Hey mappers, what Source-port do you build for?

[Godling]

So, what source-port do you build for? Especially when it comes to making sure all of your lighting works and looks the way you want it. Do you build for your favorite port, but still test on all the other ports? Do you only focus on building for one port? Do you focus on building for vanilla or not?

I ask because I'd like to try some mapping again (been almost 20yrs.../eek) and would like to find out what other mappers are using for their source-ports when designing, before I commit to a port myself.

[snapshot]

UDMF Format (ZDoom and many other ports based on it E.g : GZdoom,Zandronum ... etc).

[BaronOfStuff]

Depends. If I have a clear idea from the start, I'll build for whichever port best suits the map's needs.

If I'm just dicking around with some basic stuff then I'll generally start vanilla/Choco (often creeping into limit-removing Crispy territory), then if I end up wanting to try something without using a load of horrible hacky over-complicated shit to get the required effect I'll move up to Boom, then if that's still not good enough I'll just skip the rest of the "inbetween" formats and go straight for UDMF; chances are I'll want to use 3D floors/liquids and coloured lights and all that other fancy stuff by that point anyway.

(I used to mess with Doom-in-Hexen-Format as a between point, but UDMF has essentially rendered this one obsolete as far as ZDoom-based ports go.)

As for testing, I'll test with various engines. Vanilla maps end up being tested with pretty much every port I have sitting around. Even the ones that are practically dead and barely used these days, such as Legacy.

[AD_79]

I map for PRBoom+ as the source port, so vanilla, limit-removing vanilla and boom maps (testing with ChocoRenderLimits for vanilla maps to make sure maps work properly in vanilla, though gameplay is tested in PRBoom+).

[Chezza]

Unless I'm mistaken UDMF format is the best approach to take for the maximum amount of features available in Doom Mapping. That's my choice.

And I would favor GZDoom Builder as I find it a more powerful tool with more features. I play my Doom games on Zandorum but that essentially was the first I tried and worked well for my needs ever since.

[baja blast rd.]

prBoom+; Boom format maps.

[VGA]

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

Most projects in this forum are vanilla or Boom-compatible.

Gzdoombuilder is the map editor of choice for any kind of mapping. And SLADE as a wad editor.

[baja blast rd.]

VGA said:

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

Yeah I agree with this.

[AD_79]

VGA said:

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

If you're actually making good use of G/ZDoom features (examples: working 3D floors into the main layout, using ACS to make the map more dynamic and interesting), and not just throwing them in there to require using ZDoom when it would work very similarly in more "basic" ports, then absolutely, go for it!

[Angry Saint]

VGA said:

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

For me Zdoom main feature is 3D floors. I map zdoom/gzdoom only to put 3d structures in my wads.

Otherwise doom without limits or prboom.

[snapshot]

VGA said:

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

Still it's the only sufficient format for me, gives many Easy-to-do tricks (Cause i mainly only map and/or test maps for ZDoom ).

[Gez]

VGA said:

UDMF format restricts the map to the Zdoom family of source ports. IMO that should only be used if you actually intend to use Zdoom's main features: ACS or DECORATE.

What if the main feature you intend to use is the ZDoom namespace of UDMF? Colored lighting, colored fog, slopes, 3D floors, portals, textures that can scroll in any direction, offsetting, scaling and rotating textures on walls (with different values for upper, lower, and mid), floors, and ceilings, complete control of light level on any surface, monsters that can spawn with different amount of hit points, changing the render style of things and linedefs, spawning things dynamically, changing gravity, changing the sound environment, all that and more without any line of script.

I think it'd be a good idea to have a ZDoom mapping event where people aren't allowed to use ACS/DECORATE, it'd make people discover just how far people can go just with UDMF.

[scifista42]

My favorite mapping is in limit-removing-vanilla format, playable in PrBoom-plus -complevel 2 or higher advanced port.
Pros: Unlimited amount of on-screen detail. "Natural" behaviour of game mechanics (experienced players know what I mean). Potentially big player audience, attention of demo recorders and speedrunners. From mapper's perspective, working within limitations can be enjoyable and it makes you focus on important aspects of level design.
Cons: Only vanilla features (sector effects, linedef actions) are available.

My second favorite is Boom format, playable in PrBoom-plus -complevel 9 or higher advanced port.
Pros: The greatest compromise between restricted (vanilla) and flexible (ZDoom) mapping. Unlimited amount of on-screen detail. Extended features (more effects and linedef actions, flexible generalized actions). Potentially big player audience, attention of demo recorders and speedrunners.
Cons: Nothing important, really. It's just not as flexible as ZDoom in UDMF format and not as "natural-behaving" like vanilla.

My third favorite is vanilla mapping, playable in any port including vanilla executable.
Pros: "Natural" behaviour of game mechanics (experienced players know what I mean). Potentially the greatest player audience, attention of demo recorders and speedrunners. From mapper's perspective, working within limitations can be enjoyable and it makes you focus on important aspects of level design.
Cons: Only vanilla features (sector effects, linedef actions) are available. Map must not break any of the Static limits (they affect the amount of allowed on-screen detail, number of instances of certain features, and more).

My fourth favorite is ZDoom in UDMF format, playable in ZDoom-based ports only.
Pros: Maximum imaginable amount of cool features and flexibility.
Cons: Incompatible demo support, which leads to lesser audience and practically no attention of demo recorders and speedrunners. From mapper's perspective, it's easy to get distracted by the available features and focus on unimportant details rather than the core of good level design.

[printz]

It's really worrying how many people claim to map for vanilla Doom or limit removing, but do not use Chocolate-Doom, Doom or Doom+ to test it! PrBoom+ -complevel 2 is not enough! It will not help you detect texturing glitches like tutti-frutti and medusa. Too many modern vanilla maps are plagued by this crap.

On the other hand, claiming Boom/MBF but testing with PrBoom/Eternity seems less damaging. Boom and MBF sound really bad in DOSBox/Allegro anyway.

To answer the question:
- I start with limit-extended vanilla (Doom+, Heretic+ etc.). I try to be creative with these limited resources, except that I have no desire to be limited by VPO, drawsegs, thing sprites.
For Doom:
- as I hit complexity, I jump to MBF, aiming to test on PrBoom+ and Eternity. Actually I will test on the original DOS ports, but I'll recommend the modern ones.
- with more complexity needed, I jump to Eternity.
- if there's something even Eternity can't do and I did NOT think with portals, I jump to GZDoom. Some mod ideas depend on inventory, and Eternity currently lacks it, so in those cases I just use GZDoom.
For Raven games and Strife
- there's no other well-maintained port, so I jump straight to GZDoom.

I see little reason to use basic ZDoom, even though I should be aware that GZDoom can offer a slight unfair player advantage (you can look vertically and hit monsters from any position).

[VGA]

Why should a limit removing port be playable in doom+ ? That is just a hexedited DOS executable to raise some limits.

About UDMF, I should have phrased it like this: If the mapper absolutely needs a UDMF feature for some thing that's not possible in Boom, then he should make his project Zdoom-only and map in UDMF.

It would be cool if other source ports finally adopt that format, too.

[Dave The Daring]

Angry Saint said:

For me Zdoom main feature is 3D floors. I map zdoom/gzdoom only to put 3d structures in my wads.

Same here. I tend to use GZDoom to test simply because it's mouselook has a greater range than standard ZDoom, and my current ZDoom stuff is very 3D heavy. I also do quite a bit of vanilla mapping, in which case I use Chocorenderlimits for actual testing. I seem to go from one mapping extreme to the other.

[Breezeep]

Prboom +, Mostly Boom format maps, sometimes vanilla.

[Godling]

Just wanted to pop in and say this thread is being responded to well. Thanks everyone. I obviously have a ton to learn, but with your help I'll be on my way. Learned a lot in just the past few days.

Also, the info here is very informative and certainly of use to others in the community. Thanks again. :)

[SuperCupcakeTactics]

Limit removing, so pretty much all ports except chocolate doom

I need to make a ZDoom map again :/

[gaspe]

I map for Boom mostly, or Vanilla/limit removing. I stick with prboom+ for the testing but I often switch to Eternity too as it acts different sometimes with some tricks and other stuff.
And about checking how the lightning works I test it both in sotfware and hardware renderer.

[3_nights]

I map for zdoom, because I can't be arsed to playtest anything else.

[Angry Saint]

No one here maps for 3DGE or Eternity?

[VGA]

Angry Saint said:

No one here maps for 3DGE or Eternity?

How many projects do you see for these two ports? (Except CeeJay's awesome big hitter mods, that guy is a machine)

[mrthejoshmon]

PrBoom with a seasoning of vanilla.

[Vermil]

Angry Saint said:

No one here maps for 3DGE or Eternity?

I map for Doomsday if it makes you feel any better ;)

Of course, I don't always use Doomsday specific features.

[jerk-o]

prboom-plus because that's what's in Debian