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

[ketmar]

9 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

if & when I get wind of something that includes GZDoom and everything below it

do you really need everything GZDoom has? because k8vavoom (yes, i know, a shameless self-plug with self-promotion; so what? ;-) supports alot of GZDoom features (including fairly advanced DECORATE support), and it has unique features GZDoom won't prolly have in the foreseeable future (unique dynamic lighting systems with shadows, floor decals, moving 3d polyobjects, built-in support for footstep sounds and bootprints [coming soon in the next build]...).

Edited June 19, 2021 by ketmar

["JL" was too short]

23 minutes ago, ketmar said:

do you really need everything GZDoom has? because k8vavoom (yes, i know, a shameless self-plug with self-promotion; so what? ;-) supports alot of GZDoom features (including fairly advanced DECORATE support), and it has unique features GZDoom won't prolly have in the foreseeable future (unique dynamic lighting systems with shadows, floor decals, moving 3d polyobjects, built-in support for footstep sounds and bootprints [coming soon in the next build]...).

 

Well, the real answer is that I won't know what I need until I find myself needing but not having it. ;)  But I guess I'd be satisfied if this hypothetical new source port (k8vavoom or whatever else it might be) breaks GZDoom wads (... or PK3s, you know what I mean) as infrequently as GZDoom breaks old vanilla, Boom, etc. wads.  Is that a good answer?

Edited June 19, 2021 by jerrysheppy

[ketmar]

5 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

breaks GZDoom wads (... or PK3s, you know what I mean) as infrequently as GZDoom breaks old vanilla, Boom, etc. wads

i.e. things doesn't work as they were working in the respective originals, but still somewhat playable? i guess it's not an impossible request. ;-)

[Bauul]

As a primarily UDMF mapper, I find the question rather odd. It's like asking a pencil artist "why don't you just use Photoshop?". 

 

I could ever throw the whole question back and just say "Why use UDMF when you could make your own game using Unity?"

 

As many others have said, it is the act of creation within the limits of our chosen engine/port/format that is fun. We all do this because we enjoy it, and if someone enjoys targeting a specific map format, then that's what they enjoy. Asking someone why they don't do it differently is basically questioning what they find enjoyable. Which is kind of a harsh thing to do. 

[LexiMax]

11 minutes ago, Bauul said:

I could ever throw the whole question back and just say "Why use UDMF when you could make your own game using Unity?" 

 

Before anyone suggests that this question is a cheap rhetorical trick, it's far from impossible to make Doom content in Unity, and if someone truly wants creative freedom and flexibility, this is the logical endpoint.

["JL" was too short]

22 minutes ago, ketmar said:

i.e. things doesn't work as they were working in the respective originals, but still somewhat playable? i guess it's not an impossible request. ;-)

 

Like if a monster moves a few tics differently then I don't give a shit, but if a relatively common action or script function behaves in such a way that it makes a map partially uncompleteable, that would be bad.

 

I guess for a point of reference, pretty much every older WAD I've ever played has had no perceptible (by me) problem in GZDoom.

[ENEMY!!!]

My view is that UDMF offers a wider range of creative possibilities, but the downside is that you have to go through a steeper learning curve in order to make good use of them, and the wider choice can be more overwhelming and increase the risk of feature creep, lack of focus etc. (As someone who has done a lot of half-finished UDMF/GZDoom maps and succumbed to perfectionism, I can vouch for that from personal experience).  But the range of creative possibilities for "middle ground" formats (e.g. Boom, MBF, Hexen) is still large, and various recent mapsets demonstrate that it's not even close to being exhausted.  With vanilla limitations, it may be rather more challenging to come up with something that stands out.

 

Thus, I might question why someone would want to stick exclusively with vanilla for a long period, but apart from that, you can make a strong case for pretty much any of the common formats.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by ENEMY!!!

[Nine Inch Heels]

Why not UDMF..? It's real simple: I prefer for the vast majority of maps I make to run in ports which can not only support insanely high numbers of monsters without choking under the overhead that comes with ZDoomisms like "fixed hitboxes" that also happens to run through only one single core (there is no port with multicore support for the gamesim), I also need none of GZDoom's features to be "creative". Also... of all the features there are, there's only one I would want, and that's true 3D geometry, but believe it or not, I can live without it just fine in the vast, vaaaaaast majority of cases I want to create anything...

 

As for "only UDMF allows mappers to be truly creative, because vanilla/boom maps are basically all cheap E1M1 ripoffs with no style or substance of their own" - dude, don't complain about being met with hostility when you insult so many content creators at once... Maps are more than just sectors and monster placement, sorry to pull that rabbit out of your reductionist hat...

[inkoalawetrust]

Honestly I don't get why people have this idea of UDMF being overwhelming, sure there are a lot of options, like how there's a TON of linedef flags to choose from, but you just need to know that you won't have to use all of them, and to simply ignore the line and sector flags or properties you don't want to use like reflectivity, when I moved from limit removing Doom format to UDMF I didn't have such an issue with all the variety in options like everyone else seems to, not for longer than maybe a few days. Nor was the learning curve that steep, even for someone like me who genuinely just could NOT make a functioning door no matter what for MONTHS after I had begun mapping.
 

14 hours ago, Omniarch said:

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.

How old and slow is your laptop ? Even the old 2012 desktops on my IT lab can run the latest GZDoom versions at 150+ FPS, running unoptimized mods like Project Brutality, let alone vanilla Doom. And if your laptop does not have OpenGL 3.3+ like my own PC doesn't, you can use LZDoom instead, which is a legacy GZDoom fork with most of the same features, with the only caveats being mostly a lack of the visual features like post processing effects when running it on an OpenGL 2.1 system. Not being able to run L/GZDoom is only an issue if you have a REALLY bad computer like I do, which runs vanilla Doom in LZDoom at 60-70 FPS on a window, or at 20-40 FPS on a maximized window.
 

14 hours 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.

^^^^^

People often seem to think that to use UDMF, you must spam every GZDoom feature in every room, like reflective floors/ceilings, mirrors, portals, 3D floors, dynamic lights, large and complex ACS scripts etc. But you can still make maps like the ones in other formats, but with features and the like that would be really hard or straight up impossible to add in a Boom format map for example, like 3D floors. Not every UDMF or GZDoom map needs to be a tech demo.

 

14 hours ago, boris said:

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.

While de jure, UDMF isn't just the (G)ZDoom namespace. In practice it IS the (ZD)oom (M)ap (F)ormat, as the most popular ports to support it and the ones most UDMF maps are made for are Zandronum and GZDoom, while non-ZDoom derivatives like Eternity and K8Vavoom support it and have their own namespaces, they are less know by a huge margin, and AFAIK there's not even that many UDMF maps specifically for them, unlike GZDoom, where basically any map for it specifically is in UDMF. Same goes for Zandronum mostly, but IIRC, DiHF is also still a popular format for Zandronum.

Edited June 20, 2021 by inkoalawetrust

[Doomkid]

6 hours ago, esselfortium said:

Vanilla mapping's not about cred. No one really cares that much if your map runs on a 386. Vanilla mapping is about masochism.

No it's not!! All those times visplane overflows made me smash my keyboard in anger, I was actually HAVING FUN!...

 

...wait a sec

 

4 hours ago, Chris Hansen said:

I'm so thankful for some of the comments here as they reassure me that I'm in fact not stuck doing the same thing over and over just because I won't change. I do it because I like it... and well, maybe also because my time is so short that if I dive deep into all those UDMF features then I will never release a level again! I just don't have the time. Instead I just stick with what I know and enjoy it.

 

Also, I think this is a bit like music making. I mean, I like rock'n'roll. Sometimes we just need drums, bass and some guitars. And we have ourselves an amazing track. Even though it's been done a million times before since Presley, Hendrix or The Beatles. If it works, it works. Depends on what we want to achieve, I guess.

Actually, any song that doesn't use at least 7 woodwinds, 10 stringed instruments and X number of percussive instruments is really just a collection of arbitrary decisions about whether to move up or down on the fretboard, or about when to hit the snare and kick drums. All songs using just Guitar, Bass and Drums are basically just slightly different versions of the same thing.

 

4 hours ago, Kappes Buur said:

We have stood on opposite sites before, but that is a cheap shot.

5 hours ago, Kappes Buur said:

'I am too damn lazy to learn anything else'

I don't mean any hostility here, so please do not take it that way. Do you genuinely believe that every vanilla map is just a collection of hallways and stairs placed at different spots with minor variations? I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight or something dumb like that, I'm very curious if that is how you actually see everything sub-UDMF in terms of compatibility.

 

It's crazy to me that someone could see UAC_DEAD, as being the same as Doom 2 In Spain Only despite them being absolutely different in every way imaginable, and that the two are also identical to Ray Mohawk 2, despite all having starkly different texture choices, music choices, sound effect choices, new sprites and graphics, and vastly different weapon functionality, monster health points and gameplay dynamics in general. Then there comes the old classics like Memento Mori, Strain, and All Hell is Breaking Loose - again with different weapon functions, graphics, sounds music..

 

Again, please don't take me the wrong way. I just can't see how all these works that are so different could possibly be whittled down to "just having stairs and hallways in different places". Even some of the hardcore Zandronum mapping supremacists from 5-10 years ago, who laid constant fat dumps on ZDaemon and Odamex, would look at this and say "well, that's going a little too far"...

[roadworx]

9 minutes ago, inkoalawetrust said:

Honestly I don't get why people have this idea of UDMF being overwhelming, sure there are a lot of options, like how there's a TON of linedef flags to choose from, but you just need to know that you won't have to use all of them, and to simply ignore the line and sector flags or properties you don't want to use like reflectivity, when I moved from limit removing Doom format to UDMF I didn't have such an issue with all the variety in options like everyone else seems to, not for longer than maybe a few days. Nor was the learning curve that steep, even for someone like me who genuinely just could NOT make a functioning door no matter what for MONTHS after I had begun mapping.

the thing is tho, not everyone is as good at these sorts of things as you are. some people may be left indecisive much easier - i experience indecisiveness incredibly easy, so it would absolutely be overwhelming for me - while others may have a tough time learning the new format. it's great that you find udmf easy to use but not everyone is gonna have that exact same experience, y'know?

 

5 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I don't mean any hostility here, so please do not take it that way. Do you genuinely believe that every vanilla map is just a collection of hallways and stairs placed at different spots with minor variations? I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight or something dumb like that, I'm very curious if that is how you actually see everything sub-UDMF in terms of compatibility.

no stop it they're just gonna say something even more ridiculous than what they've already said

[Noiser]

3 hours ago, ENEMY!!! said:

With vanilla limitations, it may be rather more challenging to come up with something that stands out.

For me is the opposite. I find way easier to be productive on vanilla because I don't need to spend "hours" on a single room and I can concentrate more on ideas and game balance. I also can stick to architecture that is built around these limits, meaning an organic workflow around windows, columns and pilars (which works very well for me in terms of layout). The static limits are only a pain when you are still learning how to deal with them, after that you can embrace it without much struggle.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Noiser

[snapshot]

I didn't have any problems starting out with UDMF, I pretty much avoided most of the additional features by simply not thinking about them because I was already focused on/had clear ideas of what I wanted out of my maps, it felt weird working on my first vanilla map, monster closets instead of just spawning monsters directly, not being able to align linedef sides textures individually, no actions triggered by things, no changing line specials on the fly...etc, way less flexibility.

Edited June 20, 2021 by sluggard

[kwc]

This conversation seems to hit a nerve, be it in some argumentative and introspective fashion. 
Healthy to think about what elements in something like this work for us, why we value them and how it may be applied in other things.
That said, I hope folks don't truly align their ego so close to something like a map format. 

 

I enjoy working in UDMF myself, I personally find it puts less between what I conceptualize and what I can achieve. The nature of what I've been driven to create (or more importantly, seen to completion) tends to belong to this format and is fairly atypical to what most people would be seeking out. (no comment on the quality of said works)

However, what drives and inspires me to work on my own stuff is almost always levelsets/megawads/whatevers in the "sub-UDMF" category.

Having some nominal understanding of limitations or port-nuances when playing through a Going_Rowdy_in_Ancient_Saturn_for_Eternity_with_a_Vendetta.wad gets the gears turning in my head and tends to push me to create, be it in mapping or music or visual art or what-have-you. So you better believe that I appreciate the limited foundations that drove those folks to work the way they do.

I guess its like a painter working within a palette/colourway, it doesn't mean its better or worse than an unlimited selection of colours, but it will no doubt inform the piece and may even lend focus to the artist.
 

Edited June 20, 2021 by kwc

["JL" was too short]

3 hours ago, Bauul said:

Asking someone why they don't do it differently is basically questioning what they find enjoyable. Which is kind of a harsh thing to do. 

 

I legitimately hope it didn't come across that way to any of the mappers here whom I respect (or don't respect for that matter).  

 

I can see how the bald-faced "why?" in the title might come across that way in a vacuum, but hopefully the OP came across at least a little more nuanced and showed my interest in hearing others' perspectives.

 

18 minutes ago, kwc said:

However, what drives and inspires me to work on my own stuff is almost always levelsets/megawads/whatevers in the "sub-UDMF" category.

Having some nominal understanding of limitations or port-nuances when playing through a Going_Rowdy_in_Ancient_Saturn_for_Eternity_with_a_Vendetta.wad gets the gears turning in my head and tends to push me to create, be it in mapping or music or visual art or what-have-you. So you better believe that I appreciate the limited foundations that drove those folks to work the way they do.
 

 

It's extremely true that many of the most inspiring maps I've ever played have been vanilla/Boom; however, I don't think it's because the causality is in the direction of 'vanilla/Boom restrictions -> inspiring results!', not that you were necessarily arguing that exactly.

 

Rather, I think it's just that many of the more talented mappers in the community have done big projects in those formats for their own reasons (and many of them have graced the thread with those reasons), and the creative inspiration comes along directly with the mapper, and only incidentally with the format.

 

On that note, it feels like lately we might be getting a push towards mappers getting ambitious with big, high-quality UDMF or similar projects. I'm thinking not only of the obvious Bridgeburner and Remilia Scarlet, and the Elementalism crew, but also folks like DavidN whose Ascent of Titan does some neat stuff with the format even if it's not trying to stab your graphics card to death.  Obviously there have been big (G)ZDoom projects in the past, some of them infamous, but it really does feel like I'm anticipating more of them right now than in most epochs of the past couple decades.

Edited June 20, 2021 by jerrysheppy

[kwc]

30 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

It's extremely true that many of the most inspiring maps I've ever played have been vanilla/Boom; however, I don't think it's because the causality is in the direction of 'vanilla/Boom restrictions -> inspiring results!', not that you were necessarily arguing that exactly.

 

Good distinction to make. 
I will say, personally, that format restrictions have been a factor in what makes me appreciate some of the work done in what I've played through. Of course, it is not some objective defining feature on the quality of craft, and certainly not to be expected, as it would be silly to expect others to look at or draw inspiration the same way as I do.

Like on the other side of the coin, the geometries one may see in these big slaughter-type UDMF maps can boggle my mind in much the same way, the level of forethought/discipline/focus/patience (qualities that are not native to any format, of course) that must go into those grand structures can be relatively overwhelming for somebody like myself to grasp.

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by kwc

[Jacek Bourne]

I like high performance and compatibility across many ports. So I choose boom format. I also do not use advanced features at all so why bother for me to learn them.

[Nine Inch Heels]

6 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

I legitimately hope it didn't come across that way to any of the mappers here whom I respect (or don't respect for that matter).  

 

I can see how the bald-faced "why?" in the title might come across that way in a vacuum, but hopefully the OP came across at least a little more nuanced and showed my interest in hearing others' perspectives.

All things considered, I didn't really have issues with the OP in and of itself, though I would like to add that I view mapping as a spare time activity - with the outcome being shared for free in places like this... As such, I tend to take issue with the type of shilling people like KappesBuur seem to commit to (Such as "use this builder over that builder, and use this format over that format")...

 

Likewise, I also tend to take issue with the mindset some people appear to have when it comes to ideas like "mapping for the player" or "putting the player in the first place" when it comes to ideas which may or may not be met with a lot of "acclaim" or "approval" from the majority of players... I hate the idea that a hobby of mine (one that results mostly in kind of niche maps) could be taken hostage by whims and wishes of others - and it irks me a great deal that it's often a standard pushed by those who, for all intents and purposes, never contributed anything to this community other than their personal opinions... And I don't think it's much of a surprise when people who ramble about standards "we as a community" have established (while they have nothing to show for themselves) get a verbal elbow to the ribs from people like me, who don't have issues with making themselves uncomfortable when and where it's justifiable...

 

That being said, sometimes when people are new to mapping, I'd have preferred to see them try their hands at a format like lim-rem vanilla or boom first.. Not because I expect them to stick to it, but because "option paralysis" is less of a factor in these formats, and people aren't drawn to "scripting all the things " or feature creep either... I get that modern GZDoom maps aren't as heavy on the feature creep any more, but it's still something of a noob-trap, and learning what linedef actions can do before getting into scripting is also a valuable learning experience in its own right. Sure, you can have that same experience with UDMF, but chances are somebody is gonna try and talk you into scripting when you're not sure how to do something in a map, so instead of only learning to use the builder of your choosing and the linedef actions you need to get a map to a playable state, you have the "coding" on top of the learning curve in many cases, and I don't think that lends itself towards a good "first time experience" for quite a few people... If you are versed with regards to coding, you may find it less of an additional hurdle, but if you have close to no experience going into ACS when it's your first map... Just how long do you want to work on it before it's finally done and ready for "the audience"..?

 

The ZDoom stuff I work on at the moment is still mostly "standard geometry" and standard linedef actions, with some ACS thrown in where I needed an effect that linedef actions were unable to deliver, or when I needed a trigger other than a linedef, besides that the added features don't mean anything to me, because I get where I want to be just fine in most cases, and the reason for that is that I learned to accomplish my goals with what's "already in the game" before looking into "adding to the game myself"... Anyway... if you learn how to map in one format, it usually won't take you long to learn it in another, so there's really no reason to sweat it... Just don't do all the things right away...

[jazzmaster9]

As someone who pretty much started mapping with ZDoom in Hexen Format,  the UDMF of old, I found the vast array of options very helpful in figuring out what works and what doesn't, as well as just seeing the possibilities that the format brought and what i could do wit it. I was like a kid in the candy store and tried everything i could and learned so much. So personally I don't subscribe to the notion of "beginners should start with X Format" simply because people learn differently.

 

Also the amount of "slopes/custom enemies aren't necessary just make it vanilla and DEHACKED" comments I got when i first started made me steer clear of that for a while and just did my own thing with ZDoom, only recently did i explore Vanilla/Limit Removing fully but I'm quite happy with where i am now as a modder starting out with a more advance format.

Edited June 20, 2021 by jazzmaster9

[roadworx]

3 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

As someone who pretty much started mapping with ZDoom in Hexen Format,  the UDMF of old, I found the vast array of options very helpful in figuring out what works and what doesn't, as well as just seeing the possibilities that the format brought and what i could do wit it. I was like a kid in the candy store and tried everything i could and learned so much. So personally I don't subscribe to the notion of "beginners should start with X Format" simply because people learn differently.

this is true, actually. everybody learns in their own unique way, so there's really no "beginner's format". when i first began mapping, vanilla was what i found to be the quickest way to map as it's simple and has the least amount of features i have to look through; i personally need results as quickly as possible for me to not get distracted or bored, so that's really important for me. however, i can very easily see how another person would get frustrated with it and be better off starting with boom or udmf due to vanilla's various quirks and limitations.

[Omniarch]

5 hours ago, inkoalawetrust said:

How old and slow is your laptop ? Even the old 2012 desktops on my IT lab can run the latest GZDoom versions at 150+ FPS, running unoptimized mods like Project Brutality, let alone vanilla Doom. And if your laptop does not have OpenGL 3.3+ like my own PC doesn't, you can use LZDoom instead, which is a legacy GZDoom fork with most of the same features, with the only caveats being mostly a lack of the visual features like post processing effects when running it on an OpenGL 2.1 system. Not being able to run L/GZDoom is only an issue if you have a REALLY bad computer like I do, which runs vanilla Doom in LZDoom at 60-70 FPS on a window, or at 20-40 FPS on a maximized window.

The funny thing is, my laptop isn't actually a potato. Sure, it struggles to run any (non-indie) game released in the last decade, but it otherwise works just fine. Specs are as follows: proccessor: i5-4300, RAM: 4GB, graphics card: Intel HD Graphics 4400, OpenGL version: 4.3. So, a fairly capable machine for the kinds of games I like to play.

 

However, for whatever reason, even when playing relatively normal GZDoom sets with the hardware renderer, I get very inconsistent framerates, leading to a weird stutter effect, which makes playing much of anything rather unpleasent. Both ZDoom and GZDoom with software renderer run fine, unless I try to load something like Ar Luminae, which barely runs at all even in hardware mode.

 

2 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That being said, sometimes when people are new to mapping, I'd have preferred to see them try their hands at a format like lim-rem vanilla or boom first.. Not because I expect them to stick to it, but because "option paralysis" is less of a factor in these formats, and people aren't drawn to "scripting all the things " or feature creep either... I get that modern GZDoom maps aren't as heavy on the feature creep any more, but it's still something of a noob-trap, and learning what linedef actions can do before getting into scripting is also a valuable learning experience in its own right.

This has very much been my experience, which is why I tend to recommend lim-rem to newer mappers (I always try to explain my reasoning so that they themselves can make an informed descision of course). Early on, I spent way to much time fiddling with anything and everything rather than actually mapping, though switching over to lim-rem/Boom hasn't really helped much in that regard. Maybe its a me problem, I dunno.

 

There is another angle worth considering: a limited selection of linedef actions and therefore optinons on the mapper's part can, for me anyway, create a baseline set of expectations, which, when cleverly subverted, leave a stronger impression on me than if I had entered the experience knowing that "anything" is possible. This is likewise true for secret hunting: if there are a fundamentally limited set of options on the table, I find myself applying a mixture of technical knowledge and conventional puzzle-solving logic to sniff out a map's secrets, which I personally find far more satisfying than using just the latter. For this reason, I find that vanilla/lim-rem maps tend to have the most enjoyable secret-hunts.

[boris]

7 hours ago, Noiser said:

For me is the opposite. I find way easier to be productive on vanilla because I don't need to spend "hours" on a single room and I can concentrate more on ideas and game balance. I also can stick to architecture that is built around these limits, meaning an organic workflow around windows, columns and pilars (which works very well for me in terms of layout). The static limits are only a pain when you are still learning how to deal with them, after that you can embrace it without much struggle.

 

Your points have nothing to do with the map format, though. Why would have to "spend hours on a single room" in UDMF? And your screenshot could very well be from a UDMF map. You seem to mix up the map format with a certain kind of gameplay style.

[Bridgeburner56]

4 hours ago, Jacek Bourne said:

I like high performance and compatibility across many ports. So I choose boom format. I also do not use advanced features at all so why bother for me to learn them.

Fun fact: one of my boom maps runs worse in prboom+ than gzdoom :D

(The map is Bloodwire Keep which is in the project Dying Camel's Demons 3)

(Also I have a total of 2 boom maps so now I can use the term "one of my boom maps")

[LexiMax]

5 hours ago, boris said:

Your points have nothing to do with the map format, though. Why would have to "spend hours on a single room" in UDMF? And your screenshot could very well be from a UDMF map. You seem to mix up the map format with a certain kind of gameplay style. 

 

The difference is that with a UDMF map the map now only runs in GZDoom and k8vavoom (plus forks).  So really, it only makes sense to use UDMF for maps that truly need the extra features the underlying engine offers.

 

If UDMF was adopted by a PR+ fork, that calculus might change.

Edited June 20, 2021 by AlexMax

[Bauul]

6 hours ago, boris said:

 

Your points have nothing to do with the map format, though. Why would have to "spend hours on a single room" in UDMF? And your screenshot could very well be from a UDMF map. You seem to mix up the map format with a certain kind of gameplay style.

 

I know you are correct in theory Boris, but my experience (and many others I've chatted to about this) have noted that because UDMF offers so many more options for approaching a given situation, you end up spending much longer on a given piece of geometry.

 

An example would be Flat alignment. In Doom format, because you can't change the Flats, you instinctively build with the 64 unit grid in mind, so flats that you need to be aligned (like teleporters) are, but everything else you just accept what it is. With UDMF you can scale, rotate and offset every flat, so there's no excuse for just leaving it on the default grid. You're going to spend the time aligning and rotating any texture where it could be made to fit the sectors better.

 

Whenever I make a map in the Doom format everything goes so much quicker simply because there aren't all the options to consider. I love UDMF, but it is a considerably more time consuming format simply from a creativity point of view. 

[esselfortium]

When I've done UDMF or Hexen format mapping, I've always ended up getting stuck on setting up line actions. In Doom format, you know that action 1 gives you a simple repeatable door that behaves like Doom doors do. In UDMF or Hexen format, you now have up to five parameters to define every aspect of that door and have to remember which settings are standard. Maybe this has changed since I last did UDMF mapping, but it would be great to have a picker of customizable presets for common actions so you don't have to think about it every time.

[ENEMY!!!]

I've had that problem with line specials in UDMF for quite a while, too.  In the case of doors, for some years I wasn't even sure if which linedef special to use, but it's got easier since the linedef special 202 - Generic Door became available (it's definitely in Ultimate Doom Builder and I think it might be in the later GZDoom Builder versions too).  Or maybe it was always there and I only recently became aware of it, I'm not sure.  As far as I'm aware the default settings make it behave like a standard Doom door, and the customization is also more user-friendly than it used to be.

Edited June 20, 2021 by ENEMY!!!

[Doomkid]

This may be kind of dumb and backwards, but if I wanted to make a UDMF map, I'd still do all the mapping in vanilla format, then just convert it to Doom in Hexen format using WinZWadConv, then open that map in UDMF rather than Doom in Hexen (which I think most current editors can do easily) and add in the last 5% of UDMF/Hexen specific functions.

 

I've done this to place thing bridges, deep water, colored lighting etc in otherwise vanilla/LR maps and it's the best way to not have to re-learn from scratch, most time efficient in other words.

 

While looking for a link to WinZWadConv I found that I've made this exact same ramble before, lol:

On 6/23/2020 at 11:21 PM, Doomkid said:

To be completely honest, I've never used any format other than vanilla for the vast majority of my maps.

 

I have made a tiny handful of maps that require ZDoom, but I was kind of cheating - I'd do the whole damn map in pure vanilla format, then convert it to ZDoom: Doom in Hexen format (which in turn can be easily converted to UDMF these days) using WinZWadConv to add the final touches like transparent linedefs for glass or liquids, "thing bridges" and line horizons. They're the only features I've ever felt vanilla was lacking.. Well, there's also slopes, deep water and super-fast lifts which I think are excellent, but I've never actually implemented them in any of my maps.

 

I have also never once made a real Boom format map. My maps in THT: Threnody are only technically "Boom format" because Chris Hansen (iirc) helped my incompetent ass out by adding the sky transfers - a technique I have literally never once used before, like all Boom features sans translucent lines.

 

I'm just so used to the vanilla mapping/modding process at this point that it's easier to start from there, even in the rare case that I intend to add more advanced bits as well.

 

[kwc]

22 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

it would be great to have a picker of customizable presets for common actions so you don't have to think about it every time.

 

4 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I'd still do all the mapping in vanilla format, then just convert it to Doom in Hexen format using WinZWadConv, then open that map in UDMF rather than Doom in Hexen (which I think most current editors can do easily) and add in the last 5% of UDMF/Hexen specific functions.

These are fine ideas, it's like sticking within a scale and then borrowing notes from other scales when needed/appropriate instead of trying to incorporate an entire chromatic structure. 

[Noiser]

8 hours ago, boris said:

 

Your points have nothing to do with the map format, though. Why would have to "spend hours on a single room" in UDMF? And your screenshot could very well be from a UDMF map. You seem to mix up the map format with a certain kind of gameplay style.

Nice job distorting my quote. When I say I spend hours on a single room I'm talking about what works for me. I never mentioned UDMF either, even on limit removing I keep a lot of time detailing and perfecting my map but on vanilla the limits will force me to another direction, which is a lot more productive for me. It seems you didn't read my post properly.

The screenshot in question was made to help people avoid VPOs. Of course you can do the same on UDMF, but that's not the point. Read my post again (and also the post I'm quoting) because you got it all wrong.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Noiser