Help with code | Incrementing by one

I'm attempting to make a piston door open up in the floor, but every time you use it, you have to wait 10 more seconds for it to open. I want the increase to cap at 1 minute, 20 seconds (80 seconds). For some reason i won't increase by 1.

local i = 0
local r = i * 10

redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)

while true do
	sleep(0)
	while (redstone.getInput("top")) do
	  if i < 9 then
		sleep(r)
		redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
		sleep(3)
		redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
		i = i + 1
	  if i > 8 then
		sleep(80)
		redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
		sleep(3)
		redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
		i = i + 1
	 end
  end
end

Split into new topic.

The code you've posted shouldn't even start because there are not enough 'end's to close all sections opened using 'do's and 'then's. Do you get any errors or do you only see that it doesn't work?

Why do you have two loops? The first loop only contains sleep(0) which is pretty worthless in my opinion. If you want it, just put sleep(0) in the second while loop. Also when the redstone signal is cut, the while loop breaks and will return to the first while loop. After this you will most likely get an error for too long without yielding. Thus exiting your program and setting i to 0. I'm pretty sure this is your problem. If anyone wants to correct me feel free :)/>

So what should the code look like?

local i = 0
local r = i * 10
redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
while (redstone.getInput("top")) do
sleep(0)
   if i < 9 then
	  sleep(r)
	  redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
	  sleep(3)
	  redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
	  i = i + 1
   elseif i > 8 then
	  sleep(80)
	  redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
	  sleep(3)
	  redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
	  i = i + 1
   end
end

SuicidalSTDz, on 26 February 2013 - 10:05 AM said:

-snip-

As I've mentioned before, the first IF block has no end, but yes, the code should look like that.

(Maybe elseif instead of the second if?)

LBPHacker, on 26 February 2013 - 10:08 AM said:

SuicidalSTDz, on 26 February 2013 - 10:05 AM said:

-snip-

As I've mentioned before, the first IF block has no end, but yes, the code should look like that.

(Maybe elseif instead of the second if?)

Yeah, that would be cleaner.

EDIT: Actually that could be the reason i was not incremental.

I can see why you would want another while loop. If you desperately need one, feel free to add one. Just make sure to end the loop like so:

while true do
  --some stuff
end

Try this?

local seconds = 0

while true do
  -- stop until we get a signal from the top
  while not rs.getOutput('top') do
    os.pullEvent('redstone')
  end

  -- sleep the current amount of time in seconds
  sleep(seconds)

  -- open the door
  rs.setOutput('bottom', true)
  sleep(3)
  rs.setOutput('bottom', false)

  -- increment seconds, only if it is less than 80.
  seconds = seconds + (seconds < 80 and 10 or 0)

  -- stop until we have no input from the top
  -- just to prevent bugginess.
  while rs.getOutput('top') do
    os.pullEvent('redstone')
  end
end

Uncommented/compressed:

local seconds = 0

while true do
  while not rs.getOutput('top') do
    os.pullEvent('redstone')
  end
  sleep(seconds)
  rs.setOutput('bottom', true)
  sleep(3)
  rs.setOutput('bottom', false)
  seconds = seconds + (seconds < 80 and 10 or 0)
  while rs.getOutput('top') do
    os.pullEvent('redstone')
  end
end

none of these are working for me. it still doesn't have an increasing delay on it. here's the code in it's current state:

local i = 0
local r = i * 10
redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
while true do
  sleep(0)
  while (redstone.getInput("top")) do
	 if i < 9 then
		    sleep(r)
		    redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
		    sleep(3)
		    redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
		    i = i + 1
	 elseif i > 8 then
		  sleep(80)
		  redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
		  sleep(3)
		  redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
		  i = i + 1
	 end
  end
end

If needed, I can post pictures of how the computer and piston are set up

This line:

local r = i * 10

doesn't mean that r is always i * 10. It just sets r to that. If i changes later, r will not change automatically.

Also, calling sleep(0) over and over is a waste of CPU.
Use os.pullEvent("redstone") instead to wait for a redstone signal to change.

a great thanks to immibis for the fix here. I enjoy that you didn't write out the code for me, but instead told me some information and allowed me to solve it myself in that way. i just had to move the r variable into the while loop. the code now reads:

local i = 0
redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
while true do
  sleep(0)
  while (redstone.getInput("top")) do
	 if i < 9 then
	    r = i * 10
	    sleep(r)
	    redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
	    sleep(3)
	    redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
	    i = i + 1
	 elseif i > 8 then
	    sleep(80)
	    redstone.setOutput("bottom",false)
	    sleep(3)
	    redstone.setOutput("bottom",true)
	 end
  end
end

You might be better served by using the os timer event - my understanding is it's much more CPU friendly than sleep() and would allow you to basically run an event loop independently of your redstone functions.

LancerX, on 05 March 2013 - 05:46 AM said:

You might be better served by using the os timer event - my understanding is it's much more CPU friendly than sleep() and would allow you to basically run an event loop independently of your redstone functions.

Sleep uses a timer event…

@Lua God: I read in a couple of places on the boards here over the weekend that it was CPU inefficient. Thanks for dispelling that!

LancerX, on 05 March 2013 - 03:08 PM said:

@Lua God: I read in a couple of places on the boards here over the weekend that it was CPU inefficient. Thanks for dispelling that!

His name is immibis not Lua God…
and sleep is not event friendly, thats all. so if you have a whole heap of events in the queue waiting and you use sleep, you have just lost all those events. that is when you want to use timers so you can preserve your events.

Does it really matter what is better CPU wise? CC allows for an infinate amount of memory does it not?

Yes, but your world server might not. It doesn't take a lot of badly written programs before lag and CC computer performance become problems.