[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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
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