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

[Mayomancer]

As any other kind of art, the 'best' format will always depend on the vision and objectives the mapper wants to accomplish. Things such as fog, fancy lighting, scripting, etc... can be absolutely used for amazing things, but what ultimately dictates how those are used to create a unique experience is the creator. If a limited set of features somehow hindered creativity or gameplay we'd all be mapping for quake or other games already.

 

As for the original question, there's a lot of things that can be easily accomplished without the need for UDMF features. If you can make your map more widely compatible with other ports, or figure out different ways to implement features with dehacked, boom/mbf, there's not really a reason not to, unless you are making actual good use of it's features (or just feel more familiar/comfortable with the format, which is perfectly valid).

 

Shoutouts to Going Down and Ancient Aliens btw

Edited June 20, 2021 by Mayomancer

[Gez]

40 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

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.

There's that in SLADE. (Admittedly not the most popular map editor.)

[Mayomancer]

16 hours ago, Bauul said:

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. 

I only read this after i posted, but it's a better version of what i tried to say.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Mayomancer

[Jacek Bourne]

7 hours ago, Bridgeburner56 said:

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")

 

That's probably because of opengl lighting I think. I don't really use prboom at all. I use glboom because it has better performance.

[boris]

2 hours ago, esselfortium said:

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.

 

Sensible predefined values with more common values as drop down options for actions have been introduced in GZDB 9 years ago.

[esselfortium]

34 minutes ago, boris said:

 

Sensible predefined values with more common values as drop down options for actions have been introduced in GZDB 9 years ago.

It has been a while then, haha.

[inkoalawetrust]

3 hours ago, Bauul said:

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. 

That sounds more like a problem with how you approach making UDMF maps, just because you can change flat alignments in UDMF, it doesn't mean you need to try and micromanage every texture like I myself used to. You can just use flat offsets and independent sidedef offsets to align stuff that would be very off otherwise such as teleporters not placed in a 64 MU grid, and most people wouldn't notice or complain about really small details unless they are spending half their time in a map looking at every nook and crany for any inconsistency or mistake.

TL;DR This basically falls under "no need to spam every feature in every room" again.

[smeghammer]

On 6/19/2021 at 9:30 AM, Kappes Buur said:

 

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

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The above is from v1.25-exp, which is not available for download (except perhaps via a particular commit in git). Latest version 1.27b does indeed allow UDMF format but nominally and is currently experimental. That is why it is only accessible via a cli start-up argument. Use at own risk I guess... 

 

It is interesting to look at the Github project for Eureka, and you will see that for the planned v2.0, UDMF support is the very first issue ticket in the TODO column, so it is definitely officially coming in v2.0. This very likely means that the nominal ability for UDMF mapping in earlier versions is not supported.

Edited June 20, 2021 by smeghammer

[roadworx]

34 minutes ago, inkoalawetrust said:

That sounds more like a problem with how you approach making UDMF maps, just because you can change flat alignments in UDMF, it doesn't mean you need to try and micromanage every texture like I myself used to. You can just use flat offsets and independent sidedef offsets to align stuff that would be very off otherwise such as teleporters not placed in a 64 MU grid, and most people wouldn't notice or complain about really small details unless they are spending half their time in a map looking at every nook and crany for any inconsistency or mistake.

TL;DR This basically falls under "no need to spam every feature in every room" again.

in vanilla, i can't help myself but make every texture fit perfectly, have all things be in certain exact positions, make all textures align perfectly, and have things be perfectly symmetrical when i want symmetry. i can't even begin to imagine how much i'd stress myself out in udmf over the tiniest things and smallest pieces of geometry.

[stewboy]

There's a good analogy with music composition here I think - you might ask why people don't use the latest DAWs for every music track (let's assume that there's no affordability barrier here) since mp3s are also supported by certain ports, or why people don't use tracker modules which are also supported. These let you put so much more detail and atmosphere into music, and there are plenty of people in the wider Doom community who use them, so why would anyone stick with midi? As someone who's created music in all of these formats, I can definitely say that the less limitations any program has, the more overwhelmed I tend to feel when writing something. There's even an anagalous point someone could make - "You can still make something simple in these more complicated programs if you ignore a lot of the more advanced features." And they'd be totally right - but it just doesn't feel right when I try doing something like that. So the reasons that I stick with a more simpler music form would be similar to why some people prefer to stick to a simpler mapping format - it's more familiar, it's less overwhelming, it makes me concentrate on different aspects of the creation process, and I do kind of like the challenge of making something sound nice within the limitations.

["JL" was too short]

5 hours ago, Bauul said:

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.

 

Not that it invalidates your overall feelings, but I just finished doing a UDMF map (mediocre, because I'm a mediocre mapper) and there are a couple of things that help with this.

 

First, I do still work on the grid whenever possible, using 16 or 32 or 64 to block out the main areas of rooms.  It's not like I'm suddenly mapping everything with a 1 unit grid and going, oh, I'll fix it in UDMF.  Most commonly I use flat alignment for when I want to put a ceiling light or teleporter texture somewhere in a room where the 64 grid isn't convenient.

 

Which brings me to the second point, which is that CTRL-A in visual mode works on flats in UDB, just like it does wall textures.  It even gets rotations right, or close to right, a lot of the time, though I have to touch those up a bit by hand sometimes.  Lining up that teleporter literally takes me less than a second once I have it highlighted in visual mode.  Needless to say, this is a godsend and without it I'd be closer to not thinking it was worth it (though something like X and Y offsetting the occasional gate flat would be feasible and still worth the price of admission).

[Noiser]

4 hours ago, stewboy said:

 So the reasons that I stick with a more simpler music form would be similar to why some people prefer to stick to a simpler mapping format - it's more familiar, it's less overwhelming, it makes me concentrate on different aspects of the creation process, and I do kind of like the challenge of making something sound nice within the limitations.

Perfect. This is exactly what I tried wanted to say but in better words lol

Edited June 21, 2021 by Noiser

[Horus]

On 6/19/2021 at 7:08 PM, jerrysheppy said:

 

You can tell how much of an old fart I am because I was thinking "what is the demo community called again?" and my brain immediately went COMPET-N rather than DSDA.

 

Thanks for the reply.  I guess it shows how there can be multiple coexisting sensibilities as to a subjective concept like "convenience".  For any of my purposes, YouTube feels considerably more convenient than downloading and playing a LMP, but thinking about it I can also see how someone might beg to differ if they were, say, laboring under throttled internet.

Also look at from the other point of view. As a playtester, it is far more convenient to record a demo file, zip it up and send it to the mapper, than launch OBS, record gameplay, deal with any technical difficulties if they occur, then upload large video file to YouTube.

["JL" was too short]

11 minutes ago, Horus said:

Also look at from the other point of view. As a playtester, it is far more convenient to record a demo file, zip it up and send it to the mapper, than launch OBS, record gameplay, deal with any technical difficulties if they occur, then upload large video file to YouTube.

 

Quite true, but you also reach a much bigger audience with YT (which ironically enough is an argument a lot of folks are making for mapping vanilla/Boom).  

 

Granted if you just want to specifically send it to one person then that's an excellent use case for demos.

[Horus]

6 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

 

Quite true, but you also reach a much bigger audience with YT (which ironically enough is an argument a lot of folks are making for mapping vanilla/Boom).  

 

Granted if you just want to specifically send it to one person then that's an excellent use case for demos.

Unless you put the level of effort into your content that people like decino, MtPain27 or dwars do, Doom videos get barely any views on YT at all

Edited June 20, 2021 by Horus

[NiGHTMARE]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:12 PM, ketmar said:

many sourceports support "doom in hexen" format, which allows ACS scripting too. so technically you don't need to use UDMF to script things. is "doom in hexen with Boom specials" still Boom format? i don't know. ;-)

 

p.s.: and in this format you can have slopes, 3d floors, and other fancy things too.

 

Slopes are actually possible even in vanilla "ZDoom in Doom" format - linedef types 340 to 347. They don't cause crashes or other issues in Non-ZDoom ports (possibly excepting Eternity), so you could even use them and still have the map work in other ports.

Edited June 20, 2021 by NiGHTMARE

[Capellan]

I like vanilla.

 

That's all the reason I need to not use UDMF.

 

[Bauul]

3 hours ago, inkoalawetrust said:

That sounds more like a problem with how you approach making UDMF maps, just because you can change flat alignments in UDMF, it doesn't mean you need to try and micromanage every texture like I myself used to.

 

No of course not, it was just an example. But UDMF has various features that compound to benefit from additional attention. For example the floating point vertex coordinates combined with UDB's dynamic grid rotation function allows for non-orthagonal angles to a far greater ease than in older formats and editors. And if you do this, unless you want every flat to look at an odd angle you have to spend the time aligning them. Of course you don't have to, but my experience is that it's hard to not take that extra step to improve the basics of a map if you want it to be as good as it can be.

 

This isn't about UDMF feature creep (believe me, you're preaching to the converted there), it's about having a bigger menu of possible features from which to choose to benefit the map you're making. 

 

2 hours ago, jerrysheppy said:

Which brings me to the second point, which is that CTRL-A in visual mode works on flats in UDB

 

Auto-flat alignment in UDB (it was present in GZDB I believe too) is a godsend, but as you say it's not perfect. Any kind of sloped floor (especially vertex slopes) tends to require manual tweaking. 

 

It was just an example though. Even though UDB's tools make it super easier in many situations (albeit not every one: I've spent far too much of my life Ctrl-Aing on Stair Builder generated distinct border sectors), it is still an example of the kind of extra feature that requires at least some consideration.

 

I'm not ragging on UDMF (I of all people are an obvious advocate for it) but I'm just saying in my experience the mentality required for making a Doom format map tends to be simpler and quicker than a full-fat UDMF/GZDoom creation. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Bauul

[leodoom85]

1 hour ago, jerrysheppy said:

 

Quite true, but you also reach a much bigger audience with YT (which ironically enough is an argument a lot of folks are making for mapping vanilla/Boom).  

 

Granted if you just want to specifically send it to one person then that's an excellent use case for demos.

 

1 hour ago, Horus said:

Unless you put the level of effort into your content that people like decino, MtPain27 or dwars do, Doom videos get barely any views on YT at all

Different topic from what's talking here and that mindset is kinda wrong. I suggest to not compare to others and treat any videos like a hobby, even if it's not viewed a lot.

 

Anyway, it's funny that UDMF is mostly talked when this "what if" situation is related to the fact that if you set another format by default instead of UDMF to make a map. We know that the format is a fucking beast but, I can't avoid the idea that newcomers need to start from the very basics, like we all did.

[ebrl]

On 6/19/2021 at 2:38 AM, jerrysheppy said:

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.

That's some incredible gymnastics considering Boom has been for ages the most popular format for people who want to make maps that look and play like Doom.

 

 

On 6/19/2021 at 5:30 AM, 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.

 

On 6/19/2021 at 5:58 AM, 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.

I mean, maybe some open hostility is called for, and you should have refrained from expressing such ideas here once again.

[HAK3180]

3 hours ago, Horus said:

Unless you put the level of effort into your content that people like decino, MtPain27 or dwars do, Doom videos get barely any views on YT at all

 

Blasphemy. I got triple-digit views at least twice and averaged probably only slightly fewer than my age.

[QuotePilgrim]

I use DOOM format because I am kind of a purist. I'm okay with playing modern maps and mods if they don't stray too far from the spirit of vanilla DOOM, but for any of my own maps, it must at the very least be able to run in BOOM 2.02 on DOS, and if I can at all make it pure vanilla, I will.

 

I got into DOOM fairly recent, having only finshed DOOM 2 in 2019. Most of what I'm playing right now are maps that were made in the 90s and early 2000s, or vanilla-compatible recent projects.

Edited June 21, 2021 by QuotePilgrim

[Clippy]

I've only ever mapped in Doom 2 format and I still use the original Doom builder. It's the only thing I've ever known and I'm very comfortable with it

[forgettable pyromaniac]

I'm a boom fellow myself, and I enjoy using it because it has the best functionality:sourceport ratio out of the map types.

 

Doom 2 runs in most ports, but the line actions and stuff like the visplane limit if you're going for true compatibility blows

 

UDMF is very flexible and makes a bunch of cool stuff possible (room over room, bridge objects, ect) but really only runs with GZDoom.

 

Boom runs on plenty of source ports (examples: PrBoom, Retro, Eternity, the ZDoom family, Woof, ect), and is still pretty flexible, even being able to make Puesdo Room over room with invisible teleports.

[Doomkid]

3 hours ago, Clippy said:

I've only ever mapped in Doom 2 format and I still use the original Doom builder. It's the only thing I've ever known and I'm very comfortable with it

As someone who used DB1 until 2017 - well over a decade after its death - please Clippy, for your own sake, try out GZDoom builder. The old 2017 build still runs super stable for me, it's simply a pleasure to use as someone who spent 2004-2017 using DB1. I would have made less maps since then if I hadn't switch, just due to how much of a time sink basic things can be in DB1.

 

You can configure it to feel almost JUST like the original - same controls and everything (which were moronically switched from DB2 onward). It only takes a few minutes.. and this gif from Dragonfly was all I needed to see how much time could be saved.. I'm talking HOURS saved, by the time you've made just a few maps..

 

[Nine Inch Heels]

15 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

this gif from Dragonfly was all I needed to see how much time could be saved.. I'm talking HOURS saved, by the time you've made just a few maps..

I don't quite see what happens there that wouldn't happen with DBX by anotak, and if you're gonna recommend anything GZDB, you might as well recommend Ultimate Doom Builder instead of an outdated version...

[Doomkid]

with no context if someone asked me what editor I’d suggest i’d of course say UDB or DBX, but this is someone trying to transition from DB1 ~16 years after its death.. as someone who had to do that exact same thing just a few years ago, I’m just suggesting the same path I took as the transition was “mostly seamless”. Going from 16 years out of date to 4 years out of date is still a leap in the right direction!

 

UDB has never worked right for me and from what I’ve seen the UI has undergone further changes which will almost certainly make life harder for someone who’s still used to DB1’s UI, so in this fringe case, recommending it wouldn’t be pertinent. DBX always worked perfectly from a technical perspective, but I just wasn’t that partial to it.

 

Basically, Clippy is still using an editor that is equivalent to “crawling” - I’m suggesting he try to transition to walking before handing him the keys to the new Ferrari :P

Edited June 21, 2021 by Doomkid

[Clippy]

@Doomkid hey there - I gotta tell ya I'm one of those ppl that get set in my ways. I am super comfortable with using doom builder to the point I don't have to think and know how everything fits like a nice glove

 

I can try to take a look at the other thing, but I know one time I tried it and had a weird problem - not sure I can explain. You know when you click on a linedef for example and it brings up the setting window, actions and textures etc? Well in Ultimate Doom builder the windows were so large and filled with confusing extra functions, I couldn't press OK - I got stuck on screens that were too big to operate so I switched back lol

 

I know you're trying to help me but I might be helpless

 

I also made this video tonight playing with Doom builder - the website says the version is 2012 so I'm only a decade out of date :S

 

 

 

[Mordeth]

16 hours ago, AlexMax said:

The difference is that with a UDMF map the map now only runs in GZDoom and k8vavoom (plus forks).

 

Yeah, no. And perhaps this is where the confusion by some posters is coming from?

 

For Eternity at least, there's currently no advanced feature that cannot also be done in Doom format / EDF. With one notable exception: fractional mapunits, which is something you'll bump into when making elaborate domes and circular architecture. So for EE at least, using UDMF over Doom format is a matter of preference and not necessity.

[boris]

3 minutes ago, Clippy said:

I also made this video tonight playing with Doom builder - the website says the version is 2012 so I'm only a decade out of date :S

 

That's not DB1, that's DB2.