Develop Reference

Is there a better solution than setInterval when I need the interval to be very precise over time?

I'm building a browser game similar to Guitar Hero. The way it works is setInterval is set to execute every 16th note depending on the tempo, which is usually 100-150 milliseconds. The function it executes just checks if there's a note that needs to be checked against the user's keypresses.
But I've been reading about how setInterval can suffer from drift and may not be very accurate. For a song that lasts 3-4 minutes and needs 100ms precision (if the timing mechanics are even slightly off, that might be very frustrating for the users), it seems like it may not be the greatest solution.
So is there an alternative that's more precise? T

It probably would be a better idea to calculate everything in absolute time. So have a var starttime = Date.now();, and then calculate where every note should be var expected_note_time = starttime+beat_interval*beat_number. You can then add a listener on keypress and then log the exact time the keypress was hit. If abs(time_pressed-expected_note_time) < ALLOWED_MISTAKE_VARIANCE, then add that point to the user's score. Good luck.

Agree, setInterval have some issues, like it doesn't care whether the callback is still running or not and isn't that flexible.
you can implement you own method something like this :
function interval(func, wait, times){
var interv = function(w, t){
return function(){
if(typeof t === "undefined" || t-- > 0){
setTimeout(interv, w);
try{
func.call(null);
}
catch(e){
t = 0;
throw e.toString();
}
}
};
}(wait, times);
setTimeout(interv, wait);
};
this function has an internal function called interv which gets invoked automatically via setTimeout, within interv is a closure that checks the the repetition times, invokes the callback and invokes interv again via setTimeout. In case an exception bubbles up from the callback call the interval calling will stop and the exception will be thrown.
you can use it like this :
interval(function(){
// Code block goes here
}, 1000, 10);
which execute a piece of code 5 times with an interval or 10 seconds and you can do something in between.

You could cache the ticks at the start of the song, get the number of ticks since then, see if a note exists at that point.
Return the number of milliseconds since 1970/01/01:
var d = new Date();
var n = d.getTime();
The result of n could be:
1502156888172
From: https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_gettime.asp

and needs 100ms precision
The setInterval() function will drift because of the way javascript is built (event loop) and if you block it with a heavy CPU intensive task, it will delay. However, the drift will be very small (less that a ms) if you do it correctly.
A good way to avoid that would be to use multiple thread, but that is not easily achieved in JavaScript.

The javascript timing resolution in my browsers seems to be ~8ms. How can I increase it? [duplicate]

Something that has always bugged me is how unpredictable the setTimeout() method in Javascript is.
In my experience, the timer is horribly inaccurate in a lot of situations. By inaccurate, I mean the actual delay time seems to vary by 250-500ms more or less. Although this isn't a huge amount of time, when using it to hide/show UI elements the time can be visibly noticeable.
Are there any tricks that can be done to ensure that setTimeout() performs accurately (without resorting to an external API) or is this a lost cause?

Are there any tricks that can be done
to ensure that setTimeout() performs
accurately (without resorting to an
external API) or is this a lost cause?
No and no. You're not going to get anything close to a perfectly accurate timer with setTimeout() - browsers aren't set up for that. However, you don't need to rely on it for timing things either. Most animation libraries figured this out years ago: you set up a callback with setTimeout(), but determine what needs to be done based on the value of (new Date()).milliseconds (or equivalent). This allows you to take advantage of more reliable timer support in newer browsers, while still behaving appropriately on older browsers.
It also allows you to avoid using too many timers! This is important: each timer is a callback. Each callback executes JS code. While JS code is executing, browser events - including other callbacks - are delayed or dropped. When the callback finishes, additional callbacks must compete with other browser events for a chance to execute. Therefore, one timer that handles all pending tasks for that interval will perform better than two timers with coinciding intervals, and (for short timeouts) better than two timers with overlapping timeouts!
Summary: stop using setTimeout() to implement "one timer / one task" designs, and use the real-time clock to smooth out UI actions.

.
REF; http://www.sitepoint.com/creating-accurate-timers-in-javascript/
This site bailed me out on a major scale.
You can use the system clock to compensate for timer inaccuracy. If you run a timing function as a series of setTimeout calls — each instance calling the next — then all you have to do to keep it accurate is work out exactly how inaccurate it is, and subtract that difference from the next iteration:
var start = new Date().getTime(),
time = 0,
elapsed = '0.0';
function instance()
{
time += 100;
elapsed = Math.floor(time / 100) / 10;
if(Math.round(elapsed) == elapsed) { elapsed += '.0'; }
document.title = elapsed;
var diff = (new Date().getTime() - start) - time;
window.setTimeout(instance, (100 - diff));
}
window.setTimeout(instance, 100);
This method will minimize drift and reduce the inaccuracies by more than 90%.
It fixed my issues, hope it helps

I had a similar problem not long ago and came up with an approach which combines requestAnimationFrame with performance.now() which works very effectively.
Im now able to make timers accurate to approx 12 decimal places:
window.performance = window.performance || {};
performance.now = (function() {
return performance.now ||
performance.mozNow ||
performance.msNow ||
performance.oNow ||
performance.webkitNow ||
function() {
//Doh! Crap browser!
return new Date().getTime();
};
})();
http://jsfiddle.net/CGWGreen/9pg9L/

If you need to get an accurate callback on a given interval, this gist may help you:
https://gist.github.com/1185904
function interval(duration, fn){
var _this = this
this.baseline = undefined
this.run = function(){
if(_this.baseline === undefined){
_this.baseline = new Date().getTime()
}
fn()
var end = new Date().getTime()
_this.baseline += duration
var nextTick = duration - (end - _this.baseline)
if(nextTick<0){
nextTick = 0
}
_this.timer = setTimeout(function(){
_this.run(end)
}, nextTick)
}
this.stop = function(){
clearTimeout(_this.timer)
}
}

shog9's answer is pretty much what I'd say, although I'd add the following about UI animation/events:
If you've got a box that's supposed to slide onto the screen, expand downwards, then fade in its contents, don't try to make all three events separate with delays timed to make them fire one after another - use callbacks, so once the first event is done sliding it calls the expander, once that's done it calls the fader. jQuery can do it easily, and I'm sure other libraries can as well.

If you're using setTimeout() to yield quickly to the browser so it's UI thread can catch up with any tasks it needs to do (such as updating a tab, or to not show the Long Running Script dialog), there is a new API called Efficient Script Yielding, aka, setImmediate() that may work a bit better for you.
setImmediate() operates very similarly to setTimeout(), yet it may run immediately if the browser has nothing else to do. In many situations where you are using setTimeout(..., 16) or setTimeout(..., 4) or setTimeout(..., 0) (i.e. you want the browser to run any outstanding UI thread tasks and not show a Long Running Script dialog), you can simply replace your setTimeout() with setImmediate(), dropping the second (millisecond) argument.
The difference with setImmediate() is that it is basically a yield; if the browser has sometime to do on the UI thread (e.g., update a tab), it will do so before returning to your callback. However, if the browser is already all caught up with its work, the callback specified in setImmediate() will essentially run without delay.
Unfortunately it is only currently supported in IE9+, as there is some push back from the other browser vendors.
There is a good polyfill available though, if you want to use it and hope the other browsers implement it at some point.
If you are using setTimeout() for animation, requestAnimationFrame is your best bet as your code will run in-sync with the monitor's refresh rate.
If you are using setTimeout() on a slower cadence, e.g. once every 300 milliseconds, you could use a solution similar to what user1213320 suggests, where you monitor how long it was from the last timestamp your timer ran and compensate for any delay. One improvement is that you could use the new High Resolution Time interface (aka window.performance.now()) instead of Date.now() to get greater-than-millisecond resolution for the current time.

You need to "creep up" on the target time. Some trial and error will be necessary but in essence.
Set a timeout to complete arround 100ms before the required time
make the timeout handler function like this:
calculate_remaining_time
if remaining_time > 20ms // maybe as much as 50
re-queue the handler for 10ms time
else
{
while( remaining_time > 0 ) calculate_remaining_time;
do_your_thing();
re-queue the handler for 100ms before the next required time
}
But your while loop can still get interrupted by other processes so it's still not perfect.

Here's an example demoing Shog9's suggestion. This fills a jquery progress bar smoothly over 6 seconds, then redirects to a different page once it's filled:
var TOTAL_SEC = 6;
var FRAMES_PER_SEC = 60;
var percent = 0;
var startTime = new Date().getTime();
setTimeout(updateProgress, 1000 / FRAMES_PER_SEC);
function updateProgress() {
var currentTime = new Date().getTime();
// 1000 to convert to milliseconds, and 100 to convert to percentage
percent = (currentTime - startTime) / (TOTAL_SEC * 1000) * 100;
$("#progressbar").progressbar({ value: percent });
if (percent >= 100) {
window.location = "newLocation.html";
} else {
setTimeout(updateProgress, 1000 / FRAMES_PER_SEC);
}
}

This is a timer I made for a music project of mine which does this thing. Timer that is accurate on all devices.
var Timer = function(){
var framebuffer = 0,
var msSinceInitialized = 0,
var timer = this;
var timeAtLastInterval = new Date().getTime();
setInterval(function(){
var frametime = new Date().getTime();
var timeElapsed = frametime - timeAtLastInterval;
msSinceInitialized += timeElapsed;
timeAtLastInterval = frametime;
},1);
this.setInterval = function(callback,timeout,arguments) {
var timeStarted = msSinceInitialized;
var interval = setInterval(function(){
var totaltimepassed = msSinceInitialized - timeStarted;
if (totaltimepassed >= timeout) {
callback(arguments);
timeStarted = msSinceInitialized;
}
},1);
return interval;
}
}
var timer = new Timer();
timer.setInterval(function(){console.log("This timer will not drift."),1000}

Hate to say it, but I don't think there is a way to alleviate this. I do think that it depends on the client system, though, so a faster javascript engine or machine may make it slightly more accurate.

To my experience it is lost effort, even as the smallest reasonable amount of time I ever recognized js act in is around 32-33 ms. ...

There is definitely a limitation here. To give you some perspective, the Chrome browser Google just released is fast enough that it can execute setTimeout(function() {}, 0) in 15-20 ms whereas older Javascript engines took hundreds of milliseconds to execute that function. Although setTimeout uses milliseconds, no javascript virtual machine at this point in time can execute code with that precision.

Dan, from my experience (that includes implementation of SMIL2.1 language in JavaScript, where time management is in subject) I can assure you that you actually never need high precision of setTimeout or setInterval.
What does however matter is the order in which setTimeout/setInterval gets executed when queued - and that always works perfectly.

JavaScript timeouts have a defacto limit of 10-15ms (I'm not sure what you're doing to get 200ms, unless you're doing 185ms of actual js execution). This is due to windows having a standard timer resolution of 15ms, the only way to do better is to use Windows' higher resolution timers which is a system wide setting so can screw with other applications on the system and also chews battery life (Chrome has a bug from Intel on this issue).
The defacto standard of 10-15ms is due to people using 0ms timeouts on websites but then coding in a way that assumes that assumes a 10-15ms timeout (eg. js games which assume 60fps but ask 0ms/frame with no delta logic so the game/site/animation goes a few orders of magnitude faster than intended). To account for that, even on platforms that don't have windows' timer problems, the browsers limit timer resolution to 10ms.

Here are what I use. Since it's JavaScript, I will post both my Frontend and node.js solutions:
For both, I use the same decimal rounding function that I highly recommend you keep at arms length because reasons:
const round = (places, number) => +(Math.round(number + `e+${places}`) + `e-${places}`)
places - Number of decimal places at which to round, this should be safe and should avoid any issues with floats (some numbers like 1.0000000000005~ can be problematic). I Spent time researching the best way to round decimals provided by high-resolution timers converted to milliseconds.
that + symbol - It is a unary operator that converts an operand into a number, virtually identical to Number()
Browser
const start = performance.now()
// I wonder how long this comment takes to parse
const end = performance.now()
const result = (end - start) + ' ms'
const adjusted = round(2, result) // see above rounding function
node.js
// Start timer
const startTimer = () => process.hrtime()
// End timer
const endTimer = (time) => {
const diff = process.hrtime(time)
const NS_PER_SEC = 1e9
const result = (diff[0] * NS_PER_SEC + diff[1])
const elapsed = Math.round((result * 0.0000010))
return elapsed
}
// This end timer converts the number from nanoseconds into milliseconds;
// you can find the nanosecond version if you need some seriously high-resolution timers.
const start = startTimer()
// I wonder how long this comment takes to parse
const end = endTimer(start)
console.log(end + ' ms')

You could consider using the html5 webaudio clock which uses the system time for better accuracy

HTML Canvas Interval vs RequestAnimationFrame

So, maybe total brainfart here. The syntax for setInterval() is pretty clear. Do something every x miliseconds. How is this best translated to using the requestAnimationFrame() ?
I have about 300 objects and each is supposed to perform an animation sequence at a certain interval (every 8, 6, 2, etc seconds)? How can I best accomplish this using requestAnimationFrame() which gets called ~60 times a second? There is probably an easy answer, I just, for the life of me, can't figure it out.

To force requestAnimationFrame to stick to a specific FPS you can use both at once!
var fps = 15;
function draw() {
setTimeout(function() {
requestAnimationFrame(draw);
// Drawing code goes here
}, 1000 / fps);
}
A little weird, but noth the most confusing thing in the world.
You can also use requestAnimationFrame not with FPS but with elapsed time in order to draw objects that need to be updated based on the time difference since the last call:
var time;
function draw() {
requestAnimationFrame(draw);
var now = new Date().getTime(),
dt = now - (time || now);
time = now;
// Drawing code goes here... for example updating an 'x' position:
this.x += 10 * dt; // Increase 'x' by 10 units per millisecond
}
These two snippets are from this fine article, which contains additional details.
Good question by the way! I don't think I've seen this answered on SO either (and I'm here way too much)

requestAnimationFrame is pretty low level, it just does what you already said: roughly gets called at 60fps (assuming the browser can keep up with that pace). So typically you would need to build something on top of that, much like a game engine that has a game loop.
In my game engine, I have this (paraphased/simplified here):
window.requestAnimationFrame(this._doFrame);
...
_doFrame: function(timestamp) {
var delta = timestamp - (this._lastTimestamp || timestamp);
for(var i = 0, len = this.elements.length; i < len; ++i) {
this.elements[i].update(delta);
}
this._lastTimestamp = timestamp;
// I used underscore.js's 'bindAll' to make _doFrame always
// get called against my game engine object
window.requestAnimationFrame(this._doFrame);
}
Then each element in my game engine knows how to update themselves. In your case each element that should update every 2, 6, 8 seconds needs to keep track of how much time has passed and update accordingly:
update: function(delta) {
this.elapsed += delta;
// has 8 seconds passed?
if(this.elapsed >= 8000) {
this.elapsed -= 8000; // reset the elapsed counter
this.doMyUpdate(); // whatever it should be
}
}
The Canvas API along with requestAnimationFrame are rather low level, they are the building blocks for things like animation and game engines. If possible I'd try to use an existing one like cocos2d-js or whatever else is out there these days.

why jquery can't animate number accurately?

i am trying to use the following code to increment number in a textbox
// Animate the element's value from 0 to 1100000:
$({someValue: 0}).animate({someValue: 1100000}, {
duration: 1000,
step: function() { // called on every step
// Update the element's text with value:
$('#counterx').text(Math.floor(this.someValue+1));
}
});
it is working with small numbers like from 0 to 100
but when it comes to large number like in the mentioned code,
it is not giving the target number,
it is animating to numbers like 1099933 or 1099610 or .....
and every time it changes.
so how can i make it to animate to the number i specify?

I have the same issue. The reasoning is because animate function uses a mathematical formula that is time based. You don't really notice this when animating something css based because close enough in pixels is good enough. It will get close to the final value but may not always be exactly the end value. Solution is to use the complete event to set that last value.
Here is what you need to do:
function animateNumber(ele,no,stepTime){
$({someValue: 0}).animate({someValue: no}, {
duration: stepTime,
step: function() { // called on every step. Update the element's text with value:
ele.text(Math.floor(this.someValue+1));
},
complete : function(){
ele.text(no);
}
});
}
animateNumber($('#counterx'),100,10000);
animateNumber($('#countery'),100,1000)
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
counterx(slow): <span id=counterx>--</span>
<br/>
countery(fast): <span id=countery>--</span>

1) Javascript is a single threaded application. Timeouts and animations ONLY push the event to the end of the stack based on an ideal stacking order. A long running section of script can cause the actual firing time of that event well past the accuracy you are looking for.
2) Animation approximates how much to increment, and on larger numbers that resolution is very inaccurate.
3) jQuery only has one animation buffer. You might run into some serious rendering issues if you invoke more than one "counter" using animation. Make sure to stop the previous animation before making any adjustments that effect it.
4) Even with a timeout of 0, you can expect the real world delay of ~15. Even if that is the only "thread" you have running.
Solution:
take a snapshot of the DTG
set your interval to something within the human experience, say ~200
on each interval, check how much time has passed from the original DTG
set your text field to that delta number.
stop the interval with the original DTG + "your target number" > the new DTG

Animate is not designed to increment a counter as text (though it may work by accident, which could change with any new version of jQuery), it's designed to animate one or more CSS properties. You should be using setInterval instead.
http://jsfiddle.net/jbabey/mKa5r/
var num = 0;
var interval = setInterval(function () {
document.getElementById('result').innerHTML = num;
num++;
if (num === 100) {
clearInterval(interval);
}
}, 100);​

Here's a solution that doesn't use .animate().
DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/czbAy/4/
It's just a linear modification; you don't get the easing options if that's what you were after.
var counterx = $('#counterx'), // cache the DOM selection! :)
i = 0,
n = 1100000,
dur = 1000, // 1 second
int = 13,
s = Math.round(n / (dur / int));
var id = setInterval(function() {
counterx.text(i += s);
if (i >= n) {
clearInterval(id);
counterx.text(n);
}
}, int);

Here is a jquery plugin to animate numbers reliably, ut uses the complete callback to set the correct final number once the animation has finished:
https://github.com/kajic/jquery-animateNumber

Counting down for x to 0 in Javascript?

I have from the backend a time on the format 00:12:54 and I display it to the screen. But, I would like to have this time to continue to go down. I have though to create a variable in javascript that will old the time and with setTimeout to loop to display with document.getElementById the new value. I think it can be problematic if I have many time to go down in same time. I might require an array?
How would you do that? If I have no other suggestion, I will try my way, but I am curious to know if it does have a more secure way to do it.

Do you know jQuery Framework? It's a Javascript framework that have a lot of utilities methods and functions that let you do Javascript stuff more easily.
Here is a count down plugin (haven't tested it).
I suggest you to download JQuery than download the plugin . Check the sample of code from the "relative" tab on the website. You can have something like :
$('#until2d4h').countdown({until: '+12M +54S'});
*The only drawback with what I suggest you is that you will require 2 .js to be added. Try to add them only when needed and you will be find.

General algorithm:
Read time from server.
Read the current time.
Call a function.
In your function, read the current time, get the delta from the initial time you read in step 2.
Subtract the delta from the initial time you read from the server in step 1 and display the remainder.
The function should call window.setTimeout to call itself in 1000ms (or adjust according to time elapsed within the function), if you want to continue counting down.
Here's a rough cut:
window.onload = function () {
var countdown_start_in_ms = 6000; // from server
function tick() {
var now = new Date().getTime();
var disp = start - now;
if (disp < 0) {
disp = 0;
}
var el = document.getElementById("countdown");
el.innerHTML =
// quick hack to format time
/(\d\d:\d\d:\d\d) ...$/.exec(new Date(disp).toUTCString())[1];
if (disp > 1000) {
var elapsed = new Date().getTime() - now;
window.setTimeout(tick, 1000 - elapsed);
} else {
// stop countdown and set color to light grey
el.style.color = "#ccc";
}
}
var start = new Date().getTime() + countdown_start_in_ms;
tick();
}

You won't like the taste of this one, but it'll do you good:
Google for 'javascript timer' and get your hands dirty reading through the various examples and tutorials returned by that search.
You'll learn a lot more than just how to write a count-down timer. :-)
Good luck!

Take a look at Grab hands and set your own time. and inspect its code. While it is written with Dojo, the "clock" part is in plain JavaScript. In your case the only difference is how to advance the counter — decrease rather than increase it.