home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Forums
Newcomers Forum
Skip Immediate repeats if done quickly
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mat Walker" data-source="post: 1090096" data-attributes="member: 148753"><p>Interesting discussion and possibly not helped by my opening sentence of "<em>Is there a setting that allows me to do quick immediate skips?</em>"</p><p></p><p>The UP/DOWN skipping generally works well and in fact does mirror WMC's skip functionality - in fact it extends it in that a user can easily adjust the skip steps (in WMC you have to muck around with registry settings or get a 3rd party tool).</p><p></p><p>However, a bug does lurk there and once past the initial teething issues I'm getting I've given myself a task of having a dig to see what could be the cause; although mbuzina may have an inkling etc...</p><p></p><p>I mucked around last night and it seems that if a second UP event comes along before the current UP event has been fully completed, the current UP is just repeated - hence to the user it appears to repeat itself in quick succession. This is nothing to do with the 1.5 second timeout; the difference between UP/DOWN working correctly and not is literally a few milliseconds. I don't know how the functionality is realised in code yet but it could by ignoring UP/DOWN events until the current event is fully completed or, as mbuzina says, queuing them (I'm not a fan of queueing as it could be annoying if lots of presses are made and the machine/network is slow....). I appreciate that skip_immediate's are expensive as (I'm guessing) the command has to be sent over the network to the server and the server skips the stream forward/backwards the right amount (if there is buffering then even more complex/expensive buffer-flush reload<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />) etc..</p><p></p><p>I see that this issue appears to one of those that regularly rears its head (I think 2006 is the first mention of it); so guessing not easy to fix...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mat Walker, post: 1090096, member: 148753"] Interesting discussion and possibly not helped by my opening sentence of "[I]Is there a setting that allows me to do quick immediate skips?[/I]" The UP/DOWN skipping generally works well and in fact does mirror WMC's skip functionality - in fact it extends it in that a user can easily adjust the skip steps (in WMC you have to muck around with registry settings or get a 3rd party tool). However, a bug does lurk there and once past the initial teething issues I'm getting I've given myself a task of having a dig to see what could be the cause; although mbuzina may have an inkling etc... I mucked around last night and it seems that if a second UP event comes along before the current UP event has been fully completed, the current UP is just repeated - hence to the user it appears to repeat itself in quick succession. This is nothing to do with the 1.5 second timeout; the difference between UP/DOWN working correctly and not is literally a few milliseconds. I don't know how the functionality is realised in code yet but it could by ignoring UP/DOWN events until the current event is fully completed or, as mbuzina says, queuing them (I'm not a fan of queueing as it could be annoying if lots of presses are made and the machine/network is slow....). I appreciate that skip_immediate's are expensive as (I'm guessing) the command has to be sent over the network to the server and the server skips the stream forward/backwards the right amount (if there is buffering then even more complex/expensive buffer-flush reload:-)) etc.. I see that this issue appears to one of those that regularly rears its head (I think 2006 is the first mention of it); so guessing not easy to fix... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
Newcomers Forum
Skip Immediate repeats if done quickly
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom