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

Why does it seem that the DW community prefers Boom over Zdoom format?

Recommended Posts

I'm gonna play Trump and bait WW3 here for a sec. If it's your thing that's fine, I just don't understand the appeal of it. I tried pr-boom once, and I know it was probably just me, but I couldn't stand looking at it. I felt like I was playing on a "Gateway 2000" at 300x600 resolution no matter what I tried to do to fix it.  I like Zdoom, the ability to use flat as walls, it gives you the ability to be more creative with your works but when you load those maps into pr-boom the flats don't display on the walls. I also like some of the special line def actions zdoom gives you. IDK if you can do that in pr-boom since it seems that it runs things in a vanilla manner. I just dont under stand why the community is more attracted to pr-boom editing than anything else. Please enlighten me. I think im just ignorant but idk. Not trying to be rude or anything I just dont get it. is it the ability to record demos?

Edited by Dubbagdarrel

Share this post


Link to post

Recording demos isn't limited to Boom - any source port that wants to take itself seriously has that capability at this point. The difference between Boom and ZDoom in that regard is that ZDoom demos are only compatible with the specific port and version of it they were recorded on, which isn't the case with Boom.

 

To actually answer your question, I think the general preference for Boom over ZDoom is because of compatibility reasons. While ZDoom's feature set is arguably the most extensive out of any source port, they're only compatible within that specific source port family, and even then, certain things aren't necessarily fully compatible even between different versions of ZDoom. Boom doesn't have that problem because its feature set is smaller but more easily maintainable for compatibility.

 

Of course, it depends on who you ask. I for one am one of those people that prefer ZDoom over Boom, simply because I discovered ZDoom before Boom. I do have PrBoom+ as well, though I only use it very rarely - the main reason I have PrBoom+ is for testing purposes in case I ever make a Boom map, which I have been wanting to do for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally use GZdoom over PrBoom+ most of the time. But I can understand the reason why many prefer PrBoom+. Its mostly due to its more closer to vanilla behaviour/accuracy + demo recording capabilities and also it being less hardware intensive than GZdoom.

 

Also anything made for PrBoom+ will also run in GZdoom, but not vice versa. This means that going the GZdoom route will reduce the audience.

Share this post


Link to post

good points, for some reason I forgot about the other forums. I always though DW was the place to be. I guess the target audience here is Pr-boom.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Misty said:


Not really, how about being open-minded to all mapping formats and ports? I have no problems to use zdoom or prboom+(and any other ports) and do maps for them. There are plenty of people who do maps only for zdoom/gzdoom and yet they still get attention here. Each map set regardless of format or port choice, keeps this game alive and kicking. 

exactly thank you

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

I personally use GZdoom over PrBoom+ most of the time. But I can understand the reason why many prefer PrBoom+. Its mostly due to its more closer to vanilla behaviour/accuracy + demo recording capabilities and also it being less hardware intensive than GZdoom.

 

Also anything made for PrBoom+ will also run in GZdoom, but not vice versa. This means that going the GZdoom route will reduce the audience.

 

Nailed it. Also people can play Doom and make maps however the fuck they want, too :p .

 

Me? I prefer PrBoom and Eternity for their vanilla accuracy and demo capabilities, but I like GZDoom too and actively use it when I want to make the game look more fancy.

 

21 minutes ago, Dubbagdarrel said:

good points, for some reason I forgot about the other forums. I always though DW was the place to be. I guess the target audience here is Pr-boom.

 

There is no such thing here, whatever that s supposed to be. Everyone does their own thing.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, seed said:

 

Nailed it. Also people can play Doom and make maps however the fuck they want, too :p .

 

Me? I prefer PrBoom and Eternity for their vanilla accuracy and demo capabilities, but I like GZDoom too and actively use it when I want to make the game look more fancy.

 

 

There is no such thing here, whatever that s supposed to be. Everyone does their own thing.

well IDK guys I'm just trying to figure shit out lol I'm confused lol. I'm in support of all ports I was just wonder what the draw was to pr-boom over zdoom. it just seems like thats what most people use here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Dubbagdarrel said:

well IDK guys I'm just trying to figure shit out lol I'm confused lol. I'm in support of all ports I was just wonder what the draw was to pr-boom over zdoom.

 

Faster on stone age hardware, strong demo capability in addition to support for older versions of Doom, easier to map for, more vanilla accurate which is a big plus for those concerned with such things, personal preference, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doomkid said:

ZDoom and PrBoom? What is this lesbian shit?! REAL MEN use REAL PORTS like Doom Legacy, Mocha Doom or PrGZBoom++ version 23.1.5b!

 

Nah I’m kidding. The majority of people playing custom wads don’t have accounts anywhere, don’t post anywhere, they just use GZDoom to play everything in silent bliss.

 

PrBoom+ is in what I’d call “distant second” in terms of popularity.

hmm alright. ok I was wrong my bad. Hence why I made this post lol

Share this post


Link to post

I’m glad you did, totally understandable. It’s hard to get an accurate idea of how popular ports are, especially from subcommunity to subcommunity where tastes vary so much!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really glad that you guys have cleared things up for me. AGain not trying to throw any source ports under the bus. The ability to have multiple source ports for the same game just speaks for its greatness. I was just wondering if maybe making pr-boom maps would grant my WAD more attention cause that's what someone said once and I have realized that alot of community projects want pr-boom or vanilla compatible formats. So i was just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, boris said:

Doomworld is generally way more sceptical towards the ZDoom family, and way more pro-old-school.

Personally, as someone who used to use ZDoom for everything who then recently switched to Crispy Doom/PrBoom+, I can say that reason number one for this is mostly what the source port enables which causes bad habits in modders.

 

For a small example, ZDoom has a tendency to always "correct" common mapping mistakes and errors resulting in outright unoptimized maps and your maps could end up breaking for other people and you would have no clue why. I would have no clue why my doors would break the entire map in other source ports when I would finally realize that if I put a SR line action on a door wall itself, then I must put a tag on the door sector itself but ZDoom just automatically always made that door line action correctly self-referring without even putting a warning in the console. Most of the community here call stuff like that "ZDoomisms". ZDoom also changed so much of the physics engine (player movement is even different) and how everything works that even the compatibility options like Doom (strict) still don't even correctly emulate vanilla Doom. With that in mind you have people just loading up compatibility options, changing it to Boom (strict) and calling their map they're making in ZDoom a PrBoom compatible map. That is exactly why this quote is true:

 

53 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

Also anything made for PrBoom+ will also run in GZdoom, but not vice versa.

Edit: I also want to mention that it changes vanilla Doom maps too such as MAP05 and MAP02 in the name of fixing bugs such as stuck Lost Souls and misplaced barrels, but the devs of GZDoom kept the stuck Zombieman in MAP02 just because it's "iconic" so they aren't even consistent. ???

 

And to your DOSBOX Doom purists you have your ZDoom elitists that want ZDoom to be the gold standard (I've seen people just begging id Software to just replace their own engine on Doom ports like on the Switch with GZDoom. That's just wrong).

 

6 minutes ago, Dubbagdarrel said:

I was just wondering if maybe making pr-boom maps would grant my WAD more attention cause that's what someone said once and I have realized that alot of community projects want pr-boom or vanilla compatible formats.

 

Do NOT make your Doom maps with the intent of getting popular! Make what you want to play! And wherever you post it, just say what source port you used to play your map and you should be good.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, UndeadRyker said:

Personally, as someone who used to use ZDoom for everything who then recently switched to Crispy Doom/PrBoom+, I can say that reason number one for this is mostly what the source port enables which causes bad habits in modders.

 

For a small example, ZDoom has a tendency to always "correct" common mapping mistakes and errors resulting in outright unoptimized maps and your maps could end up breaking for other people and you would have no clue why. I would have no clue why my doors would break the entire map in other source ports when I would finally realize that if I put a SR line action on a door wall itself, then I must put a tag on the door sector itself but ZDoom just automatically always made that door line action correctly self-referring without even putting a warning in the console. Most of the community here call stuff like that "ZDoomisms". ZDoom also changed so much of the physics engine (player movement is even different) and how everything works that even the compatibility options like Doom (strict) still don't even correctly emulate vanilla Doom. With that in mind you have people just loading up compatibility options, changing it to Boom (strict) and calling their map they're making in ZDoom a PrBoom compatible map. That is exactly why this quote is true:

 

And to your DOSBOX Doom purists you have your ZDoom elitists that want ZDoom to be the gold standard (I've seen people just begging id Software to just replace their own engine on Doom ports like on the Switch with GZDoom. That's just wrong).

 

 

Do NOT make your Doom maps with the intent of getting popular! Make what you want to play! And wherever you post it, just say what source port you used to play your map and you should be good.

its not really for popularity so much as the fact that I spent a month staying up late when I had work at 5 am or spending all my off days doing this only to get no feedback. I do it cause I like it don't get me wrong but you cannot deny that it is discouraging. I know ive only been on here for 2 months and I'm no master at the craft by any means but it's just sad lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Other places you might get at least a small handful of comments on your maps are ZDoom.org, zandronum.com, the Doom Mods subreddit, ModDB and probably a gazillion others I’m forgetting. DW is just one (admittedly big) slice of the pie but there are multiple ponds to fish in if you’re struggling to get a bite 

Share this post


Link to post

I can appreciate that some might want to preserve the look or the feel of the original game as closely as possible, and as a huge fan of speedruns, demo recording can't be denied. All things considered though my main concern is mapping, and personally speaking I've made and played enough vanilla style levels for multiple lifetimes, and I've only recently gotten into advanced features so I definitely prioritize the added flexibility that the advanced ports offer. I wasn't around much when slopes and 3d floors became a big deal, so again just from my own perspective, that's what I'm looking for in recent times. I still have a place for oldskool style levels don't get me wrong, there's too much great stuff being made to say "I only like this one thing" imo.

 

As a counterpart to that I've also been a member on lots of different forums and while I agree different sites are good and all, the idea of cross posting any release I might have on like 3 or 4 different websites isn't something I find terribly appealing. Feedback is awesome and I take it very seriously but at the end of the day my first concern is making maps and putting them on the internet for folks to have a good time with, and this is the site I settled on for whatever reason. I have my own goals just like anyone else has their goals as a player or speedrunner etc. If I aim for an advanced port and someone can play it in another that they prefer, then that's cool. My main thing is players seeing maps as the creator intended... as soon as you make a map for a specific port or gameplay style, you're already narrowing your audience, the good thing about Doom is there's plenty to go around. Doomworld is also decent for posting dank memes when you're taking a break lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Side note: I love DW. You guys are great, I love the passion everyone has here for this. Doom world "We don't fuck around" lol

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, reflex17 said:

As a counterpart to that I've also been a member on lots of different forums and while I agree different sites are good and all, the idea of cross posting any release I might have on like 3 or 4 different websites isn't something I find terribly appealing.

This is kind of a tangent, but this is a process that my brain and body have almost ‘automated’ at this point: I make a big template post in a text file using universally accepted forum tags. Always starts with the title (and title picture graphic), some “selling points” about what the map is and why you should play it, what ports it was designed for and tested in (usually “all” in my case), 3 or 4 screenshots, then finally I slap the link at the bottom. Easy peasy! Copy/paste that sucker and post it on as many or as few forums as you like.

 

I don’t want people to mistake going “door to door” with your wad as being “in it for the popularity”. I am a well known mapper only because I put in the effort to put all my releases out there, in as many places as possible. Through this effort, over many years and many wad releases, I have built up somewhat of a name for myself.

 

No one else will advertise your work for you unless it is mind-bendingly, world-shatteringly good. Don’t feel like you’re “being greedy” or “seeking fame” just by virtue of posting your wad in many places. As long as you had fun making it, as long as the mapping process is fun for you in and of itself, I see no shame in it.

 

As the great Zappa himself said: I’m not concerned with sales figures. I’m not even concerned with whether or not people like it - my only concern is getting it out there and giving people the option to try it out!

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

For a small example, ZDoom has a tendency to always "correct" common mapping mistakes and errors resulting in outright unoptimized maps

???

 

7 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

and your maps could end up breaking for other people and you would have no clue why. I would have no clue why my doors would break the entire map in other source ports when I would finally realize that if I put a SR line action on a door wall itself, then I must put a tag on the door sector itself but ZDoom just automatically always made that door line action correctly self-referring without even putting a warning in the console.

This has nothing to do with optimization. It's not even a correction, it's just a result of having changed the action system to Hexen's, and translating the map format. Hexen separates line actions from line triggers, Doom doesn't. The result is that DR and SR doors are both replaced by the same line special, which works like in Hexen: if tag is 0, it's a local door, otherwise it's remote.

 

But it's unrelated to optimization. I want examples of mapping habits encouraged by ZDoom that result in a map being slower.

 

11 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

the compatibility options like Doom (strict) still don't even correctly emulate vanilla Doom.

That's a fundamental confusion with what the compatibility options are for. Compatibility isn't the same notion as emulation.

 

PrBoom+ is a demo runner's port, it's made to record and play demos. PrBoom+'s compatibility levels (aka complevels) therefore are based with what allows demos to run correctly.

 

ZDoom dropped demo running from its goals from the beginning. The compatibility levels are not there to allow to run demos without desyncs, they're here to allow to play a level to completion. The options allow to replicate certain bugs and glitches when they are needed by a map because off errors the mappers made -- or exploits they consciously exploited. But they're a granular thing, you can toggle on Bug Emulation #1 without also toggling on Bug Emulation #2, #3, #4, and #5. In PrBoom+, it's fundamentally different, the complevels are about emulating an entire set of behaviors, and you can't toggle them on and off individually. If you play a map in Boom complevel, you can't enable back a vanilla bug that Boom fixed, and you can't disable a Boom bug vanilla didn't have.

 

Doom (strict) is just a way to turn on all the bug options ZDoom has that relate to Doom bugs. But it's not, and never was, intended to record and play vanilla demos, and minor changes in behaviors that do not break maps are not included, even if they do break demos, because ZDoom doesn't run vanilla demos anyway.

 

So we have completely different approaches to compatibility options because the goals are completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

As the great Zappa himself said: I’m not concerned with sales figures. I’m not even concerned with whether or not people like it - my only concern is getting it out there and giving people the option to try it out!

 

That's true, one would be a fool not to harken unto the wisdom of Zappa. One of my main issues is a selfish one, and it comes down to old fashioned correspondence. I have the tendency to be long-winded so I cut myself off from posting a lot of reviews and feedback because for me it adds up to a lot of time. I have recently tried speed mapping though and there are some good lessons to be learned there that might be applied to poasting on the interent ehehehe. Anything I do in the future I'll try to cross-post, the benefit (more people playing it) is probably worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Gez said:

But it's unrelated to optimization. I want examples of mapping habits encouraged by ZDoom that result in a map being slower

There are certainly "mapping habits" that stem from how ZDoom behaves. One such example was found in Mayhem19 (don't remember the mapslot right now, unfortunately) where one of the maps had a linedef to lower a lift tagged with "0", IIRC, which works fine in ZDoom, because it limits the linedef action to the nearest sector, but causes a major HOMfest in for example PrBoom+, and that's in spite of the map being in Boom format.

 

Why didn't the mapper find this out while testing their own map? Because they tested in (G)ZDoom only, while other players, who found this bug, played in PrBoom+. So it stands to reason that differences in port behaviour can correlate with how people build maps.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Gez said:

???

 

This has nothing to do with optimization. It's not even a correction, it's just a result of having changed the action system to Hexen's, and translating the map format. Hexen separates line actions from line triggers, Doom doesn't. The result is that DR and SR doors are both replaced by the same line special, which works like in Hexen: if tag is 0, it's a local door, otherwise it's remote.

 

 

Actually, that entire dilemma is the result of an historic oversight. When the translation stuff was written it was a different era. Text formats were frowned upon and bit shaving considered a worthwile achievement. An thus it happened that the format cooked up here was a bit *too* compact and missed this little bit of information because for existing maps this never mattered so it wasn't noticed until many years later. But then there were two problems:

* some maps already existed that took the behavior for granted.

* the format didn't support the needed addition of another bit.

 

It was many more years later that I got rid of that binary format which was a constant source of problems - but at that time it was too late. Adding the bit back would be pointless because it'd never reach the people it was meant for, i.e. mappers which do not do proper testing. They'd be the least likely ones to switch on compatibility presets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

 

Actually, that entire dilemma is the result of an historic oversight. When the translation stuff was written it was a different era. Text formats were frowned upon and bit shaving considered a worthwile achievement. An thus it happened that the format cooked up here was a bit *too* compact and missed this little bit of information because for existing maps this never mattered so it wasn't noticed until many years later. But then there were two problems:

* some maps already existed that took the behavior for granted.

* the format didn't support the needed addition of another bit.

 

It was many more years later that I got rid of that binary format which was a constant source of problems - but at that time it was too late. Adding the bit back would be pointless because it'd never reach the people it was meant for, i.e. mappers which do not do proper testing. They'd be the least likely ones to switch on compatibility presets.

 

 

lol I don't even know what you guys are talking about anymore. this stuff is going way over my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×