Fastest wait, Faster then task.wait?

Help and Feedback Scripting Support
#1

I know that
wait() is 1/3 of a second (0.3)
task.wait() is 1/60 of a second (0.015)

I know this might sound insane but anything faster then task.wait?

1 Like
#2

You could do something that runs every frame, which would be 1/60 of a second.
What are you trying to achieve?

#3

I am writing on the server and I am trying to make some world generation system which needs to load fast and not go too fast then the loops break.

1 Like
#4

Try this: Wait Faster Than 1/60th of a Second

1 Like
#5

then you can do breaks for loop:

if math.random(1,3) == 3 then
    task.wait()
end

so it can randomly stop for a minimal server wait time.

it can be kinda buggy and sometimes luck goes so it will not wait but still, working method.

1 Like
#6

So I made this test (very messy I know, it was just to test a theory I had, it can definitely be optimized):

If you look at this code:

local currentTime = os.clock();

local loopAmountPerSecond = 10000;
local startTime, lastIndex = os.clock(), 1;
for i=1,1000000,1 do
	if(os.clock() - startTime == 1) then
		lastIndex = i;
		startTime = os.clock();
	elseif(i - lastIndex > loopAmountPerSecond) then
		task.wait();
		lastIndex = i;
		startTime = os.clock();
	end;
end;

print("Done!", os.clock() - currentTime);

then this one (for only task.wait):

local currentTime = os.clock();

for i=1,1000,1 do
	task.wait();
end;

print("Done #2!", os.clock() - currentTime);

and this one with normal wait:

local currentTime = os.clock();

for i=1,100,1 do
	wait();
end;

print("Done #3!", os.clock() - currentTime);

You can see that surprisingly, even after removing a lot of 0s from the other loop, the method in the first one finished first:
image
image

#7

You might ask why not just do this:

local currentTime = os.clock();

local loopAmountPerSecond = 10000; --Not per second but per tick
local lastIndex = 1;
for i=1,1000000,1 do
	if(i - lastIndex > loopAmountPerSecond) then
		task.wait();
		lastIndex = i;
	end;
end;

print("Done #4!", os.clock() - currentTime);

image
image

It is because this isn’t waiting when it needs to, it’s just waiting each amount of indexes, so if I have nothing going on, and then doing a huge operation that takes time, it will unnecessarily add a task.wait() to the big operation

#8

Also, just so people don’t get confused, yes task.wait is faster than normal wait, it’s just that I added a 0 to the task.wait loop, making it 1000:

image

#10
#11

my solution was a math.random or an i%x==0.