Official The Future of Unity Feedback

Cool. But I had specified my problem was not with Unity packages but with asset store packages. The Unity packages tell me when they need to be updated. They also show up in the "In project" tab of the Package Manager. But it doesn't work like this for the packages I've imported from the asset store. For some reason they're not considered to be "in" my project.

 

Did you install them through the package manager or tha Asset Store? If you took them on the Asset Store, there's a big chance that the package manager just ignore them until you reinstall them through the package manager.

 

Please add double fog layer in Volumetric fog.

 

That's for the Post Processing package not for Unity itself.

 

Unity doesn't support EXIF tag for JPEG images. If you make a photo with your phone, then go to Edit (with any default app) and rotate it 90 degrees, then open it with Unity (load a Texture via code), you'll get wrong image orientation because Unity ignores EXIF tag. At the same time all 3rd party gallery apps and image editors will handle this and display the image correctly (if they were not made with Unity). Here is the bug I've reported: https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...eated-via-code-and-textures-wider-than-4096px

 

Where is the attached zip?

Anyway, what about rotating the sprite directly at runtime?

 

It was attached to the bug. But I can upload it one more time https://yadi.sk/d/-xgh3vpvogJzgA
To rotate a sprite you need to know if JPEG tag exists. There is no way to know it with Unity.

"HighResBad.jpg has orientation EXIF tag - originally it was horz image and it was rotated with EXIF (if i understand correctly the second one was "manually" rotated in photoshop). Editor handles it, but runtime jpeg loading ignores EXIF tags completely so it load original horz image.

there are no plans to add EXIF handling at runtime"

 

No, you just need to rotate the sprite. Or I really don't understand what you mean.

 

What is wrong with that?
Using node structure as reference point, then further edit manually, if node impose restriction, or simply lack required functionality.

Useful already with shader graph for example.

 

Nothing except that switching from nodes to code will not be possible, you'll have to rewrite the scripts entirely.

 

Why is that? What I am missing? We are talking about Unity not UE blueprint, or what else?

 

It doesn't seem like this thread gets any meaningful attention from Unity staff, and much of the content here is now very off-topic to the general method of providing feedback for Unity. So, this post may be in vain, but I believe this is the most appropriate place to mention this.

The new system of submitting feedback provides no acknowledgement to the submitter. This seems to doom the system. I've created a handful of posts using the "Feedback" flag. I've never received an official Unity response to these posts. Without acknowledgement, I don't know whether someone from Unity has seen my request. Therefore, I don't know whether I should post it again in the future, hoping for a response, or if I should assume Unity has a completely opaque process for reviewing Feedback posts. Over time, my desire to post Feedback has greatly diminished, as I don't see any value to it. Are there any examples of an official Unity reply on Feedback posts, stating something to the effect, "Thanks for the idea, we'll be adding this in 2019.x!", or something like that?

The new system also commingles requests for aid from other forum visitors (the typical forum post) with requests for changes to Unity itself. These generally aren't the same kinds of content. Often Feedback posts are straightforward requests, and they don't generate a lot of discussion. In those cases, the posts will fall off the first couple of pages of posts, and probably never resurface. So not only do Feedback posts kind of get in the way of normal user support requests, they just kind of die on arrival, and fall off the forums.

Maybe the old system was an overwhelming amount of work for Unity to manage. But the new system doesn't give me any real confidence.

 

Feedback:

Please add Editor Level Copy & Paste Commands to the AnimationCurve.

The AnimationCurve is very handy for key-framing things that change over time, and they're also useful for quickly changing the ease on something without have to redo the code. Yet, sometimes the first script we create doesn't work out as well as we hoped, and it would be nice to be able to copy and paste an entire AnimationCurve into the next script's AnimationCurve attribute instance. As it stands, we either need to recreate the entire curve manually (if it's not one of the default curves), or we need to write our own script for copying the curves over.

 

You can add your curve to the set of default curves, by clicking the "Add" button in the default curve dropdown.. That's how I "copy-paste" them.

But, yeah, it'd be lovely if I could select keyframes in any curve, ctrl+c, and then ctrl+v anywhere else that has curves.

 

Add a feature to set resolution limits for Sprite Atlas textures. e.g. if I would want NPOT texture atlases that have height and width div 4. That is because newer texture compression formats are not so limiting.

 

general feedback is more natural for forums, but I am more concerned with feature requests or specific suggestions, the original website is quite good at reflecting users direct concerts and could be voted and notified. some of the feature request or feedback is very obvious and need no discussion where it's often get distracted in forums.

Is Unity just want bug report, but no requests or serious, professional suggestions?

 

The project I'm working on, has 36 unique AnimationCurves. I'm expecting that number to double a few days from now. While it is nice to know that I can add more curves to the set of default curves; that might get a bit messy on my current project. Anyways, I had posted that piece of feedback when I was finished copying the 18 AnimationCurves I previous had, over to a new data-format.

 

Feedback (Unity Hub):

One of the issues I have with Unity Hub is that it doesn't allow you to select the exact location in which you will install Unity. Before you say that it does allow this; I'm going to say that it does not. What Unity Hub does allow, is for you to select a location for you to install all versions of Unity. How is this different? Well, what if I want to install Unity 2019.2.10f1 at "C:/Programs/Unity/Unity_2019_2/"? That way, when Unity 2019.2.11f1 comes out, I can just replace Unity 2019.2.10f1. Unity Hub doesn't let us do that, but the Unity Editor Download Assistants (that are being phased out) do let us do that.

With Unity Hub, I can tell it to place all Unity installations at "C:/Programs/Unity/", and for each installation of Unity, it will create a new directory. Here's the thing, I don't need 11 different installations of Unity 2019.2, I just need the latest installation of Unity 2019.2 and maybe one or two specific installations of 2019.2 that are part of a group projects with multiple developers. I have a folder where I keep the latest release of Unity 2017.4, and I also have a folder where I keep the latest release of Unity 2018.4. The only reason I use Unity Hub, is because we don't have a Unity Editor Download Assistant for Unity 2019.2.

As nice as it is to keep track off all my projects and their related version of Unity in one location, I avoid using Unity Hub as much as possible when it comes to installing Unity, because it doesn't let me select the exact location where I'm going to have my Unity installations. Hell, Unity Hub can't even tell when you've replaced (or updated) an older version of Unity with a newer version.

 

Feedback:

A Unity UI package that doesn't contain the Unity UI system? Really? I'm not against moving the Unity UI components into their own package, but that's not what I saw. I'm still able to do almost everything that I could before, without having to install the Unity UI package. The issue I have, is that the only reason I had to install the package, was so that I could set the 9-cell grid split for how a button was going to get stretched. What's the point of the Unity UI package if the only thing it holds are some of the Editor Components of the Unity UI system. What we have here is Unity.UI.Editor (partial) package. This makes no since to me. You are telling me that I would need to install some of the Editor components for the Unity UI system on a project by project basis, while the actual Unity UI system is automatically part of all Unity Projects. What was the point of that?

 

This is why you can deinstall them and keep only the version you need.

 

Feedback:

Add Object context field to AssertionException and all Assert overloads, please. It would be great if AssertionException supported context to act as Debug.Log with context. So, context Object could be selected in Hierarchy or Project navigator when user selects the log message.

 

I do uninstall them, but part of the issue I have is that I'm always required to personally uninstall them. Every time I run the latest version of Unity Editor Download Assistant for Unity 2018.4, it will uninstall the previous version for me when I place it in the location where I keep the latest version of Unity 2018.4. Unity Hub, won't let me select the exact location where I want the latest version of Unity 2019.2, and because of this, a new install location gets created each time I update to the latest version Unity 2019.2. I don't need a new install location for the latest version of Unity 2019.2. I already have an install location for where I want the latest version of Unity 2019.2, but Unity Hub ignores this and just creates a new install location for latest version of Unity 2019.2.

 

The old installers deinstalled the previous version and installed the new one in its place but having installs that are clearly identitiable is neater and it makes using several versions a lot easier.

You'll get used to it.

 

I'm work in office (daytime) with Unity Pro license while at home(night) with Personal license.
I realize that working with dark mode is more productive to me. However it is only come with Pro license.

Pay a pro license for personal work at home is not my problem, work less productive at home also, and I even know how to mod the exe file to enable this mode, also don't even case, I'm mainly making money in the daytime. However, the question is come up to my mind, "if dark mode give more productivity, and while it only come with pro license, why Unity team don't want the indie/startup/student or anyone without pro license work more productive on Unity Engine?"
(It's the marketing question, not the technical question in my opinion)

 

I'm trying to transition from GameMaker 2 to Unity. After a brief Google search it appears that a Dark Mode is inaccessible unless you have paid for Unity. I doubt this is buying anyone over... Allowing a dark mode in the free version would get more people using Unity casually and generate more potential customers. People paying for Unity are doing it for other reasons than the dark mode.

 

@backchocobo it is marketing question. Nothing to do with increased productivity, which is in addition behind paywall.

 

I think unity should add a spline tool that interact with terrain to create roads and roadside objects,like in UE4 .Most of the game makers choose unreal because of the lack of this tool in unity.it make level designing so hard in unity even it is a simple arcade style racing game though

 

Prove it.

 

Unreal is used less overall.
When there is bigger developer team and target consoles and switch, then Unreal is used more.

 

Unity itself proved it by making everything better except its terrain and level designing tools.Even though unity has a team working on terrain they only developed a few features(reasonably good).unity 2019 doesn't feature any big change in terrain.not only terrain but also tree generator

 

@Ajasmm02 however, do we focus only on Unity terrain tools in this discussion, as if only tools exists, or we consider whole Unity with tons of utilities, to allow us create games (50% of mobile market), as example?

 

as terrain is an important part of modern open world games they have to improve it.even newer game engines have much more features on their terrain.As i said every thing is better in unity except it's terrain.

 

I am not claiming that terrain is good, or bad.
Yet, many games manages it well. Check out Kerbal Space program as an instance.
One feature won't make people choose one engine over other.

 

Feedback:

Any chance we can get a confirmation popup before the Editor starts a build if we hit Ctrl+B when the Editor is in Play Mode.

The other day, I was making fine adjustments to the values in some ScriptableObjects holding animation values. Basically, I would play things in slow-motion, pause when something wasn't quite right, adjust the item that wasn't correct, and then record that value in it's ScriptableObject, improving the animation. So, there was a lot of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V going on, and after 7 hours of this, it became increasingly easy to throw in a Ctrl+B, which may take a minute or two to recover from because you end up having to wait for the build process to reach the point where you're allowed to cancel and if the Hierarchy Window was locked to a GameObject (in order to make your life easier), that lock gets undone because of how the Editor clears out the active scene during a build. It's mostly just a bunch of little stuff here and there that gets messed up, but all that little stuff tends to add up as you get tired and are going through a bit of crunch time.

I get why a developer would want to the build to start as soon as the developer hits Ctrl+B. I wouldn't want to be required to click on a confirmation dialog each time I intentionally hit Ctrl+B. Yet, hitting Ctrl+B while in Play Mode is a bit unusual, and may be worthy of a Confirmation Dialog Window.

 

The old installers would only uninstalled the previous version, if you install it in the same location.

I could already create clearly identifiable installations with the Unity Editor Download Assistant. What I'm asking for, would also be able to create clearly identifiable installations of the Unity Editor. When I work on group projects involving Unity, it's important to make sure everyone is using the same version of Unity, and for those projects, I do create clearly identifiable installations. I would be ok with Unity Hubs current installation behavior as it is, if it were the default option. Yet, it's not the default option; it's the only option. If I had to go through an extra step to specify the exact location of an installation of Unity, I'd be more than willing to do that.

I know that I would be more than willing to do that, because what I'm doing right now is more than that. As I've most likely mentioned before, replacing the Unity Editor Download Assistant with Unity Hub, has increased the amount of effort, it takes for me to install the 2019 versions of Unity.

 

Animation plays too slow. I can't animate if it plays too slow

 

You need post more details about your project setup.

 

I need to test that.

 

As I mentioned at the start of my rant. I keep the latest version of Unity 2017.4 installed in "C:\Programs\Unity\Unity_2017_4", and I also keep the latest version of Unity 2018.4 installed in "C:\Programs\Unity\Unity_2018_4". The Unity Editor Download Assistant(s) didn't specify those locations; I did. If I ever have a project that specifically requires Unity 2017.4.32f1, I would most likely install it under "C:\Programs\Unity\Unity_2017_4_32". I don't really care about the "f1" because I haven't seen a release where there's more than one version of whatever comes before that 'f'. I've been running multiple versions of Unity on the same machine since Unity 5.

 

Feedback (this form):

So, I see a "Like" button and a "Reply" button on the bottom of peoples posts, but I don't see an "Agree" button. I was just going over previous posts and it occurred to me that you can completely agree with what a person is writing without liking any of it. When someone writes about a bug in Unity, clicking on a "Like" button almost feels like you like the bug itself. Maybe it's just me, but liking a bug just feels weird. If someone writes about a really horrible bug, you should be disliking the existence of said bug. Ars Technica's form system has a popup where you can elaborate when you click on their "Like" button. It has options like, "Adds to the Story", "Funny", and "Agree".

 

I need a dark theme available in preferences for unity FREE version. You force many ppl to use x64 DEBUG to change the skin index. Yes it's illegal, but many ppl has eye-issues when working long time on their projects. Please don't do this for ppl. Who invented this stupid lights theme? Why don't you make it professional exclusive instaed of the dark one? The answer is simple. Ppl need the dark one more. Why? cuz white one is painful! Simple as that!

 

it was mentioned that new UI would allow you to edit colors to make your own,
and then this was said also:

https://twitter.com/RichyHBM/status/1184881152915582977

 

Turn the lights on in the room. First step to well being and health and safety.
Make sure, room is at proper brightness, so you don't strain eyes when looking at screen, then look at bright wall, or outside the window during the daylight. The problem is self created, when sitting in dark room.

 

and windows 10 has NightLight-feature built in, i pretty much have it enabled all day.

 

Thank you guys for the good news and your piece of advice. We will wait BUT keep demanding ARRR!!. I hope they finally make it available. Concerning lights on the background - i do that, but when working really long - i feel my eyesight is getting worse and worse. And i dunno what to do about it - it's my passion what i do. And you know what? When standing on platform in subways, i can't even see a damn wall in front of it in details. Isn't that a freakin' shame? This is why i can't agree that the problem is self created. I don't think dark themes should be some kind of privilege for those who payed money. When ppl pay for pro version - they don't pay only for dark theme am I wrong?

 

I won't get involved in the Dark vs. Light theme debate, but... it sounds like you should probably go to an eye doctor and see if you need corrective lenses. I got glasses a few years back, a pretty mild prescription (-1.5 in both eyes), but the visual difference was incredible. Everything went from "this is fine" to "Whoa...I can see the lines on the leaves of that tree 100 feet away..."

 

@koslovdenis you should consult your eye specialists for advise, as your issue lies somewhere different. Taking regular brakes during work day by looking something at distance, is one of multiple requirements at work, to keep eyes healthy.

 

Idk going from all of my IDE being black or some kind of darker tones to unity being so bright is extremely ridiculous and does indeed cause strain on your eyes no matter your environment, Your switching from two very Different environments fast during work. Im in a 15x15ft room illuminated by 6500k Lights at 6k lumens, Its pretty much a lab in here, Unity still hurts my eyes because of the inconsistency with my ide. Sure i could change the ide to a lighter theme but that would then induce more strain on my eyes since im looking at that screen way longer than i am any other windows since most of my time is spent coding. The obvious solution is to give the user control over the interface colors entirely.

I also use corrective lenses and tints during extended sessions, Even my eye doctor says that i shouldn't be looking at bright images or text for too long after my last checkup.

Just an example but this forum actually gives me migraines from its color choices.

 

You already do that, when look at dark IDE and then at wall in a room, or at the window, during a day light, which is bright.
Unity IDE is not bright, is grey, which is more neutral color.