[=;703721]
I sincerely wish you would implement some kind of system, that would indicate reliability of forecast on the new roadmap.
As an example, color coding like, Green-> definitely gets shipped on schedule, Yellow->Has a to be delayed, Red-> definitely delayed.
Things, that are not planned, or being looked at as potentially implementable in the future should not even be on the roadmap. That is actually the part of the new design I like.
Needless to say, that there should not be anything moving in or out from the roadmap. In my view, displaying a as planned for 4.19 and then moving it to backlog around 4.18 is considerably worse than not announcing it at all.
Thanks for the ideas, Deathray. We’ll take into account and check the viability when going forward.
It would be also great to shortly explain why some features/issues are backlogged. Let’s say, you have a list of commonly requested features and you explain there “Hey, we cannot do custom orientation gravity yet because it requires refactoring navmesh system, lots of physics code, etc”. Single paragraph of text would be enough. It would 100x better than simply marking as Backlogged aka “noboby knows what happens and why”. Maybe Trello is good place for it, maybe not. I don’t care where the info would published - just keep in one place.
Of course no game engine company does it on regular basis. But you could be the first one
Please change the roadmap and implement the requested features, backlogging important requests for years might mean win or loose for a project. In addition to that, if something really needs to be backlogged because of whatever reasons (there might be some good ones), you could roughly share your thoughts with the community. It’s always easier for to understand and as well plan their project ahead, if they really know what is to come. It also creates some more trust.
I Have a quick Request that wil be a joy regarding the New Cloth System.
Can you PLEASE apply an option to update the physics asset for an existing cloth asset? Also anytime i i remove a cloth asset, the random character pieces suddenly stretch some vertexes down to the origin zero. Weird buggy thingy.
Cheers.
The physics asset will be changing to just reference the object so we can extract updated bodies at spawn-time. That will be in place when we move out of experimental status for that tool.
Thanks again for all of the thoughts and concerns regarding the roadmap. We’ve had a lot of conversations here at Epic and have began to make adjustments. Now, you’ll find other larger initatives we’re tackling in a “Future Releases” section. On top of that, we’re adding a card that links over to the bugs that are marked fixed for each version, so you can see what’s on the way. We’ve also added rough timelines in which you can expect each release to drop so you know when to expect each major release from us.
As we prepare 4.16 for public release (hopefully soon!), you should start to see more meat come to the bones of the 4.17 release as the weeks go on afterwards.
Thanks again for your input, and keep an eye out on the roadmap for more updates!
Ah thats much better, just had a look, thanks for listening!
I wonder if there is some way to indicate which future features are actually already available in preview/experimental form - eg Unreal Audio is not ready to be the default in 4.16 but it is there as a preview but you wouldnt know it from looking at that roadmap.
If I could ask for one thing. It would be that when importing a model into UE4. The material goes into the material folder, and texture goes into the texture folder.
I’m not sure if there’s a setting somewhere I missed, but it may already be there.
If I could ask for a second thing it would be an option to resize an image.
As sometimes I’ve gotten things from marketplace, and there are very small items with 1.5 gb of non necessary weight to them.
Easier installation on Ubuntu/Linux. Would get you a Darden gift card for dinner. Olive Garden, Longhorn, Bahama Breeze, Seasons 32, Yard House, or Red Lobster. MY TREAT!!! Make it happen
Question, why bother with percentage closer soft shadows? They look horrible and are high end only. Might as well work on dynamically animated signed distance fields so SDF shadows can work on skinned meshes as well as static. It’ll look ten times better and run on the same hardware targets, not to mention offer support for dynamic on the same meshes as well.
Agreed. It’s so outdated that I don’t know why it is even here.
Why just not use HFTS, which looks like 2x times better than anything else except ray traced shadows…
We’ve actually been gradually adding features to the roadmap over the past few weeks. It’s been more of a slow trickle than one of the really huge updates though, so these smaller additions may have flown under the radar.
We expect update activity to increase as we get closer to 4.17’s release, so please continue to keep an eye on the roadmap for new features.
