What has better performance: Fake floor/ceilings or 3d floors?

[Royal_Sir]

Visually they perform pretty much the same thing. I want to know if performance wise they differ.

[Grain of Salt]

Would I be right in assuming that by "fake floors/ceilings" you mean line action 242 in Boom and by 3d floors you mean zdoom's true room-over-room stuff?

 

If so, action 242 almost certainly has better performance.

 

[ReX]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:47 PM, Royal_Sir said:

Visually they perform pretty much the same thing.

Not quite correct. 3D floors can be used to create translucent liquid surfaces, while fake floors cannot.

[Sergeant_Mark_IV]

The trickery required with fake 3D floors is really not worth the result, and if you want the players to be able to walk both over and under the bridge, you will make a map that plays like shit on multiplayer.
Unless you plan to have over 20 3D floor on the same room, you shouldn't be worried about performance.

[kb1]

Boom action 242 renders as fast as any equivalently detailed non-242 Doom scene. It simply replaces the floor and/or ceiling flats at diffrerent heights, and optionally uses a remapped colormap. A 3D floor is, however drawn on top of the scene, causing overdraw (pixels are drawn more than once). This makes them slower. And, if it's transparent, it will be *A LOT* slower, especially with a software renderer.

 

But, of course, speed is based on the computer, the resolution, and the complexity of the scene in general. You can always test each approach to determine if performance is adequate. And, if your computer is very fast, maybe ask someone with an older, slower computer to test. Generally, if you don't go overboard, you'll probably be ok.