Page 1 of 1
SDK/OS X doesn't build: macosx_DeviceInternals.c missing
Posted: 18 Oct 2006, 00:18
I've been trying to re-build the FWHID HandMotion SDK for Mac OS X 10.4 / intel, so that I can run XWinder with a sensible startup time and memory usage (was also planning on re-distributing it to my fellow intel mac sufferers). However, rebuilding that SDK for OS X turns out to be pretty hard: there are files missing that are required to build the thing (the same is true for XWinder, but it's only resources that can be copied from the binary installation).
In particular, the file macosx_DeviceInternals.c is missing, which presumably contains the definition of FWHID_registerMultiTouchDevices(void*). This definition is pretty central to getting everything to run -> Argh.
Does anybody have access to that file? Can it be legally distributed? Can I have it, pleeeeeease?
Thanks in advance.
Posted: 18 Oct 2006, 14:51
Yes antifuchs, this is where comes a chance for Westerman and Elias to be fair with early supporters of their technology, ...or not!
We may survive to your failure here but, someday, we will be facing a more vital issue... HID will be compatible for a while though.
Nevertheless, it feels like we are surviving rather than running on the cutting edge with MultiTouch technology... This is a change alright, but in the wrong direction for people who have spent big time and money to run into a dead end just to witness our FW proselyte vanishing through a teleport directly to Apple
Click on the Watch this topic for replies
bellow... Any further silence as an answer to your question will just confirm the doom of our formerly praised FW fellows...
Now, we're all listening...
Wishing for at least the MultiTouch Utilities to work
Posted: 03 Jan 2007, 11:41
Well, I've just moved to a Mac and I wish at least multitouch utilities would work. They don't work on an intel mac because of the jusb library.
I've built the jusb library myself, but the utilities still won't work for some other reason, which I'm unable to resolve.
Why not opensource the multitouch utilities, so that we could fix bugs and improve them? It's not like the utilities are the core secret proprietary technology of Fingerworks anyway.
Posted: 03 Jan 2007, 15:50
Some suggestions here:
Maybe a compatibility issue? Even with jdk160, you can compile a backward compatible USB library with a recent source code:
- javac -source 1.? -target 1.4
We could learn something useful from error messages with a command-line launch:
Code: Select all
working Java SDK?
Posted: 22 Feb 2007, 18:50
Has anyone ever successfully built the Java SDK for the iGesture pad? I'm trying to build the DLL file, but have found that a missing header file (not anywhere in download) means it can't be built.
I'm trying to get raw finger locations from the pad in order to do some HCI research (not at all trying to use their gesture engine or other such things). Anyone at all make this work?
Daniel Wigdor (email@example.com
Posted: 16 Apr 2010, 00:33
Regarding the missing header file, as Nomaded just pointed out that fingerworks.com is back, I checked it out, and noticed "For service claims please visit the customer support section of this website," following the comment "If you are experiencing any issues with your FingerWorks product you have the following options:"
That said, my first thought was that perhaps this would be a valid route for getting repairs on non-working units. My second (and more relevant) thought was that perhaps someone who understands all of this programming and compiling stuff could fill out the form to ask about and/or request the missing file(s) needed for the SDK to be useful. If a response was received (and the files were provided even though updated software won't be created), perhaps the file(s) could be made available on this site, and (hopefully) used to make versions of the utilities and xwinder that work with newer OSes... I would be thrilled to see a version of each for Win7 x64 (even as I still run XP), and I'm sure Snow Leopard users and Linux users would be equally thrilled if they were provided with respective versions of each...
Posted: 20 Apr 2010, 23:41
Even though the website has been restored, I really doubt that there's anyone behind the site that would be able to respond to help requests.
Posted: 21 Apr 2010, 00:18
I doubt it as well, but seeing as how the site indicates that the devices are no longer being manufactured, someone could try. However, it would be pointless for someone who doesn't know what is needed to put forth the effort.