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.

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Ceeb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:23 pm

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
Ceeb
Official Idoit Of ZDoom
Banned User
 
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Postby CodeImp » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:38 pm

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
CodeImp
 
Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Ceeb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:47 pm

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
Ceeb
Official Idoit Of ZDoom
Banned User
 
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Postby CodeImp » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:50 pm

Oh haha, sorry I read that too fast I think :P So yea, you don't need that anymore.
User avatar
CodeImp
 
Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Ceeb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:51 pm

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
Ceeb
Official Idoit Of ZDoom
Banned User
 
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Graf Zahl » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:04 pm

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
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Ceeb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:16 pm

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
Ceeb
Official Idoit Of ZDoom
Banned User
 
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Nash » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:28 pm

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
Nash
AKA Nash Muhandes! Twitter/Facebook/Youtube: nashmuhandes
 
 
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Twitch ID: nashmuhandes
Github ID: nashmuhandes

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Graf Zahl » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:57 pm

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
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Ceeb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:10 pm

I can respect that. You've been working your ass off on ZDoom lately.
User avatar
Ceeb
Official Idoit Of ZDoom
Banned User
 
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Location: Castle Wut

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Nash » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:22 am

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...
User avatar
Nash
AKA Nash Muhandes! Twitter/Facebook/Youtube: nashmuhandes
 
 
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Twitch ID: nashmuhandes
Github ID: nashmuhandes

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Gez » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:31 am

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.
Gez
 
 
 
Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Nash » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:35 am

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?
User avatar
Nash
AKA Nash Muhandes! Twitter/Facebook/Youtube: nashmuhandes
 
 
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Twitch ID: nashmuhandes
Github ID: nashmuhandes

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Blzut3 » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:51 am

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?
Blzut3
Pronounced: B-l-zut
 
 
 
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Github ID: Blzut3
Operating System: Debian-like Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, etc) 64-bit
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan Support

Re: USDF branch question

Postby Gez » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:02 am

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.
Gez
 
 
 
Joined: 06 Jul 2007

PreviousNext

Return to Editing (Archive)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests