Why don't people just use UDMF format?

[Juza]

Just this one simple question. Is it because they enjoy the "old-school" way to play Doom? Because they can't adapt do it? Why? It is far more superior than any other format and you can do amazing stuff with it.

[Kaido]

hey buddy , wants some extra tutorial on how to use boom ?

 

oh wait , its just gonna stay udmf? I couldnt be fucked using other formats , udmf is much superior .

[Da Werecat]

Some people like a challenge. And some people just prefer keeping it simple.

[Juza]

Just now, A7MAD said:

hey buddy , wants some extra tutorial on how to use boom ?

 

oh wait , its just gonna stay udmf? I couldnt be fucked using other formats , udmf is much superior .

I make my wads in Boom-format, but I'm considering leaving it and start using UDMF.

[Doomkid]

Cross port and thus cross platform compatibility. That's my own reason, anyway.

[Remilia Scarlet]

I don't think I've ever used Boom format.  Just Hexen format and UDMF.

[Da Werecat]

Probably the only reason to stay Boom that approximates objectivity is speedrunning. Speedrunning on anything that supports UDMF is quite obscure at this moment. Simpler ports like PrBoom are getting the most attention in this regard, for better or for worse.

[Tango]

I've kinda been asking myself this question lately. all the maps I've been working on require gzdoom because of DECORATE, yet I still keep making the maps in doom format. I think formerly, I was influenced by complaints about zdoom on these forums ("why does this map require zdoom if it barely uses any zdoom features", "you're shutting out all the speedrunners by using zdoom", etc). but eventually I realized it's not worth it to me to sacrifice any of my creative intent for any of these benefits. so, I guess lately I've been sticking to doom format because it's simpler, and gzdoom builder is still missing a few features to make editing in udmf feel just as simple as in doom format, given my editing habits

[Nevander]

If PrBoom can get UDMF support and support for other GZDoom lumps we'd be in business. I love UDMF but the newest GZDoom causes major issues for me and PrBoom has always been silky smooth AFAIK.

[scifista42]

1 hour ago, Doomkid said:

Cross port compatibility.

Primarily this. There's also the fact that UDMF maps have 10-20 times bigger filesize than Doom format maps with the same geometry.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, AsianMammoth said:

Just this one simple question. Is it because they enjoy the "old-school" way to play Doom? Because they can't adapt do it? Why? It is far more superior than any other format and you can do amazing stuff with it.

-Boom yields faster results

-UDMF isn't "superior", because it depends on how you use the format

-You can't do large scale slaughter in UDMF without having performance issues at some point

-Demo compatibility is important not only for speedrunners but also for mappers as a way to rack up feedback

-Some people don't want to spend time on scripting, because either they find it annoying, or they have no expertise in terms of "coding"

-More often than not, scripting has no conceiveable gameplay relevant advantage over what you can do in boom, partially due to PRNG but also for other reasons

-skilled mappers build better maps in boom than most mappers could even hope to do in UDMF (For reference see Cacowards of the past)

-Some people like to push a format to its limits rather than simply hopping to the next best format

-people who can't make somewhat decent maps in boom won't suddnely do so just because UDMF

-hopping to UDMF often means that mappers need more time to finish their stuff, especially a problem for new mappers who don't get their gameplay proper since they develop their understanding of gameplaydesign at a slower pace due to lower overall output and less resulting feedback

 

Personally I would never map in UDMF unless I really had to, because I wanna make maps that play nice, not tech-demos that look fancy and do nothing other than that. Mapping in UDMF isn't rocket science, sure, but that doesn't mean it's worth adapting to it as soon as possible. I've seen several people in the JOM discord recently, who just started mapping, and couldn't get anything done in a timely fashion, because scripting was a problem, yet they wanted to stick to UDMF in spite of getting nowhere with it. That said, UDMF isn't superior, and it isn't for everybody. My advice to new mappers: Avoid UDMF like the plague until you got the basics down, then think about shenanigans like scripting.

[Remilia Scarlet]

4 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Avoid UDMF like the plague until you got the basics down, then think about shenanigans like scripting.

What does UDMF have to do with scripting?  You can do ACS in Hexen format.

[Nine Inch Heels]

10 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

You can do ACS in Hexen format.

You can also do ACS for boom by way of libraries, afaik. I've not yet seen a UDMF-map that isn't scripted in some way, though.

[scifista42]

12 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

-UDMF isn't "superior",

Let's at least admit that it is superior in terms of features/possibilities - but sure, it's not all that matters to people using it.

8 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

-You can't do large scale slaughter in UDMF without having performance issues at some point

Performance depends on engine and hardware, not on map format.

9 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

-Some people don't want to spend time on scripting,

UDMF doesn't force anyone to do any scripting, it's just an available feature.

[Remilia Scarlet]

14 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

You can also do ACS for boom by way of libraries, afaik. I've not yet seen a UDMF-map that isn't scripted in some way, though.

I don't think I would equate UDMF to scripting, however.  That only further promotes the incorrect view that "UDMF = You need to use scripting."

 

Either way, I'd say that the format you use shouldn't matter as long as the map is good and accomplishes your goals.  That includes whether or not one uses scripting, and does not preclude the fact that learning the basics still must come first.

 

13 minutes ago, scifista42 said:

Performance depends on engine and hardware, not on map format.

I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that the maps are completely read into data structures at load time and not streamed off the disk.  So yeah, if this is true for the various source ports, I wouldn't expect format to dictate map performance.  Maybe load performance, but that's just parsing.

[anotak]

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

-You can't do large scale slaughter in UDMF without having performance issues at some point

-Demo compatibility is important not only for speedrunners but also for mappers as a way to rack up feedback

can you elaborate on the performance issues? there are some unfortunate (but not tremendous) increases in save / load time of UDMF maps with some software, notably the doombuilder family of editors, but it shouldn't affect anything ingame as far as I know? did i miss something.

 

also EE has demo compatibility and supports UDMF so i'm unsure about that statement.

 

i'd like to point out that using the ee_compat feature currently in the eternity engine nightly drdteam builds, you can make UDMF maps that work in both zdoom and EE. as long as you dont use any features that break in one or the other

Edited November 12, 2017 by anotak

[durian]

I learned how to use map editors and make levels in the dark old days, when there was only one map format. In many ways the experience of mapping now is very far removed from the experience of mapping then, but the rules and processes dictated by the map format constitute a comforting point of continuity, which I've missed when dabbling with more advanced formats. I guess part of the reason I still play around in editors is because I enjoy the familiarity - it's been a part of my life for twenty years - and since that feeling is diminished when I move away from more traditional formats, I don't tend to bother.

[Xaser]

Hmm, I was writing out a lengthy post to get some facts straight, but I figured I'd distill it down to a few bullets and spare everyone a flood of rambling Xaser-words. :P

 

So, here we go:

• Though technically UDMF doesn't imply ZDoom, it's got to be at least 99% of the use cases*, so let's focus on that.
• The question "Should this project use ZDoom+UDMF?" in terms of port compatibility is no different than the general question of "Should this project use ZDoom features in the first place?", which has been done to death, really. So let's not focus on that.
• ZDoom+UDMF mapping, compared to Doom format mapping, does introduce additional complexity. There are more linedef/sector properties, sidedefs have independent texture offsets, line specials are trickier to set up, and so forth. There is absolutely a learning curve -- your mileage may vary on how "steep" it actually is, of course, and GZDoom Builder goes a long way towards flattening the slope, but we shouldn't deny its existence.
• ZDoom and its UDMF dialect unlock a massive wealth of new features, and for someone new to mapping, the extra stuff can be overwhelming. For all its limitations, Doom format (e.g. Boom mapping) does narrow the mapper's focus by necessity, thus a lot of folks tend to point to it as a more preferable starting point for new mappers.
• Even for non-newcomers, the increased feature set does introduce a risk of trying to do too much stuff at once (good ol' feature creep). In addition to the time-sink factor, there's also a risk of poor usage, bugs, or lack of focus bringing the project down (e.g. focusing too hard on scripting that the map design suffers). More moving parts means there's a greater chance of something breaking.
• A related but distinct point: A lot of features in ZDoom are implemented really weirdly, and sometimes no-brainer tasks become unusually finicky and turn into unexpected time sinks. In fairness, Boom suffers from this too (scrollers and generalized crushers and everything involving voodoo doll "scripting"), so this isn't exactly exclusive to the Big Z. There's just plenty more pits to fall into. ;)

tl;dr: With great power comes great responsibility. If you're already committing to using ZDoom, then UDMF is objectively a strict upgrade over Doom and Hexen formats. Whether or not the subjective drawbacks (learning curve steepness, overwhelmingness, feature creep potential) are enough to dissuade someone from the format is definitely a thing up for discussion, and I'd be way more interested in seeing folks talk about that part rather than get stuck in "udmf doesn't imply scripting" loops and other non-productive topics in that vein.

 

[*Not to say the status quo has to remain; If someone wants to do some common-featureset-UDMF stuff (e.g. "Z3Dgeternity"), more power to you! :]

 

[Obsidian]

Personally I think cutting your teeth on older formats and working your way up to UDMF is a good way to go: it teaches you the importance of simplicity and working within limits and boosts creative thinking as you progress. A good amount of the best ZDoom mappers have their roots in the older formats, such as the Xaserperson above me.

[snapshot]

wat, I find UDMF easier and more comfortable than any other Format because it gives you direct access to specific features so you don't to follow weird tricks just for simple tasks, though I understand why some people don't choose UDMF, compatibility reasons.

[scifista42]

4 minutes ago, dmg_64 said:

direct access to specific features so you don't to follow weird tricks just for simple tasks,

"Direct access to specific features" sometimes makes tasks easier and sometimes harder, like the need to specify multiple action parameters rather than just one tag number.

[Gez]

Didn't we already have that thread?

[Graf Zahl]

In terms of ZDoom the entire discussion is really moot.

 

Using Doom format is not even an option because many features are not or at best barely usable without the features it does not support - most importantly thing IDs - and Hexen format is just a limited subset of UDMF where some features severely suffer from Raven's crippled implementation, like 8 bit args or no direct access to line IDs. Choosing Hexen format over UDMF makes really no sense at all because many things that are trivially accessible in UDMF require use of ACS in Hexen format. A good example would be flat texture rotation.

 

Which brings us back to the start: Use Doom format if you want to target a broader range of ports, use UDMF for ZDoom to actually have access to all the features of the engine.

 

 

[Phade102]

If you want a good example of a UDMF Map, look up skulldash. most of the things in skulldash wouldn't be capable without the UDMF features and scripting.

 

If you want a good example of boom maps? Ancient Aliens and Valiant. Both look incredible, play fantastically, and feature no scripting at all.

[Gez]

7 minutes ago, Phade102 said:

and feature no scripting at all.

Not entirely true in AA's case; there is some minor scripting for cosmetic purposes if you use ZDoom or Eternity. Nothing that makes or breaks the game, so you can play perfectly well in PrBoom+ without hindrance; but if you play it in ZDoom and wonder how effects like the howl when you use one of the "spirit animal" teleports can be made without scripting, the answer is, it is actually made with scripting.

[SOSU]

I dunno people just want to use Boom.
I personally dislike Boom but i will still map for it because it feels like a necessity when you don't want to use any UDMF linedef action (I love Heretic for not having any kind of Boom or MBF and just Vannila and ZDoom but who makes really limited vannila Heretic maps?)

[BigDickBzzrak]

Guys but all of you already replied here

 

[Misty]

I'm wondering if new boom format is still being in development, because strange silence rises some questions. 

 

Returning to topic, UDMF was overhelming for me when I started mapping. I wanted to learn everything advanced, but not how to create interesting gameplay or have fuctional places. Well, boom format restrictions helped me to learn basics and in the future I'll return to UDMF mapping and create something more different than now.

 

 

[Grain of Salt]

This thread is confusing because the OP somehow wasn't Hardcore Gamer.

[Memfis]

I feel like for the most part Doom is already a complete game with a very distinct style. Any little extension of its features is incredibly dangerous as it can easily ruin the perfect harmony. I'm okay with some minor stuff, but I'm definitely not interested in turning Doom into something it's not. DOOM=DOOM. So I don't need UDMF.