wait ((0.001) * (amount you want)) secs

FancyFoxy wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Does it?

forever
wait (0.001) secs
change [timer v] by (0.001)
end

Is that milliseconds? It should be, right, it's 1 thousandth of a second?

You can't wait for 0.001 seconds. Lowest is 0.03333333333… seconds.

when green flag clicked
set [timer v] to [0]
forever
 wait (0.1) secs
 change [timer v] by (0.1)
end

alexphan wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

No support.

((current [second v]) / (1000))

That wouldn't work. That's just dividing the second (a whole number) by 1000.

_

Galleigo-Labs wrote:

Why would you need to measure the system's millisecond time?

No support.

The let's remove

(current [ v])

because what's the point of measuring the system's second, or minute, or hour?

_

Support; even though the workaround can be figured out after some time, it would be nice to have a millisecond block that does not lag (the timer, if I'm correct, is based on FPS, so it varies among users. The days since 2000 block and current block is based on real time, so it goes at a constant rate)

Charles12310 wrote:

Hmm, semi-support, since a millisecond is 1/1000 of a second, and you could just do:

wait ((0.001) * (amount you want)) secs

Charles12310 wrote:

alexphan wrote:

-snip-

Exactly, if we can't have millisecond, why do we have the other time?

Charles12310 wrote:

If we can't have the “previous costume” block, because it can be easily replicated, why do we have the “next costume” block, which is also easily replicated? See what I mean?

geoffrey1900 wrote:

if you think about it the

(timer) 

has to run with the fps of the your computer so and most of the time the fps of computers is 30 or 60 so
how could it show a 1000 of a second if it can only run at 1 frame every 30 or 60 seconds?

DaEpikDude wrote:

Charles12310 wrote:

Hmm, semi-support, since a millisecond is 1/1000 of a second, and you could just do:

wait ((0.001) * (amount you want)) secs

What exactly does this do as a workaround? I'm not sure how this workarounds finding the current millisecond.

Charles12310 wrote:

alexphan wrote:

-snip-

Exactly, if we can't have millisecond, why do we have the other time?

Because the other times are generally more used than milliseconds, and we have the timer for milliseconds?

Charles12310 wrote:

If we can't have the “previous costume” block, because it can be easily replicated, why do we have the “next costume” block, which is also easily replicated? See what I mean?

Hoo boy, the workaround discussion again.
In relation to that specific case, in animations and such you're vastly more likely to be moving forwards through frames than moving backwards.

Anyway, in relation to the OP, there isn't much reason to not adding this.
However…

geoffrey1900 wrote:

if you think about it the

(timer) 

has to run with the fps of the your computer so and most of the time the fps of computers is 30 or 60 so
how could it show a 1000 of a second if it can only run at 1 frame every 30 or 60 seconds?

Semi-support.

((current [second v]) * (0.001))

wait (0.1) secs

Lu2333 wrote:

This Seems A Bit Too Complicated For Scratch.

Lu2333 wrote:

This Seems A Bit Too Complicated For Scratch.

([ v] of (9) :: operators

( letter (5) of ( join ( (timer) - ( [floor v] of (timer) ) ) [ ] ) ) // use in a "run without screen refresh" block

DisasterPug wrote:

So we should remove

([ v] of (9) :: operators

because it's too complicated?

define get current millisecond
set [current millisecond v] to ((((days since 2000) * (86400)) - ([floor v] of ((days since 2000) * (86400)))) * (1000))

((24) * ((60) * (60))) // (24 hours in a day) * (60 minutes in an hour) * (60 seconds in a minute)

((days since 2000) * (86400)) // (days since 2000) * (seconds in a day)

walkcycle wrote:

^ For those wondering, the 86400 number is the seconds in a day.

((24) * ((60) * (60))) // (24 hours in a day) * (60 minutes in an hour) * (60 seconds in a minute)

So,

((days since 2000) * (86400)) // (days since 2000) * (seconds in a day)

is the seconds since 2000.

Then subtracting the floor gets the current fraction of a second.

And multiplying by 1000 gets the deci-, centi-, and milli- seconds in front of the decimal mark.

And our thread is was a duplicate. It got combined.

Charles12310 wrote:

All you are doing is just linking to the front page of this topic.

was a duplicate.

(current [fraction of second v])

(current [subsecond v])

tazz4843 wrote:

Alright, this should be added to Scratch 3. Come on, ST!

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

tazz4843 wrote:

Alright, this should be added to Scratch 3. Come on, ST!

Necroposter!
JK, you can't necropost in suggestions.

No support- wouldn't be used a lot, and workaroundable.

CCPlymJoe wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

tazz4843 wrote:

Alright, this should be added to Scratch 3. Come on, ST!

Necroposter!
JK, you can't necropost in suggestions.

No support- wouldn't be used a lot, and workaroundable.

Workaroundable? How?

((0.001) * (amount you want))

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CCPlymJoe wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

tazz4843 wrote:

Alright, this should be added to Scratch 3. Come on, ST!

Necroposter!
JK, you can't necropost in suggestions.

No support- wouldn't be used a lot, and workaroundable.

Workaroundable? How?

((0.001) * (amount you want))

CCPlymJoe wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

tazz4843 wrote:

Alright, this should be added to Scratch 3. Come on, ST!

Necroposter!
JK, you can't necropost in suggestions.

No support- wouldn't be used a lot, and workaroundable.

Workaroundable? How?

kenny2scratch wrote:

define get current millisecond
set [current millisecond v] to ((((days since 2000) * (86400)) - ([floor v] of ((days since 2000) * (86400)))) * (1000))

Enjoy!