[=XaVIeR;699865]
Wake me up when we get holograms (deviceless).
Add me to that list.
Hey all, we’ve made some updates to the Unreal Engine roadmap. Read all about what is new here!
So what happened to everything that was on the old roadmap and isn’t on the new one? The 4.17 section is quite short?
Did you forget the “in progress” section or something?
[=;700628]
Hey all, we’ve made some updates to the Unreal Engine roadmap. Read all about what is new here!
Ah, really pretty and informative as far as 4.16 release, but really obscure when it comes to the future of the engine 
The new roadmap tells us less about what’s going on than the last one. Great job…
[=Zeblote;700642]
The new roadmap tells us less about what’s going on than the last one. Great job…
Heh well, most of items from old roadmap were not worked on.
I still wish we had list of back logged features, short terms features (2-3 months, which are worked on), and vote reset every 2-3 weeks. would allow to gather which items trending in community and better prioritize what community wants.
On new road map there is no status on things like Niagara, which I bet quite a few people eagerly waiting for.
Seems a little sparse at the moment. It was helpful to know that Niagara and AI physical movement were in the pipeline because I’ve been holding off implementing custom solutions to some of my problems.
I would rather have a clear information on what features you are working on, in the moment,then a "clear visibility " which just throws out all the old backlog requests.There is a really big desync between the features the community would like you to implement and the features you are actually working on (just saing “terrain editing in real time vs. VR Editor”).
Information on whats going on is more important than big pretty looking pictures.
We asked you what is with all the important core features which are not implemented jet and your answer is just reworking the roadmap page so that the user dont see anymore that those featurerequests did exist?!
Really hope unity catches up graphic wise and i can switch to unity soon,because is going nowhere.If anything it gets even worst.
I like the new roadmap but it has gone from one extreme to another in terms of the amount of things listed. I think more futuristic plans need to be included for it to more positive feedback.
I dont mind the voting being gone because it probably wasn’t the ideal place for it and it’s influence seemed rather limited anyway. Some alternative that also tries hard to honestly state the degree of influence the community have over these matters might be useful, but whatever is done frustrations from some will always occur because people get rather passionate and animated about the missing features that are most important to them. Defining the sum of what ‘the community’ want developed next is far from trivial either, votes and surveys are a part of it as is being vocal about stuff on forums, but it doesnt tell the whole story.
[=emeraldcoast;700668]
(just saing “terrain editing in real time vs. VR Editor”).
Features developed and code written in the pursuit of VR tools will sometimes have uses outside the VR context and will improve other aspects of the editor. Depending on the detail of what is meant by terrain editing in realtime, it seems entirely plausible to me that the you crave could one day happen in conjunction with VR development, not in spite of it.
I see you mentioned nvidia FleX earlier. It’s something I have dabbled with and would like to talk about on the forum, but I’m not sure is the right thread for it at all really.
I really dislike new roadmap, the old one was much more helpful.
There are exactly 3 things listed now there, instead of like 200 things before? And out of those 2 things, the audio engine and PCSS shadows is both already in the branch, so it’s not even something new by now for someone who uses .
Please move back to the old roadmap design. It’s much nicer to know exactly what things you consider working on, even if out of the 200 things only 50 will really be worked on. Also, the fact that there are no categories now makes it a lot worse. You really should not group rendering stuff, AI stuff, audio stuff and whatever all in one “Targeted: 4.X” group.
Really, please consider moving back to the old roadmap where we can actually see what you have planned for whole 2017, even if some of the things might move to 2018 or 2019. That’s how software development usually works, so not really an. Just not showing it at all is really, really bad.
[=;700725]
Features developed and code written in the pursuit of VR tools will sometimes have uses outside the VR context and will improve other aspects of the editor. Depending on the detail of what is meant by terrain editing in realtime, it seems entirely plausible to me that the you crave could one day happen in conjunction with VR development, not in spite of it.
I see you mentioned nvidia FleX earlier. It’s something I have dabbled with and would like to talk about on the forum, but I’m not sure is the right thread for it at all really.
Yes but most games are developed at the moment for 2D Screens(over 99% of all games) and not VR so i would love to see that simple fact represented also in the amount of development.I have nothing againt them developing a “gimmicky” VR Editor, if they need something flashy but useless to show for their conventions and gameexpos like E3 and oculus gave them a lot of money to develop those kind of tools . But haveing almost 50 % of the featuredevelopment beeing VR while VR User make way less then 1% of all user, which will not change for the next 4-5 years, because of the high prize of headset and high end pc , is just ridiculous.
We also dont speak about “some” very specific niche features which they did not release.
We are speacking about thinks like:
-A stand of the art landscape editor with real time editing tools and modern vegetation tools (look at the plugins the team of ghost recon-wildlands used for their world creation for example)
- A level editor which deservs its name and can block out quick and uncomlicated the geometry in a level for testing purpose. Having to import already finished geometry objects from another programm like zbrush,maya or blender just to block out a level and see if it works gameplaywise is just so impractical. That idea cant come from a level designer. Who ever programmed the level editor as it is now cant be a real level designer. Why cant we have a level editor like unity has one,like you see it in the video beneath?:
-Why is the gravity “hardcoded” into z-axis. That makes no sense. There are so many games like super mario galaxy,starcitizen,sonic,spider man games,gravity rush.would give indie devs so much more freedom without having to spend so much time on building their own or buying some stuff on the Marketplace which maybe cant even be costum tailored for their needs.
Nvidia Flex for watersimulation:
Yes i think real time water,smoke, fire-simulations and explosives with “plugins” like Nvida Flex could improve the atmosphere of your games quiet a lot if you have a customer base with good graphic cards.The waterfalls ,rivers and flowting water in general look not very belivable in most modern games,which is not the fault of the Artist.I will make a post in 1-2 month when i get good results out of it.I would love to discusst that more indepth but i have to dig deeper into it first,to see if its viable performance wise.I think its the most interesting in year and good looking waterflow in videogames is still very rare nowadays.
I think that the limited amount of stuff on there at the moment is just because it launched today. I can’t imagine is what the entire roadmap is supposed to look like. I’m sure that it’ll be filled in the days to come. Well at least that is my hope.
How to make the roadmap 100 times more useful in 3 easy steps:
- remove the new roadmap.
- restore the old roadmap.
- update the old roadmap.
It’s self-evident that new design was generated by a desire to disable all the nagging, i.e. When is X going to be worked upon?
I think that it’s safe to presume that all the jettisoned “someday” items have been consigned to the trash or to a forgotten sticky note on some dev’s monitor.
I think it’s also clear that UE4’s development cycle is driven entirely by the needs of Epic’s own projects or those of large studios that use the Unreal Engine and that any hope that Epic will consider the needs of the hobby/small scale game developer is futile.
In particular, any features that might enable the further development of large scale open worlds do not seem likely to ever receive any sort of attention.
Of course, I’d love to be proven wrong. 
[=Rhynedahll;700788]
It’s self-evident that new design was generated by a desire to disable all the nagging, i.e. When is X going to be worked upon?
I think that it’s safe to presume that all the jettisoned “someday” items have been consigned to the trash or to a forgotten sticky note on some dev’s monitor.
I think it’s also clear that UE4’s development cycle is driven entirely by the needs of Epic’s own projects or those of large studios that use the Unreal Engine and that any hope that Epic will consider the needs of the hobby/small scale game developer is futile.
In particular, any features that might enable the further development of large scale open worlds do not seem likely to ever receive any sort of attention.
Of course, I’d love to be proven wrong.
Its even worst.
Big publisher love huge sandbox games.
So big studios would have an interest in unreal developing a good level editor/ landscape toolbox.
Unreal is developing at the moment not for big studios, it develops mostly for “strategic partners” like oculus(facebook) or other companys who are interested in vr content.
They are on the way of becomming a niche vr software developer,because thats where the hype money is at the moment before market implodes and falls appart or is stagnateing until hardware is cheap enough for the mass market, because it could not deliver on all the hype.
[]
When we launched UE4 three years ago, we sought ways to make development more accessible and be more transparent to our community of users.
Really?
[]
Wishlist and backlog items are almost always too far out
[]
we’ve removed voting from new version of our public roadmap, because we are now only listing features we plan on doing.
[]
expect even more happening behind the scenes.
[]
it aids the development of your projects by providing better consistency, visibility and expectations.
[]
We’d also love your feedback!
How does ignoring community’s wishlist, ignoring backlogged items, removing community votes, keeping things behind the scenes, aid the development of our projects?
How is Epic today being any transparent and making things more accessible to the community?
There is enough feedback on the matter already so I hope Epic really meant it when they mention they love feedback.
[=emeraldcoast;700752]
Why cant we have a level editor like unity has one,like you see it in the video beneath?:
I actually come from the world of Unity, having sat on the sidelines regarding UE4, waiting patiently for 3 years for it to get volumetric fog (which it now has, yay). I intend to use both and play to their respective strengths depending on the needs of a particular project.
The video you linked to shows a 3rd party add-on for Unity, there is nothing like that built in.
Also, one of the features in UE4 that is being developed is a new mesh editor. And it works in both VR and non-VR editor modes. And it will be scriptable one day. It sounds like an excellent basis for the sort of geometry tools you want in future. An early version can be found in the geometry branch on , and it is not just for the VR editor mode albeit at stage the UI for using it in standard editor mode is far from finalised or polished. But it is a concrete example of stuff you want being worked on.
So I continue to struggle to recognise the picture you describe and just keep finding ammunition for my point that developments that rise to the top for VR & strategic partner reasons may provide technology applicable to other uses including the ones you describe.
Since I mentioned volumetric fog I think its a good example of the past issues with the roadmap. It got a very large amount of votes. Sat around showing backlogged for ages with few clues as to whether it was being developed. Then showed up as being under development last summer, causing me to get excited. Then it got backlogged again and little was heard about it until it showed up in commit in the month or so before 4.16 preview was done.
Reviewing history, it was useful for me to know that lots of people wanted the as I did. It was useful to know it was under development, and to be told when dev on it got somewhat paused again. It would have been very useful for me to know that dev on it had resumed and that it was planned for around 4.16 at least a month or two before I was actually able to find that out.
[=;700815]
I actually come from the world of Unity, having sat on the sidelines regarding UE4, waiting patiently for 3 years for it to get volumetric fog (which it now has, yay). I intend to use both and play to their respective strengths depending on the needs of a particular project.
The video you linked to shows a 3rd party add-on for Unity, there is nothing like that built in.
Also, one of the features in UE4 that is being developed is a new mesh editor. And it works in both VR and non-VR editor modes. And it will be scriptable one day. It sounds like an excellent basis for the sort of geometry tools you want in future. An early version can be found in the geometry branch on github, and it is not just for the VR editor mode albeit at stage the UI for using it in standard editor mode is far from finalised or polished. But it is a concrete example of stuff you want being worked on.
So I continue to struggle to recognise the picture you describe and just keep finding ammunition for my point that developments that rise to the top for VR & strategic partner reasons may provide technology applicable to other uses including the ones you describe.
All to little to late.I dont care if the ue4 devs provide “mercifully” a proper working level editor,like the unity one,** in 2 years from now or even later**, because they have to do VR Content first,which gets used only by a minority of under 1 % of the gameing community,when **the rest of us 99 % non vr user **should take a backseat and wait if some byproducts of the vr development can be rehashed into an unfinished and underperforming tool with a lot of unfixed bugs and missing options sometimes in the distant future when i can have stuff in unity right now(like volumetric light,but with light shafts only when fog is turned up to max,because who needs creative freedom, it has to be realistic because thats more important then giving your level a unique look,right?).
You can collect as many “ammunition” as you want to,but i continue to strugge in seeing your point on why that what 99% of the paying customers want is less important than the rest under 1 % VR devs?