Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

No, I didn't dismiss your BASIC program, I pointed out where you had badly coded the analog joystick program since it wasn't testing for the same type of outputs that the digital joystick was being tested for. I didn't shove it under the rug, I put it in the spotlight.

Where are the errors/badly coded area here:

 

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

 

The error was already described to you.

The error is in the analog joysticks not in the code. I clearly spelled it out a few times what this experiment consists of.

 

I understand them perfectly. They are a small, inconclusive portion of the megabytes of data you claim to have generated yet refuse to present to those who have asked for the data.

 

I cannot generate the files for myself until I know exactly how you generated them. And I cannot know that until you present the parameters and methodology used in your imaginary experiment which you have consistently failed to do.

I see how your emotions are over-riding your rationality. Since you think it's imaginary why don't you just prove that to the people rather than bothering with me. You are stuck in your bubble. Words like "inconclusive", "imaginary", "where's the data", etc. keep getting spewed out by you although the opposite is the case. Now pick which catagory where these speculative words belong (be honest):

 

(1) logical deduction/mathematical analysis (undeniably true)

(2) experimental data (which leads to the scientific fact idea)

(3) mental speculation-- something out of the blue according to emotional attachment, or mistaken views with no evidence

(4) blind following the blind-- because most people seem to be doing that so that must be right

 

[some incoherent stream of consciousness deleted]

 

But, to answer your question, most of the software in the world can do without digitaltivity. Without any experimentation, you can draw this conclusion. If only analog joysticks existed, the few games that need digitaltivity would get adapted for analog. Before you blurt out any more crap and insults (which I will ignore), think about it and calm down.

I won't pick on your word "digitaltivity". I know the world can do fine with analog videos/audio/joysticks/etc. but digital provides better control. Yeah, you can play the games with analog joysticks at worse control than digital. This is yet another straw-man argument from you. Read the subject. The few games that require analog joystick can be rewritten for digital joystick. And as I said before, why have inferior control for all games just to get some feature for flight simulator or car racing. And if you can't understand that, why not put in a gas pedal, flight cockpit, etc. to make the flight simulator/car racing have a ton of realistic features and make a pac-man/Miner 2049er type games nearly impossible to control.

 

No way! Equations? That's like, so sciency. Do you have an equation that will solve for the total number of times you will avoid providing all the data you claim to have that would have proven your position days ago?

The way it works is that logic/mathematics doesn't require experimental data. All you need to understand is that that probability for getting exact directions is <1.0 vs. 1.0 for digital joysticks. Then as you increase the number of levels you want to use on your inferior analog joystick, you will see how the limit goes to ZERO control.

 

You didn't address the argument.

 

You didn't have any argument. You were trying to shove my mathematics/logic under the rug by concocting something that wasn't related to what I wrote.

[atariksi]

lets just be glad we are not playing games on a pc or a zx spectrum and not having just a keyboard or mouse option as standard (remembering that you could only use an atari comp. j/s with a speccy if you purchased an additional piece of hardware)

Speccy 128k added the joysticks onboard. And most PC games from the mid 80s onward had joystick support, so pretty much for as long as PC gaming was half decent. (with Tandy machines you had the same 5-pin DIN as the CoCo... hopefully not using the same joysticks though )

 

It would have been neat if 3rd parties had taken it upon themselves to release atari-type joyport adapter cards for the PC and indeed that did happen with Covox's sound master, but that was in 1989 by the time IBM's game+midi port adapter was already in relatively common use and the same year the Sound Blaster came out with integrated IBM compatible gameport and adlib compatibility. (both the covox and SB had an 8-bit DAC with DMA and I think the covox actually had a higher sample rate than the SB1.x, but the Covox used an AY8930 sound chip while the SB used the Adlib's YM3812 OPL2 FM synthesis chip instead... had Covox or another company implemented such a sound card much earlier with similar use of the I/O ports for digital joystick ports it probably would have caught on as a defacto standard -obviously with an AY8910/YM2149 rather than the later 8930, which would of course have sparked interest in maintaining compatibility with that sound chip and you did have the compatible successors with the AY8930 or the more powerful 4-op FM enhanced chips like the YM2203 let alone the fairly high-end YM2608... and it's odd that there weren't simple AY8910 based cards for the PC or any sound cards up to the 1987 Adlib -AY or the simpler SN76489 would have been the obvious choices for lower-end mass market sound chips and the AY8910 is what the Mockingboard used on the Apple II -and of course the ST, MSX, FM-7, Spectrum 128k, CPC, Intellivision, etc)

 

They also used the gameport for sending digital data for MIDI and some joysticks so definitely could have had digital joysticks using the same gameport interface (and some did exist). And they also happen to know that Atari/Commodore/etc. had separate digital joysticks and analog Paddles yet they still created a hybrid of the two-- the analog joystick which provided control of neither. But they didn't have too many games on the PC anyways at that time so maybe they were targeting a few specific games like Flight Simulator and later it forced the same inferior analog joystick on other games since that became their standard.

[kool kitty89]

They also used the gameport for sending digital data for MIDI and some joysticks so definitely could have had digital joysticks using the same gameport interface (and some did exist).

Yes, but MIDI is serial (1-bit) and quite slow compared to other common serial interfaces of the time (RS232, etc), you'd be better off using the serial port for a joystick, one of the DIN or PS/2 ports (especially with a splitter to share the mouse or keyboard port), or the parallel port for such instead. (for some late controllers, the MIDI lines were reserved for use with USB via a passthrough adapter, but nothing to do with the gameport itself)

 

Then you have the 4-bit parallel I/O lines for the buttons and some late model controllers did use those, but in a way I'm sure you don't like: they were NOT used for mapped I/O but as a streaming data interface using a proprietary driver and protocol to either read a 4-bit parallel data stream or software driven serial data (given the ability to daisy chain controllers as such and the fact that most of those controllers also supported USB, I'd think the latter was more common). All of those would, of course, require additional logic inside the controller and many of those digitally interfaced Gameport controllers were analog joysticks/gamepads as well using a digital interface to bypass the funky CPU intensive ADC and calibration issues as well as button/axis limitations in general.

 

I don't know of any commercial design that used the button lines for a 4-switch 8-way joystick (the button(s) would need to use an analog line) and if there were any they were very uncommon... all the early 8-way gamepads/sticks used the analog lines, which makes perfect sense as they'd be totally cross-compatible with all games assuming analog sticks (and the same thing could have been done for any system using analog joysticks -and often has been in homebrew if not commercially).

The absolute simplest mechanism for managing a decent all-digital interface through only the 4 button lines would be to use one line as a select signal to multiplex the others as Sega did with the 7-bit parallel interface of the Genesis, so you'd have an effective 6 independent digital inputs multiplexed to 3 I/O lines thus allowing a nice 2 button 8-way stick/gamepad (with internal logic to toggle the select signal and a special diver using the necessary protocol to read that data)... you could go to 2 select lines multiplexing 8 inputs on 2 I/O lines but that's getting more complex and takes 4 cycles to read though all 4 banks. (3 select lines would get you nowhere as you'd only have 8 inputs still but multiplexed to 1 line and taking 8 cycles to read and at that point it would be more efficient and far more flexible to use a serial interface -maybe a 2-bit serial interface even or more depending what you need to use the other lines for)

 

And they also happen to know that Atari/Commodore/etc. had separate digital joysticks and analog Paddles yet they still created a hybrid of the two-- the analog joystick which provided control of neither. But they didn't have too many games on the PC anyways at that time so maybe they were targeting a few specific games like Flight Simulator and later it forced the same inferior analog joystick on other games since that became their standard.

Yes, and they also know that Apple, Tandy and others opted for pure analog joysticks. (Apple from the very beginning with the Apple II) And aside from that, IBMs early documentation for the game/mid port described it as being intended for 4 analog paddles with no mention of joysticks at all, but the PC gameport didn't really come into common use until the mid/late 80s and the soundblaster's onboard inclusion pretty much solidified it as such. (again, had a 3rd party done what Covox did in '89 a few years earlier things could have been rather different... plus the true atari style ports -not just semi-compatible ones like the ST/Amiga/VIC/C64 etc- DO include 2 analog inputs per port anyway, so 2 ports would provide all the functionality of the gameport and more flexibility and MIDI supprt was multiplexed with other gameport lines in the first place so that wouldn't be mutually exclusive though you could have nearly all that on the DA-15 port as well, albeit requiring a passthrough adapter for atari-mapped DE-9 ports -you'd be one pin short though and either have to drop one of the analog axes or digital lines -using normal DE9 ports -or one on cheaper cards- would have been fine though and have a separate card for MIDI or combination cards using a standard 5-pin DIN for MIDI... actually if they only cared about supporting 1 player -the case with many PC games anyway- the DA-15 port would have been fine to use for MIDI as well as a gameport had they arranged it differently -there's a whole bunch of redundant lines with 2 extra +5V lines and 2 extra gnd lines)

 

 

And no, it's not some kind of unholy hybrid, all of these mechanisms predated video games by a good margin and were in use in a variety of fields long before that and the 2-axis analog joystick long before a 4-switch digital one was ever used as such (and long before digital electronics were common for that matter). You had analog joysticks being used for military purposes in WWII, granted you had plain dial/knob mounted potentiometers used long, long, before that and the slide potentiometer (again actually applied to some PONG games/clones as well) being the first invented in 1841.

 

And of course analog jouysticks expanded in use considerably among a number of fields from scientific or military uses to recreation/hobby stuff like remote controlled model airplanes, cars, boats, etc.

 

Early/experimental computer games (be it vector or video) tended to use buttons/keys for control of digital (Spacewar! and the single player versions of Computer Space) or analog knobs in the case of Baer's brown box and the later Odyssey and PONG... albeit with the odyssey you actually had 2 analog axes and you could argue that a long-throw non-self centering analog joystick (say like the CoCo had) could have been preferable for such 2-axis control (you move the "paddle" on both axes not just one).

Galaxy Game at Stanford appeared in 1971 about 2 months before Computer Space and was a direct derivative of Spacewar! (not sure if it was raster or vector) and I believe it did use 8-way digital joystick input and was 2-player. The later 2 player version of Computer Space also used hand gripped joysticks.

http://www.retro-videogames.com/computer-space-the-first-mass-produced-arcade-video-game

http://retrothing.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452989a69e20120a5645369970b-800wi

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/102689399_b172a26ca7.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Computer_Space_Game_on-Science_museum.jpg

 

Also note that the much later Asteriods arcade game had versions using only buttons (nearly identical control scheme to Computer space) and joystick based versions. (putting thrust as up, and left and right for counterclockwise and clockwise rotation with down not used and separate buttons for fire and hyperspace -the VCS version used down for hyperspace)

Edited November 12, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

They also used the gameport for sending digital data for MIDI and some joysticks so definitely could have had digital joysticks using the same gameport interface (and some did exist).

Yes, but MIDI is serial (1-bit) and quite slow compared to other common serial interfaces of the time (RS232, etc), you'd be better off using the serial port for a joystick, one of the DIN or PS/2 ports (especially with a splitter to share the mouse or keyboard port), or the parallel port for such instead. (for some late controllers, the MIDI lines were reserved for use with USB via a passthrough adapter, but nothing to do with the gameport itself)

 

Then you have the 4-bit parallel I/O lines for the buttons and some late model controllers did use those, but in a way I'm sure you don't like: they were NOT used for mapped I/O but as a streaming data interface using a proprietary driver and protocol to either read a 4-bit parallel data stream or software driven serial data (given the ability to daisy chain controllers as such and the fact that most of those controllers also supported USB, I'd think the latter was more common). All of those would, of course, require additional logic inside the controller and many of those digitally interfaced Gameport controllers were analog joysticks/gamepads as well using a digital interface to bypass the funky CPU intensive ADC and calibration issues as well as button/axis limitations in general.

 

I don't know of any commercial design that used the button lines for a 4-switch 8-way joystick (the button(s) would need to use an analog line) and if there were any they were very uncommon...

 

I think there are do-it-yourself kits out there. Although you can use a select line, that would require some circuitry. I built one just by splicing the wires from a DB9 male port to a DB15 male port (without circuitry) just for some games like pac-man, joust, etc. The 4 directions go to the 4 buttons and the then you tie one of the POT lines to one of the direction lines -- in my case up. So pressing up and pressing the trigger has the same result. Doesn't affect pac-man, joust, space invaders, and some other games. This avoids the circuitry since the buttons already have pull-up resistors built-in. See picture.

 

 

And they also happen to know that Atari/Commodore/etc. had separate digital joysticks and analog Paddles yet they still created a hybrid of the two-- the analog joystick which provided control of neither. But they didn't have too many games on the PC anyways at that time so maybe they were targeting a few specific games like Flight Simulator and later it forced the same inferior analog joystick on other games since that became their standard.

Yes, and they also know that Apple, Tandy and others opted for pure analog joysticks. (Apple from the very beginning with the Apple II) And aside from that, IBMs early documentation for the game/mid port described it as being intended for 4 analog paddles with no mention of joysticks at all, but the PC gameport didn't really come into common use until the mid/late 80s and the soundblaster's onboard inclusion pretty much solidified it as such.

 

What about the Adlib and those separate ISA cards that had serial/gameport/parallel ports. One thing with the flight simulator was that it's slow paced and you can wait around and rely on feedback on the screen so it didn't hurt them much to use analog joysticks and still get that "feeling" of having something that's like a real flight control.

[+Stephen]

What about the Adlib and those separate ISA cards that had serial/gameport/parallel ports. One thing with the flight simulator was that it's slow paced and you can wait around and rely on feedback on the screen so it didn't hurt them much to use analog joysticks and still get that "feeling" of having something that's like a real flight control.

Isn't the "real flight control" that you speak of in essence an analog control system (on the real plane)? We seem to be in 100% agreement that for games like PacMan, PopEye, QBert, etc. that digital controls kick all kind of ass over the analog sticks. But why are you so 100% insistent that an analog controller is a poor choice for a flight simulator, when in fact the very controls that the analog joystick are representing are analog on the real plane? I honestly think you argue just to hear yourself (or to wind up everyone here, which you are very good at).

[Divya16]

I can almost see Divya16 in slow-motion with her mouth in a round "NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" shape as she tries to reach out to stop you....

Let me enjoy my popcorn so leave me out of your imaginary world. You know Einstein may have said:

 

"Joysticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

[Syfo-Dyas]

Well, I just received my modded NES controller in the mail and fired up one of the hardest Atari titles I have in my collection, that being an elusive titled called SHIT!

 

Mind you, there are two games called SHIT! One appears to be a puzzle game and the other is the one I play, where you are a little turd or worm or something that must navigate its way through an anus or cave or something...

 

I used to love playing this with my Atari Joy stick mini (see photo), but with the NES pad, I find that I have MUCH MUCH MUCH better control over my little turd and have been able to play deeper into the game than ever before, so now I must officially change my vote., sad but true.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Syfo-Dyas

[ledzep]

No thanks, I'll read Post #310 where you clearly contradict yourself. Don't remember your own words? Here they are again -

 

"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."

And you misinterpreted it. As far as the A8 is concerned, it only sees the signals at the DB9 connector. So that also makes sense along with post #315. Next time instead of looking for fault, try to understand the context. And by the way, post #1 comes before post #310. If I replace the joystick with a PC that is sending those signals via CTRL/ARROW keys, A8 game/software wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

So now you're claiming that an Atari 8-bit computer reads arrow keys + ctrl key at the DB9 connector?!?

 

"As far as the A8 is concerned, it only sees the signals at the DB9 connector."

 

So that doesn't make any sense. I'm not looking for fault, every one of your posts is riddled with fault. It's unavoidable to find fault after fault in your opinions.

 

And by the way, Post #1 doesn't mention joystick simulators, either.

 

"Which joystick do you prefer when playing games? See the picture which contains what you are choosing from (or similar ones). Arrow keys are not pictured because they are front of you as you read this. Only one digital joystick is in the picture."

 

Therefore, if you are going to run an experiment that rates digital and analog joysticks you cannot use a simulator. And if you look at that jpeg there is no joystick simulator pictured. See, you wrote another faulty statement.

 

You are stating that you are simulating a physical joystick using arrow keys + ctrl key.

Nope. All it says is I am simulating a joystick. Nothing about physical. That's what I wrote to prevent misinterpretation by you since I already know that you are only looking to find fault and have no interest in the truth. You know it's like those emotional biased parties in court that only try to find fault with the other party and have no interest in what is ACTUALLY the case.

 

I find fault where there is fault. If you do not specify whether you're simulating a physical or simulated joystick (and who would waste time simulating a simulated joystick?) then "simulating a joystick" is interpreted as the common definition of a joystick. What is the common definition of a joystick?

 

"A joystick is a computer peripheral or general control device consisting of a handheld stick that pivots about one end and transmits its angle in two or three dimensions to a computer. Most joysticks are two-dimensional, having two axes of movement, just like a mouse, but three-dimensional joysticks do exist."

 

So while I can see that you are desperate enough to avoid admitting fault again that you would try to claim that "simulating a joystick" would be commonly interpreted as including a simulated joystick that is not how English works. Since nobody but you would willingly use a joystick simulator when real, superior physical joysticks are available there is no way that you can convince anyone that you didn't mean a physical joystick since you didn't even think to mention any imaginary joystick simulators until we started demanding that you provide data to support your unfounded theory.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

"Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks. It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it."

 

Nope, no mention of arrow/ctrl keys there! So why would you screw that up so badly and so quickly? And why lie about it being a scientific fact?

You are being given a chance to refute and you haven't refuted anything-- neither the experiment nor the logic/mathematics. You are just slinging mud and mocking something that happens to be FACT because it opposes what you believed to be true for most of your life.

 

I will take the fact that you did not refute the fault I found in your subject line for this entire thread that you agree that you screwed that up. To reiterate, no mention of arrow/ctrl keys in your fault-laden claim -

 

"Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks. It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it."

 

and no attempt at providing any proof that it is a scientific fact. Fault after fault, you need a seismograph to keep track of them.

 

Just because you can't correctly form English sentences doesn't mean that the rest of us have the same difficulty.

Let me spell it out for you as to whose scraping the bottom of the barrel here trying to pick on English and rely on word jugglery. The CTRL/ARROW keys HAS NO EFFECT on your argument. You are arguing analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks with me and the CTRL/ARROW issue will not effect your argument although you have lost that as well. The joystick simulator also simulates the joystick using various joystick inputs as well which apparently you forgot to read. You are the one living in a life of contradiction-- blindly believing that analog joysticks have better control when the opposite is true.

 

You didn't address the argument.

 

The software doesn't make sure about anything, the programmer does.

Again word jugglery. Whatever the programmer did is in the software.

 

Not quite. True, whatever the programmer types into the program ends up in the software. But if he types it incorrectly or codes it incorrectly (as you have already done) then what he assumes is in the program may not be there and/or what he didn't want in the program might end up in there. Bugs, for example. And, again, software doesn't make sure about anything because it has no intent or emotion. But it is a common fault of nerds to anthropomorphise non-living things like programs and robots and action figures to the point of believing those inanimate objects "make sure" about things.

[ledzep]

The error was already described to you.

The error is in the analog joysticks not in the code. I clearly spelled it out a few times what this experiment consists of.

 

No, if there's one thing you have failed to do it is clearly spelling out anything. I don't doubt that it's clear to you what you meant but your poor English skills have turned this thread into a (so far) 15 page quagmire of people poking holes in your incomplete, vague theory and you avoiding all opportunities to correct that.

 

You want to finally "clearly spell out" what your experiment consists of? Then you need to do what we have demanded of you. You need to describe, in detail, the parameters of your experiment, what you tested and how you tested it and who was in your control group and experimental group. And, once again, you need to release all the data from these supposed experiments. Nothing less will do. Why? Because you went on record saying you have run experiments and saying that you have megabytes of data. Prove it.

 

I understand them perfectly. They are a small, inconclusive portion of the megabytes of data you claim to have generated yet refuse to present to those who have asked for the data.

 

I cannot generate the files for myself until I know exactly how you generated them. And I cannot know that until you present the parameters and methodology used in your imaginary experiment which you have consistently failed to do.

I see how your emotions are over-riding your rationality. Since you think it's imaginary why don't you just prove that to the people rather than bothering with me. You are stuck in your bubble. Words like "inconclusive", "imaginary", "where's the data", etc. keep getting spewed out by you although the opposite is the case. Now pick which catagory where these speculative words belong (be honest):

 

(1) logical deduction/mathematical analysis (undeniably true)

(2) experimental data (which leads to the scientific fact idea)

(3) mental speculation-- something out of the blue according to emotional attachment, or mistaken views with no evidence

(4) blind following the blind-- because most people seem to be doing that so that must be right

 

[some incoherent stream of consciousness deleted]

 

Oh, but it has been proven! You claim to have run experiments and to have megabytes of data from those experiments. We have seen neither. Thus, the only reason you would claim they exist is if you imagine you can see them. Imaginary.

 

Honestly? (1) of course, all logical deduction and mathematical analysis. L(t), remember? From Post #338.

 

Where's the data?

 

But, to answer your question, most of the software in the world can do without digitaltivity. Without any experimentation, you can draw this conclusion. If only analog joysticks existed, the few games that need digitaltivity would get adapted for analog. Before you blurt out any more crap and insults (which I will ignore), think about it and calm down.

I won't pick on your word "digitaltivity". I know the world can do fine with analog videos/audio/joysticks/etc. but digital provides better control. Yeah, you can play the games with analog joysticks at worse control than digital. This is yet another straw-man argument from you. Read the subject. The few games that require analog joystick can be rewritten for digital joystick. And as I said before, why have inferior control for all games just to get some feature for flight simulator or car racing. And if you can't understand that, why not put in a gas pedal, flight cockpit, etc. to make the flight simulator/car racing have a ton of realistic features and make a pac-man/Miner 2049er type games nearly impossible to control.

 

Who cares what you would or wouldn't pick on, not understanding English is the least of your problems.

 

I can understand your view fine, faulty as it is, but I can't understand why you keep ignoring this joystick -

 

"The most advanced arcade joystick ever made.

The UltraStik Is based around a true analog "engine" using advanced sensing technology which uses no contacts nor switches.

It can be used in many modes, ranging from simply replacing a micro-switch stick to a full analog flight stick with user-defined analog/digital mapping.

It has a built-in 8-button interface. Plugs direct into USB."

 

Check out the specs. It's an analog joystick and a digital joystick. Destroys your faulty theory quite nicely.

 

You didn't address the argument.

You didn't have any argument. You were trying to shove my mathematics/logic under the rug by concocting something that wasn't related to what I wrote.

 

Oh, it was definitely related to what you wrote.

 

Claims of a theory being a "scientific fact" do require experimental data. Claims that experiments were conducted do require experimental data. Claims that the scientific method was followed do require experimental data.

 

You didn't address the argument.

[Divya16]

Well, I just received my modded NES controller in the mail and fired up one of the hardest Atari titles I have in my collection, that being an elusive titled called SHIT!

 

Mind you, there are two games called SHIT! One appears to be a puzzle game and the other is the one I play, where you are a little turd or worm or something that must navigate its way through an anus or cave or something...

 

I used to love playing this with my Atari Joy stick mini (see photo), but with the NES pad, I find that I have MUCH MUCH MUCH better control over my little turd and have been able to play deeper into the game than ever before, so now I must officially change my vote., sad but true.

 

Isn't that NES controller also a digital controller? I have that 76000 in 1 game NES controller that has a 9-pin joystick port which I believe uses digital controller and light gun. You can play a game like frogger with a keypad pretty good but not as easy for other games.

 

@Stephen: I've only tried flight simulator w/digital joystick + keyboard so how do you use an analog joystick to better represent a flight yoke, throttle quadrant, and rudder pedals? I don't think either one does the job fully.

[Divya16]

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.

 

Here's one Darth Vader controller I found on ebay:

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 330423066046

[atariksi]

The error was already described to you.

The error is in the analog joysticks not in the code. I clearly spelled it out a few times what this experiment consists of.

 

No, if there's one thing you have failed to do it is clearly spelling out anything. I don't doubt that it's clear to you what you meant but your poor English skills have turned this thread into a (so far) 15 page quagmire of people poking holes in your incomplete, vague theory and you avoiding all opportunities to correct that.

You have a problem understanding English and blame it on others. Or is it that you are purposely trying to find fault. Either way, it's not good for you as this will not lead you to the truth. It's clearly spelled out. Run both programs and try to guess the state of the joysticks. I have megabytes of data, but you have yet to show that you understood the few kilobytes. You can't learn calculus if you can't do simple algebra.

 

You didn't address the argument.

If I find an argument, I'll address it. It's just you mocking things that are over your head.

[potatohead]

return !sane & 0

 

And why not just write a program where it's easy to guess the state of the controller? Just because there are a lot of states, doesn't mean they all must be presented as use cases.

Edited November 13, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

No thanks, I'll read Post #310 where you clearly contradict yourself. Don't remember your own words? Here they are again -

 

"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."

And you misinterpreted it. As far as the A8 is concerned, it only sees the signals at the DB9 connector. So that also makes sense along with post #315. Next time instead of looking for fault, try to understand the context. And by the way, post #1 comes before post #310. If I replace the joystick with a PC that is sending those signals via CTRL/ARROW keys, A8 game/software wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

So now you're claiming that an Atari 8-bit computer reads arrow keys + ctrl key at the DB9 connector?!?

As I said, you are inept at understanding clearly stated arguments and facts (which all of my replies to you are). The post #1 is in reference to the CTRL/ARROW keys. I listed them separately. If I say I have a disk simulator and you complain about not having a way to insert a physical disk, then you have the problem understanding. I never said arrow keys/ctrl key are read by A8 computer in a joystick simulator. Don't blame your own inabilities on others. That's like stating that the Calculus book is written badly because you can't figure out why they put those funny looking elongated "S" type symbols. You keep repeating the samething over and over again because you are living in self-denial of reality. You think just denying everything repeatedly is going to either help you win the debate (at the cost of the truth) or perhaps I'll let you go. According to your flawed style of arguing, if you didn't hear about F=ma and I gave you data for F=ma, you would be denying it.

 

I find fault where there is fault. If you do not specify whether you're simulating a physical or simulated joystick (and who would waste time simulating a simulated joystick?) then "simulating a joystick" is interpreted as the common definition of a joystick. What is the common definition of a joystick?

If I simulated a physical joystick, it would be REAL joystick. If someone simulated a physical 1050 Atari disk drive, it would be a real disk drive not a simulated one. A simulated disk drive does not use physical disks neither does a simulated joystick use a real lever. And you are arguing the wrong point anyways as I stated. Arrow keys/Ctrl key are not what was used in the data generated that was posted for you earlier. You are purposely arguing with useless meaningless incoherent remarks just to make people think you know something when in fact you are complete ignorance. I have been lenient with you, but I already dismissed your gibberish drivel as Chewbacca Defense/strawman earlier for good reason. Here's your logic summed up:

 

(1) It's okay to mix-up paddles and analog joysticks because they are both POTs. Construction does not matter.

(2) It's not okay to mix-up arrow keys+ctrl key with a digital joystick since there's a lever there. Construction does matter.

P and NOT P. Inconsistent, incoherent, self-contradictory. QED.

[potatohead]

(reconsidered)

Edited November 13, 2010 by potatohead

[+poobah]

(reconsidered)

Tell me about it!

[+Stephen]

@Stephen: I've only tried flight simulator w/digital joystick + keyboard so how do you use an analog joystick to better represent a flight yoke, throttle quadrant, and rudder pedals? I don't think either one does the job fully.

I guess it would have to be a highly customized / specialized controller. But we can take my Logitech steering wheel with pedal setup as an example. It has gas & brake pedals (both analog) with pretty realistic amount of travel. The steering wheel is 10" diameter and analog (exactly the same size as the custom wheel I installed in my last car). However, it has digital buttons on the steering wheel and digital paddles buttons for shifting up and down.

 

It is a very nice blend of digital and analog, and IMHO it is by far the most realistic way to play a driving game. By using the identical set of controls as found in a real car, it beats the heck out of just an analog joystick, or just a digital joystick. It beats XBox style controllers and keyboard+mouse control. However, it would be absolutely useless for attempting to play PacMan or Space Invaders! Might be good as a Breakout controller

 

Just like I wouldn't use a screwdriver to pound in a nail or a hammer to loosen a bolt, I wouldn't use an analog stick to play games where digital is better suited. Nor would I use a digital stick to play a game where some form of analog control is better suited. Use the right tool for the right job. There is absolutely nothing else that can be said. Everyone here is now just arguing to see who can get the most words in and thereby "win".

[potatohead]

Poobah, I was asking "why", in a particularly pointed way, realizing no answer would be forthcoming, and considerable angst would. (despite the questions being fair game) I may reconsider that consideration (heh) on a day when I'm in the mood to go the distance. Today is not that day, so let the games continue in relative peace.

Edited November 13, 2010 by potatohead

[JamesD]

[kool kitty89]

They also used the gameport for sending digital data for MIDI and some joysticks so definitely could have had digital joysticks using the same gameport interface (and some did exist).

Yes, but MIDI is serial (1-bit) and quite slow compared to other common serial interfaces of the time (RS232, etc), you'd be better off using the serial port for a joystick, one of the DIN or PS/2 ports (especially with a splitter to share the mouse or keyboard port), or the parallel port for such instead. (for some late controllers, the MIDI lines were reserved for use with USB via a passthrough adapter, but nothing to do with the gameport itself)

 

I think there are do-it-yourself kits out there. Although you can use a select line, that would require some circuitry. I built one just by splicing the wires from a DB9 male port to a DB15 male port (without circuitry) just for some games like pac-man, joust, etc. The 4 directions go to the 4 buttons and the then you tie one of the POT lines to one of the direction lines -- in my case up. So pressing up and pressing the trigger has the same result. Doesn't affect pac-man, joust, space invaders, and some other games. This avoids the circuitry since the buttons already have pull-up resistors built-in. See picture.

You wouldn't have any use of the button that way as you'd need a bit of additional circuitry to pull through the 5V line to use an analog button as such, but it would work for games not using a button or for specific games where shared directional/button use is acceptable... in theory, but not at all useful for real-world stuff unless the programmer when through the trouble to support such control: and why would they do that for a piddly homebrew-only hack? (an 8-way resistor DAC layout would give full functionality for games assuming the use of normal analog joysticks, so even if homebrew they will function normally)

 

 

 

What about the Adlib and those separate ISA cards that had serial/gameport/parallel ports. One thing with the flight simulator was that it's slow paced and you can wait around and rely on feedback on the screen so it didn't hurt them much to use analog joysticks and still get that "feeling" of having something that's like a real flight control.

Already addressed that. Adlib in 1987 had no gameport, it was mono audio only, nothing else. There was only the IBM compatible game/midi port card available separately (I don't know of any early cards specifically providing Atari compatible ports or games making use of that), and the first sound cards to go beyond that came in '89 and there was the Sound Blaster which was to become the industry standard with Adlib compatibility, 8-bit DAC/ADC with hardware PCM record/playback (and ADPCM decoding), and an IBM compatible gameport. (all at a similar price to Adlib and thus rapidly becoming dominant with the integrated gameport -the DAC didn't become important until it really started getting common support in the early 90s)

 

Also in 1989 you had Covox releasing the sound master using an AY8930 (enhanced 8910) also with an 8-bit DAC with both DMA support and a Speech Thing compatibility mode which mapped it into the parallel port I/O range. (Speech thing was Covox's simple resistor DAC plug-in for the parallel port from '86, lots of homebrew adaptations plus the Disney Sound Source with battery powered speaker and amp -it was only a bare DAC and thus relied on CPU resource for playback -still far better sounding and less resource intensive than PWM via the PC speaker)

On top of that it added 2 DE-9 Atari compatible joyports (not sure if they included analog or used more than 5-bits -might have been full 8-bit parallel ports) using the 2 8-bit GPIO ports onboard the sound chip, but it failed to gain significant popularity with the relatively weak sound chip, lack of adlib support (Adlib being the first real sound card of any type available for the PC), the PC gameport already pretty standardized by 1989, and the Speech Thing support being nice but not nearly significant enough to merit support over others.

 

Now had someone (covox or otherwise) pushed an earlier sound card, that could have been different... the older AY8910 or Yamaha's clone YM2149 were common off the shelf sound chips in the early/mid 80s (Intellivision, Vectrex, MSX, ST, Spectrum 128k, CPC, Mockingboard, etc) was superior to the contemporary SN76489 (more frequency range, better control over noise generation, hardware ADSR envelope -plus TI still had conflicts of interest in selling the SN76489 off the shelf until the TI99/4 was discontinued) and the AY/YM chip included the dual 8-bit I/O ports as well (there was also the 8912 with 28 rather than 40 pins and one 8-bit port and the less popular 24 pin 8913 with no I/O -I'd assume Atari got a better deal on the full YM2149 than the AY8912 was being offered at given the 2nd I/O port on the YM does seem to have been used on the ST unless I'm mistaken).

Had that been done in '84-86 and included one or 2 atari type joyports, that very well could have become the defacto standard, a bit more so if they added a simple resistor DAC compatible with the parallel port DAC (very simple, no DMA logic, just a bare DAC). THere was literally no competition and it really is quite odd that it took until 1987 with Adlib to start pushing that. (even the high-end MT-32 module and IBM Music feature card didn't come until that year or leater, Creatives 12 channel square wave CMS/Gameblaster came in '88, the SID based Innovation SSI 2001 didn't come until after, and the Soundblaster and Sound Master didn't come until '89...)

Hell the sound master's weaker sound chip would have been offset by backwards compatibility of such an earlier card. (albeit there was also the much nicer YM2203 which was YM2149 compatible and added 3 4-operator FM synthesis voices rather than enhancing the PSG channels)

 

I've mused on this before, but it really seems odd to me that it took almost 7 years for the PC to get a sound/music add-on card. (and you even had IBM's PCJr and the derived Tandy 1000 including a simple SN76489)

Edited November 13, 2010 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

Well, I just received my modded NES controller in the mail and fired up one of the hardest Atari titles I have in my collection, that being an elusive titled called SHIT!

 

Mind you, there are two games called SHIT! One appears to be a puzzle game and the other is the one I play, where you are a little turd or worm or something that must navigate its way through an anus or cave or something...

 

I used to love playing this with my Atari Joy stick mini (see photo), but with the NES pad, I find that I have MUCH MUCH MUCH better control over my little turd and have been able to play deeper into the game than ever before, so now I must officially change my vote., sad but true.

The topic was analog vs digital (and wide range vs 8-way) control, nothign about joystick vs gamepads specifically. (be it analog/wide range or 8-way gamepads)

 

The NES gamepad is all digital using dome switches internally for 4-switch 8-way (9 state) control with 4 more switches for the buttons. There's onboard logic converting that parallel I/O data into a serial data stream thus needing only 5 pins (+5V, gnd, latch, clock, data) vs the 6 you need for the Atari sticks (3 more lines for 5V and analog ports) and more if you wanted NES functionality and many more still without multiplexing for the SNES (which uses the same 5 lines as the NES). The NES and SNES both have 2 extra pins that are reserved for expansion/peripherals, but would otherwise only need 5 pins total per controller.

 

But no analog support at all... the only way you could use analog would be with a built-in ADC circuit decoding to serial digital data as all modern systems do. (and all game consoles from the early 90s onward and PCs making the switch to digital only interfacing in the mid/late 90s -with cheaper analog gameport controllers still being common into the early 2000s)

[atariksi]

They also used the gameport for sending digital data for MIDI and some joysticks so definitely could have had digital joysticks using the same gameport interface (and some did exist).

Yes, but MIDI is serial (1-bit) and quite slow compared to other common serial interfaces of the time (RS232, etc), you'd be better off using the serial port for a joystick, one of the DIN or PS/2 ports (especially with a splitter to share the mouse or keyboard port), or the parallel port for such instead. (for some late controllers, the MIDI lines were reserved for use with USB via a passthrough adapter, but nothing to do with the gameport itself)

 

I think there are do-it-yourself kits out there. Although you can use a select line, that would require some circuitry. I built one just by splicing the wires from a DB9 male port to a DB15 male port (without circuitry) just for some games like pac-man, joust, etc. The 4 directions go to the 4 buttons and the then you tie one of the POT lines to one of the direction lines -- in my case up. So pressing up and pressing the trigger has the same result. Doesn't affect pac-man, joust, space invaders, and some other games. This avoids the circuitry since the buttons already have pull-up resistors built-in. See picture.

You wouldn't have any use of the button that way as you'd need a bit of additional circuitry to pull through the 5V line to use an analog button as such, but it would work for games not using a button or for specific games where shared directional/button use is acceptable... in theory, but not at all useful for real-world stuff unless the programmer when through the trouble to support such control: and why would they do that for a piddly homebrew-only hack? (an 8-way resistor DAC layout would give full functionality for games assuming the use of normal analog joysticks, so even if homebrew they will function normally)

 

Just one resistor to make the button independent of the up direction. But w/o pull-up resistor, still useful for a bunch of games and no soldering/circuit needed. For people that can solder they have the option of 4 buttons and digital directions. Buttons are analog but using a "early-out" algorithm works to prevent slow-down of sampling since we only want to read 0/1 instead of the analog value. The reason for tieing the POT to the up direction was to keep it upward compatible for those that use their own pull-up resistor.

 

What about the Adlib and those separate ISA cards that had serial/gameport/parallel ports. One thing with the flight simulator was that it's slow paced and you can wait around and rely on feedback on the screen so it didn't hurt them much to use analog joysticks and still get that "feeling" of having something that's like a real flight control.

Already addressed that. Adlib in 1987 had no gameport, it was mono audio only, nothing else. There was only the IBM compatible game/midi port card available separately (I don't know of any early cards specifically providing Atari compatible ports or games making use of that), and the first sound cards to go beyond that came in '89 and there was the Sound Blaster which was to become the industry standard with Adlib compatibility, 8-bit DAC/ADC with hardware PCM record/playback (and ADPCM decoding), and an IBM compatible gameport. (all at a similar price to Adlib and thus rapidly becoming dominant with the integrated gameport -the DAC didn't become important until it really started getting common support in the early 90s)

They had ISA-based gameport boards in 1981 as that's when the gameport was introduced.

 

Here's something similar:

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 350030879401

 

Interesting that while I have been speaking about the analog joystick's issues, gameport itself is inconsistent regarding noise, timing, etc. that affects reading the joystick. I just read the same joystick (Gravis) on Gateway 2000 90Mhz machine and range is 0..1300 and it reads 0..798 on another machine. The value represent ticks of 1.19318Mhz timer so processor speed isn't affecting things.

 

Regarding NES gamepads, they are like digital joysticks, but I would rather interface the atari 2600 style joystick to those consoles rather than the other way around. Even Nintendo DSi XL looks like a digital interface. Most Nintendo consoles seem to have preferred the more exact/deterministic methods-- cartridges, flash cards, and digital controllers vs. cd/dvd/hard drives and analog controllers.

[kool kitty89]

What about the Adlib and those separate ISA cards that had serial/gameport/parallel ports. One thing with the flight simulator was that it's slow paced and you can wait around and rely on feedback on the screen so it didn't hurt them much to use analog joysticks and still get that "feeling" of having something that's like a real flight control.

Already addressed that. Adlib in 1987 had no gameport, it was mono audio only, nothing else. There was only the IBM compatible game/midi port card available separately (I don't know of any early cards specifically providing Atari compatible ports or games making use of that), and the first sound cards to go beyond that came in '89 and there was the Sound Blaster which was to become the industry standard with Adlib compatibility, 8-bit DAC/ADC with hardware PCM record/playback (and ADPCM decoding), and an IBM compatible gameport. (all at a similar price to Adlib and thus rapidly becoming dominant with the integrated gameport -the DAC didn't become important until it really started getting common support in the early 90s)

They had ISA-based gameport boards in 1981 as that's when the gameport was introduced.

Obviously, I never contended that, I was responding to your comment about digital/serial gameports on sound cards... may point about the IBM gameport in general was that it was not standardized enough until the late 80s that it would have prevented another format from becoming the defacto standard if championed by a 3rd party. (especially if tined into a sound card given the total lack of any available on the market until 1987... and again Covox did just that, but in 1989, a good deal too late -had Covox effectively released an ISA Mockingboard with joyports using the added I/O of the sound chip back in '85/86, that could have been exactly the push the market needed to go with the otherwise market standard DE-9 format -not fully universal, but pins 1-4+6+8 were fairly standard with the exception of the MSX using 9 as gnd rather than 8, and many also catered to button 2 being pin 9 -SMS/SG-1000/ST/Amiga.... and had covox added a bare 8-bit resistor DAC compatible with the plain parallel port DAC adapter/speech thing, that would have been an added bonus -later adding a DMA circuit for that)

 

Interesting that while I have been speaking about the analog joystick's issues, gameport itself is inconsistent regarding noise, timing, etc. that affects reading the joystick. I just read the same joystick (Gravis) on Gateway 2000 90Mhz machine and range is 0..1300 and it reads 0..798 on another machine. The value represent ticks of 1.19318Mhz timer so processor speed isn't affecting things.

That's why DOS games had you calibrate the stick at the beginning of every game and why windows stuff had you calibrate in the device driver settings of the control panel. (pretty much unnecessary for USB stuff though as that's all digital)

 

Regarding NES gamepads, they are like digital joysticks, but I would rather interface the atari 2600 style joystick to those consoles rather than the other way around. Even Nintendo DSi XL looks like a digital interface. Most Nintendo consoles seem to have preferred the more exact/deterministic methods-- cartridges, flash cards, and digital controllers vs. cd/dvd/hard drives and analog controllers.

All d-pads do that, though on modern consoles they've taken a back seat (that started ~1996/97 with analog sticks being clearly superior for almost anything to do with 3D, though you had many more options with the PC anyway)

 

As for interfacing with Atari stuff, I'd never bother with all the trouble ofhacking things up to use NES pads or vice versa, Sega is the way to go as they used a directly Atari compatible pinout for the SG-1000, SMS, and MD with parallel I/O. (the MD uses multiplexing, but that's ignored for older interfaces where it becomes a pure 8-way 2-button controller like the SMS/SG-1000 with the 2nd button mapped to pin 9 -thus also working for 2-button ST/Amiga games, but not 3 button -pin 5 is used for +5V while pin 7 is the select line)

[potatohead]

(sniff... sniff...)

 

[kicks it]

 

"Hmmm...It's Dead Jim."

 

I've enjoyed Kool Kitty's posts on various controls, standards, etc... Thanks!

[Divya16]

Interesting that while I have been speaking about the analog joystick's issues, gameport itself is inconsistent regarding noise, timing, etc. that affects reading the joystick. I just read the same joystick (Gravis) on Gateway 2000 90Mhz machine and range is 0..1300 and it reads 0..798 on another machine. The value represent ticks of 1.19318Mhz timer so processor speed isn't affecting things.

That's why DOS games had you calibrate the stick at the beginning of every game and why windows stuff had you calibrate in the device driver settings of the control panel. (pretty much unnecessary for USB stuff though as that's all digital)

You can't calibrate noise, resisitance, etc. They vary with temperature, how long your machine is on, the phase of the moon, etc. If the USB joystick isn't doing some sort of automated calibration on the analog joystick, I would be surprised.