Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Eugene Krabs

What is your most used editor?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Mr.Rocket said:

ketmar's O/S is currently under development.

Said Operating System will be called k8 O/S, code name is currently k8vavoom.

There is talk that at some point there will be a Live CD ISO for dedicated Windows users. :P

so, is he making a linux distribution dedicated to gaming ?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mr.Rocket said:

ketmar's O/S is currently under development.

oh, but i have to design a new hardware for it first! because all contemporary hardware sux, of course!

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2021 at 8:24 AM, boris said:

The vast majority of the points in my list don't have anything to do with actually building anything. The notion to use a harder to use editor because getting stuff done slower makes it harder to reach static limits is mind-boggling.

You are implying that DBX is hard to use - It's not.

It's actually better for some people to have just the right amount of tools to keep them focused. Too much stuff can be distracting to them (as it is for me). Currently, I think DBX is simpler to use and a better tool if you want to learn the basics. But of course, that's different from people to people. Each one have their own sensibilities with tools.
 

On 10/16/2021 at 8:24 AM, boris said:

The crowded toolbar is a valid point, in fact I considered making it customizable before.

Great! It will be a huge improvement in my eyes and I really appreciate it.
 

On 10/16/2021 at 8:24 AM, boris said:

In the GZDB family there are actions in Sectors Mode to modify the light levels. Thinking that a user who doesn't manage to change a box named "brightness" in the sector editing dialog is not really likely to figure out that Brightness Mode even exists, and on top of that figure out how to use it.

You would be surprised - I already saw it happening with other people (and it's not their fault). Basic stuff like lighting should be intuitive if you are still learning the basics.

 

On 10/16/2021 at 8:24 AM, boris said:

The only thing that's unreasoable here is to expect a modern program to run on 28+ year old hardware (which DB2/DBX don't do either, obviously). 

I never said I want it to run on 28+ yo hardware. I recommend you to read my posts with more attention - I know my english is not that good but I think I was perfectly clear. My point is: one of the reasons I like vanilla is because it's acessible and easy to run. Requiring more for that is unreasonable imo and an incentive for not wanting to use it (DBX do that job perfectly). 
 

On 10/16/2021 at 8:24 AM, boris said:

The only requirement that's really different from DB2/UDB is a OpenGL 3.3 compatible GPU. And pretty much every GPU made in the last 11 (1) years can do that. As I said earlier I'm using a quite dated, 7 year old computer myself.

Your builder will not run on a lot of these computers, at least the ones I know from my country. The fact that OpenGL 3.3 is from 2010 doesn't mean that people got the high-end stuff from that time.

I really don't want to go deep into this type of argument, but keep in mind there are different realities around the world. I'm from a third-world country with a broken economy. I'm already privileged enough to have a computer (or anything to eat, actually). And I know friends of mine with lower specs then I have. 

It's great that UDB is pushing things forward. I'm not "demanding" an advanced tool capable of making gzdoom maps on these computers. The thing is, there are people out there who just want to make some simple stuff - and of course, they will not buy another machine just to make DOS-compatible maps in it. That would be insane. I will recommend DBX instead - which is already easier to learn in my eyes and better suited to their needs.

I hope I was clear enough this time. I will not derail this thread any further.

Edited by Noiser

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Noiser said:

I will recommend DBX instead

why not Eureka? it is much more lightweight, and hey, it's a capable editor, with 3d preview and such. it cannot load .pk3 texture packs and so, but it's not required for vanilla anyway.

 

(not to start editor wars or something; people somehow often overlook Eureka, and it is simple, but not primitive! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Noiser said:

Your builder will not run on a lot of these computers, at least the ones I know from my country. The fact that OpenGL 3.3 is from 2010 doesn't mean that people got the high-end stuff from that time.

 

I really don't want to go deep into this type of argument, but keep in mind there are different realities around the world. I'm from a third-world country with a broken economy. I'm already privileged enough to have a computer (or anything to eat, actually). And I know friends of mine with lower specs then I have. 

 

And you should keep in mind that supporting old, long obsolete hardware is not free. I'm sorry for the people that cannot afford anything better, but us developers do not have infinite time to support such old hardware because we do not have it anymore to test our software on and also need to prioritize our time.

 

I think these days OpenGL 3.3 is a reasonable system requirement because aside from vintage GL 2 hardware from the early 2000's the only systems not capable of supporting it is 3 or 4 generations of ancient Intel laptop GPUs. Yes, it may suck if you are stuck with it, but the choice would have be to either have an editor as it is now or have none at all.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Eureka mostly (have Ubuntu as primary OS) with Slade (which has a Linux build of course).

 

I have DBX/UDB on my Windows boxes that I also use sometimes too - TBH the main thing I use UDB/DBX is to align 3D floor textures visually. I mainly work with .PK3 projects ands I have got used to doing it from first principles.

 

Yeah, I know you can load a .PK3 or exploded directory into UDB, but hey, I'm old school...

 

For compiling ACS (in PK3 exploded directories) I have a batch or shell file (depending on Win/Linux) in the /acs/ directory pointing at a standalone ACC executable, onto which I drag and drop the sourcefile. So I get the .o file generated in the right place. Slade will compile SCRIPTS into BEHAVIOR lumps for you of course, though you still need to point it at ACC. 

 

To publish, I just zip the contents of my working directory and change the extension to .pk3.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate UDB for what it is. My only intention is to help newcomers based on things I already saw happening. It's common to see people using fancy features in a way that doesn't work in vanilla - which again, it's not UDB's fault - but if I think the mapper can learn more in a "controlled environment", that's what I'm gonna suggest. I'm not an expert anyway. If you disagree that's fine.
 

23 hours ago, ketmar said:

why not Eureka? it is much more lightweight, and hey, it's a capable editor, with 3d preview and such.

Looks cool! I never used Eureka to be honest, may give it a try out of curiosity.
 

23 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

And you should keep in mind that supporting old, long obsolete hardware is not free. I'm sorry for the people that cannot afford anything better, but us developers do not have infinite time to support such old hardware because we do not have it anymore to test our software on and also need to prioritize our time.

That's why I recommended DBX. I only asked for an optional render because Boris quoted me - and while I think that would make UDB better (especially for non-UDMF support), I understand it may not be a possiblity. You have a good point anyway.

Edited by Noiser

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Noiser said:

Looks cool! I never used Eureka to be honest, I may give it a try out of curiosity.

but make sure to read a documentation, because Eureka has alot of useful keybindings, it can do a lot more than there in menus. ;-) of course, all keys are rebindable.

 

also, newer versions of Eureka prolly comes with OpenGL 3d preview (yet it should work on anything with OpenGL 1.x support, i believe), but there is also pure software 3d renderer there. but you have to compile it from the sources to get it.

Share this post


Link to post

Eureka, being initially based on Yadex (and therefore DEU indirectly), feels like an old glove to me.  Sometimes I still start levels in it since I never really forgot DEU.  The more modern feel is just icing on the cake.  Plus it's just so much straight forward to build and run.  UDB crashes constantly if I build a native binary for use with Mono, and still slows down unreasonably with some of my larger maps under Wine.  15fps on a 1080 and a Core i9 is hilarious XD

If Eureka ever gets support for pk3s, UDMF, and 3d floor/slope previews in the 3D view (NOT the editing modes, I can't stand using those modes), I'll probably switch back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Spoiler
1 hour ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

If Eureka ever gets support for pk3s, UDMF, and 3d floor/slope previews in the 3D view (NOT the editing modes, I can't stand using those modes), I'll probably switch back to it.

i am partially there with my fork! but i guess i'm too close to getting yet another warning for self-promotion here. ;-)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×