I have a child blueprint from a master blueprint. I allow up to 3 static meshes to be loaded in the blueprint but it doesn’t have to have all 3 static mesh components assigned to a static mesh. When I do a validated check or even just a normal is valid function, even if the static mesh component is empty (has no mesh assigned to it), it is still coming in as being valid, even though is has nothing assigned to it. Am I missing something or is it just bugged?
Can you share the bp?
For sure:
Here is one sample:
Here is the debug for the second validated get (as you can see, no static mesh is assigned, but still going down “is valid” exec)
I reported it as a bug. Did a simple test by adding a static mesh component to a first person blueprint in a clean project, left it blank, and then on begin play check to see if that static mesh is valid and it always comes in as true. Turns out all of the validated get type functions and bools report the same way. Only workaround at the moment is to do a blueprint node with a “equals empty bool” which is not great.
are those validate checks for actual StaticMesh Types, or for the Components?
Cause… For last…
Your Blueprint already contains static Mesh Components… So… They ARE valid…
You need to get the Mesh of your static mesh component, and check against the mesh, if it is valid.
If you’ve done that, i apologize for answering here.
But it is not clear from your description or your screenshots, if you try to validate check the mesh or the component 
Hello! Yeah it is a static mesh component variable that literally has nothing assigned to it. It is empty. I wanted a master blueprint that could have up to 3 different nanite meshes so i set up a routine to check each one if they have something assigned or are empty. If it is valid i move it to a specific location if not, it skips through and checks the next one. It is happening with quite a few different ones.
If I just use the static mesh nanite, drag off and use the “=” and leave it blank, that works. I just don’t think it is a good implementation, hopefully i am not missing something.