lack of static Kinect libraries hinders developer flexibility, distribution flexibility, setup ease, and increases support burden RRS feed

  • Question

  • The DLLs distributed with Kinect v2 SDK continue to present challenges and conflicts with 32 and 64 bit applications. Conflicts with 32 and 64 bit are worse than in the Kinect v1.x SDK.


    all have the same name making it impossible to easily distribute Win32/64 solutions in a common directory. In addition, there are no static libraries in which to link against resulting in the common issue of "what DLL to you have installed on that PC at that moment in time" or "Did you upgrade the drivers? We haven't tested against those DLL/drivers".

    The benefit of clearly independent names is that distribution of cross-compiled x86 and x64 apps is easier. In my case, I could put them all in a ZIP file and it works anywhere. And if I could statically link in the full face, fusion, vgb, etc, then I could further reduce my customer's install efforts and reduce support issues.


    Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:01 PM

All replies

  • We recommend redistributing these in a directory structure that calls out the architecture, much as they are stored on disk in the redist folder.

    Chimera Scorn - Chris White

    Monday, October 27, 2014 9:30 PM
  • Does Microsoft have a comment on static libraries?


    Monday, October 27, 2014 10:24 PM