Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unreal Engine 4.7 Preview

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Originally posted by BPANDREW View Post
    on the 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 all requests (i do my best to provide logs and screenshots) - the 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 this procedure be looked at as I feel less inclined to report things there now
    Why? This is all used to make sure that the 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 the source code to make sure that you haven't edited anything that has broken the 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 the bug on your end and to confirm that it's happening your end and not for everyone. Saying that, I've never seen them ask for full source code on the Answerhub, But I don't understand why you wouldn't give it to them? You're asking for help and that's exactly what they're trying to do!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    on the 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 all requests (i do my best to provide logs and screenshots) - the 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 this procedure be looked at as I feel less inclined to report things there now

    edit: upon reflection - its the bugs reported in this thread are getting the 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 #
    Last edited by BPANDREW; 02-04-2015, 08:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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. The bug report section is full of posts on Answer Hub. I know that the 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 the posts would be enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by John Alcatraz View Post
    I see, now the "old" way to do it is just deprecated... Well, that's better. Before the decorators just stopped working.

    But why have you changed the way decorators work? The 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 the new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return the variable with the one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
    And having multiple execution wires all going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don't see the advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have the "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 this at least until it's regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will this be? 4.8?).
    Originally posted by AGPStudios View Post
    Agreed. Most of the next patch seems good, but I have to second this. Obviously this broke my AI; having multiple exits seems logical.
    That was the only way to go to make BP-implemented BT decorators work as expected - not sure if you noticed, but it was very broken :P
    The fact that you have only one "return" node in BP functions is, like John Alcatraz said, a generic BP thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hello I'm unable to start my project at all 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:\BuildFarm\buildmachine_++depot+UE4-Releases+4.7\Engine\Source\Runtime\CoreUObject\Private\UObject\LinkerLoad.cpp] [Line: 3251]
    I also noticed the vehicle advanced sample doesn't run correctly right out of the box (others do)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Stephen Ellis View Post
    UPDATE!


    UE-8819 - Physics actors are failing to Simulate
    Testing this and it seems like it's only in-editor. When testing launching as standalone game it works fine!

    Thanks for the fine work! Really looking forward to the full release!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    So one really frustrating thing about Preview 5 is how close "Add Component" in the actor details is to being incredible, but misses the mark. Here is my list:

    - You can add new components to actors in scene (awesome)
    - You can't seem to add BP based components to actors using the drop down menu, you need to drag the BP into the tree from the content window, which works (not great)
    - Once you have created a BP from an actor in the scene, you can drag out this BP creating lots of instances (awesome)
    - Click on an instance and then a child in the component window, you immediately see that children are locked. They can't be moved, scaled or even deleted. We really need this. I don't want to go into the BP editor to do this... I want to do this in scene (not good)
    - You can add new components to these BP instances in the scene, if you really like that new modification, you can apply it to all instances (awesome)

    I guess my biggest issue is that once an actor becomes a BP instance, I want to retain the ability to modify an instance and make a specific change to it. If I really like that change, I can either:

    - Apply it to everything
    - Create a new BP asset just for that thing

    This allows the process of prefabing to be non-destructive. I would almost suggest that it be possible to convert the BP instance back to standalone actor instance in the level too.

    So close to being a prefab system!!!! Please fix these last pain points
    Last edited by TommyBear; 02-04-2015, 06:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I see Preview 5 has HTML5 in the binary release, how does one package that build?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by John Alcatraz View Post
    I see, now the "old" way to do it is just deprecated... Well, that's better. Before the decorators just stopped working.

    But why have you changed the way decorators work? The 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 the new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return the variable with the one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
    And having multiple execution wires all going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don't see the advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have the "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 this at least until it's regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will this be? 4.8?).

    Agreed. Most of the next patch seems good, but I have to second this. Obviously this broke my AI; having multiple exits seems logical.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Alexander Paschall View Post
    According to our bug reports, only one decorator issue has been resolved for 4.7: UE-7870 BP-implemented BT decorator issues with 4.6 to 4.7 upgrade The resolution had this note: "Added a transition API to mitigate fallout after a drastic change in BTDecorator_BlueprintBase's API"

    Is that what you are asking about? If not, I'll see what else I can find out.
    I see, now the "old" way to do it is just deprecated... Well, that's better. Before the decorators just stopped working.

    But why have you changed the way decorators work? The 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 the new function I am forced to create a local variable and set it to true/false and then return the variable with the one single return node. It looks a lot more ugly (unnecessary nodes are always ugly).
    And having multiple execution wires all going into one single return node is also ugly. So why have you changed it? I don't see the advantage to how it worked before. In Tasks you still have the "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 this at least until it's regularly possible to use multiple return nodes in blueprints (when will this be? 4.8?).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    looks like I can import some Upack files from the content browser, but i can't to find the way to export a selection of asset to create an Upack file by myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by caner_ozdemir View Post
    I guess 4.7 will be counted as first stable release of UE4 after all.
    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 feature for all 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by pedro_clericuzzi View Post
    Oh God, YES! My sedatives! Someone bring me my sedatives!
    I couldn't agree more!

    The Blueprint stability has made my hype rocket launch !

    I really HATE all the REINST TRANSIENT and recompile stuff X(

    Great news indeed :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I minor bug report with 4.7 p5 and the 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 the 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. The 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Stephen Ellis View Post
    Hi reefG, this may be the same as this 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 the latest version of iTunes?
    Hi Stephen,

    Yes, latest iTunes version, however, I'm running on a Mac Pro OSX10.10.2

    Hope that helps.
    Thanks

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X