USDF branch question

Archive of the old editing forum
Forum rules
Before asking on how to use a ZDoom feature, read the ZDoom wiki first. This forum is archived - please use this set of forums to ask new questions.
User avatar
Ceeb
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:07 pm
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Ceeb »

Ah, good shit. So now I don't need to have, say, Scientist2 : Scientist1 { ConversationID 2 } and so on and so on to have eggheads who say different things? :P
User avatar
CodeImp
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: USDF branch question

Post by CodeImp »

You could do that, but in UDMF it gets easier. You just put two Scientist1 things in your map, and set the 'conversation' property to 1 for one and 2 for the other. No need to make additional actors for just a different conversation.
User avatar
Ceeb
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:07 pm
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Ceeb »

What I said was now I DON'T have to. Because that's what I'm doing now.

Right now I'm updating my UDMF configs to catch up on features, though.
User avatar
CodeImp
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: USDF branch question

Post by CodeImp »

Oh haha, sorry I read that too fast I think :P So yea, you don't need that anymore.
User avatar
Ceeb
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:07 pm
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Ceeb »

S'alright. ;) So when we can we expect a USDF-editing plugin, sir? :P

Edit:

Also, directed at Graf/blzut3/insert programmer here, we need a special to change the conversation field of an actor now.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48331
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Graf Zahl »

Ceeb wrote: Also, directed at Graf/blzut3/insert programmer here, we need a special to change the conversation field of an actor now.

Already in: Thing_SetConversation(tid, conversation_id);
User avatar
Ceeb
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:07 pm
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Ceeb »

Well awesome then.

Graf, I'm using gzdoom r902 but I get this "namespace not defined" error. Neither Strife nor ZDoom works. Is the fix not implemented yet?

Edit:

Also, Thing_SetConversation doesn't even have an article yet.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17319
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Nash »

I love USDF. Ability to use strings instead of weird mobj numbers, very flexible methods of binding actors to conversations, removed ifitem limits, directly calling an action special when selecting a choice... this new system is amazing!

Man, this whole "Universal <Anything> Format" business is simply amazing. Everything is so much easier, and knowing that the developers aren't bound by binary format limits meaning things can easily be expanded is simply awesome. I can't imagine working in the old format anymore. :)
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48331
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Graf Zahl »

Ceeb wrote:Well awesome then.

Graf, I'm using gzdoom r902 but I get this "namespace not defined" error. Neither Strife nor ZDoom works. Is the fix not implemented yet?

It's in ZDoom only until Gez updates the code. I'm too tired to do it right now.
User avatar
Ceeb
Posts: 5125
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:07 pm
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Ceeb »

I can respect that. You've been working your ass off on ZDoom lately.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17319
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Nash »

Since the ZDoom namespace is technically not USDF anymore, does it mean one will get more attention than the other? Or will they both be equally maintained?

I really like the changes in the ZDoom namespace (it's more convenient with strings than with mobj numbers) but I can't help but notice that what was meant to be created as a universal standard is suddenly not so universal anymore...

Perhaps CodeImp's idea would be much better: instead of replacing the field types, just create new field types. It would remain universal, and any engines that don't recognize the new fields would just ignore them. What do you think? There's still time to change this since no one's using this feature yet...
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17684
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Gez »

The thing that would make sense would have been to use "id" instead of "actor" in USDF, because "actor" is a ZDoom term after all (the term is "mobj" in the original sources and in most other ports), and ZDoom could keep using "actor" with a string. Even better, all it'd require is a minor change to the USDF specs: s/actor/id/g.

Unfortunately I was too lazy to read these specs until they got uploaded on the SVN repository so it's officially too late.
User avatar
Nash
 
 
Posts: 17319
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Nash »

I don't think it's too late... no project is using it yet, and although I realize Blzut3 already "closed" the specs... as I said, no one's really used this yet (I doubt any other port has even begun implementing it into their engine), surely small changes to the fields would take about, what, 10 minutes?
Blzut3
 
 
Posts: 3097
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:59 pm
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Blzut3 »

It's only a year and a half too late to change it from "actor". (My old dialog editor actually has an export to USDF function, though I never was able to test it.) Besides that, there is the fact that the selling point of USDC was supposed to be that the scripts would be forwards compatible once ZDoom got a USDF parser. (As it stands there is only one minor change that would need to be made for existing USDF scripts to work in ZDoom. That is the page property of an ifitem block needs to be moved out to the link property of the page block.)

That said I do agree that ZDoom should probably use "class" or something instead. Though come to think of it, wasn't there a reason why you can't place a thing by class name in UDMF?
Gez
 
 
Posts: 17684
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Re: USDF branch question

Post by Gez »

Blzut3 wrote:Though come to think of it, wasn't there a reason why you can't place a thing by class name in UDMF?
It was predicted nobody would agree on the standard names for all the Doom/Heretic/Hexen/Strife/Chex actors. Even when just looking at ZDoom and Eternity, they use different class names for many things. Because of the difference in the amount of existing mods, ZDoom would have won, realistically speaking, and that would have forever made UDMF into "the ZDoom text map format" in the minds of everybody else.

Return to “Editing (Archive)”