A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
The sleep timer is bugged once we go bellow 1, if I want to make the sleep slightly shorter from 1 with 0.9 it behaves like if I had used the value 0.05 because it's executed approximately 20 times faster.
Re: A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
see the help file for possible explanation and alternative:
https://autohotkey.com/docs/commands/Sleep.htm
https://autohotkey.com/docs/commands/Sleep.htm
Re: A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
It would also help if you explain how you determined this, since you're talking in microsecond scales now: How can we reproduce this.
Until then, moved from bug report to ask for help.
Until then, moved from bug report to ask for help.
Re: A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
IT seems like your understanding of the sleep timer and mine are highly different.
Did you actually read the documentation that Guest3456 linked before posting your "findings"?
Did you actually read the documentation that Guest3456 linked before posting your "findings"?
Re: A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
I don't get the point you're trying to make. Player hasn't replied since guest3456's post and I'm asking Player for additional info, I'm not presenting findings.SvenBent wrote:IT seems like your understanding of the sleep timer and mine are highly different.
Did you actually read the documentation that Guest3456 linked before posting your "findings"?
Re: A sleep of 0.9 is almost 20 times shorter than a sleep of 1
oh my badNextron wrote:I don't get the point you're trying to make. Player hasn't replied since guest3456's post and I'm asking Player for additional info, I'm not presenting findings.SvenBent wrote:IT seems like your understanding of the sleep timer and mine are highly different.
Did you actually read the documentation that Guest3456 linked before posting your "findings"?
My post was meant for OP no you.
I should have clarified to avoid this miscommunication.