Are we ever going to see a 4.6 Stable?

I feel like I'm going crazy over here. Why is the UI taking so insanely long? UE4 had theirs out in a matter of months and Unity is taking years. I thought we were supposed to get 4.6 this summer and here we are in winter. Can we get some idea of what the heck is going on? Maybe an explanation for the delays? I've no intentions of developing my game on beta builds, sorry. My current UI is temporary until I can implement 4.6 UI and the waiting really sucks.

 

well the source code is up and available now

 

Most of the fixes are pretty minor at this point. You could probably just grab the release candidate and start using it right now like a good number of us already have.

 

I'm talking about a Stable 4.6 build. Reading the 4.6 beta forums doesn't give me much hope for that right now. What's even worse is I'm reading simple stuff like dropdown list element isn't even going to be available on release, which just blows my mind. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

 

I've been using the UI since beta 7, and it was pretty stable from beta 21 onwards.
I do agree we need a comboBox, but as the source is available we can do it ourselves, and I'm pretty sure that someone already did it, just search the forums for it.

 

If you can't implement something yourself, how do you make a game?

 

can you implement PhysX, FMOD, DirectX, OpenGL, ...??? and yet you still make games [ right ?]?

 

You may be waiting for a while then if this isn't sufficient for you. Unless you feel like putting your game on hold till future releases are put out, you may as well grab a third party solution. Last I knew Daikon Forge was open source.

 

I'm assuming this has already been answered, but...

Can I use uGUI in place of OnGUI for custom Inspectors, and Properties?

 

Alright. I'm not going to deal with the attitude. Just my thoughts are if you are complaining about a minuscule element, why couldn't you work around it and use a different design that doesn't involve a dropdown?

 

No, it's an entirely different system where elements exist in the scene as GameObjects, using a canvas. OnGUI is entirely code-driven and does not use GameObjects.

--Eric

 

I'm using CoherentUI and have used NGUI. I would prefer to stop relying on so many 3rd party solutions, which is why I've been waiting for 4.6 UI solution (Unitys dependency on 3rd party Assets for CORE engine functionality seriously troubles me). At this time my game is in the final polish stage and would like to redo my UI with 4.6 UI. A combobox 3rd party solution has been provided and will use it if I have to, but I still want a Stable build. I am not comfortable using a Beta/RC release when I am on the final stage of my games development before release.

 

@Krileon I would probably continue to use a 3rd party GUI solution if you have it available since it is tested to work and is stable.

No offense to the Unity team for uGUI. I'm extremely grateful, but realistically developers shouldn't expect uGUI to be completely bug-free during release and it will likely have limited functionality compared to solutions that are currently available... at least for the next several months after release.

@Eric5h5 Darn it. I was really, really hoping to use uGUI for that kind of purpose... =/

 

I've been using 4.6 since it came out to B17, and would be happy to release any game with it. I have no troubles with it. I barely have troubles with U5 either.

 

It's not stable. That's part of the problem. CoherentUI works, but passing data between the game and UI is just causing too many bugs and lock ups. I hated configuring and using NGUI, but haven't tried it recently to see if it has gotten any better. So my hope has been to hold out for 4.6 UI.

I don't expect it to be completely bug free, but I expect basic functionality to work and I expect basic inputs to be available. A simple menu system, game options menu, and skill hotbar shouldn't be difficult for 4.6 to tackle and if it is I am at a loss for words. It's frustrating that it's taking this long to begin with and makes me question where Unity is putting their time and resources.

I don't want to use a Beta/RC release and pray that my 3rd party assets are compatible. I am just not comfortable with that. I am waiting for Stable, will wait a month for assets to get up to date, then go from there. The waiting is just taking 3x longer than I expected.

 

I personally haven't had any issues with NGUI so far.

 

That's your decision; other people have released games with 4.6. It's available now, you can use it now. Honestly the label at the end doesn't matter much, at least once it gets past beta. It's not like the "final" releases of any previous version have been 100% bug-free. 4.6 will get patches too, even after the last RC release.

--Eric

 

4.6 release candidate 3 can do everything you need(albeit the dropdown box). It's stable and extremely well-driven.

 

Are asset developers able to upload 4.6 compatible versions to the store now though? My concern is asset updates won't be available yet due to 4.6 not hitting an official stable release.

 

Apparently you're also not comfortable actually trying 4.6 yourself or you would know for certain. I don't see why you cannot download 4.6, make a copy of your project folder, and import that copy into it and see if it runs.

 

They already have 5 assets on the store(I believe), so yes, they are.

 

Ok, thank you. In that case will clone my project and give it a shot.

 

A question about the 4.6RC3 release?, this can export (publish) to WebGL or only Unity 5 can?

 

RCs are supposed to by stable or they wouldn't be RCs. 4.6 RCs still have a memory leak in the editor but of course I haven't looked for the source(s) of the leak.

Once they get the GUI stable they need to release and get 5 working. I think the GUI is stable & the features set on. One can restart the editor periodically as the leak starts breaking things. If they find the leak they can fix it later.

 

Welp, everything appears to be working fine still. Will start making my new UI with 4.6 UI. Thanks for answering all my questions and the vote of confidence.

 

Only Unity 5.

--Eric

 

Thanks.

 

I have a few open UI bugs logged in Unity's issue tracker that range from "I guess I can work around this" to "I need to wait for Unity to fix this before I can continue." I like the UI system, but it's definitely going to need some work after release. I hope UI will continue to be a major focus during the 5 beta process.

 

4.6 is already very stable; people have already shipped games and made Asset Store packages for it.

 

I need to change release for a stable UI. The 3rd party assets are either unstable or unfriendly to use. UI being a very vital aspect of any game I see it as a worthy risk otherwise I would not be upgrading. I'm not upgrading to Unity 5 either for this project, it's staying a 4.x build.

 

If you haven't noticed UE4 interface is very different from Unity's and therefore the whole workflow and process is different.

Unity aims to make development as easy as possible, but powerful at the same time. UE4 is powerful itself but aims at AAA or professionals/veterans.

 

Eh, not really. Have you used UMG? Even in its early state it's just as usable as Unity 4.6 UI. Not really a valid excuse for Unity UI taking so long to develop. Regardless Unity has done a good job with the UI in 4.6 and am pretty pleased with it thus far.

 

Nobody knows Unity Technologies' workflow so we can't judge them by their slowness. Remember it took years for Epic Games to make Unreal Engine 4 from scratch so I assume it has something to do with their code structure.

 

They made it with the Unreal Engine core code base and built on that.

They are different tools so yeah different workflows...

Some of the tools/Assets on the Unity asset store emulate Unreal workflows.

Shader forge - Visual Shader editor
UScript - Visual Scripting Tool
etc.

Is that why they are making it 20 dollars a month + 5% Gross (Not to be confused with NET) royalties with a very low royalty.

 

Some tools resemble on Unreal Engine's. Except for Mecanim and upcoming UI (the way you assign actions are different).

5% royalties are quite big if you're making lots of money. Sure you can have different license for UE, but it still would be costly choice.

 

Steam's ~30% profit cut is pretty big too yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Like Steam, UE4 brings a lot of options for that mere 5%. Biggest being that they get their features out quickly. You aren't stuck waiting years on a promise that you've just about concluded will never happen.

What are the chances we'd even be getting a UI with 4.6 if Unity hadn't flat out promised everyone that it would be part of 4.x? Pretty slim I would imagine.

People complain about royalties. But if those royalties guaranteed the features they need right now, I wonder how many would jump at the chance.

 

Steam is a market with a very large audience, most of which are potential customers. 30% is quite fair.

Now I am not saying that 5% is unfair to developers. I am saying it's too big and personally I don't like this money sharing business. I would try to contact Epic and ask them for a different license without royalties, but I don't think it will turn out cheap (obviously).

Like I said before, it's all about their workflow and management. And unfortunately, Unity is very slow when it comes to feature upgrades such as Input Manager with missing features and Terrain which is very limited and 'expensive'.

My guess is that Unity is depending on Asset Store users. Someone will release an upgrade of one of their features and sell them. Examples are NGUI and Shader Forge.

 

Which may or may not be a good solution. You'll be stuck depending on third parties and, if Unity releases their own solution later, may be stuck with it dying suddenly. We were fortunate that Daikon Forge was released as open source. The author could have simply stopped everything.

It may seem like ranting at this point, but I do very much know where the OP is coming from. If Unity is going to constantly bring up a discussion around a specific feature, they should really try to deliver it within a reasonable time frame. How many years ago did they start discussing it?