Metahuman changed to probably default head after merge from //UE5/main at CL 47892199

Development Asset Creation
, ,
1

Few of our metahumans got reseted to (probably) default head shape after the merge from //UE5/main at CL 47892199. Do you know about this issue? Are you planning a fix?

[Image Removed]

2

Hi Anna,

I can’t immediately see anything in our bug tracker that would correspond to this problem.

Can you help me understand a little more about what we’re looking at in the image you have attached to help narrow down the cause? Did the MetaHuman character change appearance after reopening MetaHuman Creator at the new CL, or is this the difference see after (re-)running the assembly process? Where other steps taken (such as creating the rig) in between creating the two images?

Do you know the previous CL you were using, before this problem was introduced?

Thanks,

Mark.

3

Hi Mark,

yes, the Metahuman changed the appearance inside the metahuman creator after reopening. I even have tried to go back to the first version that was submitted at our p4V, and the metahuman still stayed changed. The rig was created and saved in the creator before. We didn´t touch anything. There was metahuman stored, looked fine, the merge happened, we have opened the metahuman and it was broken. The previous Cl was this one - 46320669

Thank you,

Anna

4

Thanks, Anna. That is helpful information to help me debug further.

Would you be able to share the Unreal Engine log for a session that covers starting the engine and opening one of these assets in MetaHuman Creator? I’m not overly confident it will reveal much, however a useful data point to have all the same.

Mark.

5

Also, can I check why you are using //UE5/Main rather than a release stream? Main is a much newer version of the engine that reflects in progress development. Is there a reason you’d prefer to work from this branch rather than a release branch?

6

Hi Anna,

I have spoken to the engineering team about this further.

The original CL (46320669) was released as part of Unreal Engine 5.7, where as the second (47892199) reflect post-5.7 development work. In particular, where //UE5/Main reflects active development, assets may easily acquire some intermediate or work-in-progress state that is undesirable. As such, we only ensure that assets are loaded correctly on specific Unreal Engine releases (as these have a full QA pass etc. etc.) and not every intermediate build.

The solution here therefore is likely to sync to a stream that reflects a release (such as 5.7) as this will be much more stable for active production work.

We’d still be curious to learn more about your workflow and the intention behind syncing to //UE5/Main, acknowledging that it might not be a use case we’re able to guarantee stability for.

Mark.