Compatibility with R9
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 22/03/2006 at 19:15, xxxxxxxx wrote:
User Information:
Cinema 4D Version: 9.521
Platform: Windows ;
Language(s) : C++ ;---------
I've created a plugin with the most recent SDK. One user reports that it crashes Cinema R9. Is this expected behavior? Is there an easier way to make an R9 compatible plugin than reloading Cinema R9 and the R9 SDK and rebuilding the plugin?
Brian. -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 22/03/2006 at 19:21, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Howdy,
If you mean you compiled with 9.52 and it crashed in 9.0, yeah I've had that happen too. I've been compiling my plugins in 9.0 to stay compatible.
Adios,
Cactus Dan -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 22/03/2006 at 20:58, xxxxxxxx wrote:
This should be obvious, but I guess it doesn't get enough press: the version of SDK used for compile is the *lowest* version in which the plugin should be run. If you want to support R9.012, you should not be compiling with the R9.102 SDK lib or later!
I know that sucks, but it makes sense. Once cannot expect forward compatibility in feature support and the version of Cinema 4D in use uses the version of SDK that accompanies it. So it will be easily befuddled (i.e.: crash) if it encounters SDK elements not available to it in newer versions.
The hard part is that since the SDK is now only included with the shipping version of Cinema 4D, it becomes increasingly difficult to get older SDKs. I've been known to require or provide versions for which I or another party had no access because of this. Truly, every version of the SDK should be available here for download despite the fact that we're all *supposed* to be using the SDK that just left the developer's fingertips!
Take care,
-
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 23/03/2006 at 19:34, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Quote: Originally posted by kuroyume0161 on 22 March 2006
>
> * * *
>
> This should be obvious, but I guess it doesn't get enough press: the version of SDK used for compile is the *lowest* version in which the plugin should be run. If you want to support R9.012, you should not be compiling with the R9.102 SDK lib or later!
>
> I know that sucks, but it makes sense. Once cannot expect forward compatibility in feature support and the version of Cinema 4D in use uses the version of SDK that accompanies it. So it will be easily befuddled (i.e.: crash) if it encounters SDK elements not available to it in newer versions.
>
> The hard part is that since the SDK is now only included with the shipping version of Cinema 4D, it becomes increasingly difficult to get older SDKs. I've been known to require or provide versions for which I or another party had no access because of this. Truly, every version of the SDK should be available here for download despite the fact that we're all *supposed* to be using the SDK that just left the developer's fingertips!
>
> Take care,
>
> * * *
>
> With the difference being a minor version number change, not a major version number change, I thought I might get lucky. Not really surprising, though. Thanks for the input.
>
>
>
> Brian.
>
>
>
>
> -
THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 23/03/2006 at 22:20, xxxxxxxx wrote:
You probably can get lucky in many cases allowing small differences of minor version, but only with careful use of SDK features. If you use only those features that have not changed (and this means both superficially where you can see or read about the differences and even more particularly to underlying changes which are not discussed), the plugin should work in a lesser minor version. The problem is those underlying changes which are hidden away (minor code changes to fix a bug or optimize a process, for instance). They can come back to haunt if you happen upon use of one of those features and it causes conflict with the earlier version.
In my case, this luck has never played out (though I wasn't intentionally attempting it). One of my plugins uses the R9.102 SDK and this is stated blatantly for customers. But there are those few who attempt to use it with R9.012 and it crashes all over the place. Thus the stated minimum requirement.
You'd think that a difference of 0.09 version wouldn't have such an impact, but obviously much more goes into each SDK release than meets the eye.Take care,