Hello Stephen, this is what I get the info from "localhost" as you can
see it shows licence for 5.o BUT i'm still getting the plain simple
error: there is no interactive licence server. I appreciate everyones
help but after all the help i've gotten i've come to a
idea\conclusion. It seems that the 4.2 licence is not allowing the
5.0 to run (did someone mention this to me already !?!?) And I have no
clue after all the help and editing i'ved done why 5 can't just load
and that error message go away.
Christopher
PM-daemon on 'localhost(ani)':
Licenses from SOFTIMAGE:
License name version lic# used beg_date end_date cpu# type
5.0 x 0 FL
See when I do a local host
Saturday, May 13, 2006, 9:40:25 AM, you wrote:
> No, he means you don't have to do anything to the setenv.bat file.
> But you should at least look at the 5.1 setenv.bat and verify that
> _SPM_HOST is not set to some bogus value. It happens, more often than you might think.
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: May 13, 2006 8:59 AM
> To: kim aldis
> Subject: Re[8]: 1 licence for two different versions
> Hi, Kim so your saying I don't have to do nothing in the licence
> files ? I know that 5.0 licence is installed because taking a look
> at the licence keys there is no mention of 4.2 just 5.0 listing.
> And what I'm seeing I know has got to be right, unless a big unless
> there is something i'm mis-understanding when I read the licence keys.
> Christopher
> Friday, May 12, 2006, 12:52:27 PM, you wrote:
>> If you're running xsi local to the spm server you don't need anything
>> in there. In absence it assumes localhost.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
>>> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Bernard Lebel
>>> Sent: 12-May-2006 17:41
>>> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
>>> Subject: Re: Re[6]: 1 licence for two different versions
>>>
>>> and do *not* put the <> characters! This is a programming notation to
>>> indicate "a value that has to be filled"!!
>>>
>>> You can also put your computer's IP address:
>>>
>>> set _SPM_HOST=192.168.1.10 (just an example)
>>>
>>> You also simply put "localhost", if the SPM is on the same computer
>>> as the one running XSI:
>>>
>>>
>>> set _SPM_HOST=localhost
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Bernard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/12/06, Stephen Blair <Stephen_Blair(at)softimage.com> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
