Sorry for being inactive for quite a while, but I'm back now.

I have been trying to install the 64bit version of Celestia 1.7.0 dev-7, but it keeps giving me an error. It says that I'm missing two files: fmod64.dll and VCRUNTIME140.dll.

I found fmod64.dll on the website, but I cannot find VCRUNTIME140.dll. Where do I get this file?

_________________
CM1215: Celestial Master in learning.

Hi CM1215,

welcome back! For your info: since 2007, CelestialMatters (CM) is the celestia.Sci Development site , not a Celestia site. Still we try to help if we can. Your question calls for people who are currently closer to Celestia than me . JohnVV looks like a good man for this...

Cheers,
Fridger

_________________

I've just submitted my issue to the official Celestia forums. I'm just waiting for it to be approved.

_________________
CM1215: Celestial Master in learning.

from your post i am guessing you are using some UNKNOWN version of MS Windows

for some unknown reason the developer of the windows version decided to include the NON GPL "fmod" sound for plugins

you need to install that missing Microsoft Windows fmod dll
and the Visual Studio 140 runtime dll

as to the 1.7 qt5 code on my git page
i have zero idea if it builds on MS Windows

_________________
"I don't pitch Linux to my friends, I let Microsoft do that for me."
Using OpenSUSE 42.1 & Scientific Linux 6.7

There is also a VS2010 branch of celestia 1.7 available.

I took that code as a base and have been working on it.
It now compiles with VS2010/12/13 & QT 5.4/6/8 in 32-bit cleanly, though with conversion warnings.
Warnings consist of double to single float mostly, and others where the type is recast.

The now included sound stuff is a nightmare.
I am considering trimming it out completely.
Testing the above with 32-bit gives erratic crashes on fmod.
I have been collecting the source for the included libs so I can compile them all myself.
Getting them all to compile with VS is a pain, but happening, though 64-bit is being hard.
My one working compile is fine, other than not using a single texture for planets, which is weird.
For reasons I do not understand, changing the other lib files effects whether or not fmod works.

I have also gotten VS2012 64-bit to compile, but every crash has been on fmod.
Though the debug versions of the programs work more often than release, it still crashes a lot.
once I have 64-bit through VS working, I will do the same for QT.


Janus.

Okay, time for an update.

There is now a VS2013 branch for Celestia, which requires MBCS to be installed.
VS2010/12 can not produce stable 64 bit code in a multi platform friendly manner.
At least not at my skill level.
So all work on VS2010/12 has been dropped.

Work on VS2015 will not happen until I can afford it.
No I am not going to use the community version.
I do not have a M$ account, nor shall I ever.

No I will not be installing VS2017, it broke the system I tried it on.
I run a tweaked system so it closely resembles 2K/XP, and VS2017 broke nearly everything.

Still getting the last couple of glitches ironed out, but a working example is available.
The VS2013 branch compiles with libraries statically linked.
Still requires the VS2013 redists to be installed, but otherwise works fine. (For me anyway, so who knows.)

You can go here and grab the VS_2013 directory.

http://celestia.simulatorlabbs.com/Downloads/

It contains both the x86 & x64 versions of Celestia.

For the brave, there is Celestia_QT54_win32.7z which is theoretically a working VS2013 QT5.4 x86 Celestia install.
It should only require the VS2013 redists in order to work.

Both of the above tested on a fresh Win7 install with VS2013 x86&x64 redists, and Directx9c.
Both worked with no problem, but this is windows, further testing is always needed.

I will be putting up the VS2013 QT5.4 x64 version next.
Looking forward to people trying them out and letting me know if they work for them.


Janus.

By your restriction on ancient Windows compilers, your source code needs to deviate in an untransparent way from the community version of 64bit Celestia 1.7... A parallel development of partly exotic Celestia 1.7 sources by uncoordinated individuals doesn't strike me as a very professional line of attack. Released code upgrades (with new features) may cause plenty of confusion among users, for example.

Good luck,
Fridger

_________________

Honestly, I have no idea how you can consider a four year old compiler ancient.
That is however, your right.
We are all welcome to our opinions, and I for one do not share yours.
I am over here trying to have some fun, while helping others have fun and learn, what is the harm in that?

I also do not however, have a newer compiler to work with.
What I have is what I can afford.
Part of my goal, is to help others like me work on a really cool program.

Another part is to help others overcome what has held me back, or prevented me from getting started.
Celestia is educational in nature, so it needs to reach out to large numbers of people.
Friendly also means welcoming.
Which in my eyes, and only mine, means being able to use the widest possible range of whatever you have on hand.
I really wanted to keep VS2010/12 for 64-bit, but I lack the skills, if it even possible to so multiplatform with them.

As for a bunch of uncoordinated individuals working on a program, sounds like fun to me.
As long as there is a way to coordinate that is, and the pace is not fast.

The whole endeavor is amateur.
Why not help people learn better, and eventually professional programming practices, while having some fun?
Engage them, then they can help themselves.

For now however, I will continue my efforts, and offering them to whom ever is interested.
If people are interested, then they can help.
If not, then they can ignore me.
I will continue however, to offer them the choice.


Janus.

Because Microsoft releases a new Visual Studio version EVERY 1-2 years with partly major changes/fixes AND because the somewhat older versions are not supported by MS any more (no service packs/releases any more!). For compilers this is serious, indeed.

E.g. VS2013 and VS2013 Express have reached end of support in the second half of 2016 (cf. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/hel ... lf-of-2016). So no bugs removed since one year.

Since you deny using more recent VS compiler versions (like VS2017, ...):

your code will effectively "age" very fast.

Fridger

_________________

4 years is not a long time in HUMAN terms
20 years is one generation

BUT!!! in software terms 5 years is ONE GENERATION

so a compiler from 7 rears ago ( VS 2010 ) is 1.5 GENERATIONS out of date
and VS 2013 is ONE GENERATION out of date
--- think about that a few ....... !

5 years is a software and hardware GENERATION

there are folks here that used punch cards ( a bit before my time , but not by much )
i used 8 in floppies , then 5.25 in floppies

THEN Apple USED!!! the 3.5 "mac disks" and those got popular


a software generation can make BIG changes


in 1999 128 M ram was a lot
in 2001 512 M ramwas a lot
in 2005 4 gig ram was a lot

now in 2017 the norm for a new avarage computer is 16 gig ram and a CUDA 4 card ( cuda 5/6 with a 1080 card )

i remember building a 128 K expansion board for a early Amaga ( aka commodore)
and one guy in the Ann Arbor Sci-Fi club built a computer in a 3 drawer file cabinet using a 8080 and 1 meg ram in the mid 80's was a BIG deal

_________________
"I don't pitch Linux to my friends, I let Microsoft do that for me."
Using OpenSUSE 42.1 & Scientific Linux 6.7

I disagree on the speed of compiler aging.
I believe in going to a newer or different tool when the change comes with benefits.
Over the years, most of the 'upgrades' I have seen, have not been one at all.
I actually like VS2010.
VS2012 was a little harder to use, less intuitive.
VS2013 has been hard as well, annoying, and it has different patterns.
VS2015 is in my eyes, and I realize this may be inflammatory, but it is ugly, and very hard to navigate.
M$ progression toward eliminating the 3d aspects of their UI, have made using their software very hard.
I suspect they fired who ever used to keep them sane when designing UIs.

Then there is VS2017, which broke my install of windows.
I run a win7 system modified to look & work like 2K/XP because it works for me.
So even if I wanted to, how do I use a compiler that breaks my OS?
I honestly have no idea how people can use the stock WIn7 UI, then there is 8 and later, which is pure Felgercarb to me.

The newer VS's are simply harder to use, without theming, they would be effectively unsalvageable.

If Celestia were enterprise software, used in critical infrastructure.
Then there would be a point.

Isn't making it easier for more people to get involved better?
A wider variety of compilers and OSes makes a wider audience.
So why the seeming panic over a piece of open source software?

As I have pointed out however, I am not a professional C/C++ programmer, in fact, I barely program in them at all.
I am doing this to learn, and so far, it has been discouraging.
I do not want to take part in a flame war, but why so harsh about finding VS2013 easier to use and understand?

I am also working with what I have.
I have my own reasons for not having any M$ accounts.
Which means the only VS versions I have, are ones I bought and paid for.
I do not have four or five hundred extra to go spend on VS2015 or later.
Nor do I find them likable.

Just trying to understand.


Janus.