Download

[Feature Request] - Better communication of authority in Blueprints, perhaps with colored

I’m a designer new to Blueprints, working on my first multiplayer game. I think I understand the concepts around networking in Blueprints well, but implementing complicated scripts gets confusing pretty quickly for a novice like me. It struck me that a few UI features could really help.

I’m finding that I don’t always know which events are called on the authority and which are called on the remote clients, and it’s tough to follow when scripts get complex. I also know that some of the code that our engineers have written in C++ or in other blueprints already controls where the scripts are being run. For example, I was recently trying to figure out if some scripts should be authoritative or not, and how to set them up, only to realize that what I was doing was completely unnecessary because our engineers already figured this out and made the events and functions I was playing with remote-client only. I didn’t know until he told me.

My solution would be to give different visual treatments to connections between pins that denote whether functions are called on the authority, on remote clients, or on both. I’m guessing maybe that’s not as easy to pull off as it seems, but anyways - seems like there might be some really easy ways to represent lines & pins in ways that help make networking easier.

Hi JigglyToes,

I entered a feature request for another user that I believe would satisfy your request, UE-17074. The request is specifically for the ability to color code execution pins and links so that you can determine differing sets of code. Would this work for what you are trying to accomplish?

Hey Adam, sorry for the late reply on this - no, I think my proposal is in conflict of this. If I understand correctly, I think Paragonx9’s proposal is to let the user color-code things. That just adds more confusion in my opinion. My proposal is to automatically show lines based on whether they’re run on the server, the client, or both.

Thanks!