[= ;215827]
Hi , may be same as item on our Known Issues list:
UE-8861 Regression: Windows: Cannot deploy launch on or package for iOS with latest version of iTunes
Can you confirm if you are using latest version of iTunes?
[/]
Hi ,
Yes, latest iTunes version, however, I’m running on a Mac Pro OSX10.10.2
Hope that helps.
Thanks
I minor bug report with 4.7 p5 and launcher. I left it running over night and it showed that a new version was available. I thought maybe 4.7 had been released at first, but I didn’t see anything new 4.7 p4 was still showing as available. I restarted launcher and it shows 4.7 p5 now. I don’t have 4.7 installed. I don’t know if that makes a difference or not. I am not currently interested in upgrading to 4.7 until its officially released, I just thought it was odd. only reason I upgraded to 4.6 when it was in beta was because 4.5’s floating point entry system was (and still is) so screwed up I couldn’t take it anymore.
[=;215749]
Oh God, YES! My sedatives! Someone bring me my sedatives!
[/]
I couldn’t agree more!
Blueprint stability has made my hype rocket launch !
I really HATE REINST TRANSIENT and recompile stuff X(
Great news indeed 
[=caner_ozdemir;215690]
I guess 4.7 will be counted as first stable release of UE4 after .
Please dont release it too quickly, it has more features than other AAA engines already, but it needs more stability.
Most minor bugs are acceptable but at least please dont let major bugs be.
[/]
We’re treating stability as a key for releases here on out. We expect preview 5 to be a bit rocky as it introduced quite a few big changes and we’ll be focusing primarily on addressing crashes and other showstoppers with each preview until we hit an RC.
looks like I can import some Upack files from content browser, but i can’t to find way to export a selection of asset to create an Upack file by myself.
[= ;215707]
According to our bug reports, only one decorator has been resolved for 4.7: UE-7870 BP-implemented BT decorator issues with 4.6 to 4.7 upgrade resolution had note: “Added a transition API to mitigate fallout after a drastic change in BTDecorator_BlueprintBase’s API”
Is that what you are about? If not, I’ll see what else I can find out.
[/]
I see, now “old” way to do it is just deprecated… Well, that’s better. Before decorators just stopped working.
But why have you changed way decorators work? old way was much better. Because now I am not able to have multiple “Finish Condition Check” Nodes, I can just have one single Return Node. But every decorator needs at least one “Success” and one “Fail”. So with new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return variable with one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
And having multiple execution wires going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don’t see advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have “Finish Execute” Node (and it’s not deprecated), so why do decorators work different now? You yourself called it a “drastic change” 
Since I don’t see any advantage with having to override a function compared to placing a “Event Receive Condition Check” and multiple “Finish Condition Check” nodes, why have you changed it? I think you should have wait with at least until it’s regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will be? 4.8?).
[= ;215926]
I see, now “old” way to do it is just deprecated… Well, that’s better. Before decorators just stopped working.
But why have you changed way decorators work? old way was much better. Because now I am not able to have multiple “Finish Condition Check” Nodes, I can just have one single Return Node. But every decorator needs at least one “Success” and one “Fail”. So with new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return variable with one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
And having multiple execution wires going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don’t see advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have “Finish Execute” Node (and it’s not deprecated), so why do decorators work different now? You yourself called it a “drastic change”
Since I don’t see any advantage with having to override a function compared to placing a “Event Receive Condition Check” and multiple “Finish Condition Check” nodes, why have you changed it? I think you should have wait with at least until it’s regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will be? 4.8?).
[/]
Agreed. Most of next patch seems good, but I have to second . Obviously broke my AI; having multiple exits seems logical.
I see Preview 5 has HTML5 in binary release, how does one package that build?
So one really frustrating thing about Preview 5 is how close “Add Component” in actor details is to being incredible, but misses mark. Here is my list:
(not good)I guess my biggest is that once an actor becomes a BP instance, I want to retain ability to modify an instance and make a specific change to it. If I really like that change, I can either:
allows process of prefabing to be non-destructive. I would almost suggest that it be possible to convert BP instance back to standalone actor instance in level too.
So close to being a prefab system!!! Please fix these last pain points
[= ;215629]
UPDATE!
UE-8819 - Physics actors are failing to Simulate
[/]
Testing and it seems like it’s only in-editor. When testing launching as standalone game it works fine!
Thanks for fine work! Really looking forward to full release! 
Hello I’m unable to start my project at in preview 5 it was working fine in preview 4
[]
[2015.02.04-10.47.53:748] 0]LogWindows: === Critical error: ===
Assertion failed: Template [File:D:\BuildFarm\buildmachine_++depot+UE4-Releases+4.7\Engine\Source\Runtime\CoreUObject\Private\UObject\LinkerLoad.cpp] [Line: 3251]
[/]
I also noticed vehicle advanced sample doesn’t run correctly right out of box (others do)
[= ;215926]
I see, now “old” way to do it is just deprecated… Well, that’s better. Before decorators just stopped working.
But why have you changed way decorators work? old way was much better. Because now I am not able to have multiple “Finish Condition Check” Nodes, I can just have one single Return Node. But every decorator needs at least one “Success” and one “Fail”. So with new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return variable with one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
And having multiple execution wires going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don’t see advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have “Finish Execute” Node (and it’s not deprecated), so why do decorators work different now? You yourself called it a “drastic change”
Since I don’t see any advantage with having to override a function compared to placing a “Event Receive Condition Check” and multiple “Finish Condition Check” nodes, why have you changed it? I think you should have wait with at least until it’s regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will be? 4.8?).
[/]
[=AGPStudios;215988]
Agreed. Most of next patch seems good, but I have to second . Obviously broke my AI; having multiple exits seems logical.
[/]
That was only way to go to make BP-implemented BT decorators work as expected - not sure if you noticed, but it was very broken
fact that you have only one “return” node in BP functions is, like said, a BP thing.
A really bad thing is that a lot of people are unable to keep their work going because of some strange bugs (in fact most projects which cannot be moved from P4 to P5) which came up wiht Preview 5. bug report section is full of posts on Answer Hub. I know that epic staff is working hard on fixing bugs and new features and so on but it would be really great if someone could answer these bug reports that people stop refreshing their browsers . A short message that staff noticed about posts would be enough.
on topic of bugs and reporting a scenario I’d like to talk about is - when reporting bugs to answer hub - I’m frequency faced with requests to provide additional testing (make a new project and try and reproduce) or on a few occasions I’ve been asked to hand over my source code.
if I don’t comply to requests (i do my best to provide logs and screenshots) - bug is then closed off and marked complete and I’m unsure if that report has been entered into you system or taken seriously
I’d like to request procedure be looked at as I feel less inclined to report things there now
edit: upon reflection - its bugs reported in thread are getting response of a UE bug # - and I think that is whats missing, if a answer hub post get closed off with no resolution - it would be ideal to know its been logged into your system with a reference #
[=;216071]
on topic of bugs and reporting a scenario I’d like to talk about is - when reporting bugs to answer hub - I’m frequency faced with requests to provide additional testing (make a new project and try and reproduce) or on a few occasions I’ve been asked to hand over my source code.
if I don’t comply to requests (i do my best to provide logs and screenshots) - bug is then closed off and marked complete and I’m unsure if that report has been entered into you system or taken seriously
I’d like to request procedure be looked at as I feel less inclined to report things there now
[/]
Why? is used to make sure that bug isn’t just a one-off and can be replicated. It’s to make sure that your installation of Unreal Engine 4 doesn’t have a random bug or if it’s just your project. They ask for source code to make sure that you haven’t edited anything that has broken engine.
It’s not like they are going to take your source code and distribute it, They need it to find out what is causing bug on your end and to confirm that it’s happening your end and not for . Saying that, I’ve never seen them ask for full source code on the , But I don’t understand why you wouldn’t give it to them? You’re for help and that’s exactly what they’re trying to do!
when i try to play vehicle template engine crash
error code :
MachineId:E7623266412BA9E534D4E7AD11674048
EpicAccountId:22db245d61324773bebdb5943f3c94ca
Unknown exception - code 00000001 (first/second not available)
Assertion failed: UpdatedComponent->GetBodyInstance()->GetPxRigidDynamic() [File:D:\BuildFarm\buildmachine_++depot+UE4-Releases+4.7\Engine\Source\Runtime\Engine\Private\Vehicles\WheeledVehicleMovementComponent.cpp] [Line: 175]
KERNELBASE + 35740 bytes
UE4Editor_Core!FOutputDeviceWindowsError::Serialize() + 292 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\core\private\windows\windowsplatformoutputdevices.cpp:95]
UE4Editor_Core!FOutputDevice::Logf__VA() + 248 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\core\private\misc\outputdevice.cpp:144]
UE4Editor_Core!FDebug::AssertFailed() + 1042 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\core\private\misc\outputdevice.cpp:224]
UE4Editor_Engine!UWheeledVehicleMovementComponent::CreateVehicle() + 188 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\vehicles\wheeledvehiclemovementcomponent.cpp:178]
UE4Editor_Engine!UWheeledVehicleMovementComponent::CreatePhysicsState() + 115 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\vehicles\wheeledvehiclemovementcomponent.cpp:595]
UE4Editor_Engine!UActorComponent::ExecuteRegisterEvents() + 357 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\actorcomponent.cpp:871]
UE4Editor_Engine!UActorComponent::RegisterComponentWithWorld() + 891 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\actorcomponent.cpp:663]
UE4Editor_Engine!AActor::IncrementalRegisterComponents() + 562 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\actor.cpp:3220]
UE4Editor_Engine!ULevel::IncrementalUpdateComponents() + 239 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\level.cpp:725]
UE4Editor_Engine!UWorld::UpdateWorldComponents() + 577 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\world.cpp:1221]
UE4Editor_Engine!UWorld::InitializeActorsForPlay() + 704 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\world.cpp:2847]
UE4Editor_Engine!UGameInstance::StartPIEGameInstance() + 1079 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\engine\private\gameinstance.cpp:195]
UE4Editor_UnrealEd!UEditorEngine::CreatePIEGameInstance() + 8462 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\editor\unrealed\private\playlevel.cpp:2779]
UE4Editor_UnrealEd!UEditorEngine::PlayInEditor() + 7003 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\editor\unrealed\private\playlevel.cpp:2134]
UE4Editor_UnrealEd!UEditorEngine::StartQueuedPlayMapRequest() + 643 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\editor\unrealed\private\playlevel.cpp:972]
UE4Editor_UnrealEd!UEditorEngine::Tick() + 3409 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\editor\unrealed\private\editor.cpp:1200]
UE4Editor_UnrealEd!UUnrealEdEngine::Tick() + 22 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\editor\unrealed\private\unrealedengine.cpp:298]
UE4Editor!FEngineLoop::Tick() + 4084 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\launch\private\launchengineloop.cpp:2240]
UE4Editor!GuardedMain() + 479 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\launch\private\launch.cpp:131]
UE4Editor!GuardedMainWrapper() + 26 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\launch\private\windows\launchwindows.cpp:126]
UE4Editor!WinMain() + 249 bytes [d:\buildfarm\buildmachine_++depot+ue4-releases+4.7\engine\source\runtime\launch\private\windows\launchwindows.cpp:202]
UE4Editor!__tmainCRTStartup() + 329 bytes [f:\dd\vctools\crt\crtw32\dllstuff\crtexe.c:618]
Tried converting my project and found some issues. Note that ‘Preview 5’ is first 4.7 build I’ve tested.
Issue 1: Play In Standalone is broken due to blueprint compilation issues that manifest in standalone but not in Editor or PIE mode. It also crashes with an error Access violation - code c0000005 (first/second not available) @ unrealtype.h:996 and standalone logs complain that ‘Target’ attribute of certain blueprint nodes are not disconnected even though they are in fact connected.
Log excerpts:
Error current value of ’ TargetArray ’ pin is invalid: Array inputs (like ‘TargetArray’) must have an input wired into them (try connecting a MakeArray node).
Error Variable node MyVariable uses an invalid target. It may depend on a node that is not connected to execution chain, and got purged.
Error blueprint (self) is not a SomeGameBlueprint_C, therefore ’ Target ’ must have a connection.
Workaround: None.
**Issue 2: **Frequent editor crashes with an error Invalid in GC: 0x0000000000000030, ReferencingObject: MyBehaviorTreeTaskBlueprint_C. offending BT Task blueprint compiles just fine. crashes occur i) after a PIE (Play in Editor) session ii) on hitting save iii) on play in standalone
Workaround: None. Unless I delete node instances of offending task from behavior tree, persists.
Issue 3: Loading my game’s map crashes while loading “cached shader maps”/materials/etc. There is no error message at and logs end abruptly. starter maps load fine.
Workaround: In my 4.6 map I changed my map to be fully dynamic and ticked force no precomputed lighting and then migrated map to 4.7 Preview 5. map loads fine now although I haven’t tried turning lightmass back on and building lights.
PS: I do intend to post these in but like most issues these are only reproducible in my project, standard maps and Epic samples work fine. I wanted to post a dump of these issues here first as I’m swamped with project work right now and it takes a while to diligently gather information needed for raising proper bug reports for these.
Just got Preview 5 and finding new Blueprint UI a mixed bag. It’s great to have ‘Defaults’ tab moved to a pane, but now when I switch back and forth between ‘Graphs’ and ‘Viewport’ I then have to spend hiding ‘Component’ and ‘Default’ panes and bringing up ‘Palette’ and ‘My Blueprint’ panes & vice versa. isn’t efficient for and only other solution would be to have 4 panes visible, which isn’t efficient for screen space.
[=TommyBear;216003]
You can’t seem to add BP based components to actors using drop down menu, you need to drag BP into tree from content window, which works (not great)
[/]
is fixed for next preview release.
[=TommyBear;216003]
Click on an instance and then a child in component window, you immediately see that children are locked. They can’t be moved, scaled or even deleted. We really need . I don’t want to go into BP editor to do … I want to do in scene (not good)
[/]
is in progress and might make it into next Preview release. We’ll see.
[=TommyBear;216003]
I would almost suggest that it be possible to convert BP instance back to standalone actor instance in level too.
[/]
We’ve talked about . We won’t do for 4.7 but we’ll keep thinking about it. actor instance can’t currently have any variables or visual scripting attached to it, so it would be a one-way trip in many cases.
Thank you SO much for feedback and testing preview release. It’s a big help.
–
, super small request for 4.7. I think it’s probably an oversight and would be very simple to fix.
Could panels in profiler be made resizable? They are currently fixed resolution and on my laptop bottom panel (function list) is unusable as a result.