Component Abnormalities

Continuing the discussion from Group VS component:

Hi thomas,
I always had this issue, just wanted to mention when I got a chance to. :smiley:

I find the component Name and Definition in the Entity Info a bit confusing.

The component Name Component#1 is give to definition in the Entity info.

This drives all newbies mad when creating components.

there is Name, Description, Definition categories to fill, which are later mix-matched.

I know it makes a huge difference in coding and programming, but to the non-coded minds, definition almost sounds like some sort of “description”. Therefore, a newbie would be giving components unique names, and get confused of unexpected results in Outliner.

I know Description is used in Model Info later on, but Name and Definition should have some clear transition.

I am failing to explain this concept well to other people who are introduced to the program, Can someone explain this concept better?

I don’t think someone else could. It’s just plain wrong to have someone fill in a name when creating a component which from there on (see ‘Entity Info’ will be called definition and all of a sudden there is an option to give the instance a name.
The first option to name a component should be an option to give it a definition-(name), not a name.

Multiple instances of the same component each can have their own “unique” name to be able to distinguish which is which although they look the same and have the same definition. That is good.


I agree with this.
and perhaps Name in Entity Info replaced by Description (which you can edit)

I can think of use of this in some unique circumstances. Perhaps this creates a bit too much confusion to new people. Maybe it can be included in the expanded version of entity info.

I see what you mean, “Name” the first dialog refer to the Definition Name - while in another “Name” refer to the Instance Name.
I do experience that explaining the concept of definitions is harder, because they are abstractions of what you see in the model.

1 Like

Yeah, “name” was probably a bad name for “name” :joy:


I agree with the “Name” field when you initially create it: that field should be titled Definition

I also don’t know what hte type drop-down field is for: is it a DC thing?

The other thing I would like to see is the options from the edit tab of the components window shown on the entity info panel. (specifically the Alignment {glue} checks and/or an option to re-set or change the glue-to plane)

I think more people would understand the use of ‘Parent Name’ over ‘Definition Name’…

Definition is what the entity info panel calls it.

kinda strange how this was never pointed out…

Yes please fix this (oldie) confusion

1 Like

“Parent” is unfortunately already in use in dynamic component formulas.


1 Like

to be honest I think the simplest solution would be for the name to ‘bubble’ by default…

you fill in ‘Name’ and it is used both ‘Names’, until you subsequently change one or the other…


1 Like

[quote=“josephkim626, post:9, topic:15682, full:true”]
kinda strange how this was never pointed out…
[/quote] Well, it has been mentioned by me (years ago) more than once and I’m sure also by others.

Definition would be a better choice when creating a component.
Later each instance gets a name and you can add some words to describe the component.

As it is now it is confusing.

1 Like

May I suggest/concur…



Consistent across all dialogs.
A ‘no-brainer’…