Difference between revisions of "Talk:Code Racer"
m (catch up the bug report re wins not summing to near scale to the changes in the main article's code) |
(Talk:Hex suggests that we should tweak this instrument to call llGetTime rather than llGetTimestamp, in order to more accurately measure elapsed run time when time dilates) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Ha! Those new insights were half-grounded in nonsense! Half the win counts were wrong, courtesy one typo. Fixed now, maybe. -- [[User:Ppaatt Lynagh|Ppaatt Lynagh]] 21:18, 16 October 2007 (PDT) | Ha! Those new insights were half-grounded in nonsense! Half the win counts were wrong, courtesy one typo. Fixed now, maybe. -- [[User:Ppaatt Lynagh|Ppaatt Lynagh]] 21:18, 16 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
[[Talk:Hex]] suggests that we should tweak this instrument to call [[llGetTime]] rather than [[llGetTimestamp]], in order to more accurately measure elapsed run time when time dilates. -- [[User:Ppaatt Lynagh|Ppaatt Lynagh]] 21:41, 19 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:41, 19 October 2007
I've gone ahead and created this Code Racer page -- I think the approach is complete enough to be worth discussing - e.g., I get insight into llGetSubString snippets. However, something fiddly is still wrong with the implementation, I guess. As you can see in the sample results, often the sums of wins exceed the scale. -- Ppaatt Lynagh 18:08, 16 October 2007 (PDT)
Ha! Those new insights were half-grounded in nonsense! Half the win counts were wrong, courtesy one typo. Fixed now, maybe. -- Ppaatt Lynagh 21:18, 16 October 2007 (PDT)
Talk:Hex suggests that we should tweak this instrument to call llGetTime rather than llGetTimestamp, in order to more accurately measure elapsed run time when time dilates. -- Ppaatt Lynagh 21:41, 19 October 2007 (PDT)