Are you sure that was the only thing you had changed? Didn't seem to resolve my problem. Meh, I have never used MS visual c++, I think I should explore it a little more. Maybe I missed something in the project settings.
Anyone else try attempt this?
About MS's free VC 2005 decision...
ok, I am official on the brink of going postal. This is frustrating me. I have been trying to get remove the linker error for several days, and I just can't. I even went to the MSDN site to see what exactly that linker error is caused by...DAMN MICROSOFT!!! They completely skipped it.
GFXstyLER, any chance you can upload a basic solution that compiles? I want to see if I could get it to compile it or not. I want to rule out that it is my setup (pro instead of express).
GFXstyLER, any chance you can upload a basic solution that compiles? I want to see if I could get it to compile it or not. I want to rule out that it is my setup (pro instead of express).
-
Guest
-
Guest
this is the code from my object editor which is very limited right now, i only spend ~three days on it
IObject: includes an Irrlicht setup and other stuff how to display models and such
IFile: includes file handling (read INT,FLOAT,BOOL,STRING, write STRING and such stuff)
ICounter: includes a delta-time counter (so you can use bla*Counter->Time for example and it will be frame-independent)
the other files are from the visual c++ wizard and are a little unreadable because of heavy MESS, the code you need to know how to load irrlicht in a windows.forms window is in Form1.h at the very end of the file )
example of how to use irrlicht with windows.forms:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/animespy2003/d ... tor.tar.gz
hope i did not forget anything
edit: yeah i forgot something: in IObject.h you can see there are 3 paths to a .X file and two textures (look at initTexture(int num) and initMesh() ), you have to change them so that it loads another texture and mesh or the app will crash because it can not find the files!
edit2: i forgot another thing: you can not use "using namespace core" because then you will get some errors i think, so you have to use core::vector3df for example. for other namespaces it works, though.
IObject: includes an Irrlicht setup and other stuff how to display models and such
IFile: includes file handling (read INT,FLOAT,BOOL,STRING, write STRING and such stuff)
ICounter: includes a delta-time counter (so you can use bla*Counter->Time for example and it will be frame-independent)
the other files are from the visual c++ wizard and are a little unreadable because of heavy MESS, the code you need to know how to load irrlicht in a windows.forms window is in Form1.h at the very end of the file )
example of how to use irrlicht with windows.forms:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/animespy2003/d ... tor.tar.gz
hope i did not forget anything
edit: yeah i forgot something: in IObject.h you can see there are 3 paths to a .X file and two textures (look at initTexture(int num) and initMesh() ), you have to change them so that it loads another texture and mesh or the app will crash because it can not find the files!
edit2: i forgot another thing: you can not use "using namespace core" because then you will get some errors i think, so you have to use core::vector3df for example. for other namespaces it works, though.
THANKYOU!!! MY PROJECTS WORKS!!!
nice editor btw. looking good
I compared the project settings of your project with mine.
As it turns out, the "Common Language Runtime Support" setting had to be set to "/clr". Arg, it was the pure:/clr option. Jesus, I am glad that is over. Thanks again!
Unfortunately I just bought an xbox 360, so who knows when I will start my project again lol.
nice editor btw. looking good
I compared the project settings of your project with mine.
As it turns out, the "Common Language Runtime Support" setting had to be set to "/clr". Arg, it was the pure:/clr option. Jesus, I am glad that is over. Thanks again!
Unfortunately I just bought an xbox 360, so who knows when I will start my project again lol.
I've been using gnu tools and microsoft's tools since '95. I'm gonna get flamed, but I gotta say it:
Visual Studio rocks!
There are simply some things that gnu tools can't do.
1. 'Edit and continue' debugging
In Visual Studio, you can debug your program, change some code, recompile, and continue debugging all in the same process. As far as I know you cannot do that with GDB. That feature is so time-saving that it is a killer-app for me.
2. Intellisense
There are some free implementations of this kind of functionality for various editors, but none are as good as Visual Studio's.
3. Optimizations. The code produced by visual studio's compiler is simply faster/better than what gcc produces. If it's a binary release for windows, why would you use gcc's slower output?
IrrLua is a project I've been working on that is both Windows and Linux. There have been some bugs that I needed the 'edit & continue' debugging to fix, so I fixed them on the Windows side. That resulted in the bug also being fixed on the Linux side, so in a (small) way Microsoft releasing VC 2005 for free actually helps linux.
With all that said, I'm a pretty pragmatic programmer. I'll use whatever is the best tool for the job, even if it's Microsoft's.
Visual Studio rocks!
There are simply some things that gnu tools can't do.
1. 'Edit and continue' debugging
In Visual Studio, you can debug your program, change some code, recompile, and continue debugging all in the same process. As far as I know you cannot do that with GDB. That feature is so time-saving that it is a killer-app for me.
2. Intellisense
There are some free implementations of this kind of functionality for various editors, but none are as good as Visual Studio's.
3. Optimizations. The code produced by visual studio's compiler is simply faster/better than what gcc produces. If it's a binary release for windows, why would you use gcc's slower output?
IrrLua is a project I've been working on that is both Windows and Linux. There have been some bugs that I needed the 'edit & continue' debugging to fix, so I fixed them on the Windows side. That resulted in the bug also being fixed on the Linux side, so in a (small) way Microsoft releasing VC 2005 for free actually helps linux.
With all that said, I'm a pretty pragmatic programmer. I'll use whatever is the best tool for the job, even if it's Microsoft's.
-
Guest
Agree with your post 100% - as do many industry professionals who all state if it is for WINDOWS then VS is the way to go for all the reasons you posted.zenaku wrote: There are simply some things that gnu tools can't do.
1. 'Edit and continue' debugging
In Visual Studio, you can debug your program, change some code, recompile, and continue debugging all in the same process. As far as I know you cannot do that with GDB. That feature is so time-saving that it is a killer-app for me.
2. Intellisense
There are some free implementations of this kind of functionality for various editors, but none are as good as Visual Studio's.
3. Optimizations. The code produced by visual studio's compiler is simply faster/better than what gcc produces. If it's a binary release for windows, why would you use gcc's slower output?
IrrLua is a project I've been working on that is both Windows and Linux. There have been some bugs that I needed the 'edit & continue' debugging to fix, so I fixed them on the Windows side. That resulted in the bug also being fixed on the Linux side, so in a (small) way Microsoft releasing VC 2005 for free actually helps linux.
With all that said, I'm a pretty pragmatic programmer. I'll use whatever is the best tool for the job, even if it's Microsoft's.
I am still using VC6 myself (for a few reasons - I know shame on me) but I have plugins (visual assistX and truecolor + custom scheme etc) it is like hojme to me but I do plan to update to 2005 after this project is finished. I am wondering if the compiler produces either smaller or faster code compared to old vanilla (SP6) vc6. And how does it compare to vs2003 free compiler? Lastly - have you ever used the intel compiler within VS? any performance comparisons?
thnx
-
Guest
Agree with your post 100% - as do many industry professionals who all state if it is for WINDOWS then VS is the way to go for all the reasons you posted.zenaku wrote: There are simply some things that gnu tools can't do.
1. 'Edit and continue' debugging
In Visual Studio, you can debug your program, change some code, recompile, and continue debugging all in the same process. As far as I know you cannot do that with GDB. That feature is so time-saving that it is a killer-app for me.
2. Intellisense
There are some free implementations of this kind of functionality for various editors, but none are as good as Visual Studio's.
3. Optimizations. The code produced by visual studio's compiler is simply faster/better than what gcc produces. If it's a binary release for windows, why would you use gcc's slower output?
IrrLua is a project I've been working on that is both Windows and Linux. There have been some bugs that I needed the 'edit & continue' debugging to fix, so I fixed them on the Windows side. That resulted in the bug also being fixed on the Linux side, so in a (small) way Microsoft releasing VC 2005 for free actually helps linux.
With all that said, I'm a pretty pragmatic programmer. I'll use whatever is the best tool for the job, even if it's Microsoft's.
I am still using VC6 myself (for a few reasons - I know shame on me) but I have plugins (visual assistX and truecolor + custom scheme etc) it is like hojme to me but I do plan to update to 2005 after this project is finished. I am wondering if the compiler produces either smaller or faster code compared to old vanilla (SP6) vc6. And how does it compare to vs2003 free compiler? Lastly - have you ever used the intel compiler within VS? any performance comparisons?
thnx
-
Athlon_Jedi
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:29 am
- Location: Mishawaka, In
Ok you people
ok people .
1) geeze you folks that think what they are doing with that chip is evil, give me a break. think of how many people with incureable illnesses like MS or cerebal palsy , or similar a chip that could take the place of the damaged nerve cells could help with this being the only technology that works for them.
2) technologists have been predicting the first true "cybernetic implants" for decades, imagine if you had one of these in you and your house or car with a reciver and the chip being the "key" used to enter your house or start your car, thats true security because the system would be unique to the user.
3) Mind Control? you people have been watching to many episodes of the X-Files , for one thing the human mind has to many "built in" failsafes for such a thing and besides , They dont put the thing in your head.
4) imagine how cool it would be to access the internet or even control electronic devices i.e. a computer or tv, just by thinking about it.
5) imagine if the technology progressed to the point of having a Neural/machine data interface, the possibilities there are endless as you would be directly connected to what ever device and all the information contained within could be preceved at the speed of thought.
geeze people just because a technology involves implanting something in the body does not mean it is a bad thing and one other note, "smart pacemakers" operate at the same freq. does that make this life saving device evil?
1) geeze you folks that think what they are doing with that chip is evil, give me a break. think of how many people with incureable illnesses like MS or cerebal palsy , or similar a chip that could take the place of the damaged nerve cells could help with this being the only technology that works for them.
2) technologists have been predicting the first true "cybernetic implants" for decades, imagine if you had one of these in you and your house or car with a reciver and the chip being the "key" used to enter your house or start your car, thats true security because the system would be unique to the user.
3) Mind Control? you people have been watching to many episodes of the X-Files , for one thing the human mind has to many "built in" failsafes for such a thing and besides , They dont put the thing in your head.
4) imagine how cool it would be to access the internet or even control electronic devices i.e. a computer or tv, just by thinking about it.
5) imagine if the technology progressed to the point of having a Neural/machine data interface, the possibilities there are endless as you would be directly connected to what ever device and all the information contained within could be preceved at the speed of thought.
geeze people just because a technology involves implanting something in the body does not mean it is a bad thing and one other note, "smart pacemakers" operate at the same freq. does that make this life saving device evil?