UDMF v1.0 RFC

[Graf Zahl]

A conversion option would still be appreciated.

[CodeImp]

As in "Convert from one map format to another"? Well, I don't think that is Doom Builder's task. You can switch configuration to a different format, but DB won't change any actions/id's or other properties, so you might lose some. Also, you should do a "Save As" when you switched configs, because if the config has different lumps, DB might get confused and fuck things up on a regular save.

[Graf Zahl]

CodeImp said:

As in "Convert from one map format to another"?

Why not? The UDMF base spec covers everything needed for such a conversion. All you'd need is to set a proper namespace for each config.


Of course, if you don't think it's necessary to do this inside the editor I'll write a small tool to convert maps - because it's inevitably needed sooner or later

[rpeter]

CodeImp said:

Select "ZDoom (Doom in UDMF format)"

Any chance of simply Doom in UDMF format, or Boom in UDMF format?

I fear this new format will simply imply the use of ZDoom, whose features are neigh impossible to port to other engines.

Anyway, once UDMF maps begin to pour out I will hack a util to figure out their namespaces.

[Gez]

rpeter said:

Any chance of simply Doom in UDMF format, or Boom in UDMF format?

It's still a beta without any official release, and making definition files is not the highest priority. Once there is one that shows that it works, the others can wait until the project is closer to completion.

[Graf Zahl]

rpeter said:

Any chance of simply Doom in UDMF format, or Boom in UDMF format?

A basic Doom spec exists - but currently no port that supports it except from ZDoom and Vavoom. CodeImp could create a config for it though - although it'd look like the regular Doom config with very minor additions. The bottom line is that - although it can be done - there is very little use in it unless considerably more ports start supporting it.

[DaniJ]

What would be the point in saving a regular DOOM format map as UDMF format? The result would be exactly the same map but probably four-five times the file size.

As such I see no point at all in supporting the basic DOOM/BOOM UDMF namespace.

[Graf Zahl]

There are 2 feature extensions: You can explicitly set an object to appear for each of the 5 skills separately and the tag has been separated into a parameter for the line special and a line ID. Aside from that the only reason would be to get rid of the map limits.

But still, the base namespace is needed to have something to start from when implementing it.

[DaniJ]

I see (you'll have to forgive my ignorance as I've not been following the development of UDMF that closely).

As there is currently no map editor available that can write UDMF maps I'm not going to worry about implementing support just yet. Seems somewhat premature to start makes changes for maps that don't exist yet.

Despite that I still have several concerns about the future of UDMF in general so I'm going to wait and see how things develop before making any kind of commitment of support in Doomsday.

[CodeImp]

You also get the benefit of the floating-point vertex coordinates, but it is a minor thing IMO. But right now I really see no point in making a generic "Doom in UDMF format" configuration. Maybe some day later.

[rpeter]

UDFM maps with Doom- or Boom-only features might compell other port authors (PrBoom?) to implement this format. UDFM ZDoom maps won't.

[Gez]

rpeter said:

UDFM maps with Doom- or Boom-only features might compell other port authors (PrBoom?) to implement this format. UDFM ZDoom maps won't.

OMG you're right! By not having made UDMF Boom exporters yet for his unfinished pre-beta editor, CodeImp is actually part of a conspiracy to keep other source ports out of the UDMF domain forever!

By the way, Vavoom supports UDMF already, yet Janis Legzdinsh wasn't even part of the team working on the UDMF specs.

Honestly, I doubt CodeImp is planning on not having the rest of the UDMF config files for the release version, so no need to bark and howl about how it's a scandal it isn't there yet.

[Graf Zahl]

Gez said:

By the way, Vavoom supports UDMF already, yet Janis Legzdinsh wasn't even part of the team working on the UDMF specs.

He tends to copy anything that appears in ZDoom so it's no big surprise. :D

[rpeter]

OMG you're right! By not having made UDMF Boom exporters yet for his unfinished pre-beta editor, CodeImp is actually part of a conspiracy to keep other source ports out of the UDMF domain forever!

I am not on the attack, I am just suggesting that this new format could be used to create Doom maps as well, after all we are on DoomWorld, right? I do not consider having a Doom namespace an ancient leftover.

Anyway, I cut off pestering, I wish CodeImp good progress.

[Yagisan]

DaniJ said:

What would be the point in saving a regular DOOM format map as UDMF format? The result would be exactly the same map but probably four-five times the file size.

As such I see no point at all in supporting the basic DOOM/BOOM UDMF namespace.

Actually - If I were to support UDMF in my litle Shinka project - I'd actually want to start with only the Basic DOOM/BOOM UDMF Namespace.

I can't say that I would support it anytime soon, or that I'd support more than the basic namespace, but I have ticketed it over at http://shinka.bpa.nu/ticket/21 so at some stage, (provided design goals don't change) I'll implement it.

[CodeImp]

If I don't make a generic Doom in UDMF format configuration, that doesn't stop anyone else from making it. And it really isn't that hard.