Transparency VS Frames/Second VS Myth
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:27 am
I have read in other posts that when transparency is applied to objects in a map file, the client does not handle drawing that object very well. It draws the sides of the object towards the player, as normal, and it also draws the sides of the object that the player would not see without the transparency. This effect becomes worse when transparent objects are "stacked" in a players view, so you look through multiple transparent items. The client draws ALL sides of the objects
Frames Per Second can be slowed by half. I first noticed this on Sir_Pants WaterWorld map.
However, I have noticed that if I use a texture, that has transparency encoded within the .PNG, it's not as bad.
So when I use red_laser.png as a texture on an object, you can see right though the object, but the client never got any code that told it to calculate transparency, so it doesn't draw the back-sides of the object. The client treats it the same as a regular texture?
This gives you the benefits of transparent objects, without the FPS lag.
At least thats what my tests show.
If someone can debunk my myth, Please Do!
You will save me some work. I'm not gonna start making semi-transparent textures unless I'm completely sure this works.
Frames Per Second can be slowed by half. I first noticed this on Sir_Pants WaterWorld map.
However, I have noticed that if I use a texture, that has transparency encoded within the .PNG, it's not as bad.
So when I use red_laser.png as a texture on an object, you can see right though the object, but the client never got any code that told it to calculate transparency, so it doesn't draw the back-sides of the object. The client treats it the same as a regular texture?
This gives you the benefits of transparent objects, without the FPS lag.
At least thats what my tests show.
If someone can debunk my myth, Please Do!
You will save me some work. I'm not gonna start making semi-transparent textures unless I'm completely sure this works.