Lack of UDK support.

I too am a little disheartened with the current state of UDK Rift support. I however am glad that it works. The only real issue i have with it at the moment is the fact that it relies on UberPostProcess. Main problem with this is that I dont want any DOF effects, and I cant' seem to fully disable them without having weird chunky artifacts on my scenery in the distance.

While I haven't tried this myself yet, for those of you having Scaleform or Canvas issues, try looking at rendering Scaleform or Canvas onto a RenderTarget or ScriptedTexture. From there you can use both Render Target and Scripted Textures within a Material which you can then put onto a Static Mesh Plane. From there, you can put the Plane in front of the users, make sure it is set to the Foreground Depth Priority Group (so that it renders above everything).

Since the Plane is technically world geometry (and assuming DPGs work correctly), it should distort correctly.

I'm pretty pissed. I only got the Rift because they promised UDK support and It looks like they have done the entire implementation in native script, inaccessible to developers. No matter what functions you comment out, the Rift hijacks the positioning and orientation of your camera. It's taken me longer to realize this is hopeless than it did to implement Hydra support from scratch. I might try to dissect something somebody has made on Unity for a OculusPlugin.dll and see if I can brute force that into UDK...

Don't waste your time BackFang.
(read my post as a reply to yours on "disabling tracking")
The rift doesn't Hijack Positioning though. Rotation yes, but pos. nope.

I wish Oculus gave us an update about what's been going on recently.
Did they found a UDK "master", I wonder...

@Blackfang, that might not be the biggest of your problems anyway. From an Indie UDK Developers group on Facebook this was posted today. I have to wonder that with broken Speedtree, Bink, etc., support and the host of other issues if we aren't going down a complete dead end:

Pawee Pakamekanonposted toIndie UDK Developers
We've found out recently that the game created with 2013 UDK (both Febuary and July) will not be able to launch via Desura/Steam browser (since they require uploading whole unpacked game folder). And mid-2012 UDK can't import packages created by Febuary 2013 UDK.

So, this is a serious issue. While the stand alone version of our game still run fine, we can't make it work with Desura/Steam browser.

I've upload a title to Desura in 2012, that one did not suffer this problem.

Anybody has overcome this problem?

What's awaiting our efforts? It seems that Epic has supplied Oculus UE4, but it's being reserved for the big players to get a jump on indies that could change the game industry just as mp3 and self publishing changed the music and publishing industries. The longer they keep the indies away, the greater the opportunity for the loyal big guys to make there giant scores in the market, while we are relegated to beta testers and market research for how VR will be accepted. The simple fact of the matter is that nothing (as far as devs can see) has been done on the UDK side for half a year now. If every effort is being made to support UE4, then those of us who want to develop on Unreal might be waiting another half year.

This is feeling futile. I hate the idea of abandoning all these months of work to start migrating to another engine. Today is unfolding as a low point in this relationship with UDK and Oculus.

Unity2k, I couldn't say it better.
My feelings exactly.
The big money player have all the cards. I expected Oculus to change the deal, I am a dreamer it seems.
Just looking at the Unity integration with Hydra for example...
Indies on Unity have a 5 month heads up now too...

Oculus understands how much we need this, and I don't think they would really make such a big mistake. Their business is built on our backs (and wallets), and that would be a low blow indeed.

I must admit that things aren't looking too good though, but I want to have faith!
According to artyom17 on this UE4 thread, development of the Oculus UDK has been handed over to Epic, and we all know what there agenda will most likely be...

@HappyHimitsu Thanks for pointing to this previously, unseen by me, thread. While I'd love for it to allay my worries, the fact is that tomorrow it will have been 1 month since the Oculus member wrote up his report and presumably submitted his efforts to Epic.

I download an updated build of Blender nearly everyday with code that has been submitted and reviewed on a global basis by a team that operates with a minuscule budget. I also work with MakeHuman that has zero budget but maintains updates getting out all the time. For me to believe that a company with the resources of Epic needs a month to review and compile a build speaks to my incredulity that everything possible is being done for us "indies." For anyone who has seen the Rift HD demo, we already know that Epic is busy perfecting UE4 to work with the Rift; in HD!!!

Let's face it, it makes sense that Oculus not bite the hand that will ultimately feed it a big portion of its profits. Delaying the frantic enthusiastic development of small teams that could sway the behemoth gaming market, though a strategy employed by countless failed businesses, it is the modus operandi of businesses that feel under threat by upcoming advancements. I too wished this time was something different, but I'm quickly losing hope.

Even if tomorrow the next UDK is released, history is showing us that there will be another HUGE gap in communication and the next build may not show much before December and possibly as far away as March 2014, or maybe 90ish days before the commercial release of the Rift. What if then we too find out that environments made with our particular version of UDK won't be accepted by Steam? (As noted above)

Guys, I really do not like my paranoid line of thinking that I have to abandon UDK for Unity due to whatever positioning or "problem" that exist around this issue. The continued period of near silence on this matter will only foment growing disillusion regarding UDK and Oculus.

From a company as small as Oculus, why is it that we've only heard from Nate once in the previous how many months regarding a LARGE part of their strategy? Comparatively I know tons about Carmack's move to the team and details of the new Texas office.

I'm able to read the sensor data in July 2013 UDK. Only problem is when I turn it left, the Yaw goes down to -90 degrees then starts going back up. When I turn right, up to 90 then back down. I'm not sure what I am missing yet. I'll post code when I get it all figured out.

"unity2k" wrote:
@HappyHimitsu Thanks for pointing to this previously, unseen by me, thread. While I'd love for it to allay my worries, the fact is that tomorrow it will have been 1 month since the Oculus member wrote up his report and presumably submitted his efforts to Epic.

I should have worded things better; Far from allaying any concerns, I was suggesting that Epic taking over the helm was actually the reason for concern. The little bit at the end of my post

"HappyHimitsu" wrote:
and we all know what there agenda will most likely be...

was in suggestion to the likely insidious agenda that we are at risk of Epic adhering to; as you too, have suggested.
After a second read, I can see why there was some confusion. Apologies.

@BlackFang, it really is too bad you didn't get your foot in the door when Nate made his comment back in July.
You sound like you could have the skill-set that they were looking and offering a position for.
It is definitely somewhat comforting to hear you say you are working on a solution.
Keep it up buddy, you might just be our hero one day. :D