[Feature request] A searchable list of blueprint nodes

I’ve noticed a few times now that when I’m working on a blueprint sometimes the context sensitivity doesn’t show me all the nodes I might want to use, or I’ve got the wrong object selected etc. It got me thinking that it’d be really useful to have a searchable list of ALL blueprint nodes, with descriptions of functionality, discussions of input and output pins, example usage and any hidden side-effects of use. I’d imagine a flat list would be best rather than some wiki like structure, because having a long flat document is actually better for searchability/discovery.

I’m a C++ programmer, so I know WHAT I want to do and that usually gets me through, but there are a few cases I’ve come across nodes (like the teleport node) that do something that wouldn’t normally occur to me as a programmer.

It’d be doubly useful if you could hover the mouse over a node, press F1 and get a bunch of use cases shown in a browser for instance. But I guess just having a single document for ALL nodes would be the starting point. Does such a thing exist already that I’ve missed?

Well, there is the BP node library on the far right side of the BP graph editor. Or are you looking for something else? It lists all available BP nodes, organized in a nice tree structure. Also, you can disable context sensitivity in the right-click menu.

I’m not aware of a documentation for all the BP nodes available. That’s a good idea, though. Generally, the documentation on the nodes themselves, that you get on mouse hover are very short. Sometimes you have to actually go to the actual C++ implementation to make sure it behaves as you thought it did. This could clearly be improved.

Hi zoombapup,

Thank you for your feedback, we will take this into consideration. While we do not have a list currently available of every blueprint node, we do have documentation that may assist in learning more about blueprint functionality. You can find that here: Have a great day!

As Bajee said, the ‘Palette’ tab was added to provide this very function! What do you think we could change to make it more helpful for you?