Using 2.1 Plugin. Unity version recommended
AnsweredHey guys,
I have to deliver a project on February. I enjoy using Unity 2017 for some reasons but since I get some bugs with Fove Plugin (like Matrix valid) I want to know what version of Unity do you recommend. I'm using now the new release of your plugin (2.1). Should I go back to Unity 5.4.5f to all be more stable?
Thanks
David
-
Official comment
Hi David,
We have a fix in the works for the crashing you saw! We're planning on releasing a bugfix version of the plugin later today (if QA passes it). It'll be version 2.1.1, and it comes alongside a bugfix release of the runtime as well (0.13.2).The new plugin fixes the crash you're seeing, and also should fix the FOVE Settings creation error, a bug that was causing async timewarp to go bad, and a bug in the gaze rays that was causing them to not come from where the headset is in space. So hopefully that will cover all your issues?
Cheers,
-- ScottComment actions -
Hello,
We support and test on all current versions of Unity between 5.4 and 2017.2. If you're getting the MatrixValid error using FoveInterface2, we recommend using FoveInterface instead. It's less optimized, but doesn't clash with Unity's internal shadow rendering system. (As far as we can tell, that's what causes the valid matrix assertion error to appear.) You can also check "Suppress Projection Updates" which may help with the matrix assertion.
I'm aware of a one-time bug with the FOVE Settings class when initially creating the settings asset, however I've not seen it repetitively before. Can you show me the more detailed view of that selected error?
Cheers,
-- Scott -
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the answer. I was using Unity 2017.1 and FoveInterface2 when I updated to 2.1 plugin. Although MatrixValid error was solved, I had 2 other bugs I did not report here and Unity was crashing constantly after 2-3 minutes. So after trying a few things I came back to 2.0 plugin.
But I will make a backup of the project and I'll try again to send you the bugs I was getting.
Thanks again,
David
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments