Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

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

 

Where's a picture of that?

 

I was just looking at this fastball and stickstand:

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 370111572920

 

Anyone have tried this to see if it helps with holding the joystick down and I guess the ball is for better grip.

[potatohead]

Yeah?

 

Didn't answer the question. One person, two accounts?

[Divya16]

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)

 

I think I have to look up "cack".

[ledzep]

Anyone who has played some same games with both analog and digital joystick has some experimental data to go on.

 

I am sure Atari/Amiga/Sega/etc. had some good basis for sticking with digital joysticks rather than going with the PC standard of analog joysticks.

 

Uh, wrong. What is experimental data?

 

"Data produced by an experimental or quasi-experimental design. In clinical research any data produced as a result of clinical trial. Experimental data may be qualitative or quantitative, each being appropriate for different investigations."

 

I've played thousands of games over the years, with all manner of digital and analog control. I have not produced one shred of experimental data because I wasn't running any experiments that recorded any data. Neither have you or aprioriksi.

 

I cannot wait for one of you two to actually understand or correctly use the scientific terms you keep throwing around here like you throw around claims of possessing data. Is there some secret bet between the two of you to see who can hold out on releasing experimental data longer?

[ledzep]

Well, then I guess we can't discuss the topic if you want to talk about arcade controls and how they are superior or inferior to digital joysticks.

 

Maybe you can't discuss it but I can. I can drive a truck.

 

If you wanted the discussion restricted to only digital and analog joysticks then you shouldn't have included arrow keys in your poll or mentioned paddles in your description of what an analog joystick is a hybrid of. Whoops.

 

You know what you can do with arrow keys? Press more than two of them at once. You can't do that with a (4-way) digital joystick, the most buttons or switches you can press with it are 2. And you can simultaneously press opposite directions with arrow keys but not with a digital joystick. So you have introduced a digital controller that is not a digital joystick. Therefore you must allow paddles (single POT) in the discussion. Damn you, English!

 

You are misreading. If I want to compare control of analog joystick vs. digital joystick, I don't need to study the Star Wars arcade controls. I have both types of joysticks in several varieties and I can experiment without involving other unrelated factors.

 

No, you are mistyping. If you are making a claim that both an analog joystick and a digital joystick don't do the job well (that job being playing Star Wars) then you must study the Star Wars arcade controls. Why? Glad you asked. Because otherwise you cannot know if either the digital or analog joystick is or isn't "doing the job well". You also cannot claim to know how well a trackball can do the job when you don't know how the job is supposed to be done in the first place. Only after you've played the Star Wars arcade game with a functioning flight yoke can you finally know the standard to compare digital and analog joysticks to and know if a trackball would be even better or not. Italian pizza.

 

You must feel pretty foolish for admitting that you haven't actually ever seen that "contraption", much less played it, after claiming you know how good a job a digital and analog joystick does at controlling Star Wars, huh? Ya, that was bonehead move.

 

It only provides evidence that YOU don't know what a controlled experiment is. You have to stick to the subject which is analog joystick vs. digital joystick.

 

I know what a controlled experiment is. I can drive a truck. And I can read, which you evidently cannot. So what is a controlled experiment?

 

It is a experiment testing only ONE factor at a time

 

Its a test of the effect of a single variable by changing it while keeping all other variables the same.

 

A controlled Experiment is one in which only one variable is tested at a time.

 

As an example -

 

Hypothesis: Freshmen will not get mean if they are locked in a cage and poked with a stick.

Conditions: You need a test group and a control group.

Experiment: Both groups will be locked in cages. The test group will get poked with a stick.

Data and Conclusion:

 

* Both groups are mean at the end of the experiment: Accept the hypothesis.

* The freshmen you poke are mean but the control group isn't: Reject the hypothesis.

* Neither group gets mean: Accept the hypothesis.

* The control group gets mean, the experimental doesn't: Accept the hypothesis.

 

Remember, your hypothesis must be provable false. Science is a no-win game--either you fail to prove your hypothesis false or you prove your hypothesis false. You can never prove something true. There is no truth in science, If you are looking for truth, take up math, logic or religion.

 

What are you, 0 for 3, 0 for 4 with knowing scientific terminology? That sciency Tourette's must be a bear to live with.

 

You have to follow through on your claims. You claim to have run experiments. Then tell us the details of those experiments, tell us what the variables were, which ones you changed, which ones you left alone. Tell us what the control group was, tell us what the experimental group was. Tell us which games were played, tell us which digital and analog joysticks were used. Tell us what the design limitations of the joysticks were. You claim to have data from these experiments. Present it. Show how the data supports your hypothesis. Oh yeah, goes without saying for anyone other than you, present your hypothesis.

 

No, I don't want it to work hard. It's by nature harder to get to exact states on the analog joystick. Heck, if you can deterministically get to exact states on the analog joystick with exact center, left, right, and whatever in-between states you wanted, you could wipe out the digital world and build analog devices with as much *CONTROL* as digital devices.

 

Prove that it is by nature harder to get exact states on the analog joystick. I don't mean demonstrate that it's harder for you to get the exact states (anyone can figure out that it's too hard for you to do it), but show that for anyone it is harder. Run. An. Experiment. A controlled experiment and then claim you have the data and never present it. Wait, try something different this time, actually run the experiment, actually gather the data and actually present it. Ya, something new.

 

Hey, we finally agreed on something. It took us like 256 posts.

 

Wait, so you finally agree that there are multiple events that happen in milliseconds between the act of moving a joystick and seeing the result on the video monitor? But if you accept that then you agree that you can never know 100% "without reference to particular facts or experience" (thought I'd include what "a priori" means there) the state of a digital joystick. Don't leave Divya16 all alone trying to defend that foundation-less claim.

 

Stop the word jugglery. From context it's clear I meant knowing beforehand without relying on feedback. So that would be definition 2b and it's also deductive since what you think you did with the joystick is what actually happened.

 

From the context it's clear you don't know what "a priori" means. "Scientific fact" makes no mention of deduction. You remember the definition for that, right? Here, I'll help you out (again) -

 

"An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)."

 

Nope, no "deductive" there. No "knowing beforehand without relying on feedback", either. Damn you, Science!

 

Hey just make those moves that I presented in post #114 and get the statistics. I can post the statistics, but it's better to understand the science of why there's a higher failure rate so you don't have to go through thousands of games. For example, I can repeat the experiment of jumping over the oil barrel in Donkey Kong with analog joystick and digital joystick a hundred times and give you a percentage.

 

What kind of lazy fake scientist are you? I'm not going to do your job for you. You claimed, repeatedly, to have the data so post the data. There you go again, making claims you cannot or will not follow through on. You can post the statistics? Then post them. You can repeat the experiment and give the percentage? Then repeat the... wait, "repeat" means you've done it once already. Obviously you haven't or we'd already have seen the data. Still, run this experiment of yours and post the percentage.

 

When you're done you know what you'll have? Data that shows that you are terrible at playing video games with analog joysticks. Not completely worthless but absolutely useless in terms of supporting your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. You will have to run that "experiment" on lots of test subjects and with lots of games before you can begin to make that claim. You know, the controlled experiment defined above.

 

It would be better to understand the science if you actually had any to understand. All you have is anecdotal memories and screen grabs.

 

Simulators and not emulators. Simulator is suppose to exactly mimic the event. Paddles are not part of the dicussion but used an example to show that even amonst analog controller there's some that offer better control...

More later...I have to run to the JFK airport.

 

Hey, we finally agreed on something. A simulator is supposed to exactly mimic the event. It doesn't, but it's supposed to, that's the claim you hear about simulators most often. As the learned poobah elsewhere on this thread has correctly pointed out (Post #262), for any simulator you can find a parameter that it doesn't model.

[+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.

 

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.

That made me laugh.

A bit out of topic (Whatever ), but... I prefer audio editing in the digital realm. I've tried in the old "Portastudio" days, but never got too far. Once I got a few half-decent audio tools for the computer, it was much easier for me to edit music. I need to fix my musical mistakes, so editing in the digital domain works well for me. However, artists I know who are more creative and skilled than I am don't need to do any editing. Record to tape (or bits, whatever), and they're pretty much done. They might use digital now, but that's just availability or cost rather than quality. My digital camera is great, but if I knew what I was doing for non-daylight shots, my old and cheaper film camera is better at capturing a higher quality and better detailed image.

[+5-11under]

Can someone help me out. I reviewed some threads, but would like to know for sure before commenting further...

 

Regarding "the controlled experiment", is that basically shown in post 222, i.e. running the program "10 PRINT STICK(0),STRIG(0):GOTO 10" and knowing the state?

 

Thanks!

 

edit: also what exactly is the result/conclusion of the experiment?

Edited November 8, 2010 by 5-11under

[atariksi]

Can someone help me out. I reviewed some threads, but would like to know for sure before commenting further...

 

Regarding "the controlled experiment", is that basically shown in post 222, i.e. running the program "10 PRINT STICK(0),STRIG(0):GOTO 10" and knowing the state?

 

Thanks!

 

edit: also what exactly is the result/conclusion of the experiment?

 

That was a simplified experiment as to whether you can know the exact states of the joystick a priori. It's about 60 milliseconds sampling vs. a game which may be doing faster than 16ms sampling. But since you can't tell the analog joystick state here it will fail at higher sampling rates as well.

 

For digital joystick:

 

10 ? STICK(0),STRIG(0):GOTO 10

 

For stick, center state: 15, up: 14, down: 13, left: 11, right: 7 and so on for diagonals. On-state makes the bit zero. For analog joystick (plug in your POTX into pin 9, POTY into pin 5, and POT GND into pin 7) and PTRIG would be pin 3 and GND is pin 8:

 

10 ? PADDLE(0),PADDLE(1),PTRIG(0):GOTO 10

 

It's 0..228 range for Atari type controllers but if you plug in PC joystick controller range will be less unless since they use 100K POTs (less resistance).

 

I haven't noticed any bounce show up in running the BASIC programs.

[atariksi]

Anyone who has played some same games with both analog and digital joystick has some experimental data to go on.

 

I am sure Atari/Amiga/Sega/etc. had some good basis for sticking with digital joysticks rather than going with the PC standard of analog joysticks.

 

Uh, wrong. What is experimental data?

 

"Data produced by an experimental or quasi-experimental design. In clinical research any data produced as a result of clinical trial. Experimental data may be qualitative or quantitative, each being appropriate for different investigations."

 

I've played thousands of games over the years, with all manner of digital and analog control. I have not produced one shred of experimental data because I wasn't running any experiments that recorded any data. Neither have you or aprioriksi.

 

I cannot wait for one of you two to actually understand or correctly use the scientific terms you keep throwing around here like you throw around claims of possessing data. Is there some secret bet between the two of you to see who can hold out on releasing experimental data longer?

 

Stop the drivel. Here I got some data for you. Let's see if you can understand it since you can't seem to understand the logic of why the analog joysticks are inferior. Rather than give you megabytes of it for you to sort through, I took a game where the part that shows where the analog joystick fails more is in the beginning of the file. In the Popeye game, stop at the upper right platform and wait for Brutus to get underneath the "bucket" and then hit the "punching bag" and try to drop it on top of him. No run and jump. You have to come to a stop at the edge of the platform because the defect shows up when you need to move left and hit the trigger. Run through it a few hundred times with both types of joysticks. The joystick recording is in the attached files. The header of the file is 8 bytes. Then every 8 bytes after that is: 16-bit of data to I/O port (only LSB 8-bits being used here) that goes to Atari 800 for joystick input, 48-bit of data giving the total number of processor cycles that elapsed for joystick state to change from previous I/O input to new one. The processor speed is calculated by taking the DWORD at ofs 4 and dividing it by 0.032768 seconds. I guess you need a binary viewer to view the data.

[atariksi]

Well, then I guess we can't discuss the topic if you want to talk about arcade controls and how they are superior or inferior to digital joysticks.

 

Maybe you can't discuss it but I can. I can drive a truck.

 

If you wanted the discussion restricted to only digital and analog joysticks then you shouldn't have included arrow keys in your poll or mentioned paddles in your description of what an analog joystick is a hybrid of. Whoops.

That paddle stuff was what I was finishing up from your previous reply. I mainly want to discuss the analog joystick vs. digital joystick. The arrow keys/ctrl key is like a digital joystick except it's harder to use. But you are free to argue that as well since that's part of the poll. However, paddles are not the same as an analog joystick. Nor is that in the poll list of items to vote for as the games using them are few and nor can you play the games that work with digital joystick with a paddle.

 

...Only after you've played the Star Wars arcade game with a functioning flight yoke can you finally know the standard to compare digital and analog joysticks to and know if a trackball would be even better or not. Italian pizza.

 

You must feel pretty foolish for admitting that you haven't actually ever seen that "contraption", much less played it, after claiming you know how good a job a digital and analog joystick does at controlling Star Wars, huh? Ya, that was bonehead move.

It would ruin the controlled experiment if I mixed in other arcade contraptions that work for specific games. I can say you haven't flown an airplane so you can't compare analog joystick vs. digital joystick.

 

You have to follow through on your claims. You claim to have run experiments. Then tell us the details of those experiments, tell us what the variables were, which ones you changed, which ones you left alone. Tell us what the control group was, tell us what the experimental group was. Tell us which games were played, tell us which digital and analog joysticks were used. Tell us what the design limitations of the joysticks were. You claim to have data from these experiments. Present it. Show how the data supports your hypothesis. Oh yeah, goes without saying for anyone other than you, present your hypothesis.

Yeah, I forgot to attach the data file in the previous post. So it's attached in this file. There are 3 joystick recordings for the same game. One is using the Atari 2600 digital joystick in the picture in post #1, one is the gemini digital joystick (looks similar to Atari 2600 joystick), and third file is the Gravis joystick (analog joystick). Only one variable changes, the type of joystick used. The target machine is Atari 800 in this case. The game is Popeye for all 3 joysticks.

 

Hypothesis: subject title

Observation: analog joysticks fail more often

Conclusion: Hypothesis.

 

Prove that it is by nature harder to get exact states on the analog joystick. I don't mean demonstrate that it's harder for you to get the exact states (anyone can figure out that it's too hard for you to do it), but show that for anyone it is harder. Run. An. Experiment. A controlled experiment and then claim you have the data and never present it. Wait, try something different this time, actually run the experiment, actually gather the data and actually present it. Ya, something new.

 

It's there for everyone to repeat. Try to guess the state of the joystick with your eyes closed and either have a witness if you are dishonest or open your eyes after you guess and see if that's the state on the screen. I get 100% right on the digital joystick, but not for analog joystick.

 

"An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)."

 

Nope, no "deductive" there. No "knowing beforehand without relying on feedback", either. Damn you, Science!

You are mixed up. It's clear from the context. I said it also happens to be deductive.

 

[some irrelevant stuff deleted because it's meaningless or already answered]

Hey, we finally agreed on something. A simulator is supposed to exactly mimic the event. It doesn't, but it's supposed to, that's the claim you hear about simulators most often. As the learned poobah elsewhere on this thread has correctly pointed out (Post #262), for any simulator you can find a parameter that it doesn't model.

 

That's rubbish. If I simulate a joystick using arrow keys + ctrl and the game only uses those 5 bits of information, I have perfectly simulated the joystick.

[atariksi]

Again didn't attach the file for the Popeye joystick recordings so here it is. It includes all joystick state changes and it was sampled using a Parallel port going up to 2Mhz (2 Megabytes/second) so any bounce is also in the recordings (this is way beyond normal joystick polling rate).

JOYSTICK.zip

[+poobah]

 

Hey, we finally agreed on something. A simulator is supposed to exactly mimic the event. It doesn't, but it's supposed to, that's the claim you hear about simulators most often. As the learned poobah elsewhere on this thread has correctly pointed out (Post #262), for any simulator you can find a parameter that it doesn't model.

 

That's rubbish. If I simulate a joystick using arrow keys + ctrl and the game only uses those 5 bits of information, I have perfectly simulated the joystick.

 

LOL!

 

Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY?

 

With all due respect, you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a real research environment.

[sloopy]

Again didn't attach the file for the Popeye joystick recordings so here it is. It includes all joystick state changes and it was sampled using a Parallel port going up to 2Mhz (2 Megabytes/second) so any bounce is also in the recordings (this is way beyond normal joystick polling rate).

 

2Megahertz per second = 2 megabytes per second... wow alot of data...

 

and yes it is a little above the normal scan rate of any atari...

 

sloopy.

[ToddUGA]

I use a couple of these analog sticks in my MAME cabinet:

 

http://www.ultimarc.com/ultrastik_info.html

 

Fantastic sticks that give me the best of both worlds. I can apply maps to emulate a 4-way or an 8-way digital stick in addition to providing full analog control for games that require it. You can't do that with a standard digital stick.

[atariksi]

 

Hey, we finally agreed on something. A simulator is supposed to exactly mimic the event. It doesn't, but it's supposed to, that's the claim you hear about simulators most often. As the learned poobah elsewhere on this thread has correctly pointed out (Post #262), for any simulator you can find a parameter that it doesn't model.

 

That's rubbish. If I simulate a joystick using arrow keys + ctrl and the game only uses those 5 bits of information, I have perfectly simulated the joystick.

 

LOL!

 

Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY?

 

With all due respect, you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a real research environment.

 

Maybe enough time to show them a perfect joystick simulator. Seriously, I am not thinking of physical joystick but about the signals getting mimicked so computer thinks it's a joystick (like a black-box).

 

Again didn't attach the file for the Popeye joystick recordings so here it is. It includes all joystick state changes and it was sampled using a Parallel port going up to 2Mhz (2 Megabytes/second) so any bounce is also in the recordings (this is way beyond normal joystick polling rate).

 

2Megahertz per second = 2 megabytes per second... wow alot of data...

 

and yes it is a little above the normal scan rate of any atari...

 

sloopy.

 

The joystick simulator runs on the PC so the PC is sampling the parallel port at up to 2 megabytes/second. Then the signals from that device hooked up at the parallel port (or gameport for the PC joystick) gets mapped to the A8 joystick port signals and sent out via another parallel port to A8 DB9 connector.

[atariksi]

I use a couple of these analog sticks in my MAME cabinet:

 

http://www.ultimarc.com/ultrastik_info.html

 

Fantastic sticks that give me the best of both worlds. I can apply maps to emulate a 4-way or an 8-way digital stick in addition to providing full analog control for games that require it. You can't do that with a standard digital stick.

 

With a standard digital stick, you have 100% control-- the best the world has to offer. Now on the dark side, there's the analog joystick. Some modern ones even look like those darth vador spacecrafts. You may have gotten the worst of both worlds if the mapping is sort of like a software method of checking thresholds. Add to that the problem of having to move the stick a longer distance to switch states since they have to allow for long enough distance for range of values. As an analogy, you know the switching theory of transistors is that the smaller they are the faster the switching times.

[potatohead]

Refuted.

 

And are you going to answer the question? Two accounts, one physical person?

[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.

That made me laugh.

A bit out of topic (Whatever ), but... I prefer audio editing in the digital realm. I've tried in the old "Portastudio" days, but never got too far. Once I got a few half-decent audio tools for the computer, it was much easier for me to edit music. I need to fix my musical mistakes, so editing in the digital domain works well for me. However, artists I know who are more creative and skilled than I am don't need to do any editing. Record to tape (or bits, whatever), and they're pretty much done. They might use digital now, but that's just availability or cost rather than quality. My digital camera is great, but if I knew what I was doing for non-daylight shots, my old and cheaper film camera is better at capturing a higher quality and better detailed image.

 

Okay, analog photos are better looking but you have less control in editing them (like chaning a particular pixel's RGB). So similarly, with analog joysticks you have less control in getting to the exact states.

[+Stephen]

With a standard digital stick, you have 100% control-- the best the world has to offer. Now on the dark side, there's the analog joystick. Some modern ones even look like those darth vador spacecrafts. You may have gotten the worst of both worlds if the mapping is sort of like a software method of checking thresholds. Add to that the problem of having to move the stick a longer distance to switch states since they have to allow for long enough distance for range of values. As an analogy, you know the switching theory of transistors is that the smaller they are the faster the switching times.

You have 100% control of ON or OFF - nothing else. What if you want 50%? Where is the control? That is missing, therefore since something is missing, you don't have 100%.

[kool kitty89]

Okay, analog photos are better looking but you have less control in editing them (like chaning a particular pixel's RGB). So similarly, with analog joysticks you have less control in getting to the exact states.

Once again, how would a digital joystick with 8-bit resolution H/V positions (256 positions rather than 3 and 65,536 states rather than 9) be any less problematic at getting at those "exact states"?

 

When you say exact states you actually mean limited states due to the low precision and resolution of an 8-way stick... with a broad range of variable values (be it analog to digital or straight digital) you have a huge range of states to sort though (which is still quite straightforward, even if you only want 9 states, and with the huge advantage of high precision when fine movement is necessary).

Likewise you can have a simple resistor based analog set-up with only 9 analog states and a low resolution ADC (2-bit per axis) that converts those to digital values and you've got the same low precision and limited number of states as a 4-bit direct digital interface. (albeit with potentially slower bandwidth depending on the speed of the ADC)

 

 

With suitably high resolution digital images, lossless compression, and equal quality optics (lens, etc), digital photos can be superior to analog in every respect. (and in some cases digital had already done that over analog film)

 

But to give a proper analogy to the case at hand you have a few examples: you mentioned analog images are harder to edit, so lets say you digitize that at a very high resolution for editing (scan it), that would be analog to digital conversion, the same thing that occurs with all analog joysticks used with digital machines (ie not fully analog electronics).

Then you have a digital image captured at the exact same resolution.

Compare them side by side and they will be nearly identical or completely identical depending on the conversion/calibration error from the scanning (A/D) process. Both will be at identical precision and accuracy would be arguable. (you'd have other factors like conversion error of the directly captured digital image -the real world being "analog" so to speak, just like the input from a human's hands into a purely digital controller)

However, the corresponding case in that analogy to an 8-way joystick would be a horribly low resolution digital image: if the high res images were 1024x768 that would put the low-res image at a rediculously low 12x9 pixels.

Or in the literal sense, it would be comparing a 256x256 image to a 3x3 image. Easy and simple to read and edit (so to speak), but extremely limited in what it can display.

And likewise a 3 state per axis analog stick would be like the analog image being digitized at that same low resolution.

 

 

 

But really it isn't a matter of analog vs digital at all as it's always digital on the computer side (even if you have an extremely simple A to D circuit that's CPU intensive to read -absolutely not the case with POKEY), so it's purely the number of DIGITAL states you have to work with that makes things more complex.

 

You do have things like analog calibration and such, but that's tangent to all the primary arguments in this thread. The whole thing about "in between" values being an analog issue is BS as the true cases of being between expected voltages get rounded to the closest value anyway and all the programmer sees is the digital value output by the ADC so it's no different than a digital joystick with 256 states per axis.

Now you do have "in between" digital states for cases where you use far fewer states than the ADC outputs, but that's a digital problem with sorting for the desired value ranges and setting the neutral ranges, not anything to do with analog vs digital. (it just happens that analog to digital joysticks are far more common and practical than a purely digital multi-state joystick)

[Divya16]

Okay, analog photos are better looking but you have less control in editing them (like chaning a particular pixel's RGB). So similarly, with analog joysticks you have less control in getting to the exact states.

Once again, how would a digital joystick with 8-bit resolution H/V positions (256 positions rather than 3 and 65,536 states rather than 9) be any less problematic at getting at those "exact states"?

You are talking about some theoretical joysticks. Even in that case, the digital one would read more consistently at those positions than analog ones which vary in their ranges, extremes, and don't even read consistent value at the center. Same answer to Stephen as to you-- why bother increasing the uncertainty/error for a new feature at the cost of 100% control for all games. At least you agree that the Atari 2600 style joysticks are 100% deterministic compared to the analog joysticks.

 

And you are being inconsistent stating digital images are superior to analog. Maybe some analog recordings aren't recording everything. But a real flower in the real world has better resolution/colors than a digitized one. In a digitized image, you can slow things down to edit them by zooming in but you can't do that with an analog joystick to get to an exact state.

[+Stephen]

You are talking about some theoretical joysticks. Even in that case, the digital one would read more consistently at those positions SNIP

WRONG - the digital one couldn't even reach those positions. On or off, remember, with 100% certainty. Scientific fact. I guess that makes them inferior because they cannot do what another product can.

[+5-11under]

Atariksi et al,

 

I'm out. Others have expressed my opinions as well as I can, so I'll pepper a few "+1"s, and then it's time to work, sleep, eat, watch movies, work on projects, and other fun things.

[ledzep]

Uh, wrong. What is experimental data?

 

"Data produced by an experimental or quasi-experimental design. In clinical research any data produced as a result of clinical trial. Experimental data may be qualitative or quantitative, each being appropriate for different investigations."

 

I've played thousands of games over the years, with all manner of digital and analog control. I have not produced one shred of experimental data because I wasn't running any experiments that recorded any data. Neither have you or aprioriksi.

 

I cannot wait for one of you two to actually understand or correctly use the scientific terms you keep throwing around here like you throw around claims of possessing data. Is there some secret bet between the two of you to see who can hold out on releasing experimental data longer?

 

Stop the drivel. Here I got some data for you. Let's see if you can understand it since you can't seem to understand the logic of why the analog joysticks are inferior. Rather than give you megabytes of it for you to sort through, I took a game where the part that shows where the analog joystick fails more is in the beginning of the file. In the Popeye game, stop at the upper right platform and wait for Brutus to get underneath the "bucket" and then hit the "punching bag" and try to drop it on top of him. No run and jump. You have to come to a stop at the edge of the platform because the defect shows up when you need to move left and hit the trigger. Run through it a few hundred times with both types of joysticks. The joystick recording is in the attached files. The header of the file is 8 bytes. Then every 8 bytes after that is: 16-bit of data to I/O port (only LSB 8-bits being used here) that goes to Atari 800 for joystick input, 48-bit of data giving the total number of processor cycles that elapsed for joystick state to change from previous I/O input to new one. The processor speed is calculated by taking the DWORD at ofs 4 and dividing it by 0.032768 seconds. I guess you need a binary viewer to view the data.

 

Talk about drivel, you attach one blurry screen grab, it's so bad that it has reflections in it from the lights in the room so half of the damn image is useless. The other half is 100% a priori inconclusive and useless as data. Why? Because any of the following could be true -

 

1) It's an actual screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe,

2) It's an actual screen grab at a different yet nearly identical moment to the moment you describe,

3) It's an actual screen grab of a hacked version of Popeye weighted against analog joysticks,

4) It's an actual screen grab of a programmed sim that looks like Popeye but plays nothing like it,

5) It's a Photoshopped still of a screen grab,

6) It's a Photoshopped image created from screen grabs of Popeye game screens.

 

Without video of you actually participating in the experiment and playing Popeye all the way through to at least that point you describe, with an analog joystick, you can make no claims as to what that screen grab is in reference to. Nobody is taking your word for it after you have lied so many times about having data and running experiments and, especially, releasing data (when you never have) and not knowing the meaning of a single scientific term or understanding a single scientific method. This is put up or shut up time. You have data? Release it.

 

That miserable looking screen grab, by the way, isn't "data", it's useless. Now, let's pretend for a moment that you are being honest (a first) and it's actually #1, a screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe. So what, the image proves nothing. Why? Because any of the following could be true -

 

1) It's an actual screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe played by you using the "inferior" analog stick,

2) It's an actual screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe played by someone else using the "inferior" analog stick,

3) It's an actual screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe played by you using a digital joystick,

4) It's an actual screen grab of the Popeye game at the moment you describe played by someone else using a digital joystick.

 

Without video confirming who played what and when it could be your dog pressing his paw on the joystick.

 

That, also by the way, isn't "data" and is still useless. Why? Because you are so biased against analog joysticks that it could be true that -

 

1) You played the game with an analog joystick but didn't try to play the game well,

2) You played the game with a digital joystick but didn't try to play the game well,

3) You played the game with an analog joystick but you are naturally much less skilled using analog joysticks than the average person,

4) You played the game with a digital joystick but captured the moment when you failed to complete the maneuver it's possible for you to play the game badly even with your favorite joystick.

 

And all of this goes out the window if you're using a joystick simulator because the premise of your unproven, untested theory is that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Where in that poorly-worded theory is there mention of joystick simulators or any agreement by anyone else on this thread (besides your sidekick) that simulators can be substituted for the actual joysticks mentioned in your biased poll?

 

Now, after you digest all of that, it still doesn't matter. Why? I'm typing this part real slow so you can keep up. Because -

 

1) You cannot extrapolate one instance of playing one game with one joystick out to all people playing all games with all joysticks.

2) A controlled experiment requires a control group and an experimental group, two groups you refuse to use.

3) You need to run the same experiment multiple times on multiple people playing multiple games in order to rule out errors.

4) You need release all the data for all these people in both groups playing all these games with all these joysticks you mentioned since you made your claim based on the joysticks mentioned in your poll and stated that it applies to all games.

 

And, seriously, "rather than give you megabytes of it for you to sort through"? At this point in this thread, after all the lies about having data and having run experiments and knowing 100% "without reference to particular facts or experience" the state of digital joysticks, are you still stalling and trying to avoid releasing the imaginary data to the experiments you never ran? Are you still threatening to post data you have no intention of ever ever ever revealing? Are you actually claiming that you have megabytes of data within easy access yet you are unwilling to make the simple move of releasing it and would instead waste time going through all of it to find a few choice nuggets to post? Why?

[ledzep]

That's rubbish. If I simulate a joystick using arrow keys + ctrl and the game only uses those 5 bits of information, I have perfectly simulated the joystick.

 

LOL!

 

Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY?

 

With all due respect, you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a real research environment.

 

Ya, that deserves a +1, haahaahaha. I read that like 5 times to make sure he really wrote that.