Execution time on WRs/CRs/NRs Thread

[ILCubing]

Hey guys! I thought this would be a fun thing to make a thread about.
The way this thread will work is simple.
You will go to the exact frame of the solve/solves in that single/average, and whenever you see the hands on the timer, see what the time says on the display. Then, post what the singles and the average would have been, and also images to prove that the framecount is legitimate.
I will go first. I have framecounted Yiheng Wang's 4.05 WR Average.
(3.58) (4.05) 3.89 3.95 3.61 3.81 average

 

[OtaMota]

see what the time says on the display.

Except those displays have lag, and wouldn't show the accurate time at the exact instant that the timer is stopped.

 

[ILCubing]

Except those displays have lag, and wouldn't show the accurate time at the exact instant that the timer is stopped.

I know, I just thought this would be a fun thread
I know it is not the official time.

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

I know, I just thought this would be a fun thread
I know it is not the official time.

It's not just "not the official time," it's a flat out incorrect time. The perceived "disadvantage" of the delay is completely balanced by an equally large "advantage" at the start of each solve. To illustrate what I believe to be the most egregious example in the average:

This is the first frame his hands are not touching the sensor (plus or minus a frame or two.)

twenty one frames and two entire turns later, the display still has not started:

 

[ILCubing]

Am I about to get a lot of hate just for making a thread that I think would just be a fun thread?
I know that it is a flat out incorrect time.
I know that the timer display has delay.
I don't wanna have a thread that will only include hate for me.
I have enough of that in every community I have been in.

 

[OtaMota]

This is the first frame his hands are not touching the sensor (plus or minus a frame or two.)

twenty one frames and two entire turns later, the display still has not started:

Just for everyone’s info btw, those images alone are not capable of proving sliding.

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

Just want to add some thoughts:

I am by no means trying to combative. In retrospect, I think I may have worded my post in a way where the most obvious tone to read it in is not the one I meant. On top of that, one of the hardest things to remember when interacting with a community as a whole is that no matter how many times a misconception gets cleared up with someone, someone else still having it generally has no correlation with the number of previous people who have had it cleared up, and that can lead to taking out frustration on someone who doesn't deserve it.

My opinion on the matter at hand is still the same. At the end of the day, if you realize that there is a delay in the timer (and frankly with the way the original post is worded, it's possible this was never a misconception,) all you're really doing by calculating the average based on the display is calculating what the delay in the display is (turns out, it's about a quarter of a second.) This is not a stat that has any correlation to how good the solves are. I just hope my opinion can be seen as constructive criticism and nothing more than that

 

[abunickabhi]

Hey guys! I thought this would be a fun thing to make a thread about.
The way this thread will work is simple.
You will go to the exact frame of the solve/solves in that single/average, and whenever you see the hands on the timer, see what the time says on the display. Then, post what the singles and the average would have been, and also images to prove that the framecount is legitimate.
I will go first. I have framecounted Yiheng Wang's 4.05 WR Average.
(3.58) (4.05) 3.89 3.95 3.61View attachment 36674View attachment 36675View attachment 36676View attachment 36677View attachment 366783.81 average

i see no point

 

[ILCubing]

i see no point

me neither I don't know how to delete this thread

 

[BVCuber13]

me neither I don't know how to delete this thread

Just ask a mod

 

[Gecko777]

Yeah it just seems that frame counting doesn't have an actual purpose.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

This seems like a interesting idea. Seeing what the actual time is on the cube without the timer lag and delay. Can you framecount Max's 3.13?

 

[ILCubing]

UPDATE: Knowing that some people may be interested into a thread like this, I have decided that I do not want to have this thread deleted. Please do not delete the thread.

 

[ILCubing]

This seems like a interesting idea. Seeing what the actual time is on the cube without the timer lag and delay. Can you framecount Max's 3.13?

Sure! Here is what I got:
The hands are on the timer at 2.984 seconds. So without the timer lag and delay, this would have been the first ever sub-3.

For anyone that wants to do this themselves, here is how you do it:
Go into the video and put it at 0.25 speed. Then try to find the exact frame where the hands are on the timer. Here as you see, it says 2.984 seconds, however the time was 3.13 because of the timer having lag and delay.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

What about the starting delay?

 

[Lord_Oscar]

UPDATE: Knowing that some people may be interested into a thread like this, I have decided that I do not want to have this thread deleted. Please do not delete the thread.

Have deleted my post pinging the mods asking for thread deletion.

 

[ILCubing]

What about the starting delay?

actually have no idea

 

[xyzzy]

without the timer lag and delay, this would have been the first ever sub-3.

You seem to completely misunderstand what the timer display lagging actually entails.

Because the display has a lag of 0.2 sec (or whatever), the time you see on it (which is not the same thing as the time being measured within the timer (*)) is going to be less than the actual time.

If, somehow, the display had no lag at all (this is easy to do; just add on the estimated lag (**)), then it would have been showing the real time, which is not sub-3 regardless.

(*) which, to be pedantic, is also not the same thing as physically elapsed time, but assuming that the timer is functioning properly, these values should be very close

(**) Exercise for the reader: what are the downsides of doing this?

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

You seem to completely misunderstand what the timer display lagging actually entails.

Because the display has a lag of 0.2 sec (or whatever), the time you see on it (which is not the same thing as the time being measured within the timer (*)) is going to be less than the actual time.

If, somehow, the display had no lag at all (this is easy to do; just add on the estimated lag (**)), then it would have been showing the real time, which is not sub-3 regardless.

(*) which, to be pedantic, is also not the same thing as physically elapsed time, but assuming that the timer is functioning properly, these values should be very close

(**) Exercise for the reader: what are the downsides of doing this?

why can’t I understand this

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

why can’t I understand this

me neither. I think maybe this thread should be labeled on execution time instead of frame counting.