|
wrote:
And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one). http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer #2 on the list... http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html 12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine. Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple" specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model has it all. I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these, and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what makes these unsuitable? Richard |
Richard H. wrote: wrote: And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one). http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer #2 on the list... http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html 12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine. Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple" specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model has it all. I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these, and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what makes these unsuitable? Well, you have already hinted at it your self. What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark? And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is nothing but a marketing gimic. :-) Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Richard H. wrote: wrote: And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one). http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer #2 on the list... http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html 12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine. Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple" specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model has it all. I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these, and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what makes these unsuitable? Well, you have already hinted at it your self. What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark? And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is nothing but a marketing gimic. :-) Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Richard H. wrote: wrote: And I think it has already been established that the kind of accurate timer I need doesn't exist(or no one here knows of one). http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F100+second+timer #2 on the list... http://www.meylan.com/1_100sec.html 12 models with 1/100 displays and up to 100 hours. Whether they're really 99.99992%+ accurate is for you to determine. Now, these were very easy to find. They meet your limited "simple" specs. Seiko is a name brand in sports timing, and the printer model has it all. I'll politely assume that surely you searched Google first, found these, and determined they were inadequate by merely looking at them. So, what makes these unsuitable? Well, you have already hinted at it yourself. What are the odds that a stand alone stopwatch will be anything close to 1/60th of a second of the correct time at the 6 hour mark? And we all know that 1/100th of a second on a hand held stopwatch is nothing but a marketing gimic. :-) Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Jim Adney wrote: On 27 Jun 2005 10:09:50 -0700 wrote: The problem is getting a timer. You've said that you just want a timer that will run over a period of six hours with 1/60 sec accuracy. You've said that all you want is a simple clock display that reads out seconds. You've said that it needs to just start at an arbitrary start time and count from there. Yup. None of these goals is particularly hard, but to get that accuracy you'll need to buy some sort of commercial clock with a time display and mate it to a frequency source (which in this industry is also commonly called a "clock", further confusing this question) that is more accurate than such timers usually come with. Or, if you have real money to spend you can buy something with a real frequency standard (clock) inside which could be purchased with a digital clock display. The price for something like this could be anything from $2500 to $40,000. This whole range is much more accurate than you've asked for, but it seems unlikely that anyone makes something that meets just your minimum accuracy requirement. So it seems. :-) The problem that I see is that you've not asked for any kind of electronic input or output for the timer, which makes most of us wonder how you expect to be able to use 1/60 sec accuracy while just doing this by eye. Let me repost something I wrote earlier in this thread: "It is way too complicated to go into the details as far as why I need this, but basically this will involve conducting experiments/tests on the accuracy of human timing, and also the confirmation of certain conclusions drawn from studying the code contained within the hardware I'll be testing against." "1/60th of a second is important because it is specific to that hardware and how it functions. It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a second to make certain occurances "random". If one could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, then these occurances would follow a predictable pattern. But of course that kind of timing is not humanly possible with any kind of consistency." If you're planning to use electronic start and stop signals, then you can get much better accuracy than 1/60 sec. Again, this involves "human timing". So this leaves us confused about what it is that you really want/need. It's not that people here are trying to be difficult; it's that they are trying to be helpful, but the specs of your request, taken as a whole, just don't seem to make sense. I covered everything pertinent in my posts, and have no idea what else I can say(that doesn't throw everyone further into a state of cconfusion). So if you explained a little more, without giving away any of your secrets, then you will probably get the answer you're after. There are no "secrets". This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over 300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon. I thought that there might be an affordable timer that would somehow keep it's accuracy by via 60Hertz AC. But I guess not. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Ian Stirling wrote: In sci.electronics.design wrote: Can I get recomendations for the most accurate electronic timer that I can buy? It must to be accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours. Is something like this commercially available, or will I have to build it, or have someone build it? GPS recievers. I've seen some with an alarm function. However, 1/60th of a second in 6 hours isn't impossible to do otherwise. |
In sci.electronics.repair Jim Adney wrote:
None of these goals is particularly hard, but to get that accuracy you'll need to buy some sort of commercial clock with a time display and mate it to a frequency source (which in this industry is also commonly called a "clock", further confusing this question) that is more accurate than such timers usually come with. Or, if you have real money to spend you can buy something with a real frequency standard (clock) inside which could be purchased with a digital clock display. The price for something like this could be anything from $2500 to $40,000. This whole range is much more accurate than you've asked for, but it seems unlikely that anyone makes something that meets just your minimum accuracy requirement. As said before, the power company has something almost up to that standard, but that idea was probably also rejected in earlier discussion here? --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:06:02 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
[and seems to have snipped all attribution] Now if this is so difficult to understand, then the more complex timer will be near impossible to explain. Perhaps your problem is that you don't know what you are doing. Feel free to convince us otherwise. The problem is the criticizing of my needs and the suggestion of alternatives by those unfamiliar with the project. The initial question was simple, and I thank those who gave me their best answers. We are "unfamiliar with the project" because you haven't _told_ us anything about the project. You've made some obscure reference to video games; What do you need to time? What are you trying to accomplish? Yeah, the question was simple. "I need to time an interval to an accuracy of 1/60 second, over a span of possibly 6 hours." People who have many years' experience have informed you of almost a half-dozen ways to accomplish this, but apparently they're unsatisfactory. And newbies wonder why us crusty old farts get annoyed at newbies. Get to the f---ing point, rather than bitching about the suggestions that have been offered based on nothing more than the above, with a dollop of mind reading thrown in. In Other Words, What Are You Trying To Accomplish? Thanks, Rich |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:31:37 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 10:09:50 -0700, wrote: The problem is getting a timer. --- I can build exactly what you want. Email me if you're interested with how much you're prepared to spend to get it. Me Too! ;-) Rich BTW, the email is richardgrise at yahoo dot com, but elide ard. |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:00:46 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over 300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon. Well, Jesus Aitch! Why didn't you just say so? There's probably a dozen people here who could design a joystick tracker with millisecond accuracy, and record switch closures to microsecond tolerances. I'd lighten up a bit on looking for a coincidence detector, which is not going to happen unless you can physically hack the game you're trying to hack. If you're looking at reaction time stuff, then you'll have to find a biology or anatomy group, although I'd still venture to guess that most people who are conversant with this level of electronics probably know something about nerve impulse propagation and electromyelographic interfaces. Heck, a year or so ago, I was being tested for neuropathy, and they taped some electrodes that look very much like EKG or EEG electrodes to my legs, and the nurse (or lady doctor - we didn't get into that) took a hand-held that looked so much like a stun gun that when I said, "Stun Gun???" she said, "That's what everybody says." They stunned me, and they took readings of my neural response. Diagnosis: Alcoholic Neuropathy. Oh, well. You might also look into the source code for "MAME" - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator. I play Mr. Do! and Bubble Bobble regularly, and am considering something much like your project, to see how the software uses joystick/button actions to modify its own algorithm! Good Luck! Rich |
|
wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical. I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well known theorem, I forgot the name). That would be Shannon. |
In article ,
says... wrote: In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical. I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well known theorem, I forgot the name). That would be Shannon. No, that would by Nyquist. Shannon limits the data rate, based on bandwidth and S/N ratio. -- Keith |
wrote in message l... In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I said in my very first post that I was looking for an electronic timer that is accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours. Then the thread turned into questions concerning my project and assumptions as to why what I ask for wasn't logical. I think for you to measure an event with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, you need to take measurements at least 120 times a second (well known theorem, I forgot the name). Nyquist. |
|
I suggested that your approach (precision rather than accuracy) might be a
better way to go, but the guy rejects this idea, but I agree it is a better shot David James Waldby wrote: Note that the clock in the video game almost certainly will drift around in a range at least 10 parts per million wide, which makes your 1 ppm requirement superfluous. Instead, snoop the video game clock and use a buffered copy of it to drive the counters in your timer. This way your displayed time always is in sync with the video game time. |
Rich Grise wrote: On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:00:46 -0700, Searcher7 wrote: This is actually much simpler than the original project which involves more than just a timer, but the ability to record the time of each of four (joystick)input activations/deactivations, which could number over 300 over the course of between 2 and 3 minutes. And then play them back the same way.(Thereby replicating my moves with that 1/60th of a second accuracy). But since I am having such difficulty with this, the original needs are definitely out of the question anytime soon. Well, Jesus Aitch! Why didn't you just say so? There's probably a dozen people here who could design a joystick tracker with millisecond accuracy, and record switch closures to microsecond tolerances. I'd lighten up a bit on looking for a coincidence detector, which is not going to happen unless you can physically hack the game you're trying to hack. As I mentioned, I can't hack into the gameboard. This has to be a separate device. And this project is on the back burner anyway, since it is more complex than just the timer I am seeking for now. If you're looking at reaction time stuff, then you'll have to find a biology or anatomy group, although I'd still venture to guess that most people who are conversant with this level of electronics probably know something about nerve impulse propagation and electromyelographic interfaces. Heck, a year or so ago, I was being tested for neuropathy, and they taped some electrodes that look very much like EKG or EEG electrodes to my legs, and the nurse (or lady doctor - we didn't get into that) took a hand-held that looked so much like a stun gun that when I said, "Stun Gun???" she said, "That's what everybody says." They stunned me, and they took readings of my neural response. Diagnosis: Alcoholic Neuropathy. Oh, well. You might also look into the source code for "MAME" - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator. I play Mr. Do! and Bubble Bobble regularly, and am considering something much like your project, to see how the software uses joystick/button actions to modify its own algorithm! MAME is not an option, because the original hardware must be used. The original project involved a "Automatic Pattern Generator". People develop patterns to clear the mazes in the game Pac-man. I wanted to have a computer develop patterns through trial and error, but that would entail hacking into the game board. So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but those are the basics). I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on something else that requires the timer I posted about. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Peter Duck wrote: In message .com wrote: ... I thought that there might be an affordable timer that would somehow keep it's accuracy by via 60Hertz AC. But I guess not. As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the short-term accuracy of power-system frequencies is several (many?) orders of magnitude worse than your stated requirement (they 'run slow' at times of high demand, but are carefully made to 'catch up' at other times so that domestic clocks, etc., don't develop cumulative gross errors). That's why that won't work... Your confidence that the videogame's(!) registers 'will have undergone 1,296,000 increments over the course of 6 hours' is certain to be similarly misplaced, though if crystal-controlled perhaps only to the extent of a few hundred increments. I'm well aware of the drift. This, basically, is IMO why no-one can see the point of your accuracy-requirement - you seem to believe that you need it to 'keep in step' with a process that is proceeding at rate only approximately-known but from which you can't derive any synchronising-information. No. It is only approximately known, but the "synchronising-information" will be *visually* assessible from the monitor screen. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote:
.... So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but those are the basics). THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue to be a bonehead? I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on something else that requires the timer I posted about. People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. Sorry. Rich |
Rich Grise wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote: ... So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but those are the basics). THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue to be a bonehead? I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on something else that requires the timer I posted about. People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. I'm not the one trolling here. None of that had to do with the original question which was for a timer. And that's all. I've got all of the answers I could get here. Darren Harris Staten ISland, New York. |
|
Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote: ... So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but those are the basics). THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue to be a bonehead? I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on something else that requires the timer I posted about. People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. I think "Hanlon's Razor", ie, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"* is a more-logical explanation here, if we regard trolling as malicious and think of ignorance/boneheadity/laziness/wrongheadedness as akin to stupidity. It seems to me that Darren Harris has rejected out of hand most suggestions because he failed to understand them. -jiw * eg, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I've got all of the answers I could get here. But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with. --- For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you don't know what you're talking about. Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours." means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be 21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours. Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%. Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |
wrote: Rich Grise wrote: People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. I'm not the one trolling here. You certainly appear to be trolling. None of that had to do with the original question which was for a timer. And that's all. Your original question was fully answered several times, as were your followups where you kept adding details that you left out. Please read this: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I've got all of the answers I could get here. I am no fan of the usual flamewars and topic drift here, but in this case the fault is 100% yours. You won't get a good answer anywhere else unless you read the above website and start following the advice in it. Followups set. If you don't know what that means, find out. |
In message
John Fields wrote: ... I suggested you use an 120Hz clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want... For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you don't know what you're talking about. It seems to me a perfectly valid point, illustrating the universal truth, hopefully familiar to anyone with an address such as yours, that the accuracy/resolution of any measuring-instrument must be higher than that required of the measurements to be made. Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours." ... means that he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000 ... Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? Nothing about how its accuracy could be achieved; only, by implication, that this should be better than 1 part in 2.6 million rather than 1.3 Non-trivial in isolation, but 'standard frequency/time' transmissions make available to everyone within range the accuracy in which national standards-bureaux have heavily invested: propagation-variability still leaves the result 'better' than anything feasible to achieve otherwise. 'Radio-controlled' clocks locked to these are cheap domestic commodity items, though for any serious application modification/additions would be needed to produce/use an 'electronic' output instead of the normal 'visual' one. (They don't usually even have a 'stopwatch' mode, for starters, though £8/$15 watches available here do) This, however, would need more knowledge/skills than the OP claims. Though still unconvinced of the relevance of such accuracy-requirement to what little I've grasped of the clock-watching/button-pushing(!) application, the discussion IMO remains of some academic interest, if OT in a 'repair' NG ... -- Peter Duck |
John Fields wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote: In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I've got all of the answers I could get here. But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with. --- For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you don't know what you're talking about. Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours." means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be 21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours. Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%. Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? The suggestion was faulty. That is why that post of his is now gone. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Guy Macon wrote: wrote: Rich Grise wrote: People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. I'm not the one trolling here. You certainly appear to be trolling. Only to someone who doesn't know what trolling is. None of that had to do with the original question which was for a timer. And that's all. Your original question was fully answered several times, as were your followups where you kept adding details that you left out. Totally incorrect. Find a single post in this thread where it was answered completely. And I added no details that I "left out". Those "follow ups" should not have happened, since they were off post. But certain people kept needling me for details. Please read this: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html What for? I've got all of the answers I could get here. I am no fan of the usual flamewars and topic drift here, but in this case the fault is 100% yours. You won't get a good answer anywhere else unless you read the above website and start following the advice in it. Followups set. If you don't know what that means, find out. I don't need to read any such website. The topic drift here is not my fault. Would it take a genius to answer the question in the first post without needing more details? Evidently so. Again, I have whatever answers I can get here. Let it go. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
James Waldby wrote: Rich Grise wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Searcher7 wrote: ... So I came up with the idea to at the press of a button have my joystick movements recorded and then have the option of playing the sequence back through the joystick inputs.(It's a lot more complex than this, but those are the basics). THIS IS ALMOST TRIVIAL TO DO!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so impelled to continue to be a bonehead? I've had to put these ideas on the back burner and concentrate on something else that requires the timer I posted about. People keep giving you answers, and you keep rejecting them - the only logical conclusion is that you're doing nothing but trolling. I think "Hanlon's Razor", ie, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"* is a more-logical explanation here, if we regard trolling as malicious and think of ignorance/boneheadity/laziness/wrongheadedness as akin to stupidity. It seems to me that Darren Harris has rejected out of hand most suggestions because he failed to understand them. I rejected most suggestions because I did understand them,and they were adequate for my needs. Only someone truly stupid would not understand that. Of those links that were posted, I have yet to hear back from the one company I e-mailed. And the timers didn't have enough details or were totally inadequate for my purposes.(Like those Ebay links you posted). I read all the advice here and said thanks a several times throughout the thread, and stated that I got all the info I could get here. What else do you want from me? The crap is over details that certain individuals are looking for. Those details are complicated and totally off topic. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
"John Fields" bravely wrote to "All" (29 Jun 05 13:45:16)
--- on the heady topic of " Wanted: A Very Accurate Timer" JF From: John Fields JF Xref: aeinews sci.electronics.design:25987 JF sci.electronics.repair:51922 JF On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:53:49 +0200, wrote: In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I've got all of the answers I could get here. But have you read them? Apart from that you may not be able to interpret them, I know you got some useful advise. I suggested you use an 120Hz clock, so you will actually obtain the sampling resolution you want. I have not seen you respond to that, thankful nor rejective. For me that implies you should really find an electronics designer to work with. JF -!- JF For me, your suggestion that he use a 120Hz clock implies that you JF don't know what you're talking about. JF Considering that the OP has specified that: "It must to be accurate JF to within 1/60th of a second over the course of 6 hours." JF means that, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour there will be JF 21,600 seconds in six hours, and since he wants to split the seconds JF into 60 slivers each, there will be 1,296,000 slivers in six hours. JF Since he states that the accuracy must be _within_ 1 sliver, that JF means he needs an accuracy of one part in 1,296,000. Looking at it JF from a different perspective, that's an accuracy of +/- 0.000038580%. JF Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? John, IMO, his apprehended requirement seems far too demanding for the task. The original question was simply lacking in experience but that is no crime for a novice. He is attempting to do in hardware what is a trivial solution in software. Anyone who has toyed with simple computer programming must at some time come across a program example that attempts to guess at the timing of a keypress. They may have even come across some that learn a pattern. A*s*i*m*o*v .... Hardwa The parts of a computer that can be kicked |
In sci.electronics.repair John Fields wrote:
Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? I was not presenting it as a complete solution, but as a useful part of finding another strategy to solve the problem. --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
|
It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a
second to make certain occurances "random". If one could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, then these occurances would follow a predictable pattern. But of course that kind of timing is not humanly possible with any kind of consistency. I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few off-the-wall comments: 1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48% range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a really good chance you'll win. 2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties involved, but it's not impossible. If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that easily. I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW. Tim. |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:12:57 +0200, maarten wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair John Fields wrote: Now, what was it you were saying about that 120Hz clock? I was not presenting it as a complete solution, but as a useful part of finding another strategy to solve the problem. Met vriendelijke groet, Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P With Friendly Greets, Rich |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:07:38 -0700, Tim Shoppa wrote:
It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a second to make certain occurances "random". If one could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, then these occurances would follow a predictable pattern. But of course that kind of timing is not humanly possible with any kind of consistency. I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few off-the-wall comments: 1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48% range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a really good chance you'll win. 2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties involved, but it's not impossible. If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that easily. I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW. DOOOD!!!!! =:-O He's trying to cheat the slots?!?!??? F-ck, man, I thought he just wanted to reinvent Bazo's Breaker or something. Speaking of screwing a casino, I'd rather deal with real feds than casino security. Like, for example, printing out a scan of a bill, then trying to use it in a casino changer - you wouldn't even make it out of the building. (although, I haven't tried to pass one to a blackjack dealer...) But the little girl at the bank teller window will happily break it to small bills for you - or actually, the easiest place to pass bogus bills is at the nudie bar - you flash your bogus twenty, and ask the babe for change. Then you leave, and go to the next nudie bar, where you rip off another bimbo $19.00. It's almost trivial. ;- (of course, if you're going for hundreds or thousands, then you'll have to find your own foreign investors. I hear gun-running pays pretty well, if you like that sort of people.) Chears! Rich |
In sci.electronics.repair Rich Grise wrote:
Zaadvragende Ogen! ;-P Next time, say that to a girl... Or better yet, about a girl behind her back ;-) --- Met vriendelijke groet, Maarten Bakker. |
wrote: In sci.electronics.repair wrote: I read all the advice here and said thanks a several times throughout the thread, and stated that I got all the info I could get here. What else do you want from me? The crap is over details that certain individuals are looking for. Those details are complicated and totally off topic. Problem with looking for advise or information on usenet is that you are not the person who is in control over what others do to help you. It's the other way around. If someone has an idea, he or she will try to help you as good as possible. The more questions you are asked, the better. It means people are really trying to help. In the end you will have to evaluate all answers you get yourself. The more answers you reject, the more dissatisfied you will be with the help you are getting. I myself have not analysed your problem toroughly (as repair and design is a hobby and I have more things to do for which my time is paid), but I did try to give you some hints for other approaches that may work. That is the kind of information you will get from the usenet. With lots of luck you will find an out-of-the box solution here, but that is in no way guaranteed. What?!? Was that paragraph really necessary? The problem is the *abuse*. Being called stupid, and troll, or a bonehead by individuals who couldn't even understand the question, let alone come up with answers. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Tim Shoppa wrote: It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a second to make certain occurances "random". If one could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, then these occurances would follow a predictable pattern. But of course that kind of timing is not humanly possible with any kind of consistency. I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few off-the-wall comments: 1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48% range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a really good chance you'll win. 2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties involved, but it's not impossible. If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that easily. I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW. Thanks. I agree with all that. But what I'm doing has nothing to do with a gambling system. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Rich Grise wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:07:38 -0700, Tim Shoppa wrote: It uses registers that change every 1/60th of a second to make certain occurances "random". If one could react with an accuracy of 1/60th of a second, then these occurances would follow a predictable pattern. But of course that kind of timing is not humanly possible with any kind of consistency. I'm guessing that you're trying to beat some sort of gambling/gaming system that uses a pseudorandom sequence clocked at 60Hz. A few off-the-wall comments: 1. You don't have to do it consistently, just enough to put the odds in your favor. Most games are set by law to returns in the 40-48% range. Just "hitting the button" in a 1/6 second window (sounds feasible to me) where you know you've got a 7 or 8 out of 10 chance is way better. You don't wait for the 1/60th of a second where you know you win, but instead you wait for a 1/6sec window where there's a really good chance you'll win. 2. The gaming system's clock is probably nowhere near the 1ppm accuracy you're stating that you require. It would probably make more sense to try to phase-lock the "guesser" to the system. This isn't easy if there's a lot of noise and other pseudo-random uncertainties involved, but it's not impossible. If the gaming system is locked to AC power, then there's enough 60Hz ripple in the light out of a fluorescent or incadescent to lock to that easily. I'd be very surprised if a gaming system had a 1/60 second clock, BTW. DOOOD!!!!! =:-O He's trying to cheat the slots?!?!??? F-ck, man, I thought he just wanted to reinvent Bazo's Breaker or something. Speaking of screwing a casino, I'd rather deal with real feds than casino security. Like, for example, printing out a scan of a bill, then trying to use it in a casino changer - you wouldn't even make it out of the building. (although, I haven't tried to pass one to a blackjack dealer...) But the little girl at the bank teller window will happily break it to small bills for you - or actually, the easiest place to pass bogus bills is at the nudie bar - you flash your bogus twenty, and ask the babe for change. Then you leave, and go to the next nudie bar, where you rip off another bimbo $19.00. It's almost trivial. ;- (of course, if you're going for hundreds or thousands, then you'll have to find your own foreign investors. I hear gun-running pays pretty well, if you like that sort of people.) You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff. Personal experience perhaps? :-) Sigh... OK. Here we go. There are 3 or 4 gamers in the U.S. who have confirmed ability to play the classic game Ms.Pac-man all the way to the end(133 mazes), while consuming *all* of the bonus prizes and monsters along the way. The problem is that our highest scores vary by as much as 100,000 points. So the scores cannot really be a determining factor as far as who the best in the world is at this game, because we have all accomplished the same thing. We cannot go further thanks to the game's end. Our varying high scores are attributed to the "random" aspects of the game. There are 252 "random" bonus prizes in a complete game, and these prizes vary in value from 100 points(Cherry) to 5,000 points(Bananna). From what I'm told, the Ms.Pac-man programming code shows that the register that determines which bonus prizes appear at any given time incriments 60 times a second. So in 7/60th of a second it will incriment through all 7 bonus prizes before beginning again. And the last joystick input before the dot that triggers the prize output is eaten is responsible for which prize appears. Now if a player could determine the exact 1/60th of a second a number corresponding to the 5,000 point prize would be the selection *and* had the timing to activate the correct joystick input at that exact 60th of a second, that player would be able to make nothing but Banannas appear throughout the whole game. But of course this is not humanly possible. So basically the game uses human inconsistency to randomize the prize output. There is however an anomaly in the odds. Each of the 7 bonus prizes *do not* have a 1 in 7 chance of appearing because of the way the Ms.Pac-man programming code was written.(See below)... Cherry 0 7 14 21 28 Strawberry 1 8 15 22 29 Orange 2 9 16 23 30 Pretzel 3 10 17 24 31 Apple 4 11 18 25 Pear 5 12 19 26 Banana 6 13 20 27 The register runs through all 32 incriments in just over half a second. As you can see, all prizes have corresponding numbers. The sequence goes from 0 to 31, and continually repeats without a pause, skip, or reset from the time the game is powered on to when it is powered off. ***Unfortunately, the high bonus prizes(Apple, Pear, & Bananna) are shortchanged in that last line. So as a result the average complete game score is 874,342.5 points instead of the 905,280 points that it would be if the odds were in fact 1 in 7 for each prize. The *actual* odds of getting each prize is shown as fractions and percents he Odds of Appearance ****************** Cherry 100 points = 5/32 = 15.625% Strawberry 200 points = 5/32 = 15.625% Orange 500 points = 5/32 = 15.625% Pretzel 700 points = 5/32 = 15.625% Apple 1,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5% Pear 2,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5% Banana 5,000 points = 4/32 = 12.5% As I mentioned consistently reacting within 1/60th of a second is not possible, but 1/20th of a second can be achieved with *relative* consistency, which should be enough to shift the scoring odds ever so slightly. I say 1/20th because the numbers representing the high value prizes(Apple, Pear, and Bananna) run through the register within that amount of time. Determining the exact instant this happens will be possible through a series of visually references. Since each maze produces two prizes, and the speeds of game's character movements are consistent throughout the game. And since we have and can create maze patterns that run from before the appearance of the first prize to after the appearance of the second, the exact time the first prize appears, what it is,and possibly it's travel pattern will make it the reference for determining what adjustment/s will have to be made before the second prize appears. ***So the last joystick movement before the dot that triggers the second prize will be the key. Since our maze patterns have a lot of pauses, the possibility of resuming motion at the exact same time a particular second on the display clicks over is doable with some accuracy above and beyond rolling the dice.(It's a matter of how many times we can hit this high speed window over the course of a 5 or 6 hour game). Even a 25% accuracy of hitting that 1/20th of a second window will add an average of over 45,000 points to one's scores, with a large deviation either way.(This is rough math). This would greatly increase the probability of moving the world record up on the game. Also, another idea involves aiming for the larger 27/60th of a second window that the prizes do have an equal chance of occurring, thereby effectively cutting out the register numbers of 28 to 31. This of course would be much easier to do, and automatically adds about 31,000 points to one's average score. As far as drift in the game's hardware timimg, this has already been considered. But still adjustments can be made by noting the first specific prize, and then making adjustments for the second prize. The bottom line is that there will be a lot of human error as far as timing is concerned, but the player with the *least* amount of errors should have a higher scoring average over time. ***So it is logical to want to minimize the inconsistency of whatever timing device is used for reference as much as possible. A second on the display that doesn't click over accurately within 1/60th of a second will add it's deviation to that of the human errors which will already be plentiful. So obviously, the more accuarte the timer is, the better. Now that was the dumbed-down explanation of my already twice simplified project.(I'll have to work my way back to the automatic pattern generator in the future). Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter