GetC4DVersion confusion
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 20/07/2010 at 10:14, xxxxxxxx wrote:
User Information:
Cinema 4D Version: 11.5
Platform: Windows ; Mac ; Mac OSX ;
Language(s) : C++ ;---------
Hi,the docs say that GetC4DVersion will return a 4 digits encoded version number. However, in 11.532 it returns a 5 digits number (11532). When did this change exactly? If somebody uses a four digit check for serial generation for example and doesn´t know that this changed then this can become quite serious as checking for < 1100 for example will never be true which should especially affect license server serialisation. Could you tell me with which version this changed?
Thank you
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 20/07/2010 at 11:02, xxxxxxxx wrote:
I get all numbers checking from 10.503 and up (have no earlier installed)
The COFFEE doc says nothing about 4 digits, only that the return is integer.Cheers
Lennart -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 20/07/2010 at 11:12, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Originally posted by xxxxxxxx
Could you tell me with which version this changed?
I will check when this has changed.
cheers,
Matthias -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 20/07/2010 at 18:32, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Howdy,
I noticed that it changed with R10, and I used a line like this:
if(GetC4DVersion() > 9999)... to check for R10 compatibility.
Adios,
Cactus Dan -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 20/07/2010 at 23:51, xxxxxxxx wrote:
As Cactus said it changed with Cinema 4D R10. The returned value is a number that increases with every version so a check should be always safe.
cheers,
Matthias -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 21/07/2010 at 02:13, xxxxxxxx wrote:
thank you both for the info!