Hello Stephen, alright I will try this and get back.
Christopher
Friday, May 12, 2006, 12:08:02 PM, you wrote:
> Hi Christopher
> Open setenv.bat in a text editor.
> Find this line:
> rem License servers specified from the setup
> And then verify that the very next line looks like this:
> set _SPM_HOST=<hostname>
> where <hostname> is the name of the computer where you installed the SPM license server .
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: May 12, 2006 12:00 PM
> To: Wayne Williams
> Subject: Re[6]: 1 licence for two different versions
> Hello Wayne, where in that area that says SPM_HOST?
> Christopher
> Friday, May 12, 2006, 11:12:43 AM, you wrote:
>> Did you input your hostname?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris" <walksfar(at)netscape.ca>
>> To: "kim aldis" <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:51 AM
>> Subject: Re[4]: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> Hello kim, well i'm going to recheck everything today. I even
>>> botched up a project I was workin on now only to have to redo it
>>> again. So you say that it should work if 4.2 is working, what sorta
>>> things should I look for in the setenv files of the two?
>>>
>>> Christopher
>>>
>>>
>>> Friday, May 12, 2006, 2:33:13 AM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> > I doubt it. You can get a license for 4.2 so the licensing is working.
>> Did
>>> > you compare spm variables in both setenv files?
>>>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
>>> >> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Chris
>>> >> Sent: 12-May-2006 00:37
>>> >> To: kim aldis
>>> >> Subject: Re[2]: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello kim, well it's 4.2 that is running and version 5.0 that is
>>> >> not running. I did a recheck and I get a error with COM ports,
>>> >> could it be COM ports conflicting ???
>>> >>
>>> >> Christopher
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thursday, May 11, 2006, 5:22:09 AM, you wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > There's only so many permutations here;
>>> >>
>>> >> > 1. you can't see the license server
>>> >> > since one version gets a license, this is unlikely 2.
>>> >> > you don't have the correct licens
>>> >> > I can't remember if you said 4.2 or 5 wouldn't run
>>> >> but if it's
>>> >> > 5 then you may not have installed the license for 5. if you
>>> >> can run 5
>>> >> > but not
>>> >> > 4.2 then this can't be the case.
>>> >>
>>> >> > 3. you've run out of licenses for one version. If this is the
>>> >> > case then somewhere, somehow, you're running an xsi and you
>>> >> don't know it.
>>> >> > Check the task manager process list for xsi.exe or
>>> >> xsibatch.exe, kill
>>> >> > them if they're there. Double check that another machine
>>> >> isn't pulling licenses.
>>> >>
>>> >> > That should be it.
>>> >>
>>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
>>> >> >> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
>>> >> >> Sent: 11-May-2006 09:32
>>> >> >> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Hi Chris (Marshall),
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> the confusion (for me) derived from the difference between SPM
>>> >> >> and FlexLm, e.g. using FLexLm with Maya 6.01 has the advantage
>>> >> of letting
>>> >> >> you run an older (4.5 here) *.lic file merged with the
>>> >> >> *upgrade* license file of Maya 6.01, e.g.
>>> >> >> there is no built in limitation for interactive licenses, if
>>> >> >> you upgrade, you can run both simultaneously
>>> >> >> (nodelocked/floating), according to the amount of licenses you
>>> >> >> have. One 4.5 and one 6.x, nodelocked (to a specific MAC
>>> >> >> adress) or floating.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I had thought this to be the same with XSI/SPM, ignoring
>>> >> the explicit
>>> >> >> use of *interactive* as a licensing token type...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I still can´t test wether I *could* run XSI 4.2/5.1
>>> >> >> simultaneously from 1 upgraded license as I haven´t upgraded
>>> >> >> yet. That´s all:-)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Cheers
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> tim
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> >> From: "Chris Marshall" <chris(at)eclipsecreative.co.uk>
>>> >> >> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:41 PM
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > If you've payed to upgrade to 5, you've still only got a
>>> >> >> license to run 1 XSI, no
>>> >> >> > matter which version that is.
>>> >> >> > If you bought a brand new copy of 5, then clearly you could
>>> >> >> still run one 4.2 and
>>> >> >> > also your new version 5 at the same time.
>>> >> >> > Personally, I'm not sure where the confusion is?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Tim Leydecker wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> (this isn´t my thread, it´s Chris´)
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Thanks for the details about the consequences of the
>>> >> >> licensing scheme,
>>> >> >> >> I had assumed SPM and FlexLM to work identical, e.g. I
>>> >> could run
>>> >> >> >> two 4.5 Maya licenses here using one 4.5 and 6.0 if my
>>> >> >> licenses wouldn´t
>>> >> >> >> be nodelocked anyway but floating :-)
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Good to know this wouldn´t work with XSI, e.g.you had
>>> >> upgraded a
>>> >> >> >> licensefile and explicitely get one interactive license
>>> >> >> granted in that.
>>> >> >> >> Counting per machine but made to block different builds
>>> >> to run in
>>> >> >> >> a simultaneous session from one interactive license.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> This isn´t ideal as it would obviously be desireable to
>>> >> >> have both builds
>>> >> >> >> open when transfering things from old>new for fixing
>>> >> >> >> inconveniences introduced through new functionality or
>>> >> changed featuresets.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> tim
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> P.S: I´d find it building customer relationship to allow
>>> >> >> *build up* of
>>> >> >> >> licenses but I can understand it would be commercially
>>> >> stressing...
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim aldis"
>>> >> >> >> <kim(at)cg-soup.com>
>>> >> >> >> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>>> >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:07 PM
>>> >> >> >> Subject: RE: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> The rules are that one user/machine combination only
>>> >> >> takes one token, no
>>> >> >> >>> matter how many instances of xsi you use. However, it
>>> >> >> does seem that the
>>> >> >> >>> rule doesn't cross version boundaries and running 5.1
>>> >> >> alongside 4.2 won't
>>> >> >> >>> work if you have a single token. With that caveat, old
>>> >> >> versions of xsi will
>>> >> >> >>> run from newer tokens, so 4.2 will run from a 5.1 token
>>> >> >> provided 5.1 isn't
>>> >> >> >>> running. Which is annoying.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Except on linux where a second xsi will crash the prior
>>> >> >> version. That's a
>>> >> >> >>> bug, though.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> >>>> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
>>> >> >> >>>> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Sandy E.
>>> >> >> >>>> Sutherland
>>> >> >> >>>> Sent: 10-May-2006 10:49
>>> >> >> >>>> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>> >> >> >>>> Subject: RE: 1 licence for two different versions
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Don't know about this - If you BOUGHT 4.2 and then BOUGHT
>>> >> >> >>>> 5.01 - then you can get Softimage to generate you a key
>>> >> >> >>>> with both in - but if you bought 4.2 and UPGRADED it to
>>> >> 5.01 - then
>>> >> >> >>>> you can run only 1 seat at a time - unless of course
>>> >> this is on
>>> >> >> >>>> 1 machine - where you should be able to run 2 or more
>>> >> XSI at the
>>> >> >> >>>> same time - THIS IS ON THE SAME MACHINE!!!!
>>> >> >> >>>> I am presuming this, as I do not run 2 XSIs at the same
>>> >> >> >>>> time
>>> >> >> >>>> - do not work that way!!
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> S.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > ---
>>> >> >> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
>>> >> >> following text in body:
>>> >> >> > unsubscribe xsi
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ---
>>> >> >> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
>>> >> following text in
>>> >> >> body:
>>> >> >> unsubscribe xsi
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > ---
>>> >> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
>>> >> following text in body:
>>> >> > unsubscribe xsi
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> Chris mailto:walksfar(at)netscape.ca
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text
>>> >> in body:
>>> >> unsubscribe xsi
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>> > ---
>>> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text
>>> > in
>> body:
>>> > unsubscribe xsi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Chris mailto:walksfar(at)netscape.ca
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
>>> unsubscribe xsi
>> ---
>> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
>> unsubscribe xsi
> --
> Best regards,
> Chris mailto:walksfar(at)netscape.ca
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:walksfar(at)netscape.ca
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
