On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 11:20 +0100, Jorrit Tyberghein wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Ronald Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm using the csTicks received by iVirtualClock::GetElapsedTicks() to
> > control/advance simple thing animations (rotation, movement), which
> > should run for a specific time, in SetupFrame() (csevProcess event).
> > I don't know if this is the best/correct way to do this, but it worked
> > fine with cs-pseudo-stable-2005-09-03, as 1 csTick seems to be milli
> > second.
> > Now with cs-pseudo-stable-2006-01-27 all animations are running at
> > double speed. It looks like the resolution of the virtual clock has been
> > doubled: 1 csTick = 0.5 ms ?
> > The question is, is the assumption 1 csTick = 0.5 ms correct, or is this
> > only for my computer correct. Or is there a better way to get the real
> > time elasped between to frames?
>
> We most certainly did not change this. A tick is still 1ms so most
> likely something else has gone wrong. What kind of animations have
> doubled in speed?
You're right Jorrit. The real problem was, that all events were received
twice. I'm using now the class csBaseEventHandler with still some old
code fragments left :)
Thanks,
Ronald
--
-------------------- /"\
Ronald Kurz \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] X Against HTML Mail
/ \
:wq!
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crystal-main
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
