Execution time on WRs/CRs/NRs Thread

[ILCubing]

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

exactly what I was trying to think of. Thanks for the new thread name

 

[ILCubing]

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?

I cannot seem to understand this, is there some grammar that needs to be changed here or is it just me

 

[precompsubwr]

I cannot seem to understand this, is there some grammar that needs to be changed here or is it just me

The display lags behind by around 0.2 seconds, so at most points the timer display will show a faster time than on the timer (maybe 1.116 on the display compared to 1.274 on the timer)
And if there was no lag then the display wouldn't even show 2 seconds anyway

 

[fes_77]

If, somehow, the display had no lag at all (this is easy to do; just add on the estimated lag (**))

Is it bc the lag difrent evry tim (evry tim the thingy updat is dofrent amout kf time behind)