When comparing speed of mini game in studio and in roblox it just got alot of difference
but heck, code the same!
In roblox:
robloxapp-20241229-2021533.wmv (1,2 МБ)
In studio:
The Code is same:
4 Likes
I recommend you to use task.wait(); Essentially, it’s an improved (a lot more precise) version of wait() .
You can read more about it here:
2 Likes
I wouldn’t do:
while task.wait() do
--task
end
either. Instead, I’d do:
while true do
--task
task.wait()
end
But really, it’s best to avoid forever loops and take an event based approach instead.
4 Likes
i am just replace every wait() to task.wait()
bruh, hope this works huh
1 Like
For once. The actual suggestion of replacing wait with task.wait() might actually fix your problem. wait is allowed to throttle according to the docs, but I don’t think task.wait is allowed to. (I swear task.wait() is proposed as a solution to every problem, so it actually potentially being the solution is kind of funny imo)
Though it’s also worth noting there is a minimum time for d. I’m not sure what the number actually is, but if it exceeds min it will slow down. A more robust version of this is to do a per frame loop and just move on based on elapsed time per frame, but that might be overkill if the task.wait() solution works.
3 Likes
it still didn’t helped, even i placed task.wait()
2 Likes
yo are game.RunService.HeartBeat are good idea?
2 Likes
Part of this could be that it’s on the server and is therefore subject to latency, though ideally latency is consistent and so won’t be a problem.
What I propose as a solution is to instead of looping the way you are, bind it to heartbeat and track the time passed in a variable t. And just do if statements to allow the most recent part to update positions of t is bigger than what it needs to activate.
Also as a note. You may want to copy/paste the text of code in the future instead of supply an image. That way people can copy your code and more easily show you how proposed changes should look.
2 Likes
The answer is it depends. Probably yes, so long as you are being efficient with it.
1 Like
You might wanna do this on the client instead.
Also, use Ctrl + Shift + F to avoid the hurdle of manually replacing matches.
1 Like
oh thanks! very useful, i guess… 
1 Like
The announcement introducing the Task Library (linked in my last post) states that doing this:
task.wait()
is just syntactic sugar for:
RunService.Heartbeat:Wait()
so, the latter should yield the same results, if you were wondering about using it.
1 Like
mentioned that one thing, i see it starting throttling exactly when players amount getting high. and this is now also affects to tweens what makes me really angry >:(
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.