Pros and Cons of the proposed T3D and T2D Merge

#21 @Michael

Who said it was caffeine?

Trimethylxanthine does nothing for me.

#22 @Chris - Fair enough =)

@Daniel - Components are definitely a big plus T2D has over T3D. I wouldn't refer to what T2D has as an "entity component" system, though. In T2D they are called Behaviors. They are similar to components, but do not match a lot of entity component systems you see today, like Artemis.

One of my future projects was to add a new entity component system to T2D. My plan was to keep the behavior system for backwards compatibility purposes. I don't want to derail this thread topic, though.

I agree that porting just the behavior system would be great for T3D and probably the next suggestion after the four systems I mentioned. Someone should probably poke Jeff and see where he's at.

#23 Can we get a summary of what the expected gains for T3D are here, vs how much damage this does to the existing paths to setting up projects in the engine?

Right now for anyone who's joining the discussion through this thread it's a list of reasons porting some features would be hard with no explanation of the potential gains to T3D.

Changing things for the sake of change is a common issue with software once it goes open source. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, just approaching this cautiously.

#24 @Henry - Did you read the docs I linked earlier on page 1? They do a good job of explaining the systems and should be easy to compare what T3D offers now for assets, modularity, and persistence.

I highly encourage everyone to read the docs I linked. I don't want to do them injustice, but I can tell you that they will drastically improve the usability and speed of T3D. This goes for the game and editors.