Oculus-ready UDK Now Available!

"unity2k" wrote:
HappyHimitsu, I was/am offering the benefit of the doubt. In the past two days we've had more communication on the UDK front than in the previous two months, dare I say five?

To each their own but imo that ship set sail a month ago. I suppose I should bring focus to the fact that none of this communication started until I sent Oculus an email describing the growing concerns of UDK devs in regards to our aforementioned issues, alongside my somewhat speculative comment about the worrisome silence on this thread, upon which you had replied; and within hours we received not one, but two replies from Oculus all within the scope of an hour. There was a week long silence before that and nearly two weeks of the same prior to that again, and beyond that we have darkness.
The new-found communication that you are referential to was not offered up by Artyom and Cyber of their own volition without prompting, but was instead in reply to a growing dissidence that necessitates such niceties lest things get out of hand.
Again I wish to stress that I bear no ill-will towards either Cybereality or Artyom17, they both do their jobs quite well and are only doing what needs to be done under the directive and for the betterment of the company that they work for; and Oculus in turn is only securing it's own financial future by the same.

"unity2k" wrote:
I will again refer to that famous open-source project called Blender, if they can knock out a minimum of seven different builds a day for Mac, PC, Linux that incorporate the bug fixes and new functionality from coders dispersed around the globe, then I would hope that Epic could roll a Scaleform patch into UDK in the next 24 hours, I'll try to be patient for 72 to give them that benefit of the doubt I spoke of.

Agreed, 72 hours sounds reasonable to me. If BlackFang can knock out an almost fully functioning implementation for the Rift independent of a private build (which means all 3rd party tools intact) within a week, than the excuses for which we waited months that Oculus has continually given us fall flat. Given that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and the wait times that we usually incur once Oculus says 'no eta', I am a little dubious that we will see it within weeks or longer (in which case given BlackFang's success it's necessitation may be optional. :)).
Here is hoping friend, only time will tell. We may just need that yummy sauce after all. ;)

"unity2k" wrote:
Another thing HappyHimitsu that I'm well aware of, afraid of even, let's say this build materializes, will we again go dark for more months? Are we simply being pacified while the "big" players have already forgotten about UDK because they know the money is in UE4, and will any of us see it before next summer? The secrecy around UE4 is absurd, what do the Epic guys think, some 12 member team will learn all that it is and whip together a competing game engine in a few months that will steal Epic's competitive advantage? That Unity will duplicate all of their best efforts because their team is that much more effective?

The possibility is there, but so long as the next implementation is functional, it's ok for what I need to do and I would imagine it would suit the needs of the majority of the indie developers here as well.

"unity2k" wrote:
An entire new industry is about to be born, one I would hope will give mobile gaming a run for its money, but how do any of us play with that potential and start creating the collateral material to demonstrate what we are working towards in order to inspire and mentor those who will begin finding VR in the "hopefully" near future?

I can only hope the VR Gods will shine upon and influence us all. ;)

So i just wanna say I love the new build they released today for UDK :)

"artyom17" wrote:
https://developer.oculus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=4332

Bink works great.

Speedtree not so much. Two different machines, two different operating systems (Win7/8), two different cpu's (intel/amd), two different GPU's (amd/nvidia) and both of our results are the same; "Failed to Import."

I know you said the current version is still going through QA, if there is an error report hidden somewhere that we can offer in order for QA to resolve this, I'd be more than happy to help.

Edit: I have tried having the Speedtree files within the current build Content directory, will try a reinstall after removing my other UDK install.

Does it work in regular UDK from July 13?
Can you send us instructions (and necessary files) to reproduce the issue? If yes, send all this to 'support@oculus.com', and in subj specify: 'For artyom17, UDK speedtree repro'.

Yep, I have reproduced the issue and yes, it works in Epic's UDK from July 2013. Epic is already notified, I am starting digging the problem as we speak. Thanks for the report!

Ok, seems like, I found the issue why SpeedTree import doesn't work: one of the macro wasn't defined during the build. Epic guys are notified, so, probably, we will have RC2...

Artyom17, I'm seeing the change to player height for PIE works, but as soon as I go over to play in PC mode I lose my player height modification. The scale in simplepawn.uc has been removed, with that set in the March version the player height changed in all modes. Might you know how to change this in PC mode? I've already changed the BaseEyeHeight and EyeHeight attributes....this is how I changed height in PIE, just not PC.

"unity2k" wrote:
Artyom17, I'm seeing the change to player height for PIE works, but as soon as I go over to play in PC mode I lose my player height modification. The scale in simplepawn.uc has been removed, with that set in the March version the player height changed in all modes. Might you know how to change this in PC mode? I've already changed the BaseEyeHeight and EyeHeight attributes....this is how I changed height in PIE, just not PC.

Uhm... SimplePawn.uc wasn't changed between March and Sep UDKs....

To change EyeHeight we'd recommend to use Oculus.AddEyeHeight property. This is a delta value that is added to the default (base) eye height IN STEREO MODE ONLY. By default, it comes from the Oculus profile (calculated from the player height you specified in your profile using Binaries\OculusConfigUtil). However, you can override it by setting Oculus.bOverrideAddEyeHeight to true and by setting Oculus.AddEyeHeight into desired value. Both of these values have 'globalconfig' attribute and you can change them via modification of UDKEngine.ini file, [Engine.Oculus] section.

Other than that, I guess, Pawn.SetBaseEyeHeight() still should work as before (but it also uses Oculus.AddEyeHeight to modify the BaseEyeHeight). However, I have to admit, that we do not support PIE (yet?) and therefore something might be not the same as in PC mode.

Migrated ghostship over to the new build, all is fine except one major thing for my game.

The render to texture - scenecapture2dactor has a huge green border around a smaller texture. It is fine on monitor with single screen, but in stereo with oculus i get a huge green border.

I have tried changing size of scenecapture2dactor, making new material and render texture and a host of other things.

Any ideas what it could be?