I really like the way blueprints currently look and feel- I wouldn’t change them at all!
Don’t underestimate the importance of some of the icons. For example the letter icon makes it super easy to find interface message nodes vs standard function calls. Those icons also help the user determine if some nodes are synchronous/asynchronous or if it’s client or host in a networked environment. I would leave them in for the ones that matter. Otherwise we will have to read each node what they do. That time would be frustrating.
I also agree that you should keep the round pins for variables instead of the triangular ones. I have to slow down to read the nodes instead of breezing by. Those pins also happen to change depending on if you’re passing a reference or copying a value. (round vs diamond)
You’re on a good path with the colors and everything, but please don’t remove things because they seem unimportant at first.
This! Blueprint is the first node based system I have used where it’s impossible to line things up. It’s like having someone poke you with a stick in the back while you’re trying to focus on a problem. So annoying. My Blueprint OCD is not yet pleased. 
The look and design of the blueprints has certainly some room for improvement but I do not find any of these mockups to be an improvement, first of all they are much brighter, the current design is darker and a lot easier on my eyes at least.
Personally I would like to see an option to have thicker connection lines (reduces the “spaghettiness” effect) and (more) semi-transparent nodes (you could make not as important groups of nodes less visible), maybe a slightly less contrasted color scheme as well.
Also better icons would make a big difference IMO and an option to have round corners on/off.
it would be awesome if we can make themes for the engine
and maybe put them on the market place 
My 2 biggest complaints with the all the node editors in UE4 are EVERYTHING IS WAY TOO BIG, and the wires and pins DoN’t Line Up on the grid.
like I said above, whether I personally agree with changing this or not.
this thread should be in Feedback so it gets the right exposure:
User Editable Skins & later possibly targeted for Market Place if it’s accepted & done
It will be a lot of work so I want to make sure it benefits the most people and gets approval from Epic.
Baby steps. I’d like to address the most problematic part first, since we’re talking about months of my free time. Same goes for the skinnable UI mentioned earlier: nice idea but even more work. Ideally I’d want the whole editor having a dark and bright skin, but at this point I have no idea if I could keep up with the slate changes: finishing a reskin for 4.8 at the time 5.3 comes out would be pointless.
Make sense. In the image bellow note the gold letters on the right end of certain headers. They stay visible for a few zoom out steps. They share the same color for now but adding color variations, like blue for “f”, is an option. Macro, interface and class function are indicated by the letters “m”, “i” and “f” respectively.
Indeed I forgot about that one, round it is.
How can I change the parent forum for this thread?
Anyway, latest iteration:
The link curves are set up similar to what I have now, only because it was faster to make. 
Its customization is already working well so one can have the lines as straight or as curvy as desired.
I looked into what is necessary to change the visual style. Some keypoints
- In some cases, stuff is hardcoded (e.g. foreground font color)
- Otherwise, it is possible to create a plugin that subclasses FEditorStyle, this makes it possible to change the layout using a plugin
- It is possible to change icons, fonts, colors etc. using a config file
- Some more engine changes are required in order to allow runtime updates of the style
- I did not look into changing the icon locations and various other properties. I assume that to be more work
So with a pull request, that doesn’t change much logic, it will be possible to change the editor style (the entire style, not only blueprints) using a plugin.
Edit: I already implemented basic functionality and will keep you updated
It’s worth noting that the dark nodes stand out if they’re infront of comment boxes.
And if 90+% of your Nodes aren’t in comment boxes then you’re making life harder for yourself. A few seconds adding them over the course of work will save you alot of time in the future.
But damnit Epic, sort out the grid spacing!
@: Very interesting, a self contained plugin would be the best solution. Thanks for the research!
@Jimmy_Jazz: Hmm, maybe the group boxes enhancing visual clarity is a ploy, Epic’s subliminal encouragement to use grouping. However some prefer to lay out game logic in functions and composite nodes, multiple levels deep, with minimal number of nodes at any depth. With proper function, composite and event names even node comments are unnecessary.
, could you tell us what can be achieved by using the plugin method? What aspects can be changed without messing with the engine? I think the first proof of concept, however limited, is better implemented as a plugin to make it easier to use. That would widen the tester audience.
I’ve been trying to get Epic’s opinion on this thread but couldn’t get through yet. Although I don’t want to be pushy either… Anyway, if you know someone who might be able to comment on the topic, please ask them to take a look at some point.