Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix ssot conflict between Transform and Translation/Rotation/Scale #327

Closed
MarekLg opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Fix ssot conflict between Transform and Translation/Rotation/Scale #327

MarekLg opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events S-Duplicate This issue or PR already exists

Comments

@MarekLg
Copy link
Contributor

MarekLg commented Aug 24, 2020

At the declaration of Transform.bool it is noted, that this would be a temporary measure.
Are there already any ideas on how to improve this system?

If not I would like to present a possible solution:
Wherever Transform is required, if there is none attached, build it (maybe with #266) from Translation, Rotation, Scale, or Trasform::identity(), if nothing else is present. DynamicBundles would have to restrict creation to just Transform, which could however incorporate Translation, Rotation and/or Scale by using the above mentioned TransformBuilder.

I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here, so if I am, I'd at least try to start the discussion.

@Moxinilian
Copy link
Member

Hey!
I think this is kind of a duplicate of #229, feel free to post your suggestion there!

@Moxinilian Moxinilian added S-Duplicate This issue or PR already exists A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events labels Aug 24, 2020
@MarekLg
Copy link
Contributor Author

MarekLg commented Aug 24, 2020

I feel like #229 is more about conveing the current situation more clearly in the docs, not about changing it. But if you think it fits better I'll post my suggestion over there.

@Moxinilian
Copy link
Member

I'd say the title is sufficiently generic to cover changes too. But if you want we can reopen this issue!

@MarekLg
Copy link
Contributor Author

MarekLg commented Aug 24, 2020

Thanks, but I think you're right. I'll post my suggestion over at #229.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events S-Duplicate This issue or PR already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants