I am writing some code to test using the MIDI libraries in Java, and have run across a problem. The pause between notes is much longer (almost twice as long, in fact) after the very first note than after all the others. I can't see any reason why, as the sequence of notes has already been generated (hence it is not also having to perform those calculations within the first iteration of the loop, it is only playing notes).
I think I may have also had this problem in the past with a simulation which, without any explanation I could find, took almost 100% of its tick length to perform calculations on the first tick only, and then used only about 2% on all successive iterations.
Main code (extract):
public void play() {
MidiPlayer player = new MidiPlayer();
for (int i = 0; i < NUMNOTES; i++) {
long tic = System.currentTimeMillis();
player.playNote(10, notes[i]);
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
long toc = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println(toc - tic);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Code for playNote():
public void playNote(int channel, int note) {
channels[channel].allNotesOff();
channels[channel].noteOn(note + 60, volume);
}
There are no 'if' statements that specify the first loop, so surely the delay should be uniform for all notes, as the number of calculations being performed should be the same for all iterations. Please note that the timing variables are just for testing purposes, and the effect was audibly noticeable before I included those.
EDIT: I should also mention that the output produced shows each iteration of the loop taking the expected 200 (occasionally 201) milliseconds. It seems to suggest that there is no gap - yet I clearly hear a gap every time I run the code.
Since you have sleeps, you should calculate how long you should sleep instead of trying to sleep the same amount of time each time - calculate how much more time you actually need to the next note to be played and sleep that much amount. i.e.
long tic = System.currentTimeMillis();
player.playNote(10, notes[i]);
long time_spent = System.currentTimeMillis() - tic;
Thread.sleep(200 - time_spent);
Related
I'm working on a game and I want my enemies to spawn with a delay between 1-5 seconds. My code for that part looks like this:
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Random r = new Random();
int cooldownTime = r.nextInt((5000 - 1000) + 1) + 1000;
long lastSpawn = 0;
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (time > lastSpawn + cooldownTime) {
System.out.println(cooldownTime);
addEnemies();
lastSpawn = time;
}
If I understand nextInt correctly this should spawn enemies 1000-5000 ms apart every time, but my results are really weird and I can't quite figure out why. This is an example of what it would look like if I print cooldownTime.
2523
1190
1095
1061
1168
1119
1052
1159
1071
1076
1000
1394
1249
1070
And so on... It seems that the first enemy is truly spawned randomly and the others are always in the low 1000's. This happens every time. Does anyone know why it's like that? I'm quite lost.
Calling Random r = new Random(); repeatedly is extremely pathological and ruins the statistical properties of the generator. (The results you get are most likely a strong function of your system clock time.)
Do that step once and your results will be far better. (There are also more efficient ways to implement a delay than this - consider sleep - Java compilers are not yet optimising out burn loops.)
Note also that your observations are further complicated by the fact that you are not printing every number drawn.
Not sure if this your exact issue, but you had some problems with the logic of System.currentTimeMillis() and were just looking at the total current time and not the difference between the time.
Additionally you only want to look for a new random value once the if actually executes so you do not generate a Random number each loop iteration, but rather each time an enemy spawns you generate a new one for the next enemy.
Here is the modified code that takes all of this into account:
Random r = new Random();
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
int cooldownTime = r.nextInt((5000 - 1000) + 1) + 1000;
while (true) {
long timeDifference = System.currentTimeMillis() - time;
if (timeDifference > cooldownTime) {
//addEnemies();
System.out.println(timeDifference); //Prints the time taken for enemy to spawn
cooldownTime = r.nextInt((5000 - 1000) + 1) + 1000;
time = System.currentTimeMillis(); //set the initial time again
}
}
This will generate a random number between 1000 and 5000 and execute the if block each time after the delay, resetting the values in the if to do it forever.
However, there are most likely better ways to add a delay to your logic like some comments pointed out(sleep), but this is the corrected logic for your method.
Well, first of all, several of your variables are being created INSIDE the loop. You need to move the creation of the Random object, as well as the lastSpawn and cooldown variables outside the loop. This is because the lastSpawn variable is being overwritten each time the loop executes with 0, meaning you're always checking if the current time is greater than 0. You need to store it outside the loop so that it will retain the last value you assigned to it. For the same reason, cooldown needs to be outside the loop because you're generating a new cooldown every loop, and System.currentTimeMillis() is ALWAYS going to be larger than it because System.currentTimeMillis() gets you the system time offset from January 1, 1970. Finally, as System.currentTimeMillis() is represented by a long, you'll want any time-related variables to be long as well, otherwise you could end up overflowing your variable if the current time in milliseconds is too high for an integer to store.
Here is a better way to achieve what you're looking to do:
import java.util.Random;
public class RandomCooldown {
public static void main(String [] args) {
Random rand = new Random();
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
long lastSpawn = start;
long cooldown = getCooldown(rand);
while(true) {
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
long elapsed = (time - lastSpawn);
if(elapsed >= cooldown) {
System.out.println("Adding enemies!");
cooldown = getCooldown(rand); // only generate a new cooldown once the old cooldown has been surpassed
lastSpawn = time;
}
}
}
public static long getCooldown(Random rand) {
return (long)((rand.nextInt(4000) + 1) + 1000);
}
}
Hope this helps!
Here is a suggestion that works as I think you like. I has not one but two loops. The outer loop generates new enemies and the inner loop makes updates (not sure how much of that this enemy generating thread needs to update but included it just in case).
public void run() {
Random r = new Random();
// setup
while (true) {
int wait = r.nextInt((5000 - 1000) + 1) + 1000;
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Adding enemies at " + time
+ ", next add roughly in " + wait + " ms.");
while (wait + time > System.currentTimeMillis()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
// update
}
}
}
The Random object is reused and the call Thread.sleep(30) makes the thread hand over control for 30 ms, a time during which the CPU can do more useful things than busy wait. (30 is BTW not a magic number that must be used but just a number I chose. You need to experiment and find what number works best in your game.)
The print out shows what happens.
Adding enemies at 1565096018610, next add roughly in 2890 ms.
Adding enemies at 1565096021530, next add roughly in 2301 ms.
Adding enemies at 1565096023863, next add roughly in 4944 ms.
Adding enemies at 1565096028813, next add roughly in 3042 ms.
Adding enemies at 1565096031879, next add roughly in 2661 ms.
... and so on. The actual numbers will not be the same of course when you run this code but similar.
Hope this helps and good luck with your game!
It looks fine to me. You should probably use the same Random() instance for each iteration. And remember: humans have no ability to perceive randomness. Alternatively, you could try seeding the Random-Generator (using the Random(long seed) constructor), just in case there's some weird stuff happening with your seed.
I am developing a small game, (Java, LibGdx) where the player fills cloze-style functions with predefined lines of code. The game would then compile the code and run a small test suite to verify that the function does the stuff it is supposed to.
Compiling and running the code already works, but I am faced with the problem of detecting infinite loops. Consider the following function:
// should compute the sum of [1 .. n]
public int foo(int n) {
int i = 0;
while (n > 0) {
i += n;
// this is the place where the player inserts one of many predefined lines of code
// the right one would be: n--;
// but the player could also insert something silly like: i++;
}
return i;
}
Please note that the functions actually used may be more complex and in general it is not possible to make sure that there cannot be any infinite loops.
Currently I am running the small test suite (provided for every function) in a Thread using an ExecutorService, setting a timeout to abort waiting in case the thread is stuck. The problem with this is, that the threads stuck in an endless loop will run forever in the background, which of course will at some point have a considerable impact on game performance.
// TestClass is the compiled class containing the function above and the corresponding test suite
Callable<Boolean> task = new Callable<Boolean>() {
#Override
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
// call the test suite
return new TestClass().test();
}
};
Future<Boolean> future = executorService.submit(task);
try {
Boolean result = future.get(100, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
System.out.println("result: " + (result == null ? "null" : result.toString()));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
future.cancel(true);
}
My question is now: How can I gracefully end the threads that accidentally spin inside an endless loop?
*EDIT To clarify why in this case, preventing infinite loops is not possible/feasable: The functions, their test suite and the lines to fill the gaps are loaded from disk. There will be hundrets of functions with at least two lines of code that could be inserted. The player can drag any line into any gap. The effort needed to make sure no combination of function gap/code line produces something that loops infinitely or even runs longer than the timeout grows exponentially with the number of functions. This quickly gets to the point where nobody has the time to check all of these combinations manually. Also, in general, determining, whether a function will finish in time is pretty much impossible because of the halting problem.
There is no such thing as "graceful termination" of a thread inside the same process. The terminated thread can leave inconsistent shared-memory state behind it.
You can either organize things so that each task is started in its own JVM, or make do with forceful termination using the deprecated Thread.stop() method.
Another option is inserting a check into the generated code, but this would require much more effort to implement properly.
The right way is to change the design and avoids never ending loops.
For the time being, inside your loop you could check if the thread is interrupted some way by: isInterrupted() or even isAlive().
And if it is you just exit.
It is not normal to have a never ending loop if it not wanted.
To solve the problem You can add a counter in the loop and if you reach a limit you can exit.
int counter = 0;
while (n > 0) {
counter++;
if (counter > THRESHOLD) {
break;
}
i += n;
// this is the place where the player inserts one of many predefined lines of code
// the right one would be: n--;
// but the player could also insert something silly like: i++;
}
I've written a class to continue a started JAVA application if the current second is a multiple of 5 (i.e. Calender.SECOND % 5 == 0)
The class code is presented below, what I'm curious about is, am I doing this the right way? It doesn't seem like an elegant solution, blocking the execution like this and getting the instance over and over.
public class Synchronizer{
private static Calendar c;
public static void timeInSync(){
do{
c = Calendar.getInstance();
}
while(c.get(Calendar.SECOND) % 5 != 0);
}
}
Synchronizer.timeInSync() is called in another class's constructor and an instance of that class is created at the start of the main method. Then the application runs forever with a TimerTask that's called every 5 seconds.
Is there a cleaner solution for synchronizing the time?
Update:
I think I did not clearly stated but what I'm looking for here is to synchronization with the system time without doing busy waiting.
So I need to be able to get
12:19:00
12:19:05
12:19:10
...
What you have now is called busy waiting (also sometimes referred as polling), and yes its inefficient in terms of processor usage and also in terms of energy usage. You code executes whenever the OS allows it, and in doing so it prevents the use of a CPU for other work, or when there is no other work it prevents the CPU from taking a nap, wasting energy (heating the CPU, draining the battery...).
What you should do is put your thread to sleep until the time where you want to do something arrives. This allows the CPU to perform other tasks or go to sleep.
There is a method on java.lang.Thread to do just that: Thread.sleep(long milliseconds) (it also has a cousin taking an additional nanos parameter, but the nanos may be ignored by the VM, and that kind of precision is rarely needed).
So first you determine when you need to do some work. Then you sleep until then. A naive implementation could look like that:
public static void waitUntil(long timestamp) {
long millis = timestamp - System.currentTimeMillis();
// return immediately if time is already in the past
if (millis <= 0)
return;
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
This works fine if you don't have too strict requirements on precisely hitting the time, you can expect it to return reasonably close to the specified time (a few ten ms away probably) if the time isn't too far in the future (a few secs tops). You have however no guarantees that occasionally when the OS is really busy that it possily returns much later.
A slightly more accurate method is to determine the reuired sleep time, sleep for half the time, evaluate required sleep again, sleep again half the time and so on until the required sleep time becomes very small, then busy wait the remaining few milliseconds.
However System.currentTimeMillis() does not guarantee the actual resolution of time; it may change once every millisecond, but it might as well only change every ten ms by 10 (this depends on the platform). Same goes for System.nanoTime().
Waiting for an exact point in time is not possible in high level programming languages in a multi-tasking environment (practically everywhere nowadays). If you have strict requirements, you need to turn to the operating system specifics to create an interrupt at the specified time and handle the event in the interrupt (that means assembler or at least C for the interrupt handler). You won't need that in most normal applications, a few ms +/- usually don't matter in a game/application.
As #ChrisK suggests, you could simplify by just making a direct call to System.currentTimeMillis().
For example:
long time = 0;
do
{
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
} while (time % 5000 != 0);
Note that you need to change the comparison value to 5000 because the representation of the time is in milliseconds.
Also, there are possible pitfalls to doing any comparison so directly like this, as the looping call depends on processor availability and whatnot, so there is a chance that an implementation such as this could make one call that returns:
`1411482384999`
And then the next call in the loop return
`1411482385001`
Meaning that your condition has been skipped by virtue of hardware availability.
If you want to use a built in scheduler, I suggest looking at the answer to a similar question here java: run a function after a specific number of seconds
You should use
System.nanoTime()
instead of
System.currentTimeMillis()
because it returns the measured elapsed time instead of the system time, so nanoTime is not influenced by system time changes.
public class Synchronizer
{
public static void timeInSync()
{
long lastNanoTime = System.nanoTime();
long nowTime = System.nanoTime();
while(nowTime/1000000 - lastNanoTime /1000000 < 5000 )
{
nowTime = System.nanoTime();
}
}
}
The first main point is that you must never use busy-waiting. In java you can avoid busy-waiting by using either Object.wait(timeout) or Thread.sleep(timeout). The later is more suitable for your case, because your case doesn't require losing monitor lock.
Next, you can use two approaches to wait until your time condition is satisfied. You can either precalculate your whole wait time or wait for small time intervals in loop, checking the condition.
I will illustrate both approaches here:
private static long nextWakeTime(long time) {
if (time / 1000 % 5 == 0) { // current time is multiple of five seconds
return time;
}
return (time / 1000 / 5 + 1) * 5000;
}
private static void waitUsingCalculatedTime() {
long currentTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
long wakeTime = nextWakeTime(currentTime);
while (currentTime < wakeTime) {
try {
System.out.printf("Current time: %d%n", currentTime);
System.out.printf("Wake time: %d%n", wakeTime);
System.out.printf("Waiting: %d ms%n", wakeTime - currentTime);
Thread.sleep(wakeTime - currentTime);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// ignore
}
currentTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
}
private static void waitUsingSmallTime() {
while (System.currentTimeMillis() / 1000 % 5 != 0) {
try {
System.out.printf("Current time: %d%n", System.currentTimeMillis());
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// ignore
}
}
}
As you can see, waiting for the precalculated time is more complex, but it is more precise and more efficient (since in general case it will be done in single iteration). Waiting iteratively for small time interval is simpler, but less efficient and precise (precision is dependent on the selected size of the time interval).
Also please note how I calculate if the time condition is satisfied:
(time / 1000 % 5 == 0)
In first step you need to calculate seconds and only then check if the are multiple of five. Checking by time % 5000 == 0 as suggested in other answer is wrong, as it is true only for the first millisecond of each fifth second.
I'm looking for some help with a problem I've been having lately. I want to decrement from 200 down to 0, but I don't want it to be instant, but rather I want it to decrement over the course of a second. For example, at 0.5 seconds it would be at 100, 0.75 it would be a 50 and so on. If this is at all possible, I would love to hear from you guys!
-Thanks so much, Brandon
To do what you want, here's the answer:
int index = 200;
while(index != 0)
{
index--;
System.out.println("The value is: " + index);
try {
//200 * 5 milliseconds = 1 second
Thread.sleep((long) 5);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
You might want to put this in a thread. Here's a page that could help you:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html
You can try with a timer. Schedule it to run at the required interval and decrement the value as desired. There are other options as well like iterating in a loop, waiting for the required interval and then decrementing.
you can involve a Java Thread,in run method make a loop and use Thread.sleep method under condition.
you can use some thing like this. find the proportion you want to delay and delay it in each iteration using thread.sleep.
in each iteration the running thread(main program) will sleep for 200 mili seconds
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for(int i = 0;i<200;i++){
Date date = new Date();
Thread.sleep(200); // this is mili seconds
System.out.println(date.getTime());
}
}
Recently, I've been getting into Java Game programming. I have learned Java before, but this is my first time with Graphics, Game Loops etc.
I followed this tutorial for a Game Loop, and it's working pretty well.
There is nothing wrong with it, but I just can't figure out why I am thread.sleeping the code, and whats the point of it.
If anyone could explain what start, elapsed and running do, and why I am doing thread.sleep(wait) then I would be super appreciative!
GAME LOOP (Remember, it works, I just don't know why):
while (running) {
start = System.nanoTime();
update();
draw();
drawToScreen();
elapsed = System.nanoTime() - start;
wait = targetTime - elapsed / 1000000;
if (wait < 0) {
wait = 5;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(wait);
} catch (Exception e) {
Game.logger.log("ERROR! Printing Stacktrace...");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Well, running is a flag that can be set to false to terminate the game.
start and elapsed are used to measure the time one round in the loop took. You are waiting to not make the game run too fast. If you are moving elements with a set speed, then having the game loop run too fast makes them also move too fast. That can lead to a bad user experience, since the user might not be fast enough to play the game.
Additionally, any animation doesn't run smooth anymore without the waiting. It will speed up and slow down depending on how fast your code executes.
Just continue with the tutorial, and when are at the point where you make something move, remove the waiting and see what happens.
EDIT
The code makes a round in the loop take about targetTime. It's unit is milliseconds. So to calculate the frame rate, just divide 1000 / targetTime.
start is the time before the game logic runs. elapsed is the amount of time that it takes for the game logic to run. running is a boolean (true/false) variable that determines whether the game should continue. Thread.sleep(wait) is a method that delays for a certain amount of time.
The goal is to keep the amount of time between frames roughly constant by delaying, so that the animations don't run faster or slower depending on how fast your computer processor is running.
It appears the code aims to be executed targetTime seconds. So you count how much time has already passed (elapsed), and then calculate how much to wait (divide it to get your remaining time in miliseconds, required for methon sleep(wait)).
One purpose of such waiting is often forcing some time between repainting to the screen.
To get your FPS, one way would be to slightly change your code:
long prevStart = 0; //just initialize. First FPS is of course wrong, next get fine.
double FPS = 0;
while (running) {
start = System.nanoTime();
FPS = 1 / double(start - prevStart);
prevStart = start;
update();
draw();
drawToScreen();
elapsed = System.nanoTime() - start;
wait = targetTime - elapsed / 1000000;
if (wait < 0) {
wait = 5;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(wait);
} catch (Exception e) {
Game.logger.log("ERROR! Printing Stacktrace...");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}