Well, mine told me today, that i have to update to the newest version of the asset store tools and then try again (had to restart Unity as well). Maybe that fixes your problem.
We’ve uploaded a new Art Pack yesterday. It went through and is pending approval… but usually it doesn’t take long and it is ready by next day… so I’m not sure if its delay has something to do with some errors on the manager?
I have actually had a package pending for the last week and a half (it was submitted 1/7/2011). And then yesterday, it’s status mysteriously updated to “Error”, yet I received no email as to what was wrong with it, if anything. My package submission also happend about the same time as the Asset Store issues last weekend. So I am thinking the issue is with actually submitting the package, and nothing with the package contents. Here is a screenshot from the publisher admin site:
So, I have since resubmitted my asset to the asset store. None of my previous packages have taken this long, or had any problems like this at all. So needless to say, I am getting VERY anxious about getting this thing released!
Hopefully if there are technical issues on their end, it’ll be resolved soon.
They must have just released a new version, because I just checked last night and it was at 2.11. And today it is at 2.12.
Could someone at Unity please respond ASAP and let me know if I need to resubmit my package a 3rd time in order to avoid any issues? I would like to avoid any further issues and get my package on the store as quickly as possible.
Well… our submission went through… but was rejected. Its not the first time that it happens. And it always does because of a shader that is not connected. It is very, very frustrating to spend all night putting an Asset together in Unity, having it display correctly in our monitor, and when uploaded, it turns out that something got disconnected. With this asset pack, we didn’t do any tweaking within Unity… everything was straight from our 3D package and was looking fine. I’m sure something is wrong with how Unity internally does this connections. How is it possible that I see everything working fine, but when sent as a package it turns out to display in another way? Very, very frustrating…
Yeah, that sucks. When an asset that you upload gets rejected because of an asset content issue, what does it show as it’s status on the admin page? Does it list “Error” like mine did? Or does it list “Rejected”? Also, do you immediately get an email as to why it was rejected?
I have yet to receive any email explaining what happened. Thanks in advance for any insight!
Yeah… it lists “Declined”, and yes, I do get an email explaining the reasons (at least that). Such a waste of time and unnecessary anxiety. But what really frustrates me, is that from a Developer’s point of view, everything seems correct in the viewport and inspector! So how can we know if something is not properly connected like a shader? Unity should provide some tools for checking this sort of things. At the end of the day… they do get that 30% commission…
Yeah, I can definately understand that frustration. Typically what I do in these cases is I create a Unity Package file from my asset manually, create a new project, and import my asset (both on PC and Mac). If that checks out, then I go for it. However, I could still see a point of error, because when you submit it to Unity, it creates another Unity Package on it’s own. It would be nice if there was a step before sending the package.
It could create the Unity Package, and save it. Let you do your own testing on it, and then you could submit that exact version of the package. It is just too easy to make inadvertent changes to a project structure and then submit that.
Regardless though, your response seems to confirm my suspicion…that there was some issue with actually submitting the package and not with the package contents. Now it would be great if I could only just get someone from Unity to either reply to me on here, or reply to the emails I have sent. :-/
That sounds like a good workaround. But still, I think WE developers should put some pressure on getting some proper Submission Tools, such as a way of checking this sort of errors.
I hope you do get your emails answered quickly. Believe me, I know the frustration of working very hard on something, and then either getting it rejected or ignored
I ran into an issue recently with my cave asset package.
I re-named the materials for my models within Unity. I have a specific naming convention I like to use for all of my projects. The material names in the FBX file were always “Object Name+Material Name” so I renamed them to what I wanted in Unity after I imported them.
I did my renaming and submitted the package. Declined.
The models were showing up without textures. Hmmm, looks fine on my side.
Then I re-imported a model. Bam, it reverts back to the original name before I renamed it in Unity.
So, if you import a model, don’t change the material name in Unity. Anyone who re-imports the model (like the Asset store folks) will have the material name revert back. When the material name reverts back, it won’t have any texture connections because you made the texture connections on the re-named material, not the original material.
In the future, I plan to re-import all of my models in my projects as a way to check for any broken materials. I don’t think it will be an issue in the future now that I know the problem exists.
This might affect shaders or other assets that have their names changed within Unity.
P.S. - Blender has a bug with images not being deleted. The image datablock will remain in the scene file even if you disconnect the image. The FBX exporter that comes with Blender will append some of these stranded image file names onto your material name when you export your FBX. This makes the exported material name “object name+material name+image name”. The only way to fix it within Blender is to export the model in another format, such as .3DS, and import the model into a clean new file. Another alternative may be to use the Autodesk FBX converter to change the material name (I personally wouldn’t use this).
