There is still a lot to say in connection with Blender.
The CollisionMesh can be done just fine. I stay with the scaling in Blender with 0.01. And I also align the bones so that they have 0 scaling and 0 rotation in UE4
The beautiful at 2.8. I do not need a TextureAtlas anymore.
My Scissor Lift
what makes texture atlas obsolete in 2.8?
In 2.79 you could not handle multiple parts at the same time for UV-Map (EditMode).
Iāve tried following along with the stream since Iāve run into some severe problems with custom armatures and unfortunately, Iām having the same problems. Iām on stock Blender 2.8 and UE4.23, so I have no idea where the problem could lie. Iāve tried different configurations of typical Blender->UE pipeline solutions from the past five years, but the bones simply always go weird. Iāve also tried setting different locations and pivot points, renaming āArmatureā to āRootā, creating a new, separate root bone resting at the origin, having no additional root bone and several variations of these.
The strangest part is that the animations are working all perfectly fine, itās just that the bones go all over the place (or completely fold in). Iāve confirmed the incorrect positions by trying to add sockets (which are oversized, but thatās a different matter).
Hopefully somebody can help me out.
Bone alignment and scaling is different.
My workflow see picture. Blender Scale 0.01.
nice that is really cool
The bone layout in blender VS ue4 doesnt really matter.
What matters is the position of the large end ā¦ pics/edit with explanation incoming.
The main āboneā appears to be flipped. in reality itās just that visually the display points are altered. There is no āvisualā bone here because Bone isnāt actually parented to anything else (or itās head would have the connection line in Blender as well)
And
Here, UE4 visually represents the bone as starting from the head of bone01, and ending at the tail of Bone, itās parent.
Note that these are only purely VISUAL representations. they do not really matter when skinning/animating your rigs.
Whatever UE4 choose to represent it like visually, so long as the animation and skinning work fine in blender they will also work fine in UE4 - SO LONG AS, you get your parenting correct.
The bone hierarchy is essentially what matters, more so then bone placement. (which is also true for re-targeting and the Epic skeleton).
So, for your little marshmallow box thing, it looks like your parenting is off a bit. if you go and parent the arms to the correct bone, and the legs to the correct bone, then even in UE4 youād get a more accurate representation.
Hereās an example of a minimal āpersonifiedā rig that works for people to get an idea of what is supposed to be where:
NOTE: Leg bones (L1_r, L1_l - aptly named to use X axis mirror) are disconnected but parented to Pelvis.
Arm bone (A1_r, A1_l) are disconnected but parented to Main.
Pelvis and Main were flipped on purpose.
This is to demonstrate that UE4 will create the cirss/corss by pointing each paterent bone to the head portion of the parent bone (the bodyās center in this case). The positions here donāt really matter (because of the random 4second mesh/armature combo).
And here is the final frame of the random animation:
Here is a gif of it playing.
Hope this 2 min monstrosity helps you guys rig stuff properly 
itās quite easy once you understand the basics.
Thank you both for your time. Looking back to the stream, the socket spawned there also seems to be at the āwrongā place at first. Is this simply a fact of life that UE4 displays the bones āincorrectlyā (at least form a Blender perspective)? Because all animations work, but it just seems so strange to me that UE displays the skeleton wrong, or at least counter-intuitively. Going by your example, in UE Iād have no reason to assume that the ābodyā is split into a main and pelvis, or that I could move the lower arm separately from the upper arm and that just seems all kinds of weird to me. However, looking at the mannequin skeleton from the Third Person Shooter starter, this realls seems to be the case, I just didnāt notice while playing around with it.
That just seems incredibly strange to me. Why does UE4 display a āBoneā as going from foot of child to foot of parent?
Itās more likely a blender issue really. Maya or 3DSX donāt have the same results.
It could also be an FBX export issue. The code for that is pretty dirty.
Either way, since it works, no one will likely touch it at allā¦
:)wow thanks
agreedā¦ i find it quite dis-orienting and completely counter intuitive to have the bones rotate at the tail of the bone, rather than the head (as in blender)ā¦ maybe glFL will find an answer down the roadā¦
Watching this - the animation part - makes me wonder! How does it make sense to do the animation in Blender, as it would make much more sense to do that part in UEā¦ is the animation tools really that much better in blender?
My 2nd question is more advanced. I seems very difficult getting human skeletons from Blender to UE and reusing the animations. You would need to re-target the skeletons and that seldomly works out. I tried this with the MBLab skeletons, to both mannequin and mixamo animations and there is always some showstopper bugsā¦ what we seem to miss is some re-target tool that will also āfix and renameā the skeleton **in **Blenderā¦ (or that we can somehow use the re-target information to save, and export, a renamed skeleton. )
For the community,it would make a lot of sense to have this done once, say if one of us have done the the mapping/re-targeting between MBLab (or the other tools) to Mixamo/mannequin, is there some place where we could share this?
- yes. in any 3d program. UE4 just isnāt equipped to do any animation at all. especially nothing professional, and definitely nothing more then a quick fix.
Particularly with blender, because of copy/paste inverted you end up able to make a walking cycle in half the time. Any cycle where you have opposite poses reallyā¦
- re-targeting works just fine. you just need to learn how to do it properly.
Fixing/Renaming the skeleton in blender is a decent idea actually, but if you do that you loose compatibility with whatever else was released for the same skeleton (say additional animations are released, you canāt use them anymore.)
2.B
Really, everyone does their own work on renaming things in the master skeleton because itās very individualized work. Often itās not a āone size fits allā problem. And most importantly, it seems that most folks are Ok with just having it re-targeted and skipping the whole part of the work process that would have you work on a skeleton several hours if not days.
However, if you make it and you want to share it with he community you can always just add it to the āanimation toolsā sticky in the animation section. I donāt think anyone would complain about it.
me encantaria ser uno mas.