Timed Waits and bad documentation...

DerekHoffman
DerekHoffman Junior Member
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.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • jjames
    jjames AMX Sustaining Engineer
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • a_riot42
    a_riot42 AMX Wizard
    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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekHoffman
    DerekHoffman Junior Member
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Spire_Jeff
    Spire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekHoffman
    DerekHoffman Junior Member
    Yeah... After reading that section again, I think you're right Jeff.

    D.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories