LOOP Myth - I prove it to be wrong.

[redscores]

Well, there is a myth floating around that a wait which is set to below 0.27 is set to 0.27... but thats wrong, I created a test map which can prove that, the map has 3 small triggers which simulate a timer-oriented loop with a changeable time, the map supports up to 1 second.

The Map should prove that waits can be under 0.27 and work (but not really accurate).

For the Map:

Use the only Command: -start XXXX (XXXX can be from 1.000 to 0.000 any number, 1.000 is 1 second and shouldn't be used, it returns exactly zero, because the events delay it a tiny bit.)

All the calculations with this map are not 100% exact, but they show that you can put waits under 0.27...

I tried it with 0.01 and 0.27... maybe you should try that by yourself, I hope you like this small project of mine.

View attachment Loop Test.w3x

This Stuff is only tested in single player, and that rumor was spread all over the hive, I read it many times, so I tried to prove that myth wrong, I did it in single player, but I could not test it in multiplayer yet.

 

[uberfoop]

Yeah, a lot of people have checked this and gotten the same result. I have no idea where the 'can't go below .27 at all' idea came from.

Not like it matters though; TSA still needs to be at least 4 times faster to be of any use in rapid looping, and even then it's innacurate and unreliable.

 

[Void]

first of all the way you tried to prove your point is really awful implemented (trigger wise your way to calculate that is way of mostly because of that 0.01 seconds delay of the timer)

and more importantly it also proves you wrong:
i tried 0.001 seconds several times it says 5 or 6 or 10 loops per second - should be 1000

and in this result you see the 2 main reasons not to use waits:
-the time a wait actually waits can vary greatly (i even got different result for running 0.27 (one time 2 loops per second one time it said 3 times per second)
-you can't wait for very small periods as waits will always wait for a minimum of something around 0.15 seconds

 

[redscores]

Well, I said that you can go lower as 0.27 seconds, nothing else, and what did I wrote in my post? That it is not exact at all, I just tried to prove that 0.03 seconds wait for example is faster as 0.27, and that was proven by this test.

And of course I could set the timer to 0.00.

Just by the way, i made this map up in 10 minutes... just for a small proof...

THIS MAP IS NOT ABOUT THAT YOU SHOULD NOT USE WAITS, it is just about that stupid myth that says that a wait can't be lower as 0.27, else it will be set to 0.27, and I defeated that myth.

And void, thats not true, you can set it below....

For example, put in my map 0.01 and 0.04 in, they get different results, that alone is the proof.

 

[Void]

well whoever said that most likely meant that waits aren't reliable below 0.27s - and thats correct

For example, put in my map 0.01 and 0.04 in, they get different results, that alone is the proof.

doesn't prove your point i can get different results between trying 0.01 and trying 0.01 again

 

[redscores]

Yes, i know.

But someone said that ALWAYS if you set a loop below 0.27, hes resetted to 0.27, thats what I tried to prove wrong, I know that waits are NEVER reliable .

 

[reason 3]

I think the myth is just that the wait commands under the 0.27 are not reliable,not that all wait commands cannot be under 0.27.

 

[HINDYhat]

Of course you can put waits below 0.27. The limit is actually 0.1 seconds, and in single-player you can almost always get that low with TSA. I think what whoever started this 0.27 seconds myth was trying to say is that waits are imprecise and unreliable, especially in multi-player, where it's rather hard to hit the 0.1 seconds minimum. There obviously isn't a 0.27 seconds minimum to TSA.

Who said it? Maybe if you'd link to the place where someone started this, things might clear up for others, because I really doubt whoever said this meant what you understood from it.

EDIT: Also, I think you got the thread name wrong.

 

[twotonedbeat]

doesn't prove your point i can get different results between trying 0.01 and trying 0.01 again

they show that you can put waits under 0.27..

Well, there is a myth floating around that a wait which is set to below 0.27 is set to 0.27... but that's wrong

Reading comprehension is hard Void.

The concept is proven, anyone who goes around saying HURR HURR NO is just looking to stroke their ego.

Its apparent that waits under .27 are not reliable...but that's not the OP is trying to disprove, at all.

Is it too hard to ask for people on this forum to act like normal human beings instead of self-righteous elitists?

Apparently for some people, it isn't.

For example:

I think the myth is just that the wait commands under the 0.27 are not reliable,not that all wait commands cannot be under 0.27.

Was is that hard for you to make a post like this Void? Apparently.

 

[En_Fuego]

Reading comprehension is hard Void.

The concept is proven, anyone who goes around saying HURR HURR NO is just looking to stroke their ego.

Its apparent that waits under .27 are not reliable...but that's not the OP is trying to disprove, at all.

Is it too hard to ask for people on this forum to act like normal human beings instead of self-righteous elitists?

Apparently for some people, it isn't.

For example:



Was is that hard for you to make a post like this Void? Apparently.

Your post is exactly what you're shaming him for. Shame on you, kid.

I'm curious about something though, does the time it takes to call a Wait affect the length of the Wait as well? What about with Timers?

 

[twotonedbeat]

Your post is exactly what you're shaming him for. Shame on you, kid.

The major difference is I've got some very strong evidence to support he's acting a certain way.

An apt assessment is not self-righteous and elitist.

I really don't see how asking people not to be dicks to each other has anything to do with me being self-righteous or elitist, or not acting within accepted social behavior by the vast majority of society around the world.

But this is getting off-topic...fast

He perceived the myth to be X, some other people think it is Y, now we can have an ego wagging contest to see which perception of a myth is "correct"

 

[Void]

I'm curious about something though, does the time it takes to call a Wait affect the length of the Wait as well? What about with Timers?

if i got that right:
its not added to the wait or timer timeout if you mean that, but o/c your wait or timer start will always be delayed by the time it takes to call the function (doesn't really matter though as it only takes a very small fraction of a second)

Is it too hard to ask for people on this forum to act like normal human beings instead of self-righteous elitists?

SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET
no really what i just don't get is why would anyone try to prove that myth wrong

 

[GhostWolf]

if i got that right:
its not added to the wait or timer timeout if you mean that, but o/c your wait or timer start will always be delayed by the time it takes to call the function (doesn't really matter though as it only takes a very small fraction of a second)

The call itself is about...6 commands :/ (although I reckon it's actually more since the VM needs to translate it first):

Push address to stack, push wait time, call, get wait time, wait, get address, get back to address.
Of course the wait itself probably has some annoying multithreaded mechanism or something that controls it somehow.

 

[redscores]

Read my main post, and you got all your answers, i prove that shitty myth wrong which all are talking about, end of story.

 

[Diehard@Azeroth]

lul at this thread.

 

[redscores]

And why do you Lul at this thread Diehard@Azeroth? want some report for off topic posting? I hate that.

 

[En_Fuego]

Read my main post, and you got all your answers, i prove that shitty myth wrong which all are talking about, end of story.

I still don't understand what "shitty myth" this is.

 

[Justify]

Well, I think this myth didn't even start at 0.27.
When I startet triggering, everyone told me that waits can't be under 0.24, then it reached 0.25 and now 0.27. However, I don't think this "myth" has a real source, it's some sort of roumor that someone invented, like the sound-leaking thing you can read at the moment here :O
He prove it. that was his topic. No need for arguing about being a mayth or problems with accuracy: he did what he said, end of the story.
I don't think that it was necessary, but that's his choice.

 

[Bantas]

everyone told me that waits can't be under 0.24, then it reached 0.25 and now 0.27. However, I don't think this "myth" has a real source, it's some sort of roumor that someone invented

It's not invented. I remember not being able to go lower than ~0.27 in a loop, for one of my old spells (like.. two years ago). Unfornately I doubt the map still works.

 

[Maker]

What would you say is the conclusion based on your test?

1) Waits can be under 0,27.
2) Lower wait time generally results in lower "real time" wait.
3) Trying to use low wait times isn't a good idea when looking for accuracy.

What is the limit that waits can't be under? At what point does wait become, let's say 90 % accurate for example? If I set wait to 0,10 s, how high/low can it get? What's the average time for that value?

 

[redscores]

1) Waits can be under 0,27. <Correct>
2) Lower wait time generally results in lower "real time" wait. <Correct>
3) Trying to use low wait times isn't a good idea when looking for accuracy. <Correct>

And to your question, I think it is fairly accurate till 0.10 seconds.

Under 0.10 it gets very inaccurate.

 

[Nestharus]

lul at this thread.

I totally agree.

And why do you Lul at this thread Diehard@Azeroth? want some report for off topic posting? I hate that.

That was totally on topic actually.

Ok... because I am actually pained by reading this thread... I only see a couple of actual sensible things...


redscores, the fact that you tested TriggerSleepAction() in single player means absolutely nothing. How many maps are in single player? Do you honestly think that TriggerSleepAction() works the same in multi player? I assure you that it does not.


And there was so much more, but it turned into a rant ; P.


All I can say is this is a senseless thread as TriggerSleepAction cannot be measured online since it varies greatly from game to game due to network issues. It is highly inaccurate and should not be used in quality maps. Furthermore, the chances of it actually being able to go below .3 seconds in an online game are minimal at best. Single player is fine, we all knew that already. What you presented isn't new at all -.-.

 

[Anachron]

I totally agree.



That was totally on topic actually.

Ok... because I am actually pained by reading this thread... I only see a couple of actual sensible things...


redscores, the fact that you tested TriggerSleepAction() in single player means absolutely nothing. How many maps are in single player? Do you honestly think that TriggerSleepAction() works the same in multi player? I assure you that it does not.


And there was so much more, but it turned into a rant ; P.


All I can say is this is a senseless thread as TriggerSleepAction cannot be measured online since it varies greatly from game to game due to network issues. It is highly inaccurate and should not be used in quality maps. Furthermore, the chances of it actually being able to go below .3 seconds in an online game are minimal at best. Single player is fine, we all knew that already. What you presented isn't new at all -.-.

QTF!

Really, try to use waits in Bnet and check which time they are requiring.
They will surely need about 0.27 seconds, if not even more.

Nobody cares about single players, really.

 

[Shyhalu]

SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET
no really what i just don't get is why would anyone try to prove that myth wrong

Yeah, how dare he try to figure out the truth behind a rumor! Lets burn him at the stake!

 

[Diehard@Azeroth]

Heh, actually man, i wasnt trying to ridicule ur assumptions ), but actually because of so much dissapproval going on over one silly topic. Sorry if u got the wrong idea bro

 

[redscores]

Well, it seems that many stupid people are on Hiveworkshop, to tell you 1 last time, I checked it for single player, yes, and why? because the rumor says:

If you set waits BELOW 0.27 <--- First part? Do you get it? More information maybe?
The wait is automaticly set to 0.27 <--- Second Part, Do you get it again?
ALWAYS. <--- this is the most important fact in this myth, I hope I was not too fast for you.

Now, just get the fuck out of this thread, this discussion is senseless with a bunch of people which have less than a eye.... (most of the people, not all)....

I am sad that THW turned into this.

And Nesthaurus, you are wrong in many points, but I am sick of explaining stuff, you said for you it is clear that you can set waits in single player below 0.27, but I read in every 2nd thread on this damn forum which is about waits that you cannot fucking set waits below 0.27, and I just tried to destroy that damn myth... don't you get it? Is my english too bad for you to understand? damn... I get angry... I try to help and I get flamed for that, you should all get a better behavior... I tried to be friendly... but it is hopeless.

 

[Anachron]

Well, it seems that many stupid people are on Hiveworkshop, to tell you 1 last time, I checked it for single player, yes, and why? because the rumor says:

The rumor says in general... not singleplayer only.

If you set waits BELOW 0.27 <--- First part? Do you get it? More information maybe?

Thats right.

The wait is automaticly set to 0.27 <--- Second Part, Do you get it again?

Nobody said that. We talk about the delay is a minimum of 0.27, not that it is actually setted to that. That comes actually because the wc3 timers for waits wait a minimum of 0.xx seconds.

ALLWAYS. <--- this is the most important fact in this myth, I hope I was not too fast for you.

Actually its always. And its kinda like that, if you just read my 2 above comments.

Now, just get the fuck out of this thread, this discussion is senseless with a bunch of people which have less than a eye.... (most of the people, not all)....

You are the one who not seems to realize that actually the myth is taking place, its just that you miss understood it.

Oh btw, this is offtopic, so I quote again here:
Want some report for off topic posting? I hate that.

I am sad that THW turned into this.

THW has ever been that good and ignores stupid comments which include harassing, offending and flaming arguments.

In general:
Stop flaming and accept the fact that there is a myth about waits, which is all over the world, some of the versions might be right, the others wrong.

I would like to close this topic, but sadly I can't.

 

[redscores]

I could not check it in multiplayer... I give up... thats like talking against a wall...

And I just tried to prove it wrong in singleplayer, and my benchmarks with the map prove that it is wrong in singleplayer, I never said it is wrong in multiplayer.

 

[Anachron]

I could not check it in multiplayer...

So why do say the waits can wait below 0.27, if you actually don't test it? I mean nobody talkes about single player-waits. And nobody cares. We all know that in singleplayer the maps are faster.

I give up... thats like talking against a wall...

Sure, because we tried to tell you that you are wrong, in whatever you heared.

And I just tried to prove it wrong in singleplayer, and my benchmarks with the map prove that it is wrong in singleplayer, I never said it is wrong in multiplayer.

Then test in multiplayer, and come back. If you can create a 0.01 loop with waits I will rep you.

If you can create an loop below 0.27 I will say you are right in my signature.

 

[Nestharus]

Well, in multiplayer, I suppose with a delay reducer and extremely high speed internet that it is possible to get below .27 on TriggerSleepAction, but it'd be a 1 in 100,000,000 game ; P.

Anyhow, if you are trying to disprove a rumor that's directed at single player then Kudos =). Although I can't believe that people actually believe that applies to single player .


Btw, I myself was not flaming. I said that people already know about the single player TriggerSleepAction, but if I'm wrong about that I apologize. I generally hang out with veterans : \.

Also, your post was very unclear as to whether you were testing on multi player or single player. I assume at this point you are just saying it's possible period, meaning the tests were done in single player. You should be more clear as to where you were testing this stuff and to the minimums you retrieved. You should also be clear that multi player TriggerSleepAction cannot be tested. The speed of TriggerSleepAction online fully depends on the players involved in the game.

So I assume at this point that the rumor was pointed at TriggerSleepAction in general being set to .27 when it went below, which is of course a bad rumor cuz it's wrong : P.

Good job for disproving that rumor =), but you still need to fix your first post to be more clear you, otherwise of course you are going to have people rampaging into the thread going, "wtf?!?!" : p.

 

[swipe5weep]

lol..
0.27 was best to use for loops in terms of adding sfx to abilities. like circling fx
many says that its best to use in looping and some misunderstood it.
they thought that 0.27 was used in all looping..

 

[Sheepo]

Well, it seems that many stupid people are on Hiveworkshop, to tell you 1 last time, I checked it for single player, yes, and why? because the rumor says:

If you set waits BELOW 0.27 <--- First part? Do you get it? More information maybe?
The wait is automaticly set to 0.27 <--- Second Part, Do you get it again?
ALWAYS. <--- this is the most important fact in this myth, I hope I was not too fast for you.

Now, just get the fuck out of this thread, this discussion is senseless with a bunch of people which have less than a eye.... (most of the people, not all)....

I am sad that THW turned into this.

And Nesthaurus, you are wrong in many points, but I am sick of explaining stuff, you said for you it is clear that you can set waits in single player below 0.27, but I read in every 2nd thread on this damn forum which is about waits that you cannot fucking set waits below 0.27, and I just tried to destroy that damn myth... don't you get it? Is my english too bad for you to understand? damn... I get angry... I try to help and I get flamed for that, you should all get a better behavior... I tried to be friendly... but it is hopeless.

Nah, it's not THW. It's just that the topics being discussed in this thread are very controversial and can often turn political.