[NucNuc]

Can anybody tell me where i can get the most recent build with "speech"-capability  ?

I would like to test it with the new mediavps.

[Dilmah G]

If I desperately want speech, I just use the 3.6.9 exe, suprisingly, I don't run into a lot of trouble using them with 3.6.10 mvps

[karajorma]

WMCoolmon managed to get speech to work in some of his builds. Buggered if I know how since he uses VC2005 same as I do IIRC.

[WMCoolmon]

It would've been 2003 or - much less likely - 2008 or VC6. I don't remember the specifics; I would think it would be to enable the define (FS2_SPEECH, IIRC, but it might be SPEECH_SDK or USE_SPEECH or something) and install the SDK needed. Then enable the custom build step for the xml file and build it.

Again IIRC, I think I upconverted the original speech-enabled project files to 2003, and that's why I remember the custom build step, because I had to redo it. So those 2003 files should be based off of speech-enabled ones; however, it's been a long time, and a lot of people were having trouble with 200*, but there's been a lot of confusion as to which project files you're supposed to use, and which are supposed to be up-to-date or not.

So as a starting point if someone wanted to try to enable it, I would suggest opening the 2003 project files (either with 2003 itself, or with one of the express editions you can get online for free). Check and see if it has an XML file in the speech folder, and if so, whether it has a custom build step associated with it, and if it does, check the project defines and make sure speech is in there. If all of those are done right, you've done everything I remember being necessary for speech.

Finally, I'm not sure whether you're talking about speech input or speech output, but I would start with the above steps for either one. The two are considered to be separate systems.

[karajorma]

I know it wasn't VC6 cause your builds don't use COFF to display function names rather than addresses when they crash. Any build made with VC6 would.

I actually used to build speech in all the time when I used VC6 so I know how to do it there. The problem is that VC2005 and VC2008 are incompatible with MS's own speech SDK. First they throw up a few errors about that whole variables declared in a for loop scoping issue (which are easily fixed) and then they throw up one I don't have a clue about. I was assuming that if you had managed to compile it on VC 2005 you must have fixed it but it seems more  likely that you compiled it on 2003 running in some sort of compatibility mode with VC6. I'll have to take a look and see what I have to change in 2005 and 2008 to get them to do the same.

[WMCoolmon]

I know it wasn't VC6 cause your builds don't use COFF to display function names rather than addresses when they crash. Any build made with VC6 would.

No, that's wrong. My builds have been made with both VC6 and at least MSVC2003 Standard using the Professional compiler from the toolkit. I last dealt with the speech stuff on the order of years ago, and I switched from VC6 to MSVC2003 on the order of years ago. If you meant to say that my non-VC6 builds worked with speech, then you should have said that up front - not be ambiguous about it so you could "correct" me on it later.

If you're talking about my MSVC2003 builds in particular, then the procedure I described above is what I did to enable speech on MSVC2003.

I actually used to build speech in all the time when I used VC6 so I know how to do it there. The problem is that VC2005 and VC2008 are incompatible with MS's own speech SDK. First they throw up a few errors about that whole variables declared in a for loop scoping issue (which are easily fixed) and then they throw up one I don't have a clue about. I was assuming that if you had managed to compile it on VC 2005 you must have fixed it but it seems more  likely that you compiled it on 2003 running in some sort of compatibility mode with VC6. I'll have to take a look and see what I have to change in 2005 and 2008 to get them to do the same.

Have a little respect to the guy who's trying to help out, eh? I don't remember any "Compatibility mode" for MSVC6 in MSVC2003, nor have I ever seen or heard of such a thing, nor does it sound like you've even seen or heard of such a thing. Rather than coming up with something that I must have accidentally enabled, maybe you could take a look at a post that portej05 made a little over a week ago that would explain exactly why you're getting errors that I wasn't getting.

It's certainly my fault for making it sound like I was more clumsy or less certain of what I was doing than I actually was, but you should know better by now than to jump to conclusions based on that.

[karajorma]

No, that's wrong. My builds have been made with both VC6 and at least MSVC2003 Standard using the Professional compiler from the toolkit. I last dealt with the speech stuff on the order of years ago, and I switched from VC6 to MSVC2003 on the order of years ago. If you meant to say that my non-VC6 builds worked with speech, then you should have said that up front - not be ambiguous about it so you could "correct" me on it later.

Why so hostile! Seriously.

I have no intention in points scoring or trying to "correct" you. My problem is with VC 2005 or 2008 and not VC6. I assumed you had a solution to the problem because a recent build I could prove wasn't built in VC6 did have speech. So I pointed that out and instead get a sarcastic attack on my motivations. I have no idea what I could have possibly have said that you construed as insulting but if I have inadvertently done so I apologise.

Not all your builds appear to have had speech compiled in. For a long while last year I was the only person regularly building builds with speech compiled in. I know cause people would regularly ask how to get speech working with recent builds (and I'm pretty sure that included yours) and the problem would go away as soon as they used one of mine.

AFAIK it was some time last year when your builds started working properly with speech and as you say you had swapped to VC6 long before that.

If you're talking about my MSVC2003 builds in particular, then the procedure I described above is what I did to enable speech on MSVC2003.

And it's not enough for a successful build on 2005. I've done much the same on VC6 and it did build. Do it on 2005 and it won't. 2005 is stricter about sticking to standards and from the looks of it requires certain options ticked or unticked in order to build with the Microsoft's SAPI. Presumably 2003 either has those ticked by default or you ticked them giving you what I called a compatibility mode with VC6. If you want to use some other term for that, fine. I'm not that familiar with all the switches and buttons in any of the versions of VC or what to call them. Hell, I'm not that familiar with C at all. I only know what I've needed to know to get it to compile FS2_Open.

Have a little respect to the guy who's trying to help out, eh?

Again, I can't see what I could possibly have done to treat you with disrespect. Certainly nothing to deserve this level of abuse.

Rather than coming up with something that I must have accidentally enabled

Who said it was accidental? You added that. As I said before it's either the default for VC2003 to be able to build with SAPI but not for VC2005 or something you deliberately enabled. I had previously thought that you simply edited the Microsoft SAPI includes yourself so that they would compile on 2003. When you didn't mention having to do that it became obvious that your fix was in the complier and not in the code. So I said as much.

maybe you could take a look at a post that portej05 made a little over a week ago that would explain exactly why you're getting errors that I wasn't getting.

Which post? I did a quick search of his posts and nothing jumped out at me.

It's certainly my fault for making it sound like I was more clumsy or less certain of what I was doing than I actually was, but you should know better by now than to jump to conclusions based on that.

The only conclusion I jumped to was that you were uncertain which of your recent builds were in VC6 and which weren't. And when I tried to point out how you could easily tell I got a mouthful of abuse. If I'm supposed to know you then that should run the other way too. Why would I be deliberately insulting or belittle someone who I'm asking for help? 

[WMCoolmon]

If you think I'm being abusive, then take it up with Goober or one of the other site admins and I will talk with them about it. I'm not going to respond to an accusation as serious as that on a public forum in a discussion about a completely different topic.

If that's not what you meant to suggest, clarify it and I'll respond to your post.

[karajorma]

If you don't think your post and this follow up were unnecessarily hostile even after I apologised for any insult I may have unintentionally given I don't see much point in continuing either.

[WMCoolmon]

I'm not just saying that I don't see any point in continuing. "Abuse", to me, is most often paired up with situations that have a lasting, if not permanent psychological or physical impact on the people that it's inflicted upon. If you're accusing me of being abusive, you aren't just saying that you think I'm being "unnecessarily hostile" - you're also leaving it open to interpretation that you think that my behavior is harming or is intended to harm someone else. No matter how serious I think you're being, there's no way that I can ignore that statement.

For me, this discussion hasn't reached a point that it's not worth continuing. It's reached a far more complex point, where the things you're accusing me of have far more legal and ethical significance than I have ever wanted to deal with online.

Is it probably just paranoia? Sure. But I would rather have a tense and unpleasant discussion with one of the site admins than get hit with a liability lawsuit by someone who claims they were verbally abused by me and I had some kind of warning that I was inflicting that on them.

PMs for any further discussion along these lines would be more appropriate, otherwise, I am in complete agreement with you about not taking this any farther.

[Flipside]

In that case, I shall lock this thread for now, I won't pretend to understand it, but it's obviously gone beyond the intended point.