Home AMX User Forum AMX General Discussion

Timed Waits and bad documentation...

Anyone else notice that the help files that come with NetLinx Studio say that timed waits are measured in 1/100s of a second, but in reality they're 1/10s of a second? Am I missing something or is this just another fat finger mistake in the help file?

What are the rest of you using for programming reference guides? Is there a better set of documents out there or am I stuck with the horrible help file?

Derek.

Comments

  • jjamesjjames Posts: 2,908
    I would suggest that "real" knowledge is the best way to go. No matter what the question is - post and ask here. I could almost guarantee that a certain number of us will reply. No matter how "silly" or "dumb" it may seem - just post and we'll be glad to help!

    BTW - never noticed what you mentioned. I always just visualize the decimal point one over from the last digit. I know it's corny, but hey - whatever works! And I can't quite answer your question directly either though since I'm horrible in math and mathematical terminology - tenths, thousandths, hundredths . . . it all confuses me.
  • a_riot42a_riot42 Posts: 1,624
    Anyone else notice that the help files that come with NetLinx Studio say that timed waits are measured in 1/100s of a second,

    They are, just ten at a time :)

    Seriously though, is your help file different than mine? Mine says:

    Parameters:
    time - A constant or variable indicating the wait time. Time is expressed in 1/10th second units.
    Paul
  • I see... In the first example where they talk about the max value for a timed wait they expressed the value in 1/100s of a second. That's why I assumed that the time parameter was measured in 100ths.

    I see in the parameters list that it is in fact 1/10s.

    Thanks,
    D.
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Posts: 1,917
    I think what they are trying to get at is the maximum resolution for them is 100th of a second. This is accomplished by using one decimal place. For example, .5 for 5 hundredths or 1.7 for 17 hundredths.

    Jeff

    P.S.
    This is all from memory at the moment, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.
  • Yeah... After reading that section again, I think you're right Jeff.

    D.
Sign In or Register to comment.