Udmf software

Funny until your storage is the brunt of the joke. Get UDM. Easy, Fast, Efficient. Simple implementation; negligible footprint. Put up with you full time? Toss the Staff a Bone. Watch 7-min video: zStorage mgmt. Oh Mega Mahn! Ya expectin disVantage to work? No mon, no can do! Watch 7-min Video. Blank Blank. Blank Details. Article ID: Related Articles 1. Recipient s - separate email addresses with a comma. I've kinda been asking myself this question lately.

I think formerly, I was influenced by complaints about zdoom on these forums "why does this map require zdoom if it barely uses any zdoom features", "you're shutting out all the speedrunners by using zdoom", etc. Primarily this. There's also the fact that UDMF maps have times bigger filesize than Doom format maps with the same geometry. Personally I would never map in UDMF unless I really had to, because I wanna make maps that play nice, not tech-demos that look fancy and do nothing other than that.

Mapping in UDMF isn't rocket science, sure, but that doesn't mean it's worth adapting to it as soon as possible. I've seen several people in the JOM discord recently, who just started mapping, and couldn't get anything done in a timely fashion, because scripting was a problem, yet they wanted to stick to UDMF in spite of getting nowhere with it.

That said, UDMF isn't superior, and it isn't for everybody. My advice to new mappers: Avoid UDMF like the plague until you got the basics down, then think about shenanigans like scripting. Avoid UDMF like the plague until you got the basics down, then think about shenanigans like scripting. You can also do ACS for boom by way of libraries, afaik. I've not yet seen a UDMF-map that isn't scripted in some way, though.

UDMF doesn't force anyone to do any scripting, it's just an available feature. Either way, I'd say that the format you use shouldn't matter as long as the map is good and accomplishes your goals.

That includes whether or not one uses scripting, and does not preclude the fact that learning the basics still must come first. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that the maps are completely read into data structures at load time and not streamed off the disk.

So yeah, if this is true for the various source ports, I wouldn't expect format to dictate map performance. Maybe load performance, but that's just parsing. I learned how to use map editors and make levels in the dark old days, when there was only one map format. In many ways the experience of mapping now is very far removed from the experience of mapping then, but the rules and processes dictated by the map format constitute a comforting point of continuity, which I've missed when dabbling with more advanced formats.

I guess part of the reason I still play around in editors is because I enjoy the familiarity - it's been a part of my life for twenty years - and since that feeling is diminished when I move away from more traditional formats, I don't tend to bother. Hmm, I was writing out a lengthy post to get some facts straight, but I figured I'd distill it down to a few bullets and spare everyone a flood of rambling Xaser-words. Whether or not the subjective drawbacks learning curve steepness, overwhelmingness, feature creep potential are enough to dissuade someone from the format is definitely a thing up for discussion, and I'd be way more interested in seeing folks talk about that part rather than get stuck in "udmf doesn't imply scripting" loops and other non-productive topics in that vein.

The format is not backwards-compatible with older Doom engine games. The idea for this format was first suggested by James Haley Quasar as a universal solution to add unlimited extra information to map elements, so that the wide range of new features in Doom source ports can be better supported by editors and implemented in the map information more easily.

The name for the map format was coined by Russell Rice. UDMF version 1. It is also expected to be supported in Doomsday [1].