Misleading / Unclear Custom Asset Documentation

[BradHB3D]

Noticing a number of incorrect and / or potentially confusing parts of the documentation. If beginners and casual creators are the target audience, I would reconsider these statements, expand on them with relevant context, or remove them if they aren’t pertinent.

Creating Fortnite-Ready Assets in UEFN

Models should preserve quads as much as possible.

Models moving through modeling, baking, paint, and editor import workflows actually require triangulation and tangent syncing. Preserving quads throughout your pipeline is a recipe for bugs unless you are specifically calling out an editor only bake workflows?

• Make sure you freeze and collapse all transformations for your texture map.

Freeze transformations on a texture map? I’m not even sure what you’d be referring to here. Model pre-processing prior to bake / paint workflow steps?

Below are the texture map channel outputs for painting a mesh using Substance Painter. If you use a different application, look for similar settings in that application.

• It would be worth noting both the scene template channel configuration, which is separate from the export configuration.
• Names in your table do not match Painter channel names (baseColor, specularLevel (which should not be confused with Specular (the legacy shading model))
• Your channel packing requirements do match your own base material default expectations.

Documented table:
Specular Map: (RGB) [Specular*Level, Metalness, Roughness] respectively

Your default Base Material:
Specular Map: (RGB) [Specular*Level, Roughness, Metalness] respectively

Your texture data:
Specular Map: (RGB) [Specular*Level, Metalness, Roughness] respectively

Which again raises questions around the unclear vision and workflow intent, which I’ve mentioned in other posts. Your own editor warnings recommend TextureData assignments as the primary re-texture workflow. But that channel packing intent isn’t compatible with your own default base material. And your base material doesn’t appear to be compatible with blueprint TextureData assignments.

Official Texturing Public Interface Recommendations

What precisely is Epic’s golden path for extending assets from a texture and material perspective? What is the vision for the ideal workflow for users who want to extend (re-skin) existing content, without re-inventing the material graph? For example… There are many times when I just want to leverage 60% existing content, with 40% of my own modular architecture. I’ll be texturing my own models, but I’d like a consistent visuals across all walls (existing and new). So it’s imperative that my own …

Why not expose a base material which is compatible with the TextureData worklfow? Or sufficiently document the TextureData workflow if that’s what editor expects?