Page 3 of 3

Re: About UDMF again...

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:46
by milasudril
Deathlike2 wrote:I'm not even sure why this is an internet argument.

milas, you fail to understand the obvious.

1) For a map maker, a format that is bound to a particular version of a port (or to a specific port) is massive fail. No matter what structure you create, if you have to have a new revision # or anything that breaks future compatibility with the WAD (other than bugs) is the worst case scenario for every map being developed. If you have to use a binary structure, the people developing the ports will have to waste additional time trying to add compatibility, instead of adding new features. This is a wasted effort on both map developers and the ports.

2) ZDoom treats every WAD as a resource. Each resource provides the sounds+visuals and whatnot to the game. If a custom WAD wants to use resources from a different game (like Strife actors in a Doom-environment) they can do so. The resources in Doomsday are treated to their specific games, which have their peculiar behavior. You can't transition a particular behavior to another w/o lots of unnecessary duplication. In many ways, ZDoom is simply "the universal Doom engine"... so it does not need a special dataset... they are all treated equally under the same "engine".
No i do not. You do not understand the modular philosophy.

Re: About UDMF again...

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:48
by milasudril
Gez wrote:
milasudril wrote:But it is a huge step in extensibility.
No.

Not being able to use ACS in Doom is not a huge step in extensibility. Not being able to use conversations in Heretic is not a huge step in extensibility. Cutting the game into little pieces results in having to maintain several ports at once, and in duplicating all features you want to be common to them. Since that's all of them...

Example: Doomsday jDoom supports voodoo dolls, but Doomsday jHeretic doesn't. As a result, Kristus' mod Curse of D'Sparil is broken on two maps which use voodoo doll scripting if using that port. Works flawlessly in GZDoom and ZDoom, though.
The idea was to replace ACS with dll-s. Instead of calling ACS on a linedef call a function i a particular dll. However it is possible to abuse!

Re: About UDMF again...

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:49
by milasudril
Graf Zahl wrote:You know, I find it rather funny how milasudril has argued himself in a corner out of which there is no escape but he tries anyway by cooking up overcomplicated and harebrained schemes to add some sort of flexibility to his idea without ever realizing that UDMF doesn't need any of that because extensibility is a natural feature of its format specification,

Dude, it's time to realize that Doom's source port and editor programmers are no idiots. We know what we are doing and UDMF was designed the way it is because it's the most convenient means of getting what we needed. Your convoluted mess is not.
You are...

Re: About UDMF again...

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:59
by Graf Zahl
Spamming this thread doesn't make your point any more valid.

That said, I am tired of your attitude. I don't care what you think is better and neither do the other UDMF contributors. We made the decision what to use based on the needs of a map format and not on your views on efficiency. Your approach does not work for the intended purpose and that's why it wasn't used.

Since you have given ample proof that you are not interested in a civilized discussion this is over now. Thread locked to prevent further pollution.