Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 702883
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T03:46:12+00:00 2026-05-14T03:46:12+00:00

I need high-resolution (more accurate than 1 millisecond) timing in my application. The waitable

  • 0

I need high-resolution (more accurate than 1 millisecond) timing in my application. The waitable timers in Windows are (or can be made) accurate to the millisecond, but if I need a precise periodicity of, say, 35.7142857141 milliseconds, even a waitable timer with a 36 ms period will drift out of sync quickly.

My “solution” to this problem (in ironic quotes because it’s not working quite right) is to use a series of one-shot timers where I use the expiration of each timer to call the next timer. Normally a process like this would be subject to cumulative error over time, but in each timer callback I check the current time (with System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch) and use this to calculate what the period of the next timer needs to be (so if a timer happens to expire a little late, the next timer will automagically have a shorter period to compensate).

This works as expected, except that after maybe 10-15 seconds the timer system seems to get bogged down, and a few timer callbacks here and there arrive anywhere from 25 to 100 milliseconds late. After a couple of seconds the problem goes away and everything runs smoothly again for 10-15 seconds, and then the stuttering again.

Since I’m using Stopwatch to set each timer period, I’m also using it to monitor the arrival times of each timer callback. During the smooth-running periods, most (maybe 95%) of the intervals are either 35 or 36 milliseconds, and no intervals are ever more than 5 milliseconds away from the expected 35.7142857143.

During the “glitchy” stretches, the distribution of intervals is very nearly identical, except that a very small number are unusually large (a couple more than 60 ms and one or two longer than 100 ms during maybe a 3-second stretch). This stuttering is very noticeable, and it’s what I’m trying to fix, if possible.

For the high-resolution timer, I was using the extremely antique timeSetEvent() multimedia timer from winmm.dll. In pursuit of this problem, I switched to using CreateTimerQueueTimer (along with timeBeginPeriod to set the high-resolution), but I’m seeing the same problem with both timer mechanisms. I’ve tried experimenting with the various flags for CreateTimerQueueTimer which determine which thread the timer runs on, but the stuttering appears no matter what.

Is this just a fundamental problem with using timers in this way (i.e. using each one-shot timer to call the next)? If so, do I have any alternatives? One thing I was considering was to determine how many consecutive 1-millisecond-accuracy ticks would keep my within some arbitrary precision limit before I need to reset the timer. So, for example, if I wanted a 35.71428 period, I could let a 36 ms timer elapse 15 times before it was off by 5 milliseconds, then kill it and start a new one.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T03:46:12+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 3:46 am

    Given limitations in .NET, I think you have a good approach. What is your process priority? I’m thinking it needs to be higher than normal to avoid other processes doing disk activity.

    I agree with Henk that the .NET framework is not the best solution here. If garbage collection occurs, it may take a while to free objects, compact the heap, etc.

    What OS are you using? I also agree with Henk that a real-time OS is the best solution. According to what I’ve read, Windows CE qualifies as a real-time OS, but I can’t really comment further.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.