Why don't people just use UDMF format?

[Remilia Scarlet]

5 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Didn't you say scripting was not the point of UDMF? ;-)

You seriously need to learn to stop twisting peoples' words.  Scripting is not the point of UDMF.  Those two feature sets may overlap in that they are present in engines that support both, but they are still mutually exclusive.  My point mentioning linedef type 80 was to point out that it still boils down to a number.  My point mentioning archaic devices that amount to Rube Goldberg machines is that ACS (I don't care what map format you use) produces better and more flexible results.

 

8 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Set up a conveyor to move something in a certain direction at a certain speed, then you'll see checkboxes that don't show up in boom, because everything (except for generalized actions) is tied to 3 digit numbers just like in the UDMF examples you mentioned. And by the way conveyors aren't only there for the purpose of not using ACS, moving monsters or decoration actually does make a lot of sense as well at times.

Linedef type 220, Sector_SetCurrent.  It needs a tag, an amount, an angle, and has a flag (1 or 0, numeric) for whether or not it should use the linedef's angle and length as the angle and strength of the current.  No checkboxes required, except maybe some for those who don't have the values memorized.  But then again, if you don't have them memorized in the first place...

[Gez]

14 minutes ago, leodoom85 said:

That's nice!!! Is that a beta version or the stable one?

Available since the first 3.1.2 beta.

[Koko Ricky]

Is there an advantage to using scripting as oppose during to advanced UDMF features?

[leodoom85]

4 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Linedef type 220, Sector_SetCurrent.  It needs a tag, an amount, an angle, and has a flag (1 or 0, numeric) for whether or not it should use the linedef's angle and length as the angle and strength of the current.  No checkboxes required, except maybe some for those who don't have the values memorized.  But then again, if you don't have them memorized in the first place...

Heck, even Scroll_Floor (action 223) is enough for that thing. Just needs to be activated with a line...

[Gez]

2 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

Is there an advantage to using scripting as oppose during to advanced UDMF features?

For initializing some map features, like how Hexen format needs ACS to set up colored lighting for example, then no.

 

The true appeal of scripting is for having dynamic changes during the gameplay; which is not something UDMF is about. UDMF is about setting up all the map properties you need without workarounds like having to use scripts just for that.

[leodoom85]

5 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

Is there an advantage to using scripting as oppose during to advanced UDMF features?

Depends of what you want for the map really. If you want to create an invasion type map with lots of waves without using dummy sectors with monsters, then scripting is the way to go. 

[Remilia Scarlet]

1 minute ago, GoatLord said:

Is there an advantage to using scripting as oppose during to advanced UDMF features?

Scripting is nice in how flexible it is.  It's also a lot easier to cut-n-paste text than sectors and lines in that the lines/sectors are more likely to need adjusted more after pasting.  Mind you, I'm thinking about cut-n-paste between maps here.

 

It's also nice in that you can technically create your own line action types.  One map I was messing with once (never released) had vertically splitting doors controlled via ACS.  I programmed it once, and could reuse it over and over.

 

There are also a few advanced things you can do only in ACS.  For example, dynamically spawning health/ammo/armor according to the player's health, and controlling how often/how much based on the difficulty setting.  I've used that a few times, both on a timer and line triggered.  It's also the only way I know how to control music dynamically (there might be another way).

[leodoom85]

1 minute ago, YukiRaven said:

It's also the only way I know how to control music dynamically (there might be another way).

Uhhhh.......the Custom Music Changer (thing 14165) does that too. And correct me if I'm wrong but that thing was introduced in Eternity?

[Remilia Scarlet]

Ahh, I never really messed with Eternity.  That's good to know, though!

[Koko Ricky]

What is scripting like if you don't have any prior experience with coding and have trouble keeping track of multi-step instructions?

[Remilia Scarlet]

What is it like?  Uhh... I'll PM you for that one, keep from getting too far away from the discussion here.

[Graf Zahl]

11 minutes ago, leodoom85 said:

Uhhhh.......the Custom Music Changer (thing 14165) does that too. And correct me if I'm wrong but that thing was introduced in Eternity?

 

That thing originated from Risen3D but was adopted by all major ports. It's still a lot more awkward to use than a simple one-line ACS script - and it also requires a text-based definition lump to work.

 

[Gez]

And actually there's a music change linedef from Strife, too -- though I think in ZDoom it's actually implemented through ACS.

[Nine Inch Heels]

5 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Linedef type 220, Sector_SetCurrent.  It needs a tag, an amount, an angle, and has a flag (1 or 0, numeric) for whether or not it should use the linedef's angle and length as the angle and strength of the current.  No checkboxes required, except maybe some for those who don't have the values memorized.  But then again, if you don't have them memorized in the first place...

All I need to do is enter a 3 digit number, distribute the tags and it's done. Even when people know all the values they need for UDMF, it's still more effort than in boom. So what exactly are we discussing at this point? Why not just go UDMF? Well, maybe because things that are simple in another format are less simple in UDMF.

 

7 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

My point mentioning archaic devices that amount to Rube Goldberg machines is that ACS (I don't care what map format you use) produces better and more flexible results.

I can set up a precise one minute (for example) timer in just a few seconds, no scripting involved, and I can change that timer at will simply by moving a single linedef, no problem at all. The result is both accurate and flexible. Let's not pretend that people actually need to be more precise than a tenth of a secod when it comes to creating gameplay in Doom, eventhough boom is more accurate than that when used properly.

 

Coming back to the question of why people don't just use UDMF instead of boom: Apparently other formats seem more accessible in individul cases, and perhaps it's not worth for some people to transition to another format which they won't actually put to use anyway.

 

As for twisting people's words: Maybe try not to accuse others, and instead look at how you implied that I was talking about "excessive checkboxes" (excessive being what you put in my mouth), while you mentioned you need to tab around between checkboxes to get things set up proper, and let's not forget that people confirmed that there are more checkboxes in UDMF than there are in boom. I would suggest we don't go down that road any further than we already have.

 

That aside, it isn't the first time someone pointed out that UDMF does have its disadvantages, and maybe said disadvantages are the reason why some people don't like the format for mapping, or maybe they actually want the behaviour of "vanilla Doom" which they can't get when they go for ZDoom as the targeted source port.

[rehelekretep]

damn the amount of energy in this thread and we couldve had 2-4 good maps (whatever the format ;) ) in that time :(

[leodoom85]

1 minute ago, rehelekretep said:

damn the amount of energy in this thread and we couldve had 2-4 good maps (whatever the format ;) ) in that time :(

LOL, good point

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, rehelekretep said:

damn the amount of energy in this thread and we couldve had 2-4 good maps (whatever the format ;) ) in that time :(

And those maps could also involve punching cyberdemons T_T

[Remilia Scarlet]

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

while you mentioned you need to tab around between checkboxes to get things set up proper

This may be a case of incorrect terminology.  Checkboxes:

 

Input boxes (which are what I'm using to put values in):

 

Getting back to UDMF is its plain text format.  That alone is one reason I switched.  I could (hypothetically) export the TEXTMAP lump, run my usual text processing tools on it, then import it back in.  In fact I think I've done that a few times when GZDB couldn't do an action I needed and would have taken me hours to do.  Nice quick 5 minutes.  I just wish I remember what exactly it was (it was a find/replace of some sort).  Anyway, yeah that's an advanced use case, but it's one reason I stick with UDMF.

 

Texture scaling is also a godsend because I don't have to take up space with extra textures that I stretch in an external program just to get them to fit on a piece of geometry.  It also lets me reuse textures in more ways.

 

I'm not 100% sure here, but UDMF introduced vertices with varying heights for triangular sectors, right?  That was a godsend for slopes and greatly improved my productivity.

 

Those are some reasons I stick with UDMF.

 

When I started learning it, I made sure to keep things simple so that I wouldn't be tempted to add everything under the Sun and make a mish-mash map.  That meant exercising self control.  I still haven't used all the features, and I'm quite happy not to.  Unless I need one, I don't use it.  Promoting good development habits is a lot better than bashing a format for being too complex.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Most of these sound like problems with mapping tools GUI than with the actual map format. Presets for anything (walls,floors,things) would go a long way and benefit all formats.

 

Aside from scripting more control over walls (both side textures with more features, More ways to trigger them, more constraints over actors and projectiles) as well as scrolling ceilings\floors and zooming in\out can be handy without touching scripting at all. Not even mentioning the extra control over things themselves. Mapping in UMDF is definitely harder atm but you have way more tools for your maps than Boom. You can freeze monsters that have no business trying to navigate yet until it is time for their fights so performance can be worked around. Also FUCK BOOM BRIDGES IN MULTIPLAYER

[Nine Inch Heels]

11 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

This may be a case of incorrect terminology.

I suppose it is.

 

11 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Texture scaling is also a godsend because I don't have to take up space with extra textures that I stretch in an external program just to get them to fit on a piece of geometry.  It also lets me reuse textures in more ways.

I would argue that's one of the objectively better aspects of the format, even though we both experienced that texture scaling isn't always "fail-safe", unless the case of one certain texture in Sotnr was something else that caused a rounding error.

 

Quote

When I started learning it, I made sure to keep things simple so that I wouldn't be tempted to add everything under the Sun and make a mish-mash map.  That meant exercising self control.  I still haven't used all the features, and I'm quite happy not to.  Unless I need one, I don't use it.  Promoting good development habits is a lot better than bashing a format for being too complex.

I'm not bashing a format for the sport of it, I've simply seen several cases in the past months in which people had problems getting things working properly in UDMF, which are problems I have never had with boom (Talking only format specific features here). The thing about self control is that it's best to identify what actions or features are best suited for each individual purpose, and from my POV it's reasonable to start with less complex formats when familiarizing oneself with mapping, because taking smaller of amounts of features in at a time makes learning a bit easier. Sure enough, at some point people are bound to find their comfort zone somewhere. Regardless I still think that certain formats are unique in the sense of what they're competent at.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Nine Inch Heels

[Edward850]

17 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Texture scaling is also a godsend because I don't have to take up space with extra textures that I stretch in an external program just to get them to fit on a piece of geometry.  It also lets me reuse textures in more ways.

 

I'm not 100% sure here, but UDMF introduced vertices with varying heights for triangular sectors, right?  That was a godsend for slopes and greatly improved my productivity.

 

Those are some reasons I stick with UDMF.

Except both features are source port features, not UDMF features. While they can certainly be enabled by UDMF being a dynamic format, if you added UDMF to, say, BOOM, that wont give BOOM either of these things.

[Remilia Scarlet]

13 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

Except both features are source port features, not UDMF features. While they can certainly be enabled by UDMF being a dynamic format, if you added UDMF to, say, BOOM, that wont give BOOM either of these things.

Good point.  I'd add Boom can't do those either, however.  Addressing the vertices in particular, the VERTEXES lump stores a vertex's X and Y coordinates only, as 16-bit integers.  Standard UDMF also only stores the X,Y coords, but the ZDoom extensions add a Z component.  One nice thing about UDMF is how it's extensible.

 

Come to think of it... how correct is it really to call it "Boom format"?  It's the original binary Doom map format with Boom-compatible features/actions used.  If anything, shouldn't the debate be split into "Doom's binary format vs UDMF's textual format" and "Boom-compatible maps vs ZDoom-compatible maps"?

[leodoom85]

2 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Come to think of it... how correct is it really to call it "Boom format"?  It's the original binary Doom map format with Boom-compatible features/actions used.  If anything, shouldn't the debate be split into "Doom's binary format vs UDMF's textual format" and "Boom-compatible maps vs ZDoom-compatible maps"?

Oh hell.....that's two hot topics too.....debates incoming

[Nine Inch Heels]

5 minutes ago, leodoom85 said:

Oh hell.....that's two hot topics too.....debates incoming

 

9 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

"Doom's binary format vs UDMF's textual format" and "Boom-compatible maps vs ZDoom-compatible maps"?

Any map that involves punching cybies is objectively better in boom, because the vanilla hitboxes make it more difficult to score a hit. And large scale slaughter that doesn't crap on framerates is a privilege of the boom format. That's all I will say in regards to this.

 

As for formats when mapping, I think I've said my piece.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

16 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

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

That statement is a classic example of DW bias...just like the Cacowards of the past few years. (they are not a measure of how good a map is, just how popular a map is according to a heavily-biased community)

 

What you're actually seeing is the much higher difficulty of making good maps in UDMF/GZDoom etc. (because there's so much more to learn and so many more traps to fall into) together with the much smaller number of people who make them, and ofc the fact that it's much harder to please this community with them. (so they can be regarded as "good" in the first place)

 

[Gez]

"A is better than B because it has more options, so it's richer!"

"B is better than A because it has less options, so it's simpler!"

 

 

Here you go, you have read every binary-vs-UDMF thread that has ever been and will ever be written. I really don't see much merit in arguing further.

[Lüt]

3 hours ago, Mordeth said:

UDMF, the map format, doesn't do anything.

 

3 hours ago, YukiRaven said:

UDMF uses the same sectors, linedefs, sidedefs, things, and verticies concepts.

All I needed to get from this discussion, thanks.

[Doomkid]

the Mechanix wads (aeon dm and dbab remastered) are UDMF format and, in terms of visuals, they absolutely demolish even the best of the best stuff done in older formats. The beautiful Sunlust and Ancient Aliens look old-hat by comparison. I say this as a long time vanilla mapper who still considers Memento Mori and Dwango5 to be great fun. I cannot in good faith say "better mappers make better stuff using the older format" because it just seems patently untrue at this point

[Arctangent]

4 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Just by looking at the boxes one has to check and choose from in order to move things on a conveyor for example shows that something that is entering a 3 digit number in boom is faster than doing the same thing would be in UDMF.

You find entering a number more complicated than stretching a vector to the exact length and angle you need to it to be?

 

Yeah, I think that's pretty much shoots this into the "used to it" field

[Nine Inch Heels]

Just now, Arctangent said:

You find entering a number more complicated than stretching a vector to the exact length and angle you need to it to be?

Yes, because the math behind the length of the line vector is so simple that I'd rather skip an input box or two, because I always get what I want anyway.