On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 18:16 +0200, Patco wrote:
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 06:59 -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Enrique Erne wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
lets assume you want to schedule the next 'bang' to 43s297ms, but the output of [timer] maybe is '43 296', '43 296', '43 298'. won't be hit at all. then i think, that this approach wouldn't be accurate at all, since there is no logical time involved. the advantage of logical time is,
i think your totally right... too bad.
Then both of you need to read the helpfile of [timer] and compare it with the one of [realtime]: [timer] works in logical time only.
oops, i meant to talk about a solution based on zexy's [time], not on [timer] (typo). however, since there is [realtime], it wouldn't make much sense to use [timer]. you could reach the same with both.
roman
following the doc it is clear that there is a big difference between [timer] and [realtime], I don't understand what is the meaning of 'same with both' in your sentence. If the 'universal space-time continuum' model makes sense, only the acceleration of motion between the computers running the Real Time metronome could shift the counting.
i meant: both are realtime based and both need to be triggered in order to give you a result. in order to create a 'drop-out safe metro', you would have to 'bang' them with some very high (whatever that means) rate.
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de