Ultimate Doom Builder is not user-friendly.

[Bauul]

50 minutes ago, Codename_Delta said:

Don't get me started on making UDMF GZDoom maps in UDB, it's honestly worse than making vanilla maps.

 

Define "worse". If you mean "more complicated" then yes, obviously, it's UDMF, one of the whole points of which was to have fewer prebaked actions and instead give the mapper finer control.

 

It's less handholdy by design, and thus could be seen as more complicated, but offers greater control as a result (plus of course supports far more actions and features than the vanilla map format).

[Codename_Delta]

5 minutes ago, Bauul said:

 

Define "worse". If you mean "more complicated" then yes, obviously, it's UDMF, one of the whole points of which was to have fewer prebaked actions and instead give the mapper finer control.

 

It's less handholdy by design, and thus could be seen as more complicated, but offers greater control as a result (plus of course supports far more actions and features than the vanilla map format).

Ye, but everything is definitely much more cluttered in UDMF GZDoom format.

[Kappes Buur]

3 hours ago, Codename_Delta said:

Ye, but everything is definitely much more cluttered in UDMF GZDoom format.

It's interesting to read how a few more icons boggle the mind of so many.

 

Cluttered? Not at all.

True enough, UDB has many more icons, which is only natural given the many extras added over DB2/DBX. As far as I can tell, the icons are organized in a simple fashion:

• construction elements on the vertical toolbar, either left or right
• map enhancements on the top horizontal toolbars where some elements change according to which mode is selected

 

But then, not everybody wants to construct a map with 3D floors, or dynamic lights, or other GZDoom features, in which case DBX is totally sufficient. However, the improved map construction features alone would warrant the use of UDB.

Edited May 17, 2022 by DOOM mapping enthusiast

[Codename_Delta]

1 minute ago, DOOM mapping enthusiast said:

It's interesting to read how a few more icons boggle the mind of so many.

 

Cluttered? Not at all.

True enough, UDB has many more icons, which is only natural given the many extras added over DB2/DBX. As far as I can tell, the icons are organized in a simple fashion:

• construction elements on the vertical toolbar, either left or right
• map enhancements on the top horizontal toolbars where some elements change according to which mode is selected

 

Yeah, it's just there's so many buttons and icons then very useful ones have to be put in shared things.

[magicsofa]

On 5/6/2022 at 4:02 PM, BomberBlur07 said:

Everyone can make maps, except me apparently.

We all started at the beginning, it takes time to learn. Definitely try different editors to see what you like, but UDB does have a lot of options to configure the interface, controls, etc. which I find essential to making things easier for myself.

[ramon.dexter]

This thread only shows that when people start working with one editor, its actually pretty hard to switch ti another. 

I've started with db2, then move to gzdb, then bug fix and then udb. Everytime i try to do something in slade, I'm getting headqche. No 3d floors in visual mode? Just, why? Udb knows it, why not slade?

So, for udb, I can say it is pretty easy, once you understand it.

[Barry Burton]

On 5/17/2022 at 2:44 PM, Codename_Delta said:

Yeah, it's just there's so many buttons and icons then very useful ones have to be put in shared things.

You can hover over buttons to see what they are.

 

99% of the complaints are "too complicated, too many elements". You'll learn how to use them if you just mess around with the toolset.

[Somniac]

UDB is probably the best editor out there IMO. I started with Doom Builder 2, which is very straightforward, and UDB works pretty much the same just with a load more features.

 

They're both very user friendly, but you do have to know what you want to do with it for that intuituveness to make itself apparent.

 

If you're struggling to get to grips with UDB then try DB2. It still works and does everything you need to make a map.

[Razumen]

Hmm, I have the exact experience, visual mode in UDB is SUPER useful, you just have to realize it's NOT for building in, just editing. But once you have your sectors placed, you can do a lot of things: raising & lowering sectors, including 3D floor, copy and placing things, visually changing the slopes of floors, adjusting lighting, changing textures. There's probably a few more things, but I spend a lot of time in it because it's indispensible for visualizing how everything looks, while letting you change a lot as well.

 

I think what's confusing for new users is that once you're in visual mode, pretty much everything besides selecting walls and flats and raising or lowering sector heights requires a keybind (though pressing the button to get into visual mode also gets you out of it). That and a lot of the tools do need a bit of explaining to fully understand them-but really, that's true for any super powerful software. No one expects to open up Maya or 3DSMax and be able to know how to use everything in it-you have to watch tutorials to learn, or at the very least read the reference manual.

[smeghammer]

I think the key point here - that I'm not sure has been mentioned yet - is the difference between the TASK and the TOOL.

 

The TASK is building a map, regardless of the TOOL. Therefore, the key is understanding the task, and not the tool.

 

If you understand the steps in the task (placing vertices, setting floor heights, Thing placement etc.), then the perhaps opaque options in the tool will become clear - and not only that, different implementations of how to do a particular task (let's say build a 3D floor) will be much easier to understand in different editors. Now, I prefer Eureka, but have tinkered with UDB and map editing in Slade3 as well and the end result is the same, but executed in different ways in each editor. 

 

Spoiler

TBH, using Eureka has given me a better understanding of how 3D floors work - I still struggle with how UDB implements it in the editor!

 

[boris]

9 hours ago, smeghammer said:

TBH, using Eureka has given me a better understanding of how 3D floors work - I still struggle with how UDB implements it in the editor!

 

What do you mean? There's nothing special about it. How they work is dictated by the port, not the editor.

[smeghammer]

I mean that the concept of a control sector is clearer (to me) when done in Eureka. It seems more obfuscated when I try and achieve the same thing in UDB.

 

I know it is ultimately achieving the same thing, but with Eureka, the control sector is clearly separated, because you need to manually create and configure the linedefthat controls the 3D sector.

 

When I ask to do a 3D floor in UDB, the first thing it does is give me a selector with which I can draw a blue rectangle. And it is not clear how this method maps to achieving the same thing in Eureka. Yes, of course I am perfectly capable of RTFM, but I am quite satisfied using DiHF ATM, so have not yet done so.

 

Also, although the 3D GUI texture aligning, particularly on projected 3D floors is very slick in UDB, and definitely easier to do than in Eureka, it again detracts from the understanding of what is actually going on in terms of whether the projected 3D floor texture should be aligned from the control sector itself, or from the underlying upper or lower textures. 

 

In terms of the OP, I am a strong believer that an understanding of how what you are trying to implement actually works, rather than learning by rote a technique for achieving an end whose underlying mechanism may not be clear, is a much better way of learning, and it will certainly allow better debugging of any subsequent problems, if they exist.

 

I have seen many posts here that ask things like 'I did X in UDB and feature Y still doesn't work', rather than 'I am trying to achieve Y, but I don't know the mechanism. What is that mechanism and now is it implemented in my editor of choice' - the distinction is quite subtle but I think very important. 

[boris]

31 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

I mean that the concept of a control sector is clearer (to me) when done in Eureka. It seems more obfuscated when I try and achieve the same thing in UDB. 

 

I know it is ultimately achieving the same thing, but with Eureka, the control sector is clearly separated, because you need to manually create and configure the linedefthat controls the 3D sector.

 

When I ask to do a 3D floor in UDB, the first thing it does is give me a selector with which I can draw a blue rectangle. And it is not clear how this method maps to achieving the same thing in Eureka. Yes, of course I am perfectly capable of RTFM, but I am quite satisfied using DiHF ATM, so have not yet done so.

 

You seem to be talking about the 3D Floor Mode. That just makes handling 3D floors easier. Nothing stops you from creating the control sectors manually (which 3D Floor Mode automates).

[smeghammer]

:-) 

Thanks, and noted.

Like I said, I haven't RTFM'ed...

[Razumen]

3D Floor mode is definitely worth learning, you'll save so much time setting up 3D floors with it, and managing and editing them is easier, especially if you have mutliple ones in the same sector.

[The DANDY Company]

UDB is amazing, and we find it very intuitive and user-friendly. There are some good videos on YouTube that can help anyone wanting to understand the UI and workflow better. It’s a very robust tool, but don’t let that be intimidating. We’ve been using it for 3 years and are still finding cool and useful features we weren’t aware of. Just starting using the arch tool a couple months ago. 

[CatWithAComputer]

I think UDB is easy to understand, like i did my first map there and it was very easy to handle.

[Redneckerz]

I like how OP never actually addressed anything presented in this thread.

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I think OP's speaking from a place of frustration, and I completely understand that. We've all been there and we all had to start from scratch... but for its quirks, UDB is an extremely versatile and easy to pick-up tool. Not to mention very active support - seems like every day there's a new handful of fixes.

 

OP: spend more than 5 minutes with it, break through the frustration barrier, and come out the other end super pumped that you have the power to make Doom maps whenever you want.