Alternative for UMG Widget?

What else can i use instead of the umg widget, personal i find it so bad!

Why? Well…

  • Bad user interface but i can look beside that
  • A big one and prob the most reason to why i hate it = It makes everything bad resolution, not even sure why?
  • Simple things like lacks of auto scale to original size (am i doing something wrong?)
  • You have to clear colors, because tint makes it darker? like why man
  • Overall bad for performance

Whats good about it?

  • Easy Anchor system and make it work with all screen size
  • Easy to handle with blueprint

Anyway… Any Alternatives?

1 Like

It does not. Any example where 1px is not equal 1px? It’s just somewhat convoluted:

Simple things like lacks of auto scale to original size (am i doing something wrong?)

Scale Box? Other than that, not sure what you mean.

You have to clear colors, because tint makes it darker? like why man

Not sure what you mean. Any examples? Are you getting widget components involved? Or retainers?

Overall bad for performance

Hm. Any examples of it underperforming? There is a TON of optimisation that can be done; if you’re going to Tick 1000 widgets with complex hit-testable hierarchy and transparency, you’re going to have a bad time (in any engine). Never bind functions unless you want something updated every frame - this is a major bummer that is tought in 99% of all tutorials…

It all depends on your needs. Search the Knowledge Database for widget optimisation, there’s some good reading in there.

Anyway… Any Alternatives?

No. Well, yes. Write your own stuff in Slate, and then expose to UMG, but then you’re using the bad widgets again. :wink:

There’s also the venerable HUD class but you will not like it if you do not like UMG. It can be blazing fast when used right and offers some unique functionality. But it’s a bit apples vs oranges. They have little in common bar showing 2d stuff in viewport.

1 Like

Okay, i think i should take one thing at a time.
The reseluation problem, its not the umg it self i think after testing a bit now, but more the imported image.

So in the software affinity designer, the scale is crispy and looks clear as it should, but when imported the quality drops down so mutch. I attached a before and after result

White background = The software i used
Grey with grid = Imported in unreal engine


test3

Change compression to UI. Play with sharpening.

image

This is not a good resolution for an UI element. Start with the largest you ever want to see, and use power of 2. 512x512 256x256 and so on. If it’s supposed to be a border, start with the smallest you ever want to see.

I feel stupid to ask, but how? :smiley:

Double click the imported image in the content browser:

What is the size of the UI icon you want to have?

128x128 UE4 icon:

image

vs my desktop:

image

edit: updated the above - I wasn’t even full screen before! Now the UE4 looks pretty much perfect (to my eye)

By default when importing it, its on NoMipMaps
Also can’t seem to change it?

The size of an image shouldn’t mattet right? If the engine it self can’t make the quality as the software i use by default then what does size matter?

FIY: Tried a 128x128, i get the same bad quality in the engine compared to the software i use to make the image

if you have an 64x64 image and you scale it down to 50%, you’ll get a crispish 32x32. It will obviously degrade in quality. There are algorithms in place that handle it well enough, though.

If you take 311x314 image and scale it down by 17%, you’re going to lose some pixels, too. But it will not be as consistent. It may become unpredictably blurry. Now you have to convert 311 pixels to 270.57 pixel and map to your monitor. To start with, .57 of a pixel will not be sharp. So we’re gaping to blur some neighbouring pixels. Which ones of the 270 do we blur to fit as much data as we can? A little bit of all of them? Every second? It gets tricky.

I’m simplifying a bit. Quality UI scaling is close to magic.

Even if i dont downscale, i still get the same bad quality?
Not sure what on earth i am doing wrong, but it is something since you can get a crsipy image

Ill try to use a new software. Ill get back to you
In the mean time, what could it be, that gives me this bad quality for umg widgets? Keep in mind i couldn’t change the Mip Gen Settings, not sure if thats normal?

Are you running it full screen? If you’re not, the viewport is scaling everything down, right? In the editor, are you sure you’re using the right resolution / dpi for your monitor:

Tried with or without full screen, but same bad quality

Just tried 128x128 again and i get bad quality from that. But turning it up to like 2000x2000 makes everything crispy but that is just too large of a size

What on earth could i be doing wrong…

Would you be able to send over a simple project file with a crispy ui?
I can then check if its same for me?

If someone finds an alternative to widgets, keep me updated.
It’s a HELL to manage inputs (focus sometimes exist, other times go playing happy to the park).
It’s a HELL to draw something actually “Nice”, and something that could even be done in excel “like a table”, could become a HELL. But hey, it’s the magic of Unreal.

Why necrobump a random, seemingly unrelated thread? Try voicing it here:

https://forums.unrealengine.com/tags/c/general/feedback-requests/50/unreal-engine

I’d cast my precious Vote if it meant UMG gets a total makeover :blush: It happened to Cascade…

an alternative to widgets

  • HUD (jk)
  • Slate - make your own widgets, with all the bells & whistles you desire
  • marketplace plugins

Btw, you can make nifty tables out of a non-uniform grid. Combine it with 9sliced user widgets to make good looking, interactive cells. And if must use huge datasets (and are crafty), look into how one can nest listviews. I’d classify that particular thing as entrance to HELL in BPs, though - agreed. Been there, done that.