[Rejected] Proposal: Renaming Entities to Actors #48
Locked
xezno
announced in
Announcements
Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
I feel like Actor implies that something is on screen, So in my opinion the name Actor would fit better for a ModelEntity rename or something, instead of all entities |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
"Entity" is vague and that's why it's better in my opinion. I don't want my gun, ammo box or treasure chest to be an actor. ModelActor also sounds considerably worse than ModelEntity, since actor already sorta implies having a model? Not a big fan of renaming ModelEntity to Actor either, it will just make things more confusing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
What
I'm thinking of renaming entities to actors. There are no functional changes to this, it's just a rename.
Entity
is replaced withActor
, e.g.BaseEntity
->BaseActor
g_entityDictionary
also becomesg_actorManager
ACTOR_FLAG_X
instead ofENTITY_X
Why
When
Ideally this would happen after the "networking" branch gets merged, because that branch will probably change a lot of entity stuff. That being said, there's already an "actors" branch if you want to go check it out.
If you like this change give this post a thumbs up or something, otherwise give it a thumbs down, and we'll go from there. If you have anything else to say please feel free below.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions