OK, this may be a stupid newbie question, but here goes: I've been working on a project using C++ and Feb 2005 SDK for some time and everything is going along great. Now I am trying to copy the program over to another computer that does not have the SDK installed. When I run the program, I get "Unable to find d3dx9d_24.dll". I assume that the "d" at the end of the DLL's name means it is a debug DLL, which the program can't find because the SDK is not installed on that computer. This problem seems to occur whether I use an installer or just copy it over directly. When I build the program on the other computer, I am using release configuration, and I have the control panel settings set to use the retail DLLs. What else do I need to do to tell my EXE and accompanying DLLs to use the retail DirectX DLLs instead of the debug ones? Thanks

Out of the frying pan...

I answered my own first question (had a link to d3dx9d.lib in one of my projects), but that leads to another. Now it seems to be searching for the retail DLLs just fine, but I still get a "Unable to find d3dx9_24.dll", which (sure enough) does not seem to be a part of the basic DirectX installation. Am I doing something wrong with my installation procedure here?

Yeah lots of people have had the problem where DX9 is installed but don't have the updated D3DX dll.
These updates are now distributed as part of the December DirectX installation, so launch that from your installer as Wolfdog said.

Sure enough, downloaded the most recent version and problem solved. Thanks a lot. Strange... I thought Windows Update covered DirectX.

Quote:Original post by GD-Silver
I thought Windows Update covered DirectX.

It does. D3DX != DirectX. DirectX is a core system component thus everyone gets it - whereas D3DX is an optional component that us developers choose to use in order to make our jobs a little easier. As it's an optional component it becomes our responsibility to distribute it.

I forget the exact details, but when we were out in Seattle last October the DX team said they had looked into it - but decided against distributing updates over Microsoft/Windows Update. I'm pretty sure it was to do with the corporate/"non-gaming" customers who might get freaked out by an update every 2 months.

I know that whilst I was at IBM they had some sort of internal vetting on OS updates before they distributed it across the internal network - so flooding them with updates they don't need isn't good.

Jack