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

[roadworx]

9 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

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

it's not, it's a great analogy

[boris]

1 hour ago, Roofi said:

The second reason is that I prefer simplicity.

 

Vanilla/Boom format is only simple if you want to do simple stuff. Complexity skyrockets when you want to do more advanced stuff, that's trivial in UDMF.

 

48 minutes ago, Mr Masker said:

I could learn it and use it to make a super detailed beautiful complex level

 

UDMF isn't about making "super detailed beautiful complex levels", it's about getting shit done without jumping through burning hoops. And being able to easily extending the mapping capabilities.

 

And people seem to thing that UDMF is qual to the GZDoom UDMF namespace. That's not the case, in fact the base UDMF 1.1 specs basically Hexen features with a bit of Strife sprinkled on top.

Edited June 19, 2021 by boris

[roadworx]

Just now, boris said:

Vanilla/Boom format is only simple if you want to do simple stuff. Complexity skyrockets when you want to do more advanced stuff, that's trivial in UDMF.

yeah but wacky vanilla shenanigans are cooler

[Rook]

As an only moderately experienced mapper, for me Boom format is the happy medium between the fussy restrictiveness of vanilla and the excessive feature set of UDMF. I'm not particularly fond of advanced port features, so it makes no sense for me to use a format which incorporates a wealth of options I don't use, which clutter the editor UI.

 

I sometimes worry that a perception that UDMF is the "default" format, especially for new mappers, can lead to a situation where people feel that learning and including advanced features like 3D floors is somehow mandatory. I wouldn't want to restrict the options available to new mappers, but I'd suggest that learning to map in something limit-removing, and then potentially pivoting to vanilla and/or UDMF on subsequent projects might make sense. To me it's easier to learn the fundamentals if you are freed from vanilla limits or any expectation of making grandiose, multi-level structures with slopes and coloured lighting - and it's the fundamentals which make for good maps.

[smeghammer]

1 minute ago, Omniarch said:

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

 

I would definitely say that the more options on offer, the more difficult it will be (on average) to make a 'good' map. It's the tool and user argument that @ReaperAAmade above. Certainly, there may well be material reasons for choosing vanilla Doom format if your hardware is older, but as many answers above indicate, vanilla maps can be superb anyway.

 

It's partly familiarity - I started with DiHF 'cos I am a programmer IRL anyway and wanted to bugger about with ACS, but that was a deliberate choice to start with the more complex option (couldn't use UDMF because, well, reasons). But from a pure mapping PoV, I would certainly have learned the basics faster with a vanilla format set of options. And that is probably true for most people.

 

The whole 'my format is better than yours' argument should not be confused with 'my preferred format is...' as the first could well be divisive and there is enough crap in the world. We are all here to have fun and be part of a community. As I'm sure I have said before, it matters not what format you use, or indeed how many features of that format you actually utilise, as long as you have fun with the mapping.

 

[Mordeth]

1 hour ago, Kappes Buur said:

But I will refrain from doing so again because of the open hostility against such ideas expressed here.

 

Depends on how one initiates such an exchange. If a poster enters a discussion by claiming "anyone who doesn't use udmf / gzdoom is stupid" he's going to get a negative reception. If you are nice and are genuinely respectful of other people's preferences and reasoning you're going to get positive responses.  One should hope the reason for those different reactions is rather obvious. Also, this whole "gzdoom persecution complex" really doesn't suit you.

 

Anyway, to the topic at hand: still using Doom in Doom Format for my Eternity mapping. This is not ideal, and I still recommend new mappers to go with UDMF.

 

There are a couple of reasons why I stick with the old crusty stuff. First: all modern Doombuilder derived editors are mainly developed with GZDoom in mind. That means that even in EE-UDMF format I'm still inundated with GZDoom-only crud cluttering things up. There's also the issue of EE-only stuff that's "hidden" in UDMF format, mostly in the 'properties' tab. That stuff is not searchable, nor highlighted when selected, which makes it impossible to do simple tasks such as "find me the sectors affected by portal x".  So it's mostly a tool issue for me. And there's stuff like a very long history of existing maps that's not easily converted into a new format, plus the fact I've "automated" a lot of features that's simply not doable / tedious to replicate.

 

 

[Mr Masker]

13 minutes ago, boris said:

 

UDMF isn't about making "super detailed beautiful complex levels", it's about getting shit done without jumping through burning hoops. And being able to easily extending the mapping capabilities.

Yeah but I feel like that is what alot of people view it as, considering it's big amount of features, and how alot of those do help to make the maps I was talking about before. But I understand that some people just wanna make standard levels with UDMF and that's fine, both UDMF and Boom get that done well.

[boris]

12 minutes ago, Mordeth said:

There's also the issue of EE-only stuff that's "hidden" in UDMF format, mostly in the 'properties' tab. That stuff is not searchable, nor highlighted when selected, which makes it impossible to do simple tasks such as "find me the sectors affected by portal x".

 

UDB allows you to search for arbitrary UDMF fields:

 

[Mordeth]

5 minutes ago, boris said:

 

UDB allows you to search for arbitrary UDMF fields:

 

 

O wow, is this new? That's one major hurdle gone :)

[boris]

Been in for roughly 3 months. IIRC @Afterglow suggested it because he had exactly the same problem.

[GoneAway]

In your mind UDMF and the ports that support it have all the stuff the old formats had and more, but that's actually not accurate. Try to finish noye (boom) in gzdoom and you'll find that you can't. You lose too much when using udmf for me to be interested in it. That's not necessarily udmf's fault though - it's more that ports that use udmf tend to be different games that happen to support doom formats and happen to include the word "doom" in their title.

[whybmonotacrab]

1. Limitation can be super helpful for creativity 
2. I'm new to mapping and having all those options gives me choice paralysis when I'm still essentially learning the basics 
3. I like ports like Crispy and PrBoom more than GZDoom
4. Honestly... most of the sets that inspired me to map are either Boom or Limit Removing.

[Wavy]

5 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

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."

Because there are more Boom-compatible ports than ZDoom UDMF compatible ports and I prefer people to play my WADs in their port of choice (not to mention that you can record demos as well)

 

Note: GZDoom and Eternity are my primary ports that I use to play Doom. Boom is my favourite mapping configuration as it gives a lot of features while being compatible with most ports (as I'd say a good 60-80% of ports are Boom-compatible).

[1Destro3456]

3 hours ago, Dubbag said:

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

Basically that.

 

 

2 hours 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. 

 

yeah, I agree with you, because all of Eviternity (that's MBF but you're saying that the only creative one is UDMF so yeah) is the same as any map form me, or an oblige map, or a Skillsaw map, or Sunder, or BTSX, or Half Moon, or Ancient Aliens, or Sunder, or Scythe 1 and 2. All of those megawads (and from me I guess a single map release for each of my Boom maps) are precisely the same. There's not a difference between them. I can't find the difference. Not on the creativity the megawads show from each author, or how not even different maps from the same megawad aren't different. 

[roadworx]

20 minutes ago, 1Destro3456 said:

yeah, I agree with you, because all of Eviternity (that's MBF but you're saying that the only creative one is UDMF so yeah) is the same as any map form me, or an oblige map, or a Skillsaw map, or Sunder, or BTSX, or Half Moon, or Ancient Aliens, or Sunder, or Scythe 1 and 2. All of those megawads (and from me I guess a single map release for each of my Boom maps) are precisely the same. There's not a difference between them. I can't find the difference. Not on the creativity the megawads show from each author, or how not even different maps from the same megawad aren't different. 

yeah ikr, these are totally the exact same thing

 

 

nope no difference at all no siree, these are literally the exact same image

[TheMightyHeracross]

4 hours 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).

 

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

I don't see how this is the case when you have mappers like Bridgeburner and Major Arlene who became Doomworld celebrities by building GZDoom maps that look like they were made for the Quake 3 engine.

 

3 hours 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. 

This right here is just so wrong it's insane, and you know it.

[skillsaw]

Most mappers here default to Boom or lower and I think it's a side effect of the landscape of ports and players more than anything else. UDMF is objectively more powerful than Boom or Vanilla when you consider only mapping/modding features (this is true whether we're talking about GZDoom or Eternity, or any other advanced port really), however, in terms of features available to players, you're making major sacrifices on their behalf. Often, these features are non-negotiable to players.

• Compatibility with demos/speedrun friendly ports
• Client/Server multiplayer ports
• Accuracy/faithfulness of the game itself

Since people generally want to share the maps they create, it's natural that the default is to use a format that allows players to pick their port of choice.

[MattFright]

Before anything, i want to clarify that @Doomkid's posts pretty much outline all of my own same views just to give some context.

 

What i want to add to this discussion, however, is that i absolutely HATE. This mentality of "constraints and limitations breed creativity" just as much as i hate the polar opposite. I used to make adventure maps and big builds in games such as Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound & others because i always wanted to give others a gateway into the worlds i imagined in my head, and the biggest reason i completely dropped those in favor of Doom mapping is to exceed those limitations, which were only perpetuated by the community and devs of those games trying to reassure me that making a fridge that looks like nothing like a fridge in Minecraft was somehow a better experience than just having a fridge object or a more modular system for building one.

 

On that note, and to tie that in to this post: From my experience and from what i've heard from others (even if i disagree with the way they phrase it), it seems like the case is just that limitless formats are GREAT, but if you don't need most of those features, there is just no point in mapping in UDMF or even Boom. And in contrast, if someone was trying to make a big complex map with shifting layouts, moving platforms, lots of verticality and so on for the reason that their ideas would not go well with Vanilla or Boom limitations, it would be absolutely infuriating to map for anything else other than UDMF.

 

I have made maps for Boom and UDMF because some of my ideas require a bigger toolset, others don't.

Edited June 19, 2021 by MattFright

[lokbustam257]

there's no DR DOOR

[jazzmaster9]

It really comes down to what the mapper wants. If he want's maximum compatibility you choose Boom/Limit Removing. If they need to make complex geometry UDMF. The older formats still have their place in modern Doom mapping for sure.

 

37 minutes ago, MattFright said:

i absolutely HATE. This mentality of "constraints and limitations breed creativity" just as much as i hate the polar opposite.

So much this. the fact that maps are just considered "Not as creative" just because X Format is used just sounds absolutely silly to me 

"ohh you just click the slope button *Yhawn* not that creative, I had to make 10000 dummy sectors and sky transfers to make my slope. im so much more clever!"

 

And this goes both ways of course, Older Ports aren't necessarily worse or less capable, it really depends on what you want from your map.

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by jazzmaster9

[Egg Boy]

I map for doom for the express reason that it’s easy and has a very fast turn around compared to anything else. When I have to worry about scripts and a million dummy sectors and things like that my reptilian brain draws a blank. I want to draw squares and put monsters in them. I also personally find the limits of limit removing and boom to help me when it comes to layout and level design since the geometry is simple enough where I can draw it out on paper and understand what I’m going for but complex enough that it’s not difficult to create interesting layouts that are fun to play. This sort of thing varies from person to person and it also doesn’t help that I’m not the biggest fan of gzdoom and my primary ports are prboom plus and crispy doom.  And while I understand the idea that the freedom udmf allows can be liberating, I really don’t think it is an objectively better format, and I think that’s easy to tell when you compare the breadth of releases from both sides of the spectrum. I rarely boot up a wad and think it looks better than BTSX E2 and that’s a completely vanilla project.

[Yugiboy85]

I map for boom because I'm comfortable with it. That's it. No other reason needed as far as I'm concerned. 

I appreciate the UDMF format and all, but, I find it too overwhelming. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Yugiboy85

[Stabbey]

This might sounds stupid, but I kinda like the challenge of trying to map using only standard actions. I enjoy the challenge of trying to accomplish what I want done using that pretty limited set of tools. It's not like I hate the modern formats or sneer at those who use them as lacking creativity, this is just a personal choice because I enjoy that element of problem solving. I'll probably switch to more advanced stuff when I feel like it.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Stabbey

[Koko Ricky]

UDMF is integral for me because I believe light plays a critical role in providing visual depth, more so than textures and animation. Strict sector-based lighting can be creatively implemented, and Boom allows for colors, but for me, the more I can do with light, the better. Being able to add dynamic point lights, and coloring sectors with Doom 64-esque gradients, as well as having the option to turn on lightmaps in-game, really makes maps feel more like real spaces, which helps with immersion.

 

That said, obviously, the wealth of options and the powerful scripting system is great. It's fun to learn a new feature a design an engaging map that utilizes them. I would argue that, despite being a feature creeper of a format, it's incredibly valuable as a tool for game design.

Edited June 19, 2021 by GoatLord

["JL" was too short]

Wow, this really blew up.  Thanks for keeping it mostly civil and respectful; I was half afraid I'd wake up to a flame war.

 

I'm just going to respond to a few points that were especially interesting/educational to me.

 

 

8 hours ago, WH-Wilou84 said:

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

 

This was actually one of the potential niche reasons I had in mind for someone selecting older formats.  This sort of passes the buck on my curiosity, though, because now I'm curious about folks' reasons for still favoring the LMP format.  Is it just COMPET-N style speedrun stuff or is there something else?  I'm speaking as someone whose main interest in demos was "I enjoy watching other people play Doom", for which I now have YouTube.

 

8 hours ago, Kappes Buur said:

However, over the years, I have come to the conclusion that this is the wrong forum to bring up such a topic.

 

On the contrary, it's precisely the right forum to bring up such a topic if you're curious about the view from the other side of the fence, which I was.  As long as the people are decent enough to reply without getting into a flame war, which is another quality that Doomworld (mostly) has in spades.  I do appreciate the ZDoom forums but if I mainly lived there I'd miss all the awesome Doomworld projects and posters (mostly not sarcasm).

 

 

7 hours 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 absolutely true for many people, but part of my thesis was that this is not a bad thing—at the absolute worst it's a perfectly neutral thing.  It's sort of like how my car has a radio in it that I will probably never in my life use because I have my iPod plugged in instead (which is an odd example because the unwanted option is in the opposite direction of the advancing technology, but I digress).  It doesn't hurt me at all that the radio is sitting there unused.

 

Note that my question was not "why are people not cramming every map with 3D floors and slopes," but "why not leave open the occasional opportunity to put that teleport flat exactly where the rest of the room needs it, and tell the grid to go fuck itself?"  Or "put simple E1M8 or MAP07 style sequences in maps that are not those maps."

 

 

7 hours ago, Omniarch said:

Because my laptop is a potato and (G)Zdoom is not exactly performant.

 

This is a class of reason that I admit I hadn't fully anticipated.  Thanks for pointing it out.

 

The rest of your (Omniarch's) post and a few others also brought up the challenge aspect, which I did anticipate—you saw, I assume, that I specifically namedropped BTSX and URE—and regarding which I can well understand the appeal.  But there's a difference between "I will do a project in this restrictive format as a challenge, to see what I can accomplish in it" and "I will map in this restrictive format all the time."

 

Urthar's work is an excellent example of what I would have expected to be the dominant attitude.  He did some absolutely mindblowing and fascinating things in Dimension of the Boomed, because he could.  Now that he's done them, he seems quite content to just do the sequel in (G)ZDoom—I don't know if it's technically going to be UDMF or an older ZDoom format, but the point is there.

 

6 hours ago, kraflab said:

In your mind UDMF and the ports that support it have all the stuff the old formats had and more, but that's actually not accurate. Try to finish noye (boom) in gzdoom and you'll find that you can't. 

 

I'm not familiar with this wad but I just want to say that I was aware of the extreme edge cases where GZDoom differs in gameplay, like archvile jumps being slightly different or whatnot.  These things do happen and they aren't unique to modern sourceports—didn't Ultimate Doom break UAC_DEAD for a while?  I'm just not sure how much they matter.

 

["JL" was too short]

Also, I agree with the folks who are (mostly civilly) calling out those who say that all vanilla/Boom maps look the same or whatnot.  Like, that's obviously not true.  You can argue for UDMF without going to the galaxy brain step of "actually, Deathless and BTSX look the same".

[TheMightyHeracross]

7 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

This sort of passes the buck on my curiosity, though, because now I'm curious about folks' reasons for still favoring the LMP format.  Is it just COMPET-N style speedrun stuff or is there something else?  I'm speaking as someone whose main interest in demos was "I enjoy watching other people play Doom", for which I now have YouTube.

Easy: LMPs are far more convenient than videos. Just a few kilobytes of pure text, so they're significantly faster to upload and download, not to mention way easier for whoever is hosting DSDA. You can replay the whole thing in multiple source ports, and it's far easier to analyze for cheating since you have player input frame-by-frame for the whole session.

Edited June 19, 2021 by TheMightyHeracross

[Bridgeburner56]

As the one of the biggest udmf gzdoom nerds going my view is

 

Map for the format/port you want to and enjoy.

 

Every port has its own quirks, complexities and strengths.

 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk

[ketmar]

8 hours ago, smeghammer said:

that UDMF support is present, but experimental

just compile Eureka from git. but please note that the support is really experimental yet.

 

edit: around commit 47005a21ce077ec21d8ed7cee5acab62fb1635fc, before UDMF selection was disabled. ;-)

Edited June 19, 2021 by ketmar

[smeghammer]

Just now, ketmar said:

just compile Eureka from git. but please note that the support is really experimental yet.

 

edit: around commit 47005a21ce077ec21d8ed7cee5acab62fb1635fc, before UDMF selection was disabled. ;-)

 

That's really useful info, thank you. I'll go back to my Ubuntu machine and grab that older commit (all the build tools are on that rather than my Windows LT). Understood it is experimental - won't use it as my main editor...