detailed map, that a map with one sector rooms...

Kinkyfriend said:

I did know that Sectors nor probably sidedefs would make a different for speed. I know the "bad guy" is linedefs.
So don't throw me into any lessons, please.. if I wanted to, I would ask.

Actually, there's one case where joining of sectors can greatly enhanche the speed of a map. And that is when you use 3d floors in Software mode of Legacy. (possibly in the others aswell) You can save up quite a bit by doing the sector referencing to as few sectorsas possible. But other than that I can't see a single reason to join a bunch of sectors. The Flange Peddler previously said that he had the habit of joining a pack of sectors so it would be easier to change them all at once. This is of course true, but IMO it only leads to problems later on if you want to do some changes and or copy parts of it. Just makes it all messier. But that's just my opinion. I can't claim I think that the flange peddler is WRONG to do as he's doing, if it works for him. More power to him.

As for the "bad guy" in Doom editing. It's not linedefs, it's double sided linedefs with textures in the main/middle field. They are the one thing that is most power consuming to render in the Doom engine (stock, ports probably have other "bad guys" such as 3d floors, models, translucent textures, high res textures, whatever).

kristus said:

Actually, there's one case where joining of sectors can greatly enhanche the speed of a map. And that is when you use 3d floors in Software mode of Legacy. (possibly in the others aswell) You can save up quite a bit by doing the sector referencing to as few sectorsas possible. But other than that I can't see a single reason to join a bunch of sectors. The Flange Peddler previously said that he had the habit of joining a pack of sectors so it would be easier to change them all at once. This is of course true, but IMO it only leads to problems later on if you want to do some changes and or copy parts of it. Just makes it all messier. But that's just my opinion. I can't claim I think that the flange peddler is WRONG to do as he's doing, if it works for him. More power to him.

As for the "bad guy" in Doom editing. It's not linedefs, it's double sided linedefs with textures in the main/middle field. They are the one thing that is most power consuming to render in the Doom engine (stock, ports probably have other "bad guys" such as 3d floors, models, translucent textures, high res textures, whatever).

I was mostly referring to the speed of the map and not it's textures or texture usage :) but whatever I don't think this discussion is so important and no reason to make it bigger hehe...

So was I, fool!
Did you even read what I wrote?

kristus said:

So was I, fool!
Did you even read what I wrote?

I meant like as in not the texture usage when it comes to speed, texture usage isn't the "map" itself but a "layer" on a map that creates the atmosphere intended.
textures mostly always takes most speed... if we didnt use so many textures then we could probably do a lot more advanced "maps"... but then we would only have one coloured walls with shading maybe...

If you didn't have any textures in Doom you would get a lot of HOM's. Doom isn't written to NOT have textures in the maps. So why would you exclude them, and the thing is, it's not even about the texture. It's the matter that rendering a texture/surface like the way it is done in a case such as the one I took up is very costly to the CPU because of the way it's rendered and handled, not because it's a texture.

Ok, I've had enough.

kristus said:

If you didn't have any textures in Doom you would get a lot of HOM's. Doom isn't written to NOT have textures in the maps. So why would you exclude them, and the thing is, it's not even about the texture. It's the matter that rendering a texture/surface like the way it is done in a case such as the one I took up is very costly to the CPU because of the way it's rendered and handled, not because it's a texture.

Ok, I've had enough.

I know you'd get HOM'S... but oh well nvm.. I've had enough too!