Scratch
archived forums
#1 2010-08-08 18:30:32
Repeat block as a time filler
Instead of using the wait () secs block, the repeat () block can be used to wait a certain amount of time that will change depending on the quality of the computer. Please let me know if this was any use to you.
~asuul714
Offline
#2 2010-08-09 03:33:47
- Jonathanpb
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2008-07-25
- Posts: 1000+
Re: Repeat block as a time filler
Yeah, the Repeat () block can be used for very short pauses. RHY3756547 used it a lot. 
"Human beings... must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.
-Charlotte Brontë
Offline
#3 2010-08-09 13:06:31
- Wolfie1996
- Retired Community Moderator
- Registered: 2009-07-08
- Posts: 1000+
Re: Repeat block as a time filler
Another thing that I like to use for synchronising projects (e.g. making a sprite's mouth move in time with a sound) is this:
[blocks]<wait until><( <timer> <>> number )>[/blocks]
I also use empty repeats for short waits
"...Jargon - the practice of never calling a spade a spade, when you might instead call it a manual earth-restructing implement..." - Bill Bryson, Mother Tongue
Offline
#4 2010-08-09 13:23:49
- Telemachus
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2010-04-21
- Posts: 500+
Re: Repeat block as a time filler
Wow, I didn't know this! Thanks for the information. I always used wait 0.001 seconds or something like that.
Offline
#6 2010-08-09 19:17:12
- graham7sarah9
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2009-07-19
- Posts: 28
Re: Repeat block as a time filler
Statistically, the repeat block takes about 1/40th of a second if you have an empty repeat 1. Repeat 2 would be 2/40ths, and so on. Except for the fact that the higher the number, the more lag comes. A repeat of 40 times repeats 40.404040404 times per second, whereas 100 repeats somewhere near 39 times per second. I have failed to test 1 time because the result is a crazy number that is about 333
Offline