Home› AMX User Forum› AMX General Discussion
Options

Timed Waits and bad documentation...

DerekHoffmanDerekHoffman Posts: 22
in AMX General Discussion
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

  • Options
    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.
  • Options
    a_riot42a_riot42 Posts: 1,624
    DerekHoffman wrote: »
    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
  • Options
    DerekHoffmanDerekHoffman Posts: 22
    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.
  • Options
    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.
  • Options
    DerekHoffmanDerekHoffman Posts: 22
    Yeah... After reading that section again, I think you're right Jeff.

    D.
Sign In or Register to comment.