On 03/12/2015 10:11 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Don, 2015-03-12 at 21:16 +0100, Cyrille Henry wrote: >> for the simple answer, i would say that : >> -from inside a patch, pd clock accuracy is "infinite" > > That is actually what I meant when I said it was limited by the > precision of the floating point format being used.
actually time stamps in Pd do not use "Pd's native number type" (t_float aka single precision float in almost all cases), but "double". so clock accuracy is really very high. otoh, finding a single number (like 1.4013e-45) for the clock tick accuracy is a misconception, as the timestamps are really "absolute timestamps" (in relation to Pd's start-time which is set to "0"). so the clock resolution gets worse the longer you run Pd. think of the good ol' example if a patch-implemented [counter] implemented, that stops incrementing by 1 at 10000000 or so; otoh if your numbers stay small, you can increment by (say) 1e-6; the same holds true for the timestamps: far in the future, the time-stamp resolution will be e.g. 1 second or worse; luckily, using double precision, this will be FAR in the future. fmds IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list