If your default map format is something other than UDMF: Why?

["JL" was too short]

I started to write this for the controversial opinions thread, but as I wrote it, I increasingly realized that this was less an opinion I was secure in and something that I would like to hear other perspectives on.

 

Let me start with my original opinion, as a proposition for discussion: in 2021, the usual target format/source port ought to be UDMF in GZDoom or something comparable, even if you're otherwise making a map with an older-school feel or level of detail. 

 

I say "usual" because I certainly see how there would be occasional, specific reasons to map in something else, but from my perspective there'd be no reason not to snap back to UDMF immediately thereafter.  It seems like for most players it doesn't cost much if anything in terms of the end experience of playing the maps, and it gives the mapper the freedom to use additional linedef actions, scripting, the ability to manipulate flats and textures in more ways, etc. to increase the space of creative possibilities.  The only exceptions would be if, say, you want to make a slaughter map that GZDoom will choke on, or you aspire to get your wad as an official Bethesda addon (which in turn invites the question of why the official port doesn't support more advanced formats, but I digress).

 

Now obviously someone like myself can just use GZDoom as our near-universal source port for playing the maps, anyway, so this isn't actually a source of harm, just somewhat of a head-scratcher for me as to why someone would look at (say) Boom-compatible on one hand and UDMF on the other, and say "hmm yes, I will go with Boom."  At least if you make a pure vanilla/Chocolate map you're challenging yourself and gaining some old-school cred, like the authors of BTSX or URE; with Boom you sacrifice a good deal of that cred anyway, but don't gain nearly as much as you could in the bargain.  And even the pure vanilla-limits stuff, for me personally, is something I'd do in a blue moon as part of an achievement run so to speak, before returning to the much more flexible and user-friendly land of UDMF.

 

So here's the part where, if you have a different perspective, as it's clear many folks do, you talk about it!  I'd love to know what makes you tick when it comes to mapping for your format of choice.

[yakfak]

mapping isn't necessarily a cred transaction and its not necessarily a flex on how many extended features you know how to use. yr post discounts style in favour of possibility I guess
i go for boom cos I principly value boom generalized linedef effects and .bex but don't care about the more specialized stuff; there's boom things I don't use like transparency, transfers and such, they don't fit into my style. so there'd be even more udmf features I didn't use and I'm pleased to not have to learn them

 

also I don't target gzdoom! i think its more fun if you can run yr map on the original port the complevel you choose was for, in this case boom 202 for dos, as well as dsda doom which im beginning to favour

Edited June 19, 2021 by yakfak

[boris]

It's really simple: if you target a port that supports UDMF, then use UDMF. Otherwise don't use UDMF.

[Dubbag]

cause I don't know how to use any of that shit lol

[Doomkid]

LMFAO Dubbag, that is one of the funniest posts I've seen on DW, very relatable.. but another big reason for me is that vanilla compatibility means every port and every piece of hardware can play the mapset with pretty much no exceptions. Between that and familiarity, it's the obvious choice. I don't really need UDMF (or Doom in Hexen) for the majority of ideas I have for Doom maps. I have used it to add some fake bridges to maps for Doomed in Space, and that's about the extent of my experience with it.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Doomkid

[roadworx]

i like to do maps with in a style resembling that of the mid-to-late 90s, and as such i wouldn't end up using any of udmf's features like coding n shit. so...why even use it in the first place? i don't wanna learn a new format and then not even use any of the features that sets it apart from other formats, nor do i wanna use a format that'll isolate people who use boom/vanilla source ports without even having a reason to do so.

 

 

also i'm too lazy and too stubborn to learn a new format lol

[Gez]

2 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

Now obviously someone like myself can just use GZDoom as our near-universal source port for playing the maps, anyway, so this isn't actually a source of harm, just somewhat of a head-scratcher for me as to why someone would look at (say) Boom-compatible on one hand and UDMF on the other, and say "hmm yes, I will go with Boom."  At least if you make a pure vanilla/Chocolate map you're challenging yourself and gaining some old-school cred, like the authors of BTSX or URE; with Boom you sacrifice a good deal of that cred anyway, but don't gain nearly as much as you could in the bargain.  And even the pure vanilla-limits stuff, for me personally, is something I'd do in a blue moon as part of an achievement run so to speak, before returning to the much more flexible and user-friendly land of UDMF.

Well there are many reasons why people may prefer Boom over GZDoom. For example, if their favorite port happens not to be GZDoom but rather something like PrBoom+ or Woof...

 

You can see from the interest that things such as UMAPINFO, DEHEXTRA, and MBF21 have raised that there are many people who are interested in new fancy features but with a more conservative approach.

 

You should see this as a "mapping spectrum" instead of a "mapping binary".

Edited June 19, 2021 by Gez

[smeghammer]

Doom in Hexen Format.

 

Why? Because I started mapping on an Ubuntu box and the best (IMHO) editor on that platform is Eureka, and Eureka does not support UDMF. I know I could use Slade to map in UDMF on Ubuntu but that is quite fiddly to use as a level editor.

 

Spoiler

A better question is why don't more people use the structured .PK3 format?...

 

[WH-Wilou84]

2 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

Let me start with my original opinion, as a proposition for discussion: in 2021, the usual target format/source port ought to be UDMF in GZDoom or something comparable, even if you're otherwise making a map with an older-school feel or level of detail. 

 

I say "usual" because I certainly see how there would be occasional, specific reasons to map in something else, but from my perspective there'd be no reason not to snap back to UDMF immediately thereafter.

There's actually a major reason why people choose vanilla or Boom-compatible formats over UDMF : demo compatibility.

You're mentioning GZDoom. It's obviously an excellent port, but it's far from ideal when it comes to recording / watching demos, as you can't playback a GZDoom demo if it was recorded with a previous version of the engine.
That's why MBF21, UMAPINFO and DEHEXTRA are particularly interesting to us old-school mappers. At some point these features will be in their "final" state and won't receive any more additions, allowing a stable demo standard to exist.

Edited June 19, 2021 by WH-Wilou84

[Kappes Buur]

Hah, 

2 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

stuff

 

Hah, a likeminded mapper.

 

However, over the years, I have come to the conclusion that this is the wrong forum to bring up such a topic. Most mappers here are invested in the original DOOM/BOOM formats and do not want to deal, for one reason or another, with anything else.

 

I usually recommend, whenever  the subject comes up, to use the UDMF(ormat) because it lets mappers express themselves without the limiting constraints of an antiquated mapping format. But I will refrain from doing so again because of the open hostility against such ideas expressed here. Although it is much less hostile than it used to be in olden times (the early 2000s).

 

To align yourself with like minded mappers it is safer to join the ZDoom forum.

 

Here, on Doomworld, I simply try to help those who have a problem with editing.

 

 

8 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

.... and Eureka does not support UDMF. .....

 

 

Spoiler

 

[ViolentBeetle]

gzDoom takes like 2 seconds to load for testing. I don't have this much time.

[Roofi]

The first reason is that I don't really like the gzdoom port in general.

 

The second reason is that I prefer simplicity. The vanilla format already offers a sufficient toolbox to do a lot of things and I'm one of those who think that limits develop creativity. UDMF offers a lot of features but they are not really necessary. The older formats and especially the vanilla format allow you to focus on the essential, namely the gameplay, the architecture or the atmosphere of the map.

 

I'm also a fan of ports like crispy doom, I'm always frustrated to play a gzdoom format map that could have been limit-removing for example. Many people use UDMF, but I think a minority really know how to use it. 

 

Then, already mentioned, but the UDMF format takes away from the compatibility with the demos.

 

Anyway, I like UDMF only if it is really well used.

 

[roadworx]

23 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

Hah, 

 

Hah, a likeminded mapper.

 

However, over the years, I have come to the conclusion that this is the wrong forum to bring up such a topic. Most mappers here are invested in the original DOOM/BOOM formats and do not want to deal, for one reason or another, with anything else.

 

I usually recommend, whenever  the subject comes up, to use the UDMF(ormat) because it lets mappers express themselves without the limiting constraints of an antiquated mapping format. But I will refrain from doing so again because of the open hostility against such ideas expressed here. Although it is much less hostile than it used to be in olden times (the early 2000s).

 

To align yourself with like minded mappers it is safer to join the ZDoom forum.

 

Here, on Doomworld, I simply try to help those who have a problem with editing.

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

...but there hasn't been any hostility at all so far?

[smeghammer]

 

16 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Odd.

So which version are you using here? I have the (AFAIK) the most recent, and I don't have the UDMF option (this is the Windows build, BTW)

 

 

 

 

[Kappes Buur]

3 minutes ago, Roofi said:

The first reason is that I don't really like the gzdoom port in general.

 

The second reason is that I prefer simplicity. The vanilla format already offers a sufficient toolbox to do a lot of things and I'm one of those who think that limits develop creativity. UDMF offers a lot of features but they are not really necessary. The older formats and especially the vanilla format allow you to focus on the essential, namely the gameplay, the architecture or the atmosphere of the map.

 

I'm also a fan of ports like crispy doom, I'm always frustrated to play a gzdoom format map that could have been limit-removing for example. Many people use UDMF, but I think a minority really know how to use it. 

 

Then, already mentioned, but the UDMF format takes away from the compatibility with the demos.

 

Anyway, I like UDMF only if it is really well used.

 

 

In all fairness, what you have mentioned is exactly the opposite to creativity.

Mapping for DOOM/BOOM simply is the same from one map to the next, with only the layout and monster placement altered to make it appear as something new. 

 

Over the years mappers, who wanted to be more creative, have asked, nay pleaded, to have more and more features included in ZDoom, which now is GZDoom. That is why now one can use new actors in DECORATE or ZSCRIPT, ACS or ZSCRIPT scripting, 3D floors, models, spherical skyboxes, a dynamic lighting system, etc in a truly creative map. Thusly GZDoom is the mappers sourceport.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion. :)

[CblBOPOTKA]

- For compatibility reasons (someone like me still prefer prboom+ for its minimalism)

- I love challenge, in mapping

- And i don't need UDMF. Simply. Doom is not designed to do in that way. At the end point after all this modifications you'll get Quake, not Doom. I love old classic Doom. Yes, it needs polishing - Boom does its job perfectly

[Doomkid]

42 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

I usually recommend, whenever  the subject comes up, to use the UDMF(ormat) because it lets mappers express themselves without the limiting constraints of an antiquated mapping format. But I will refrain from doing so again because of the open hostility against such ideas expressed here. Although it is much less hostile than it used to be in olden times (the early 2000s).

I actually agree with pointing newbie mappers towards more advanced formats, unless they actively WANT vanilla compat and to experience how it was in "the old days" or other such goals. The fact of the matter is, if a mapper coming to Doom editing with no idea what the limits are and with no desire to stay "90s style" or remain universally compat, they should absolutely be pointed towards UDMF (or at least Doom in Hexen).

 

This has been years ago now, but I remember a big argument spiraling out of me saying that that UDMF mappers objectively have a bigger toolkit and more options for expressing their art than vanilla or Boom mappers, despite being a hardcore vanilla guy myself. I got roasted and toasted by people somehow claiming that Boom was just as versatile (it's not).

 

I was sort of lamenting how under-used these amazing features are on the whole mapping spectrum and how well they could be used if some Boom/vanilla mappers more talented than myself decided to use them. It really ruffled some feathers, but this was at least 5 years ago (just saying this to @roadworx primarily to give some context for what Kappes Buur is referring to)

 

EDIT: the idea that limitations somehow mean something is "less creative" is absurd though. I can give a guy 30,000 tubes of slightly different colors of paint, a million different brushes, and the best canvas in the world, while giving another guy a hunk of coal and a rock to draw on. The quality of the picture I receive after doing so is going to be dependent on the talent of the artist, not the number of tools they were given to work with.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Doomkid

[Gez]

7 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

In all fairness, what you have mentioned is exactly the opposite to creativity.

Nah. Art is defined by constraints, both positively (which constraints are obeyed) and negatively (which constraints are ignored). There are infinite variations offered even with limited possibilities. Using 3D floor or high res textures does not make a map more creative. It doesn't make it less creative, either.

 

I just don't see a point in "fighting" to establish which port/map format/color palette/pizza topping/whatever is "better". That's just a needless source of strife. I'd prefer to encourage mappers to try different things, even if just to experiment.

[Kappes Buur]

12 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

Odd.

So which version are you using here?

 

I was using

 

 

But you are right, in 1.27b the UDMF option is missing.

[Shepardus]

4 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

Mapping for DOOM/BOOM simply is the same from one map to the next, with only the layout and monster placement altered to make it appear as something new.

So Ancient Aliens, Sunlust, Eviternity, Going Down, BTSX, Sunder, NEIS, JPCP, etc. are the same as any OBLIGE map, and you need spherical skyboxes to be "truly creative"?

[Roofi]

11 minutes ago, Kappes Buur said:

 

In all fairness, what you have mentioned is exactly the opposite to creativity.

Mapping for DOOM/BOOM simply is the same from one map to the next, with only the layout and monster placement altered to make it appear as something new. 

 

Over the years mappers, who wanted to be more creative, have asked, nay pleaded, to have more and more features included in ZDoom, which now is GZDoom. That is why now one can use new actors in DECORATE or ZSCRIPT, ACS or ZSCRIPT scripting, 3D floors, models, spherical skyboxes, a dynamic lighting system, etc in a truly creative map. Thusly GZDoom is the mappers sourceport.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion. :)

 

I partly agree with you. I regularly play old lost maps on idgames, mostly in vanilla format and without any new texture. A lot of maps do look the same because they are mostly underdeveloped.

 

However, I've been able to play maps that have been able to stand out by putting a lot of secrets, a unique theme... I like to see the same resources used in different ways by the mappers (e.g. furnitures in Kama Sutra). 

 

The elements you mention can indeed be very useful to make very specific effects but are not necessarily essential for my part.

 

[smeghammer]

Just now, Kappes Buur said:

 

I was using

 

 

But you are right, in 1.27b the UDMF option is missing.

 

Ah! I might try that one, thanks.

 

I note from the readme here (https://sourceforge.net/projects/eureka-editor/files/Eureka/1.27/) that UDMF support is present, but experimental - would you know if there is a way to enable it in v1.27b (via a config file entry manually entered for example?)

[Mr Masker]

UDMF feels like it has too much for what I want to make, like yeah I could learn it and use it to make a super detailed beautiful complex level, and I very much respect those who do so, but it's just not what I'm interested in making, so I just choose Boom instead.

[roadworx]

1 minute ago, Mr Masker said:

UDMF feels like it has too much for what I want to make, like yeah I could learn it and use it to make a super detailed beautiful complex level, and I very much respect those who do so, but it's just not what I'm interested in making, so I just choose Boom instead.

this is the correct answer

[VanaheimRanger]

I make maps for ports I use.

[Kappes Buur]

24 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

.... - would you know if there is a way to enable it in v1.27b (via a config file entry manually entered for example?)

 

No, unfortunately not. It's not my regular editor.

I noticed though, that the contents of the zdoom.ugh files are somewhat different. Maybe swapping them out might help.

 

@printz maybe could shed some light on this issue.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Kappes Buur

[ReaperAA]

Map Formats are just like toolboxes. A good mapper can make a fantastic map even with the basic toolbox, while a bad mapper would make a bad map even with the more advanced toolbox.

 

The better the toolbox, the more price a mapper has to pay for it (in case of UDMF, the price is to pay is reduced compatibility with most source ports)

[smeghammer]

 

1 minute ago, Kappes Buur said:

 

No, unfortunately not. It's not my regular editor.

I noticed though, that the contents of the zdoom.ugh files are somewhat different. Maybe swapping them out might help.

 

@Printz maybe could shed some light on this issue.

 

 

 

OK no problem. 

 

I was just looking at the project on github - v2.0 looks to be on the way (which is excellent news), and has UDMF support as a TODO issue (first ever issue opened, so quite old...):

https://github.com/ioan-chera/eureka-editor/projects/2

 

@printz, I note that the v1.25-exp version that @Kappes Buur is using is not available in the downloads list on sourceforge - is this version publicly available? I'd love to use Eureka for UDMF work. Thanks.

[Doomkid]

5 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

Map Formats are just like toolboxes. A good mapper can make a fantastic map even with the basic toolbox, while a bad mapper would make a bad map even with the more advanced toolbox.

 

The better the toolbox, the more price a mapper has to pay for it (in case of UDMF, the price is to pay is reduced compatibility with most source ports)

Maybe it's just me, but this sums the whole thing up perfectly.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Doomkid

[Omniarch]

Because my laptop is a potato and (G)Zdoom is not exactly performant. Additionally, working within certain constraints is actually very enjoyable to me and many others. For example, just look at the lengths the BTSX team went to in order to make their gigawad compatible with the original exe, despite the fact that only a small minority of Doomers will ever experience it that way. Alternatively, @Zylinderkatze maintains a dev diary for his vanilla episode, detailing his battles with the vanilla limits, and he seems to be having a wail of a time while doing so. URE would not be the same if it were to transition to a more advanced format.

 

I could go on listing excellent wads that derive at least a part of their identity from the limitations of their chosen format, Three's A Crowd, Doom The Way id Did, No End In Sight, Rowdy Rudy II and REKKR to name just a few.

 

Finally, and I speak only for myself here, most of the features offered by UDMF just don't mean anything to me. 3D floors, coloured lighting, slopes, scripting... none of it really adds anything to the experience for me. Honestly, I haven't found UDMF maps to be (on average) really any more fun or visually pleasing than Boom or even limit-removing ones, and always far, far less performant. So, for me the question is flipped: why would I put up with lag for a set of features that mean less than nothing to me?

 

Now, if I had a better machine, I would be more inclined to make UDMF maps, since there are some features (like DECORATE and generalized actions) that I actually do like quite a bit. And I do think the 'quality ceiling' of UDMF maps is actually much higher than less advanced formats (Bastion of Chaos, for example, looks like buckets of fun for those who can run it). But until I upgrade my hardware, lim-rem and Boom will always be my formats of choice, to play and to make for.