New release: 0.9.5

[SneaksieDave]

I've searched my working system and found a bunch of the msvc 80 dlls; I'll probably start trying to hand place them (hopefully they can be dropped into DR and not need registering?) until/unless someone gets a better idea.

[SneaksieDave]

No luck.

[greebo]

Try download the file msvcrt71.dll from somewhere off the net, like here: http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr71

 

Drop it into your darkradiant folder (the one where the EXE is in).

[SneaksieDave]

That's actually one I already have registered, as it's needed for my software at work, so no luck there. Note that the errors it's complaining about in event viewer were for VC80. I tried dropping each of the vc80 dlls I could find on my working system (I may have missed some of course) into the DR folder and that didn't help either. Of course that says nothing about it perhaps needing some kind of gigantic .NET/VC8/whatever formal install.

 

A guess -- is this change of compiling environment a result of recent changes to get it to work on Vista?

[greebo]

That's actually one I already have registered, as it's needed for my software at work, so no luck there. Note that the errors it's complaining about in event viewer were for VC80. I tried dropping each of the vc80 dlls I could find on my working system (I may have missed some of course) into the DR folder and that didn't help either. Of course that says nothing about it perhaps needing some kind of gigantic .NET/VC8/whatever formal install.

I'm out of ideas. The download worked/works fine on other systems, so it must be something missing on your end, but I can't say what.

 

A guess -- is this change of compiling environment a result of recent changes to get it to work on Vista?

Yes, the MinGW compiler produces binaries that won't run in Vista - the VC++ build works both in XP and Vista.

 

Have you tried the installer vs. the zip?

[SneaksieDave]

Ugh. So we gain Vista, and lose older XPs. It makes me soooo happy someone complained about Vista. Almost seems like instead of changing the entire compile environment for the sake of Vista, tell 'em "here's your project file", esp since it hasn't been part of the picture before now. But if no other problems were introduced than breaking it on SP1 systems, I guess this is how it stands... for all 2 Vista user(s).

 

Well, this probably establishes a new requirement then: DR requires SP2 (is my guess). Doesn't necesarily work on a system where Doom3 does anymore. Doesn't seem right to me, but it is how it is.

 

<Fill in generic response to oDDity calling me a twat for running an 'old' operating system>

 

I didn't try the installer (yet) because I thought it was said above that it was the same? I'll give that a shot first if not. In fact I see the installer is half the size of the zip, so I doubt it's got missing needed files. BTW - the news item on the page linking to 0.9.5 installer points to the 0.9.4.exe.

 

Edit: I can still try the redistributable package. Maybe that will work.

 

Edit2: I guess if worse comes to worst, I could probably compile it myself, in VC6; would that work?

[Nyarlathotep]

<Fill in generic response to oDDity calling me a twat for running an 'old' operating system>

Fuck you, oDDity! I'll use OS/2 Warp if I want!

[greebo]

Ugh. So we gain Vista, and lose older XPs. It makes me soooo happy someone complained about Vista. <_>

It should work on XP and Vista, not just Vista alone (which would be plain stupid).

 

And I'm sick of discussing this OS topic already, there was enough hot air produced in the other thread about Vista vs. XP. Keep that somewhere else, guys.

 

I didn't try the installer (yet) because I thought it was said above that it was the same? I'll give that a shot first if not. In fact I see the installer is half the size of the zip, so I doubt it's got missing needed files.

Please try the installer and the redistributable package, if it doesn't work at first shot.

 

BTW - the news item on the page linking to 0.9.5 installer points to the 0.9.4.exe.

Thanks, I'll fix that.

 

Edit2: I guess if worse comes to worst, I could probably compile it myself, in VC6; would that work?

No, you'll need VC++ 2005 Express Edition plus Platform SDK, both are free. However, you'll find that as soon as you install these two, you probably won't need to compile it at all anymore, because your system then holds all the files that might be missing now.

[OrbWeaver]

I guess what is needed is a Windows version of ldd, which can list all of the DLLs a project requires. I don't know any software that would be suitable for this purpose however (and most likely it would be some $49 piece of shareware rather than a free tool like on Linux).

[SneaksieDave]

It's been a long time, but isn't there some dependencies browser in VC? That existed even in VB, if I recall correctly (I've used it, though it was more than a decade ago).

 

Anyway, hopefully this is an easy fix with the right tools. I'll try the stuff above (might not have time today).

[greebo]

I don't know about VC++, though I googled and got a reference to a program called "Dependency Walker":

 

http://www.dependencywalker.com/

[SneaksieDave]

Found out how to get dependencies with dumpbin. Here are DR's dependencies, according to it:

 

File Type: EXECUTABLE IMAGE

 Image has the following dependencies:

ADVAPI32.dll
dbghelp.dll
GLU32.dll
glew32.dll
KERNEL32.dll
USER32.dll
libglib-2.0-0.dll
libgobject-2.0-0.dll
libgdk-win32-2.0-0.dll
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0-0.dll
libgtk-win32-2.0-0.dll
libpango-1.0-0.dll
libgtkglext-win32-1.0-0.dll
libgdkglext-win32-1.0-0.dll
OPENGL32.dll
libiconv2.dll
WS2_32.dll
MSVCP80.dll
MSVCR80.dll

 Summary

   30000 .data
   61000 .rdata
	2000 .rsrc
  1D9000 .text

 

The MSVC*80.dlls being those which are missing. Dropping them into the folder didn't help, which seems to agree with event monitor's mention of some context which must be installed. On my work machine, it looks like a bunch of big nasty folders like:

 

C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Tools.VisualCPlusPlus

.Runtime-Libraries_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.0.0_x-ww_ff9986d7

 

and linked to 'manifests' like:

 

x86_Microsoft.Tools.VisualCPlusPlus.Runt

ime-Libraries_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.0.0_x-ww_ff9986d7.Manifest

 

So, I guess microsoft decided it's not good enough to just drop and register DLLs in the way they have for more than a decade, and instead, it needs to start using completely convoluted, user-unfriendly unintelligible folder and manifest structures, to accomplish the same task: installing DLLs.

 

Oh, the benefits of progress.

[Crispy]

So, I guess microsoft decided it's not good enough to just drop and register DLLs in the way they have for more than a decade, and instead, it needs to start using completely convoluted, user-unfriendly unintelligible folder and manifest structures, to accomplish the same task: installing DLLs.

But since it's Microsoft software, it will always work every time, so nobody will ever need to install anything manually, therefore it doesn't matter if the data structures are incredibly complex and non-human-readable. See, they do know what they're doing!

 

[SneaksieDave]

I guess one could assume that they're trying to bolster their OS against software variations among users (though if they had their way everyone would be perfectly up to date all the time), but I really don't see how such a change improves things. On the contrary, I believe changes like that have one objective in mind: control. They specifically want to prevent the user from being able to hack around and have any kind of control over their own system. The more complex they make it, the further the distance between user and their machine.

[Crispy]

Nah. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.

[New Horizon]

Finally got around to testing out the new release. Very nice work! Congrats to all involved! I hadn't a chance to really dig into DR for some time, and it is really coming along. I love the AI skin chooser, and the fact that skins actually show up in non-rendered mode...unlike silly D3Ed, where you have to render the scene to see the skins you chose.

 

It's hard to believe what you started off with guys, it's just not the same editor. Thank you so much!

[greebo]

Thanks, NH, appreciated!

[OrbWeaver]

It's hard to believe what you started off with guys, it's just not the same editor.

 

Yes, it is quite shocking to think how bad GtkRadiant actually was, people could never have used it. According to my original roadplan we are already at 1.0, since the biggest features were going to be the light inspector and the model chooser.

 

It's kind of worrying though how far there is still to go, before absolute feature parity with DoomEdit could be claimed. That scenegraph/renderer/shadows issue is quite a sticking point.

[New Horizon]

It's kind of worrying though how far there is still to go, before absolute feature parity with DoomEdit could be claimed. That scenegraph/renderer/shadows issue is quite a sticking point.

 

True, but it does so many things better than DoomEdit gives it an edge, despite not having feature parity. It just feels far more solid than Doom3Edit.

[Komag]

Yeah, we'd all like to have the perfect renderer, but even if that part never happened I'd still absolutely love DarkRadiant.

[SneaksieDave]

Followup: one way to fix the failure to run (this is on the dev/deployment side):

 

-main article: http://llbit.se/?p=19

 

-thread with the specifics on how (specifically, the fourth post): http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost....65&SiteID=1

[greebo]

Followup: one way to fix the failure to run (this is on the dev/deployment side):

 

-main article: http://llbit.se/?p=19

 

-thread with the specifics on how (specifically, the fourth post): http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost....65&SiteID=1

The first link is just a barely helpful rant (with a ton of "M$ is teh suck0r"-like comments), but the second one seems to be useful.

 

I'm currently compiling a new release build and will try to put that mentioned folder in the installer. Stay tuned.

[SneaksieDave]

Only do this though if it's what you guys wish to do with DR distribution. I've confirmed I can make it work with the VC++ redistributable. I can't speak for all users though, so maybe it's a good move to cover as many bases as possible.

 

Edit: and I can roll back my OS image to verify if it works or not.

[greebo]

Here is an installer including the VC80 folder plus a fresh release build:

 

http://208.49.149.118/TheDarkMod/DarkRadia...diant-0.9.5.exe

 

Please let me know what happens with this one.

[SneaksieDave]

Unfortunately, it didn't work on the system without VC++ redist installed. It does go further though; before this change it would bomb out immediately, but now it shows the DR splash screen, gets past "searching for modules", and then fails at "initialising modules."

 

The application error log is (consistently):

 

Faulting application darkradiant.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module msvcr80.dll, version 8.0.50727.42, fault address 0x0000461a.