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

Why don't people just use UDMF format?

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

rgme5T4.png

 

7XRJx3Q.png

 

um

 

extra fun: i read this the moment i took a bite out of a egg mcmuffin

You're fa fa fa.. FIRED!!!

little_kitty1.png.9a47dd345ce6046af305c72f68206e20.png

:P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Linguica said:

zGHQb4O.gifwaifu2x.thumb.png.b1375084236b740b45811f

If there's one thing I can say I don't like about this, it's the fact that it doesn't seem to be some super-secret avatar mark-up so it won't update if I change it.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 10:52 AM, Mr.Rocket said:

I suppose I should mention that I'm currently mapping in UDMF, but not using too much yet aside from dyno lights and poly objects.

Also guessing this thread might die soon, so everyone clock out, take a lunch brake, and we go from there.

Quoting myself on the previous page, so maybe, I donno..

No ones really replied to the actual topic since yesterday though.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we should use this thread as an opportunity to legitimately discuss what you gain/lose from mapping for a given format, and specifically how that relates to the potential of UDMF.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

I think we should use this thread as an opportunity to legitimately discuss what you gain/lose from mapping for a given format, and specifically how that relates to the potential of UDMF.

I'm afraid that with that specific situation, people will come back to the same point as before by comparing both formats and that thing was already discussed :(

Yes, UDMF has potential for sure but others will say that Boom/Doom format is better and yadayadayadayadayadayadayada....yeah...

Share this post


Link to post

As said, it really just depends what your goal is and what you have in mind for your map/project.

I'm sure everyone would agree with this.

 

Aside from that, what it boils down to is..

Which screw driver are you going to use?

Well it depends which type of screw it is, and whether you want a specific type of screw or not.

 

These sort of questions could go on and on, as like the topic question.

 

It's too subjective.

 

Edited by Mr.Rocket

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, leodoom85 said:

Yes, UDMF has potential for sure but others will say that Boom/Doom format is better and yadayadayadayadayadayadayada....yeah...

Not exactly better. I think the prevailing argument is that it's simpler and therefore easier to handle, or something. I'm not sure it's even applicable to making an exclusive for an advanced source port with UDMF support, since that would typically imply using advanced features, and UDMF is supposed to allow doing it in a less backwards way.

 

So it pretty much boils down to an old debate of simple engines vs. advanced engines, and in this case the main argument is compatibility. And uhhh, I think that about covers it. Even if I missed something important, there really isn't much to discuss here. Hence all the subjective pleasantries.

 

Maybe someone could still make an argument for using something like ZDoom in Doom format, and I think I vaguely recall someone doing something along these lines. But it's buried in a heap of said pleasantries, and I can't be arsed to dredge through them.

Share this post


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

It's too subjective.

It's really not subjective in the slightest when talking about Hexen vs. UDMF. Hexen format makes quite a lot of features, like colored lighting, flat alignment and rotation, etc. require scripting, makes it so that you have to use Line_SetIdentification to set line ids and special blocking flags, doesn't let you give a line multiple activation methods, forces you to work with 8-bit integers for a lot of things, flat-out can't do some things such as Doom 64 lighting or sectors with multiple sector tags, etc. etc.. UDMF ends up being a lot more simplistic simply due to streamlining a whole bunch of things and removing the requirements for hacks for other things. It's really just an outright upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post

I see that some people still equal a format's quality with application support.

 

As a format, UDMF is unqualified better than the binary formats, because in its respective namespaces it is a true superset of those.

What most people are discussing here, though, is not the format, but the application support, and that's an entirely different story.

 

Let's suppose that PrBoom supported UDMF/Doom namespace. This would be doable relatively painlessly, but if done you'd have all of the original features at your disposal, but also could add native map support for some other things that currently require mapping workarounds.

 

So the ultimate conclusion is that the reason why people do not *just* use UDMF is simply that some important ports chose not to implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

So the ultimate conclusion is that the reason why people do not *just* use UDMF is simply that some important ports chose not to implement it.

I wouldn't map in UDMF even if it ran with PrBoom+ perfectly fine, and "something" tells me that is also true for others. That said, there is no actual "ultimate conclusion" to be had one way or another.

 

It's refreshing to see you point out that ports aside of GZDoom are also important. I don't remember the last time that happened, if it ever did. :p

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I wouldn't map in UDMF even if it ran with PrBoom+ perfectly fine, and "something" tells me that is also true for others. That said, there is no actual "ultimate conclusion" to be had one way or another.

It can be true, though i kinda feels that you said it because for simple maps that goes vanilla Doom on gameplay, you will cut UDMF benefits by half so at this is really better stick to binary formats, otherwise if PolyObjs/ACS is required for map control/storytelling or anything else, UDMF would be adopted instead of Doom in Hexen format for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that UDMF does not require Hexen-style parameterized specials. Indeed, the "vanilla" namespaces defined by the UDMF standard for Doom, Heretic, and Strife all use the classic parameterless linedef types. There would be no meaningful difference from a mapper's point of view between binary and UDMF, except (as I previously mentioned) that you have five skill flags instead of three and you can use non-integer coordinates.

 

The other difference is that UDMF maps, being in text, are a lot larger in byte size than binary maps. However, they do compress very well, also thanks to being text, so the zip of an UDMF map isn't going to be very much larger than the zip of a binary map.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I wouldn't map in UDMF even if it ran with PrBoom+ perfectly fine, and "something" tells me that is also true for others. That said, there is no actual "ultimate conclusion" to be had one way or another.

Yes, I noticed throughout this entire discussion that you are the chief person here who never understood what the discussion even was about, constantly mistaking engine features for part of the format.

 

2 hours ago, Gez said:

There would be no meaningful difference from a mapper's point of view between binary and UDMF, except (as I previously mentioned) that you have five skill flags instead of three and you can use non-integer coordinates.

There would be one more thing: UDMF allows for lines to have an ID, so that the tag field doesn't have to do double duty as a target parameter for the special and the line's own identifier.

But yes, these 3 things would be the sole differences between Doom binary and Doom UDMF - aside, of course, from the fact that UDMF is not hardlocked to 65535 sidedefs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I wouldn't map in UDMF even if it ran with PrBoom+ perfectly fine, and "something" tells me that is also true for others. That said, there is no actual "ultimate conclusion" to be had one way or another.

 

It's refreshing to see you point out that ports aside of GZDoom are also important. I don't remember the last time that happened, if it ever did. :p

Thats a very closed minded attitude sadly. Theres nothing wrong with UDMF, and it allows people to customize their maps even more. Unfortunately, when it comes to boom based ports  its a dying business. Gzdoom is becoming more and more popular.

 

But, theres nothing wrong with boom format either, dont get me wrong. each has its positives and negatives.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Let's suppose that PrBoom supported UDMF/Doom namespace.

But it doesn't. So application support is kinda important here - on practice.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Yes, I noticed throughout this entire discussion that you are the chief person here who never understood what the discussion even was about, constantly mistaking engine features for part of the format.

The discussion was never about making new engine features for a format, if the arguments that scripting is "optional" are in any way indicative (unless of course they were "dishonest"), for example. That aside, nobody here asked for any new features for UDMF, or hexen, or Boom. In fact, I would like for boom to stay as is, 3D floors being the only exception, because those are the only thing about UDMF that is remotely interesting.

 

The mindset that there constantly have to be new features usually leads to nothing other than a bloated product that becomes progressively more unintuitive to use and understand. That said, the point that UDMF is just as fast and easy to use as boom pretty much falls apart at the seams here. Sure you can map faster overall if you know your way around, but that holds true for any format, thus it's no virtue which UDMF can claim exclusively for itself. Intuitive use and easy to understand "building blocks" are boom's domain more than UDMF's, even if the bog-standard "(G)ZDoomite" has a hard time admitting that.

 

"Feature creep" has already been mentioned, and it's one point out of many that has not been adressed by the UDMF advocates in this thread thus far. Makes me wonder why exactly that is. Well actually it doesn't, I know quite well why people willfully ignore the downsides of "too much clutter", or try to somehow argue around that. If you want to see a bloated product, look at brutal doom and ask yourself how much of what is in there actually is meaningful to gameplay in the bigger scope of things. I don't buy the argument that application says nothing about how good a format is or not. If the format can't be wielded intuitively enough, there's a problem by the same virtue that there's a problem if a tool doesn't fit into a hand properly.

 

If you think that people are able to memorize several hundred linedef actions, several IDs and types with their corresponding options, work them into their map in the most efficient way possible, without confusing them ever, or having to "browse" a dropdown "input box", you're a long shot from reality. It's hilariously ironic that one of the UDMF advocates here spent roughly at day per room in a mapset that was recently made, while saying the format in question is fast and easy to use. That's the kind of thing people don't mention, if they want to defend their format of choice. Make of that what you will.

 

9 hours ago, Phade102 said:

Thats a very closed minded attitude sadly. Theres nothing wrong with UDMF, and it allows people to customize their maps even more.

So, when I say I will keep mapping in boom because I like it better it's close minded, and when someone else says they will keep mapping in UDMF because they like it better it's not? Sorry, but: LOL

 

9 hours ago, Phade102 said:

Unfortunately, when it comes to boom based ports  its a dying business. Gzdoom is becoming more and more popular.

First of all, PrBoom has been updated somewhat recently from version 2.5.1.4 to version 2.5.1.5, so that source port does occasionally receive an update when necessary, it's the format itself that isn't getting any updates and the last time a bigger leap happened was when MBF became a thing, that doesn't mean the format isn't attractive.

 

The one thing you people just don't want to admit, no matter how often you get the obvious facts slapped in your faces, is that if UDMF was (objectively, lmao) so much better in every respect (which includes "application", deal with it), people would have stopped touching boom years ago. Guess why that didn't happen...

 

Other than that, there are things you can do in boom that don't work in other formats (regardless of how "advanced" they are) which just so happens to be the reason the format won't just die like you think it will. All these things aside, GZDoom is a source port "casuals" use mostly because it runs most sets/maps right off the bat, so it's a matter of convenience for most. I'd even go as far as arguing that the vast majority of GZDoom users don't even have much of a clue about formats and their differences, for reference: Major Arlene didn't even know that GZDoom's "format presets" were actually worth using in spite of having played over 500 WADs thus far. I mean no disrespect to Arlene, but it's telling a lot about why people "just" use GZDoom.

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

Share this post


Link to post

People somehow manage to make great things with feature-rich engines. You may find some bad examples, but the existence of good ones more than makes up for that.

 

Besides, I'm sure you could find a lot of crap for any popular engine.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

If you think that people are able to memorize several hundred linedef actions, several IDs and types with their corresponding options, work them into their map in the most efficient way possible, without confusing them ever, or having to "browse" a dropdown "input box", you're a long shot from reality. It's hilariously ironic that one of the UDMF advocates here spent roughly at day per room in a mapset that was recently made, while saying the format in question is fast and easy to use. That's the kind of thing people don't mention, if they want to defend their format of choice. Make of that what you will.

 

The one thing you people just don't want to admit, no matter how often you get the obvious facts slapped in your faces, is that if UDMF was (objectively, lmao) so much better in every respect (which includes "application", deal with it), people would have stopped touching boom years ago. Guess why that didn't happen...

 

Hey hey, you are charging the wrong things here, not sure if you are starting to take what Graf and Phade102 said personal but what you said in these two paragraphs basically is up to the Map Editor you're using, not format and AFAIK many mappers still use DB1 or DB2 which already has ceased development, with that in mind, i'm not even sure if UDMF is supported by those considering this format is more recent than their latest versions so the maximum somemone can reach for complexity in a map is Doom in Hexen format.

Anyways this last sentence though... not wanting to stay on the side of anyone but... if that thing was true so nobody would be playing any Doom but Doom 2016 since it has an easy-to-use level editor with the best graphics and stuff, same would happen to any other game franchise if next iteration is better than the previous one but as always, new things comes with a price, UDMF in case sacrificed filesize in order to get everything GZDoom can do in a map but this does not mean the end of all other formats since those exists for many years already and to fill the needs for people like you, who i probably suppose likes to make maps that goes no more complex in scripting than a few voodoo dolls right?

 

26 minutes ago, Da Werecat said:

Besides, I'm sure you could find a lot of crap for any popular engine.

Classic Doom remakes in Unreal Engine 4 basically:

7SNHQRx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The discussion was never about making new engine features for a format, if the arguments that scripting is "optional" are in any way indicative (unless of course they were "dishonest"), for example. That aside, nobody here asked for any new features for UDMF, or hexen, or Boom. In fact, I would like for boom to stay as is, 3D floors being the only exception, because those are the only thing about UDMF that is remotely interesting.

You keep confusing the format for the application, though.

 

Again, there are 3D floors in Doom format since EDGE and Doom Legacy. UDMF support in PrBoom+ would not mean 3D floors; 3D floor support in PrBoom+ would mean 3D floors.

 

50 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The mindset that there constantly have to be new features usually needs to nothing other than a bloated product that becomes progressively more unintuitive to use and understand. That said, the point that UDMF is just as fast and easy to use as boom pretty much falls apart at the seams here. Sure you can map faster overall if you know your way around, but that holds true for any format, thus it's no virtue which UDMF can claim exclusively for itself. Intuitive use and easy to understand "building blocks" are boom's domain more than UDMF's, even if the bog-standard "(G)ZDoomite" has a hard time admitting that.

You keep confusing stuff.

 

UDMF is an extensible format; so the ZDoom namespace has been extended. The vanilla namespaces have not and never will be. As for the intuitiveness of Boom's building blocks, I don't see much intuitiveness in Boom's generalized line types. Nevertheless, again, you will get the exact same line types and sector types with UDMF in vanilla namespace. There is no difference in building blocks for someone who is in front of a map editor.

 

55 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

If you think that people are able to memorize several hundred linedef actions, several IDs and types with their corresponding options, work them into their map in the most efficient way possible, without confusing them ever, or having to "browse" a dropdown "input box", you're a long shot from reality.

Which format are you attacking here exactly? I can't tell. All of them? Are you saying that Doom mapping itself sucks, regardless of format?

 

I'm confused because earlier you were saying Boom was quicker because you had memorized several hundred linedef actions.

 

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Other than that, there are things you can do in boom that don't work in other formats

Such as? Please provide a list of things that you can only do in a Boom-format map.

Share this post


Link to post

If I may intervene and (hopefully) help everyone calm down.

 

First and foremost, no sourceport is superior than one another. They all have different features, and can do different things.

 

@Nine Inch Heels, my personal favorite ports to map in are Zdoom in Hexen format, and recently GZDoom in UDMF format. That doesn't mean I don't understand the appeal of Boom mapping. Not only is Boom a historically significant port, it is also incredible fun to use, and great maps have (and will continue to be) made with it for years to come. You're right, too, that Boom maps generally take less time to make than UDMF maps. GZDoom Builder's interface is a little clunky, and UDMF is simply more complicated. That is something I believe we can all agree on.

 

But I believe you are forgetting something highly important: the end goal of why some maps are made in UDMF.

 

I love personalizing gameplay, creating my own monsters, textures, items, etc. The beauty of something like Zdoom in Hexen, and UDMF, is that gives people like me easy access to making things not only different from the original game, but perhaps even vastly different. I know that is not appealing to everyone. If you like regular Doom simply as it is, or only with the features of certain ports, like limit-removing or Boom, that is 100% fine. Nobody should make you feel bad for playing the way you like. In the same token, you should remember that there are those who enjoy the more customizable outlets that are ports like UDMF, even if the interface is a bit clunky. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Grain of Salt said:

 

You have no idea how complex voodoo doll scripting can be.

 

Obligatory boom computer thread link.

In fact i do know that, i spent a time in opening up Mechadon's maps to see some of sorcery, while being nice many people still uses voodoo dolls mostly to trigger few sectors only, nothing like to build an entire room out of line triggers from a voodoo doll, and being honest, when you reach that complexity with voodoo dolls it is time to move to a format which support ACS so you can get rid of such hackery.

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
×