Python Tkinter Tk root.after Delay - python

I'm trying to do a chess clock using tkinter, and to do so i'm using the root.after method from the class Tk of tkinter. When the program starts, it runs really well, but after a while the clock start to get slower and slower, but if i start shaking my mouse, the clock starts to run fast again. For a clock, time precision is crucial, so i can't afford to run the program in the way that is working now. How can i solve this problem?
def RunClock(self):
"""
Method that runs and change the clock info
"""
#t0 = time.time()
if self.playing:
#Time remaining in milliseconds
clock = self.clock
minutes = clock//60000
clock %= 60000
sec = clock//1000
clock %= 1000
mil = clock//10
#If the turn is of player 1
if self.turn == 1:
self.WriteClock(self.canvas1, self.play1, "%.2i:%.2i:%.2i"%(minutes, sec, mil))
else:
self.WriteClock(self.canvas2, self.play2, "%.2i:%.2i:%.2i"%(minutes, sec, mil))
#tf = time.time()
#deltat = (tf - t0)
#s = 1 - deltat
self.rel -= 1
#if s > 0:
# time.sleep(s/1000)
#else:
# self.rel += s*1000
self.root.after(1, self.RunClock)
Note: The time to run the function is very low (you can calculate it with the commented tf and t0 variables), so i didn't even consider it in the time interval

As Brian pointed out reducing the time interval will likely be the easiest solve to your question. Alternately though, you could try running your timer separately on it's own thread and having it run asynchronously and send it threading events as is discussed here:
Python threading.timer - repeat function every 'n' seconds

Related

Is there a more accurate clock for pygame for a rhythm game I'm making

I'm trying to get a series of lines to fall through the screen at exact tempo, for example, you input say 120 BPM and the result is the road lines hitting the bottom of the screen at 120 BPM.
I have tried using both pygame.clock.tick() and pygame.time.delay() (which I heard is more accurate), however when I use these as a clock to blit both the background and the road lines, against a metronome the clock seems very inconsistent.
For making an exact rhythm game which must stay in time for the entire song, is there another way to do this?
#GAMELOOP
while playing==True:
win.blit(bg,(0,0))
for event in pygame.event.get():
if event.type == pygame.QUIT:
playing = False
#win.fill(WHITE)
y1=y1+gameSpeed
y2=y2+gameSpeed
y3=y3+gameSpeed
win.blit(track1,(x,y1))
win.blit(track2,(x,y2))
win.blit(track3,(x,y3))
if y1>=1000:
y1=-2000
if y2>=1000:
y2=-2000
if y3>=1000:
y3=-2000
fpsClock.tick(30)
pygame.display.update()
pygame.quit()
120 BPM (which I assume is "Beats Per Minute"), is only a per half-second timing, that's reasonably slow in computer terms. Most applications repaint the screen at 3600 frame-updates per minute (60Hz).
You can use the pygame.time object to return the number of milliseconds since the program started. This is really useful for timing things in the game:
clock = pygame.time.get_ticks() # time now
So immediately on start-up, this time is "0 milliseconds", and grows from there, forever more.
This value can then be used in relative time comparisons. When you make the track1 fall, it's possible to update the y-position based on the clock. One way to do this is to calculate the future millisecond-time at which the track1 should next move:
clock = pygame.time.get_ticks()
track1_move_next_time = clock + 500 # 500 milliseconds = 120 BPM
The repeatedly check that time until it's in the past. Then move the track1:
# In the Main Loop:
clock = pygame.time.get_ticks()
# ...
if ( clock > track1_move_next_time ): # is it time to move?
y1 += pixels_per_tick # move it
track1_move_next_time = clock + 500 # set next move time

Python - Accurate time.sleep

I am working on a project which accurate timer is really crucial. I am working on python and am using timer.sleep() function.
I noticed that timer.sleep() function will add additional delay because of the scheduling problem (refer to timer.sleep docs). Due to that issue, the longer my program runs, the more inaccurate the timer is.
Is there any more accurate timer/ticker to sleep the program or solution for this problem?
Any help would be appreciated. Cheers.
I had a solution similar to above, but it became processor heavy very quickly. Here is a processor-heavy idea and a workaround.
def processor_heavy_sleep(ms): # fine for ms, starts to work the computer hard in second range.
start = time.clock()
end = start + ms /1000.
while time.clock() < end:
continue
return start, time.clock()
def efficient_sleep(secs, expected_inaccuracy=0.5): # for longer times
start = time.clock()
end = secs + start
time.sleep(secs - expected_inaccuracy)
while time.clock() < end:
continue
return start, time.clock()
output of efficient_sleep(5, 0.5) 3 times was:
(3.1999303695151594e-07, 5.0000003199930365)
(5.00005983869791, 10.00005983869791)
(10.000092477987678, 15.000092477987678)
This is on windows. I'm running it for 100 loops right now. Here are the results.
(485.003749358414, 490.003749358414)
(490.0037919174879, 495.0037922374809)
(495.00382903668014, 500.00382903668014)
The sleeps remain accurate, but the calls are always delayed a little. If you need a scheduler that accurately calls every xxx secs to the millisecond, that would be a different thing.
the longer my program runs, the more inaccurate the timer is.
So, for example by expecting 0.5s delay, it will be time.sleep(0.5 - (start-end)). But still didn't solve the issue
You seem to be complaining about two effects, 1) the fact that timer.sleep() may take longer than you expect, and 2) the inherent creep in using a series of timer.sleep() calls.
You can't do anything about the first, short of switching to a real-time OS. The underlying OS calls are defined to sleep for at least as long as requested. They only guarantee that you won't wake early; they make no guarantee that you won't wake up late.
As for the second, you ought to figure your sleep time according to an unchanging epoch, not from your wake-up time. For example:
import time
import random
target = time.time()
def myticker():
# Sleep for 0.5s between tasks, with no creep
target += 0.5
now = time.time()
if target > now:
time.sleep(target - now)
def main():
previous = time.time()
for _ in range(100):
now = time.time()
print(now - previous)
previous = now
# simulate some work
time.sleep(random.random() / 10) # Always < tick frequency
# time.sleep(random.random()) # Not always < tick frequency
myticker()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Working on Linux with zero knowledge of Windows, I may be being naive here but is there some reason that writing your own sleep function, won't work for you?
Something like:
import time
def sleep_time():
start_time = time.time()
while (time.time() - start_time) < 0.0001:
continue
end_time = time.time() + 60 # run for a minute
cnt = 0
while time.time() < end_time:
cnt += 1
print('sleeping',cnt)
sleep_time()
print('Awake')
print("Slept ",cnt," Times")

Pygame - Run event for 3 seconds only once

I am fairly new to PyGame and I am creating a space shooter game. Part of this game are powerups and when a specific powerup is picked up by the player, I want the player not to be able to shoot for 3 seconds. Shooting is done by mouse click.
I can pick up the powerup, I know what powerup the player last picked up, but I am struggling with the event. How I am thinking of implementing is:
Can't Shoot power up is picked up -> that's done
Block mouse buttons
Wait 3 seconds, while the rest of the game is still running
Unblock mouse buttons.
I am aware that Python functions, such as wait, won't help.
Any ideas/suggestions?
Thanks
When you call clock.tick() it returns time since the last call. So save that time: dt = clock.tick() and then use that variable to count down your seconds.
Example:
dt = clock.tick() # only call once per iteration
if attack_blocked:
attack_block_count += dt
if attack_block_count >= 3000: # dt is in ms
attack_blocked = False
Example 2:
while True:
dt = clock.tick(60)
for event....
if block_attack_power_up:
attack_blocked = True
attack_block_count = 0
if not attack_blocked:
# do your attack
if attack_blocked:
attack_block_count += dt
if attack_block_count >= 3000:
attack_blocked = False

Stop time without freezing the program

In my pong game, whenever someone scores (the ball goes out to the left or to the right) the ball position is reset to the middle of screen and it waits one second before moving. In that one second I have a little animation going on.
My problem is this: if I pause the game in the middle of the animation, even though none of the objects are updated and only the pause text is drawn, time keeps rolling in. And if I wait time enough, the animation just stops right after I unpause the game. Here's what I mean. This is the ball update:
def update(self, dt):
now = pygame.time.get_ticks() / 1000
# if time elapsed since the ball got out >= BALL_WAIT_TIME
if now - self._spawn_time >= BALL_WAIT_TIME:
self.rect = self.calcnewpos(dt)
self.handle_collision()
# spawn animation
else:
step = 255 / (FPS * BALL_WAIT_TIME)
value = int(self._frame * step)
rgb = (value, value, value)
self._draw_ball(rgb)
self._frame += 1
From http://pygame.org/docs/ref/time.html#pygame.time.get_ticks:
pygame.time.get_ticks()
Return the number of millisconds since pygame.init() was called. Before pygame is initialized this will always be 0.
So even though nothing is drawn or updated while the game is paused, pygame.time.get_ticks() will still return the time elapsed since pygame.init. How can I solve this? Sorry if that is a little hard to understand, I'll post the rest of the code if needed.
Well it looks as though you're just subtracting the time that some event occurred from the current time. If that's your method for checking how much time has elapsed since the event, then it's not going to matter if the game has been paused. If the event happens and you then pause the game for 10 minutes, it's always going to have been 10 minutes since the event happened.
So with that in mind, you need some way to only count time when the game is active. Perhaps the ball could have an attribute that says how long since the ball got out, and you only increase it if the game isn't paused.
Edit: something like:
class Ball:
def spawn(self):
self.sinceSpawn = 0
def update(self, dt):
if not gamePaused:
self.sinceSpawn += dt
if self.sinceSpawn >= BALL_WAIT_TIME:
pass #Do something here

Pygame simple score system

I have created a simple score system for my pygame. but it's pausing the game. I know it's because of time.sleep but I don't how to sort it out.
The score system is to +100 every 5 seconds while start is true, code:
while start == True:
time.sleep(5)
score = score + 100
Full code with indentation: http://pastebin.com/QLd3YTdJ
code at line : 156-158
Thank you
Instead of using sleep, which stalls the game until time has elapsed, you want to count up an internal timer with the number of seconds which have passed. When you hit 5 seconds, increment the score and then reset the timer.
Something like this:
scoreIncrementTimer = 0
lastFrameTicks = pygame.time.get_ticks()
while start == True:
thisFrameTicks = pygame.time.get_ticks()
ticksSinceLastFrame = thisFrameTicks - lastFrameTicks
lastFrameTicks = thisFrameTicks
scoreIncrementTimer = scoreIncrementTimer + ticksSinceLastFrame
if scoreIncrementTimer > 5000:
score = score + 100
scoreIncrementTimer = 0
This could easily be improved (what if your frame rate is so low there's more than 5 seconds between frames?) but is the general idea. This is commonly called a "delta time" game timer implementation.
If i understand you correctly you dont want the while True: score += 100 loop to block your entire program?
You should solve it by moving the score adding to a seperate function
and use the intervalfunction of APScheduler http://packages.python.org/APScheduler/intervalschedule.html
from apscheduler.scheduler import Scheduler
# Start the scheduler
sched = Scheduler()
sched.start()
# Schedule job_function to be called every 5 seconds
#sched.interval_schedule(seconds=5)
def incr_score():
score += 100
This will result in APScheduler creating a thread for you running the function every 5 seconds.
you might need to do some changes to the function to make it work but it should get you started at least :).

Categories