|
| 04 Mar 2012 07:55 PM |
| Ok, I never though of this before, but how many seconds is wait()? Because I'm pretty sure you can do a smaller measurement without it... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 07:58 PM |
| ~0.03s is the default time. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 08:14 PM |
| If its in a LocalScript, I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure) that its around your client speed. YAY FOR GUESSING!!! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
|
| 04 Mar 2012 09:38 PM |
@MeBilly
I swear that you actually know nothing about programming and you're just here to yell at people ._____. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 06:45 AM |
You could actually set the default amount of time a script waits if it uses ( wait() )
I forgot where, but I remember it's in: Tools>Settings
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 07:02 AM |
If you don't give an argument to the wait function, it will wait the default ammount of time, which is set in the settings.
The wait function will also only check the time every frame, which is why it isn't completely accurate and why if you give it an argument of zero, it will wait one frame.
Every single other answer in this thread is completely wrong. >_> |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 09:31 AM |
My answer is true.. :O
I said that you could set the amount of time it waits if you use wait()
"Knowledge talks, wisdom listens." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:02 PM |
isn't mebilly a wiki writer?
and he doesn't know what wait does without an argument? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:13 PM |
^
I'm a Wiki writer? .____________. *Checks Wiki*
Nope, Chuck Testa!
And that was a total guess. I know what wait does, I was just being random. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:17 PM |
| For the record, default wait *is* 0 so wait() will wait 1 frame. JD didn't explain that all too well... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:19 PM |
@enumeration
Lolthx. :D I'm also gunna' stop constantly telling people to GOBWEY all day and contribute a bit (and eat the occasional noob). YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:28 PM |
| I don't see the problem with GOBWEYing people; so Idon't dislike billy, just thought he was a WW so wondering how he got it not knowing wait's behaviour |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 04:29 PM |
| I don't even use that. I like to have more control. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
aboy5643
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5458 |
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 08:07 PM |
@super
You have to. Lua only updates once a frame so you can't get any more precision than that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Mar 2012 08:11 PM |
| The only way to get more precise than the wait function is to actually KEEP the control of the CPU in the Lua thread, AKA: freezing the whole game until you're done waiting, AKA: the last thing you'd want to do. I mean, who would want to freeze the physics, the rendering and everything else just to be a little more accurate? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Mar 2012 04:02 PM |
| I wouldn't freeze the whole game for ANY thing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|