Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

It's a scientific fact because I have performed the experiment BIG SNIP

There is the entire problem, coupled with the fact that you could have 10 million pieces of evidence to the contrary. You feel that your opinion is the only one in the world that matters and nothing will ever change that. Congratulations on having such a wonderfully huge ego.

 

Guess what - I just did an experiment myself. I prefer KitKats to all other chocolate bars. Therefore, I claim that it's a scientific FACT that KitKat is the best chocolate in the world. Have fun refuting this. You can't argue with science.

 

What evidence to the contrary do you have that you can't get exact states on analog joysticks whereas you can on digital joysticks? One piece of contrary evidence hasn't been given and you are posting as if it's 10 million than mixing things up with an analogy that doesn't even apply. It's not an opinion that people have better control using digital music/video to edit things exactly rather than in analog form. You can only perform the experiment for yourself not for others.

 

As far as bounce goes, the way I see it given the slow scanning of analog joysticks, it's more susceptible to errors there as well.

Chewbacca defense. It's an undisputable scientific fact that KitKat is the best chocolate in the world. I have the evidence to back this up. Where is your evidence to refute this?

 

Didn't realize you were having an emotional fit.

[ApolloBoy]

Didn't realize you were having an emotional fit.

So being humorous means having an "emotional fit"? Uh, OK.

 

The way you and atariksi react to humor and the way you both convey your arguments really makes me think if you're both robots or some sort of AI...

Edited November 7, 2010 by ApolloBoy

[Bryan]

What about a sphincter game controller? I can't be the only one who finds it superior for 'twitch' games!

[potatohead]

...brings a whole new dimension to that classic, "oh shit!" moment!!

 

(you know some kink somewhere has probably done it too, just not talking to anyone about it EVER)

[Divya16]

Didn't realize you were having an emotional fit.

So being humorous means having an "emotional fit"? Uh, OK.

 

The way you and atariksi react to humor and the way you both convey your arguments really makes me think if you're both robots or some sort of AI...

 

You don't know how to argue so your basic comments boil down to answering/speculating on behalf of somebody as if you can read their minds or some sort of "god". Let him explain it himself.

[potatohead]

So then explain it.

 

I don't see a material difference between the two personas. Help me out here. Explain

 

(bear in mind, I don't mind people doing that, so it's not a attack at all, just a desire for clarity)

Edited November 7, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

For the above reason I think this thread should have been locked ages ago.

 

Nobody forced you to read the thread. Perhaps, you don't like what's being stated so you want the thread to be locked. Perhaps, you realize that the same analog joystick which some people consider superior today was considered inferior in the 1980s by major companies.

 

@potatohead: I don't think Appoloboy should answer on behalf of Stephen or speculate about anyone else. In this case, I think Stephen was trying to make a point not just joking around. So basically he's preventing people from refuting it since he gets his point across and if you refute it then it's a joke. Deceptive.

[potatohead]

Precisely.

 

Why speculate?

 

I'm flat out asking for clarification on whether or not Divya16 and Atariski are the same person. Maybe two personas, I get that, and how it could be, and I don't care. Not a problem for me personally.

 

The question is one person operating two accounts? And I'll say why, and that is I find it interesting that suddenly there is this additional person here, who happens to align very well with what we know to be Atariski's mode of communication. That mode is rather unique, and entertaining to me personally, just to be clear.

 

So, is that true? One physical person, two accounts? And I'm asking Atariski, and Divya16 that question directly.

 

Yes or no.

Edited November 7, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

All I was stating there was it's easier to use with a lever (stick) to get to the buttons especially the diagonals and that digital would still be preferred over analog. However, the type of switches does make a difference in the bounce as I have noticed that even at 1Mhz sampling some digital joysticks show no bounce.

Right, some d-pads make for easier diagonals than others for sure (many prefer the Sega ones, especially for fighting games where you have a lot of combo moves that require accurate circular motion). You also have some gamepads with tumbsticks or optional thumbsticks to have more lever action. (some gravis gamepads, 7800 pads, and early SMS pads had screw points for that)

 

The bounce would depend on the switch type and additional springs/buffers (rubber boot, etc) with a number of variabled. But rubber dome switches with a very short throw (especially with a d-pad) should tend to have less bounce in general compared with metal switches. (with more specific cases on various switch types in general)

 

I do have one digital joystick that claims to have debouncing. In essence, bouncing shouldn't be an issue as both types of joysticks can employ debouncing or the machine can do it in hardware.

 

@potatohead: I'm not atarksi and you are speculating and also biased. Maybe Appolloboy is Stephen the way he just replied. And maybe you are better off spending time in Atari 5200 forum which has more to do with analog joysticks and same 8-bit hardware.

[potatohead]

You did not answer the question.

 

I can accept that you are not Atariski, what I don't know is whether or not you share one body. Let's hear what Atariski has to say about it, before the conversation goes any further.

 

Biased? Hell yes I'm biased! Everybody is. EVERYBODY That is why we have the scientific method, so that we may deal with our collective bias, and get at facts, and a greater understanding, or model, of how the world works and our place in it.

 

Asking a question is a follow on to clarify speculation. Do you really want to put that scientific method to the test in this way? Trust me, I'm completely game. The body of evidence before us right now IS compelling enough to warrant asking that question.

 

Maybe we can have AL look at the logs.

Edited November 7, 2010 by potatohead

[+Stephen]

Precisely.

 

Why speculate?

 

I'm flat out asking for clarification on whether or not Divya16 and Atariski are the same person. Maybe two personas, I get that, and how it could be, and I don't care. Not a problem for me personally.

 

The question is one person operating two accounts? And I'll say why, and that is I find it interesting that suddenly there is this additional person here, who happens to align very well with what we know to be Atariski's mode of communication. That mode is rather unique, and entertaining to me personally, just to be clear.

 

So, is that true? One physical person, two accounts? And I'm asking Atariski, and Divya16 that question directly.

 

Yes or no.

You're certainly not the only one here who thinks this.

 

And no, Apollo Boy is not me.

[+Stephen]

Chewbacca defense. It's an undisputable scientific fact that KitKat is the best chocolate in the world. I have the evidence to back this up. Where is your evidence to refute this?

 

Didn't realize you were having an emotional fit.

I am not in the least bit emotional. I am simply stating a scientific fact that you cannot refute. I did an experiment, I have the results. My experiment is just as valid as your one.

[+Stephen]

What about a sphincter game controller? I can't be the only one who finds it superior for 'twitch' games!

You mean like this one

- note the nice tapered handle for easy insert^h^h^h^h^h^h control. I bet you can't get that level of precise control from an analog stick!

[+orpheuswaking]

Aren't all sticks Digital if you use them with your fingers???

[potatohead]

And there it is! The "twitch" control! :D (good god, that's morbid)

[sloopy]

well new games give me motion sickness, so by scientific fact, A8 games are better then PS3 and Xbox 360 games...

 

sloopy.

[+orpheuswaking]

And there it is! The "twitch" control! (good god, that's morbid)

 

 

Not that morbid... and with the right ammount of lube pretty damn accurate for most games

[carmel_andrews]

Both joystick are good for particular types of games....but I'd much prefer playing games on A8 emulators with an atari cx40 (or similar) and not a cack pc joypad (there is just something about playing an emulator game with a pc joypad that just seems a bit off)

[Bryan]

And there it is! The "twitch" control! (good god, that's morbid)

 

 

Not that morbid... and with the right ammount of lube pretty damn accurate for most games

Yep, and although most arcade games required that players take turns using the same joystick, most home systems had a port so each player could have his own controller. Now you know why...

[potatohead]

Noooo!!!

 

I'll bask in my willful ignorance, thank you very much!

[Divya16]

Chewbacca defense. It's an undisputable scientific fact that KitKat is the best chocolate in the world. I have the evidence to back this up. Where is your evidence to refute this?

 

Didn't realize you were having an emotional fit.

I am not in the least bit emotional. I am simply stating a scientific fact that you cannot refute. I did an experiment, I have the results. My experiment is just as valid as your one.

 

You did not state any experiment-- high scores, high failure rate, etc. Nor did you describe any science behind your find. So I took next logical step that you were just having some emotional meltdown. I can also say F=m*a is an opinion since I never did the experiment nor studied that much physics. You can call anything opinion. But when you actually sit down and play those games and find those high failures, you will feel some guilt saying it's an opinion.

 

Stop the mockery about whose who. Be honest. I can also make those wild claims about some people but it doesn't help the topic nor does it make your analog joystick superior. It remains inferior from the control point of view. Some do look good, fancy, and complicated.

[+5-11under]

I think the problem with this thread lies at the beginning. Two quotes:

 

"It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it", and "I will provide more arguments as needed and later".

 

The first quote is the thread/topic description, and the second quote is from the first post of the thread. The first brings on the challenge to disagree, and the second gives me the impression that this will be an argument rather than a discussion. The discussion is worthwhile; the arguing is lame. For instanced, ignoring the fact that this may be outside the scope of this thread, however much I'd love to discuss measurement of switch debounce in the analog and digital realms, there's no way I'm going to, because it'll just turn into an argument, it seems. Resistance to the original opinion is futile, apparently.

 

Ciao,

5-11under

 

 

For the above reason I think this thread should have been locked ages ago.

 

I don't think you understood what he wrote. I already discussed bounce and it applies to both analog and digital controllers and doesn't show up in the experiments performed. It's a futile point but I have discussed it. So he's mistaken like he was previously when he went on about various analog controllers before he even read post #1 apparently.

My post quoted above is not about bounce. Bounce was merely used as an example of something that would be fun and interesting and educational to discuss, but definitely not something fun to argue about.

[+5-11under]

I think the problem with this thread lies at the beginning. Two quotes:

 

"It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it", and "I will provide more arguments as needed and later".

 

The first quote is the thread/topic description, and the second quote is from the first post of the thread. The first brings on the challenge to disagree, and the second gives me the impression that this will be an argument rather than a discussion. The discussion is worthwhile; the arguing is lame. For instanced, ignoring the fact that this may be outside the scope of this thread, however much I'd love to discuss measurement of switch debounce in the analog and digital realms, there's no way I'm going to, because it'll just turn into an argument, it seems. Resistance to the original opinion is futile, apparently.

 

Ciao,

5-11under

 

You forgot to address any of the points like previously. There's no problems in the thread. It's just that some people come in and get emotional from time to time. As long as the emotionally biased people don't stick around and just come and go, it's okay with me.

 

It's a scientific fact because I have performed the experiment as well as those that I know here in my area. They know there's some obvious flaws in the analog joysticks. However, rather than turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, I left it open for others to refute it. I prefer the method of logic/mathematics. To me it's a far gone conclusion, analog joysticks have no use given the existence of digital joysticks and paddles, mice, etc. since all those give better control.

 

I'm all ears to logic, mathematics, or even experiments to prove/disprove what I stated in this thread.

It's my opinion that your experimentation method is flawed. To me, the results of your experiment do not translate into a conclusion that digital joysticks offer better control than analog joysticks. This reminds me of the many medical research experiments that you may see on the news, where if you delve deeper into the research methods, the conclusion, at least as shown in the news headline, is flawed by one reason or another.

 

Note that I'm just stating my opinion here, which is only refutable by me.

[Divya16]

I think the problem with this thread lies at the beginning. Two quotes:

 

"It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it", and "I will provide more arguments as needed and later".

 

The first quote is the thread/topic description, and the second quote is from the first post of the thread. The first brings on the challenge to disagree, and the second gives me the impression that this will be an argument rather than a discussion. The discussion is worthwhile; the arguing is lame. For instanced, ignoring the fact that this may be outside the scope of this thread, however much I'd love to discuss measurement of switch debounce in the analog and digital realms, there's no way I'm going to, because it'll just turn into an argument, it seems. Resistance to the original opinion is futile, apparently.

 

Ciao,

5-11under

 

You forgot to address any of the points like previously. There's no problems in the thread. It's just that some people come in and get emotional from time to time. As long as the emotionally biased people don't stick around and just come and go, it's okay with me.

 

It's a scientific fact because I have performed the experiment as well as those that I know here in my area. They know there's some obvious flaws in the analog joysticks. However, rather than turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, I left it open for others to refute it. I prefer the method of logic/mathematics. To me it's a far gone conclusion, analog joysticks have no use given the existence of digital joysticks and paddles, mice, etc. since all those give better control.

 

I'm all ears to logic, mathematics, or even experiments to prove/disprove what I stated in this thread.

It's my opinion that your experimentation method is flawed. To me, the results of your experiment do not translate into a conclusion that digital joysticks offer better control than analog joysticks. This reminds me of the many medical research experiments that you may see on the news, where if you delve deeper into the research methods, the conclusion, at least as shown in the news headline, is flawed by one reason or another.

 

Note that I'm just stating my opinion here, which is only refutable by me.

 

It's a fact that your opinion is wrong. If we entertain opinions, mine as well discuss those that believe the earth is flat. How about telling those who edit videos/audios in digital format to go back to analog and see if it's a matter of opinion as to which provides better control.

[kool kitty89]

It's a scientific fact because I have performed the experiment BIG SNIP

There is the entire problem, coupled with the fact that you could have 10 million pieces of evidence to the contrary. You feel that your opinion is the only one in the world that matters and nothing will ever change that. Congratulations on having such a wonderfully huge ego.

 

Guess what - I just did an experiment myself. I prefer KitKats to all other chocolate bars. Therefore, I claim that it's a scientific FACT that KitKat is the best chocolate in the world. Have fun refuting this. You can't argue with science.

 

What evidence to the contrary do you have that you can't get exact states on analog joysticks whereas you can on digital joysticks? One piece of contrary evidence hasn't been given and you are posting as if it's 10 million than mixing things up with an analogy that doesn't even apply. It's not an opinion that people have better control using digital music/video to edit things exactly rather than in analog form. You can only perform the experiment for yourself not for others.

 

As far as bounce goes, the way I see it given the slow scanning of analog joysticks, it's more susceptible to errors there as well.

Exact states is done with code, and a range check. Come on man, this is not hard. A range then, is "on", and another range is "off", done! I'm sure people here could suggest all kinds of options. Maybe just use a single value, and use greater than, less than for one and zero binary states. One value for each direction, and hmmm that begins to look a lot like the code checks for the digital sticks, does it not?

 

 

Exact states isn't even the problem at all... especially if the ADC is already done for you in hardware (and from what I understand, POKEY pretty much does just that: outputting 8-bit values for the pots), the issue is a wide range of possible inputs, nothing to do with analog or digital.

 

Again, take a fully digital mechanism (ie multi-contact rotary or slide switch) with a similar number of possible values and you'll have all of the issues with analog controls outputting to a similar digital resolution (256 states with 8-bit ADC, per axis, 65536 states for 2 8-bit axes) with the exception of calibration issues. (for dirt/damage related resistance problems it's more or less the same as physical damage to the digital contacts)

 

And for an analog joystick with only 9 possible (analog) states it's the same thing, no "in between" stuff to worry about. (only the issue of calibration and the desired ranges for input of the 8 directions... or that's only the case with a hack for outputting to a higher resolution ADC: if you only had 2-bit ADCs per axis reading 3 states, that would be mitigated as well and you'd only be left with Atariksi's complaint about polling speed -same complaint about the inferiority of using key scanning or serial I/O for joysticks -the ST often referenced)

 

 

The issue of long-throw and centering is unrelated to the analog vs digital issue anyway.