Return to Answer

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several underlying renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap underlying renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

Read this if you had not already:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901251/component-based-game-engine-design/3495647#3495647

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several underlying renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap underlying renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

Read this if you had not already:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901251/component-based-game-engine-design/3495647#3495647

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several underlying renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap underlying renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

Read this if you had not already:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901251/component-based-game-engine-design/3495647#3495647

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several underlying renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap underlying renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

Read this if you had not already:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901251/component-based-game-engine-design/3495647#3495647

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

It seems that Renderer is just a component (http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/ScriptReference/Renderer.html).

As far as I understand Renderer provides common functionality to more specific inherited components:

http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-MeshRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-ParticleRenderer.html http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Components/class-LineRenderer.html

As far as I know Unity supports several underlying renderers for its various platforms, Direct3D and OpenGL among them:

Does Unity for PC use Direct3D or OpenGL?

So it must be possible to swap underlying renderers even if it is not available to end user (scripter).

If you have already read general information on component-entity-system architectures, then you know that entities are generally collections of components. A component may generally be anything including physics, animation, game logic etc. Why treat graphics differently?

Some component-entity-system architectures tend to put more logic in components, while some concentrate it all in systems and use components as pure data.

Read this if you had not already:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901251/component-based-game-engine-design/3495647#3495647