We have been noticing that users are reporting problems with loading certain extensions. It appears that this applies to newer extensions and possibly newer updates to older ones.

In order to resolve this matter, we ask all users to post details about their problem here, even if they have already created a thread about it. Tell us if you are using MMF2 Standard or Dev, what OS you are using, what extensions are not working, and the date of the file you downloaded, as well as the .mfx version info located in your MMF2, Extensions folder. Right click, properties.

We also would like extension devs to post what they think the problem is here and information about how to resolve it so that a bulletin can be created if we figure out what's wrong.

A list of affected extensions would help sort this out, as well.

It seems that we may need to have some extensions recompiled if the build situation is the problem. If that turns out to be the case, then this thread can also serve to provide info on when and where extension updates are available.

Thanks!

My advice:

1 - Make sure you have the latest build for MMF.

2 - Check the readme or other info with the extensions in question. A certain number of them REQUIRE .net framework to be on your computer. If you have XP you need to install this yourself.

3 - Double check you have the file in the right folder. If they don't come in an installer its easy to have them in the incorrect folder locations.

I think there's a fair chance that at least one developer is compiling with VS 2005/2008 and dynamically linking to the newer CRT DLLs, which aren't included with most versions of Windows; unlike msvcrt.dll, which is.

Here are the installers for various C++ runtimes:
(I can't find the VC++ 2003 one...)
VC++ 2005 (already included in Vista, last version to support Win9x)
VC++ 2005 SP1 (doesn't support Win9x)
VC++ 2008
VC++ 2008 SP1

The appropriate version needs to be installed if the extension is dynamic linked to the c++ runtime (dll version) instead of static linked (library/non-dll version), depending on which version of Microsoft Visual C++ was used to build the extension.
The "_Small" build types in the extension sdk are known to link to the dll version of the runtime, it's the main reason they are smaller, but it comes at the penalty of needing the above installed.

After some testing I've found that Live Receiver requires VC++2005 to be installed!

Thanks for posting the links Dynasoft.

Thanks to everyone who is helping out with this problem.

We appreciate the sleuthing!

Does the version of the VC++ runtime on the machine affect the end user of an executable made with the extensions involved? I am assuming that the dynamic linking would also apply to running a game or application.

Yes, if the run only version of an extension is compiled using the same settings as the edit time version, then the appropriate DLLs must be installed for the stand alone EXE to run.

There are at least two possible ways to avoid this:

Option 1 - Compile the extension using static linking, which causes any C/C++ runtime functions that are used to be built into the MFX files. The only downside to this is you end up with larger MFX files.

Option 2 - Compile the extension with Visual C++ 6.0, which only requires a DLL file which comes with windows. The downside to this is you miss out on any features which were added to newer versions of C++.

Even better, if an extension is linked against any custom libraries that were also dynamic-linked against a C++ runtime, the extension will be dynamic-linked against that runtime even if it was static-linked to the runtime itself.
But wait, there's more! If an extension is linked to a library that needs one version of the C++ runtime, and the extension itself is dynamic-linked against a different version of the C++ runtime, the extension will require BOTH to run!

There is a 3rd way of solving this issue, but it requires more changes: Include pass-throughs for a bunch of stock c++ functions in the MMF2 runtime (making it larger), expose them in the extension sdk, and get extensions to use those (making extensions smaller), and not link to the standard C++ runtime at all or static link for any functions you don't provide.

I like the sound of option 3

Are you sure..? Jamie uses VC 6, I'm VERY sure. I don't think he uses the VC05 runtime, or even is able to.