USDF branch question

[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?

[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.

[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.

[CodeImp]

Oh haha, sorry I read that too fast I think So yea, you don't need that anymore.

[Ceeb]

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

Edit:

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

[Graf Zahl]

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);

[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.

[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. :)

[Graf Zahl]

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.

[Ceeb]

I can respect that. You've been working your ass off on ZDoom lately.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.