Install Path: C:\users\Markus\
Specs: Win7, 16GB, GTX580, UAC on
Description: Attached, I have an animation playing in the new AnimSet editor (unless you’ve called it something else…). You’ll notice in the editor that the character’s feet and hip bones are moving, which is not at all what the animation does in Maya. The baked simulation is supposed to drive the upper body, not the lower body like what you see happening here.
Repro Steps: Just make a skeletal mesh that only does translation animation (probably best to test using Maya for this, but any 3d application could in theory replicate the problem). For my issue, I’m using Maya 2012 with FBX2013.3. Export the FBX into UE4 with “bake simulation” checked, and you’ll see that the translation does not move in the editor like one would expect.
Special Note: For some reason, Rocket seems to be treating my global move group node as a bone, and that gets imported into the engine as such. I did not see any such behavior with UE3’s animset editor. So an addendum to this bug would be to make sure that the editor is smart enough not to treat maya group nodes as part of the FK simulation.
Expected: The AnimSet editor of UE3 had an option on either a per sequence or per set basis to uncheck “Anim Rotations Only”, which would normally correct this problem. However with this new editor, I’m not seeing anything like that. If this option were to be added back, then the problem I described would remain a non-issue.
Firstly, for reference, we refer to the animation editor as Persona because it is responsible for much more than animations; including the Skeletal Meshes, Anim Blueprints (currently called Vim Blueprints in your version), and more.
I have not yet been able to reproduce any issue with a purely translation-based animation. I also used Maya 2012, the joints were animated with just translation, and exported with the following options enabled (not all may be relevant):
- Default file extensions
- Preserve references
- Smoothing Groups
- Smooth Mesh
- Referenced Containers Content
- Bake Animation (with range)
- Deformed Models
- Blend Shapes
- (others below not relevant)
I then imported the FBX into the editor as Skeletal Mesh with:
- Import Animation
- Preserve Smoothing Group
I added the Skeletal Mesh to the world, then added it’s animation to it, and played without any issue.
Please let us know if you still experience a problem with this workflow. And any other settings you may have enabled which may be causing the issue. Additionally you are welcome to attach the FBX to this message and we can take a look.
Thanks for the correction. Is there any way we can make the editor more easily identifiable? Like have the titlebar or tab say that it’s the “Persona Editor” or something? I’m sort of getting lost with all the new name brandings of the current systems in Rocket.
I’ve imported everything in exactly all procedural steps you’ve described. I’m still getting swinging hips.
Ordinarily I might be willing to submit a .ma of my file to you to try and test for yourself, except for the standard boilerplate at the bottom (and similarly included in the beta tester NDA):
By contributing information to this and other Epic Unreal Engine support outlets, including but not limited to Unreal Developer Network websites and mailing lists, you agree that any such software code, comments, and feedback (“Information”) regarding the Unreal Engine you, your employees, assignees, sub-licensees, agents, or representatives (“You”) post or otherwise submit shall become the sole property of Epic. You hereby transfer and assign to Epic Games, Inc. all rights, title, and interest, including copyrights and other intellectual property rights, in such Information.
The straight of it is that I’m unwilling to let Epic games claim ownership over my IP. Please understand – I’m not trying to be difficult with the staff here – it’s strictly business.
Epic would need to create a special license agreement to use the character mesh and animations provided only for QA testing with this particular problem. It cannot rent, sell, remarket, rebrand, redistribute or otherwise assert any claim of ownership (copyright or moral authorship) over the IP in any way shape or form. Epic would also have to destroy the IP when finished with testing. Inside of those conditions, I’d be okay with providing a copy of the character free of charge exclusively for staff.
If these are not acceptable terms, then I’m afraid this will have to remain an unsolved problem as I have no other mesh available to provide at this time. And if that’s the case, I appreciate you taking the time to try and help me with this problem anyways :).
Regarding the legal aspects, I completely understand. Although just to be clear, that is a standard legal statement used almost exclusively to protect the company in cases such as where users submit beneficial code changes and then maybe “want it back”. Unfortunately I can only offer my own personal assurance that our purpose for requesting an asset is purely for testing. I’ll understand if that’s not enough, in which case I’ll recommend that if you can recreate this on any mesh that you don’t care about, for instance even just a box sliding around, that we will gladly take a look at that.
In response to your other issue with the Group being converted to a bone; this is known about. It is currently deliberate, as it mimics similar but more robust functionality in Max, but is subject to change in upcoming builds as it goes under revision.
Thanks for the report, and please continue to share with us any additional information you come upon regarding it.
Thanks for your response:). Here’s the way I see it. Once I post anything on here (including attachments), it’s no longer mine. I’m not even going to try to argue ownership over it – it’s out there, period. Yeah, there are technicalities and assurances and all that, but it’s just far easier to assume – with US IP law being what it is – just to not get tangled in it.
That said, I actually think your suggestion for creating a separate mesh is a really good idea. Not sure why I didn’t think of it! Although the rig I created was pretty complex with a lot of subtleties built in… not something simple like a single joint for a box.
I think what I’ll do is make a simple ‘human’ character made of cubes (we’ll call it “boxy”, hah) and then create a skeleton and some animations for it. Also I’ll see about setting up an alternate rig on Boxy for mocaps so I can test that for the separate animation problem I have posted.
From there, I should be able to update you with results and a .ma file submission for testing in a week or two.
That sounds great. When you have any more information to share, either re-open this post, or feel free to make a new one. I’m marking this one as ‘answered’ for now for tracking purposes.