When will you release 2018?

12 beta releases?!?!?!

I mean come on. Release this build already!

 

https://forum.unity.com/threads/fee...ing-about-2018-3-in-its-current-state.586585/

 

If you think it’s ready for release, why don’t you just... use the beta?

 

While I'm all for polished releases, I want to point out that there can be various reasons for people wanting to see official releases besides just seeing nice label on the build.

For one, many of the 3rd party asset providers refuse to support any kind of beta versions of the Unity and it even happens more often when the asset itself has closed source (making it impossible for people to use those on betas and previews).

 

I think this release may be taking longer than expected because they need to implement improved prefab feature and that Really changes the core of the engine. So it is ok they are taking longer

 

Beta? 2018 has been out of beta for some time: https://store.unity.com/download?ref=personal

 

IMO you should be less reliant on the Asset Store. The more things out of your control that can break your project the worse it is for long term development and Unity itself already has a lot of things out of your control.

 

That really depends on the nature and the size of the project. If you need some custom rendering related solution, like virtual texturing, it's not a feat that is feasible to dev in-house for most devs here, not to talk about the dev costs of doing such from scratch. If you need some PP effect out of stock Unity's offerings, would you always implement it yourself from whitepapers? If you need faster editor workflows and you can buy an asset that lets you build your things noticeably faster, would you still bypass the opportunity?

What I'm saying, even if you don't rely on asset store yourself, there are tons of valid use cases for it. You have to pick your battles of course. For example using some ready made trivial things is just equivalent on shooting yourself on the foot as you'd spend more time fixing/changing/fighting the design than implementing the thing you need the way you want in the first place.

I only use assets that would take me several months to implement myself or are things I don't care to learn to do myself. I've personally already spend a small lifetime on doing custom implementations on specific systems that simply don't have good enough 3rd party offerings for, I don't need to do that for all things since my projects would then never finish.

 

I would weigh the benefit vs how screwed I would be if the asset stopped being supported for one reason or another.

 

I'd rather have one stable build than a dozen patch builds that will follow.

So, let it bake.

It's their job to support anything that you run on, whether it's beta or not.
If they don't want to do it - stop supporting them, and transition to something else.
Otherwise you might get dumped in the end.

Just make sure authors actually know about the issue. Because issues will not get fixed, if they're not reported correctly.
I can assure that most of the adequate authors will gladly fix it for you.

 

I have no doubt most asset authors would fix any issues, but once Unity 2018.3 comes out of beta, it would make its features standard rather than experimental and make even those who ignore or postpone these changes to update their assets to comply.
As of right now, downloading just about any asset means:

• disabling obsolete warnings for terrain splats
• disabling obsolete warnings for saving new prefab assets
• disabling never assigned warnings for [SerializeField]

– and having to do the same all over once an update comes along.

It feels like sitting on a wiggly chair. I really enjoy some of the new features – like nested prefabs and C# 7.0; so I don't want to revert to an older version – but it's not generally supported yet. If I encountered an actual error, I would report it to the asset creator, but these problems are more of a nuisance than anything else, and will no doubt be eventually resolved anyway once they become more apparent.

Interestingly enough, I got most of the actual issues with Allegorithmic's substance materials plugin – and they're quite a big company. Yet substance materials don't work in the beta (clicking on any crashes the Editor with a runtime error) and they don't want to fix these errors until a 'stable' / 'final' version is released.
That's two months during which the sbsar folder is sitting in my project folder root, waiting to be put back in Assets.

But I understand 2018.2 → 2018.3 is a big step to make and from all the threads in the beta forum, people are still having pretty serious issues.
In the previous month alone, I encountered a (purportedly fixed in 2019.1) bug which makes the Editor crash after editing a rigged character model in a nested prefab – which isn't that uncommon thing to do – and for a while, it wasn't possible to remap materials. If those somewhat simple things can bring down the Editor, then I wonder what other problems are still left to be discovered.

I'm not reverting back to a previous version, so personally, I'd like the Editor to come out of beta because nothing changes for me and it would put some of the more blatant issues under a spotlight, but it probably wouldn't be fair to the people who rely on using a reliable, stable version.

So, yeah. Let it bake.

 

Do not complain about launch dates. These forums are specifically for product feedback not launch date or complaints. I'd hate to have to use reply bans etc.

Also if people aren't serious about beta - do not post. Babble is not welcome. Shaping future product and feedback and bug reports are. That's all.

It's only for people strongly interested in adult feedback.

(this reply targeted at no-one in particular, it's just setting a precedent - things need to be following the rules much closer outside of general discussion).