Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

Cool - since Atariski and his doppelganger don't want to refute my posts about steering wheels and joysticks, that makes me the winner by scientific fact.

 

You can't be mocking someone and also expect them to deal with you. I already answered you a few times in other posts not direct replies to you. I thought you would read all posts. You wrote:

 

"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 "

 

Well, I agree it's better than an analog joystick or digital joystick. That's why I wrote in post #1 that some things Paddles/steering wheels are better. And also my point about how construction makes a difference.

 

You then wrote:

 

"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"."

 

See the key point here is that you are comparing analog controls with digital controls not analog joystick with digital joystick. Theoretically, if they implemented a digital version of a flight yolk, foot pedal, paddle or throttle, it would be superior in control. Like I said before to you, even some cars are using those digital dashboards replacing the analog ones. Digital joysticks always provide better control than analog joysticks. You can control things better if you know the state of the joystick.

[potatohead]

Chewbacca!

 

Refuted.

[atariksi]

I think the topic drifted a bit. I was talking about gameports being noisy, varying in implemenation, etc. to koolkitty (if you look back). It doesn't matter if joystick calibrates or not as there's no mechanism to calibrate the gameport internals.

Yes, but if the noise is taken into account (compensated for or filtered -even in software routines) that shouldn't matter, it would lower the precision a bit and add to overhead (if software managed), but address the problem.

You don't understand noise. I was trying to find the reference but only found wiki stuff which I don't want to rely on as there's some subjective/nonauthoritative stuff there. If noise was well-behaved or constant, you don't call it noise. It would be deterministic and known. You can calibrate the joystick and then end up with different values given the noise at the gameport. Not all existing software even allow for calibration like all of Atari 5200 software.

 

Aside from noise though, the inconsistent analog interfacing on a per computer/gameport as well as per controller basis (and even a day by day change/drift basis) is totally addressed by calibration: each game in DOS would require you to calibrate the controller by centering it, moving it through the maximum ranges, and centering it again. That calibration would thus allow a properly coded game to cater to the available range of the joystick and gameport interface currently in use unless somethign changed radically while playing the game itself.

Many older joysticks also had centering calibration knobs/wheels to adjust the range as well, but that sort of calibration is a separate issue though is one possible way to address any sort of serious in-game problem, though would more likely be a problem itself if yo bumped the know or it got loose. (happened to me on many occasions -and my old quickshot stick got a bit weird with that at times and would shift the centering wheel if I jerked it too rapidly -probably dust build up putting too much friction on it)

 

Implementation can't be taken into account since there's nothing you can do to read the state of implemenation in a current machine's gameport. If there was less variations in the readings in one gameport and more in an another, you have to take the worst case in the software implementation. And calibration for other things like range of values, dc bias, etc. is another bad thing about analog joysticks even if it's doable for some software. And having calibration wheels/switches is also bad for analog joysticks as that's another uncertainty you added to the analog joysticks. Now you pick up an analog joystick and you have that uncertainty that someone didn't touch those calibration controls and screwed up the center position. And assuming you did calibration for a specific machine and put aside gameport noise, you still won't get exact values on the analog joystick readings. You still have to rely on thresholds and uncertainties.

 

This you wrote about switching:

No, that's wrong. As long as the analog stick is precise enough, length of throw matters not, only the player's own fine motor skills in managing the shorter throw it's fine or even preferable as you can make quicker movements. (or no throw at all in the case of pressure sensitive controls, but that's pushing it for some things but necessary in others -as with the FBW example in fighter jets)

 

Sounds like a joke. Yeah, someone can be trained to walk on fire with bare feet and someone can memorize an entire book word for word given a few years of time/training, but people want to use their controller immediately. In fact, Atari joysticks haven't changed so there you have a ton of time but you hardly need a few minutes to get used to using that stick. The fact that you hit against the board in a shorter throw digital joystick means easier to use and faster switching. And for moving only slight amounts on the analog joystick, you no longer can do fast-action motion back and forth and rely on hitting against the PCB. And even in those cases, you have to rely on thresholds and regions which are uncertain. I know some people adjust somewhat to their specific analog joysticks over a long time, but those aren't your normal cases nor is adjusting to those faulty analog joysticks making those analog joysticks any better. You are transferring difficulty of control over to the user which makes the human interface device inferior to the one that doesn't do that.

[ledzep]

(Excuse me, I had to make a side trip to JFK...)

Given the time you spent there, I hope you noticed that they rely on feedback for their controls and do not know the state of their controls AND their controls aren't the same as an analog joystick in construction.

ledzep, I'm surprised you made it home alive, with the pilot not knowing the exact state of their controls.

 

I know!! I kept begging them to rip out those analog yokes and rewire the plane for digital joysticks but they wouldn't listen!! I kept telling them the pilot had ZERO control of the plane and would be a murderer when we crashed. I also told them that it was a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide more control yet they ignored me after they demanded that I prove that it was a scientific fact and I could provide no supporting evidence or data. Crazy, huh? They actually wanted me to back up my claim! I mean, seriously, since when is that my problem? In fact, it's also a scientific fact that everyone knows that all you have to do is state that something is a scientific fact and it's up to them to prove you wrong, you don't have to supply anything to support your position.

 

Anyway, I made it home (I wouldn't say safely, though, what with the obvious analog risks) even though those insane pilots insisted on using those inferior controllers. Idiots. I've run hundreds of tests with my flight yoke simulator and I crash much less often when I use the digital joystick. You should see all the data I have to support that. Except that I'll never show you no matter how many times you ask for it because it's up to you to recreate all that data without knowing specifically how I did it. You understand that necessity, obviously. In fact it's a scientific fact that you knew a priori that that's what I'd say.

 

I won't even get into the threat to my own life from that taxi driver using a steering wheel and pedals to drive me home. What is this, a nation of daredevils?! It's like they all prefer having ZERO control over their lives or they all have death wishes. If only the Tron world was real and I could live in its sane utopia.

[Divya16]

(Excuse me, I had to make a side trip to JFK...)

Given the time you spent there, I hope you noticed that they rely on feedback for their controls and do not know the state of their controls AND their controls aren't the same as an analog joystick in construction.

ledzep, I'm surprised you made it home alive, with the pilot not knowing the exact state of their controls.

 

I know!!

Well, 5-11 admitted not reading the thread. At least you should since you are the one trying to refute things around here. Stop the trolling. You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

[Divya16]

Hook up a modern analog joystick and see how good you do in an Atari 8-bit game like Hero.

 

I was the season 5 champion in the 8-bit high score club.

 

Controller used for most games?

Logitech dual-action with (drum roll) ANALOG sticks.

 

I just checked season 5 HSC games and you won 5 of them out of 25 and of those only two of them you are the record scorer-- pastfinder and Centipede. No Hero game (nor any others mentioned in this thread). I never heard of pastfinder but I bet you can do better at Centipede with a digital joystick. I think I should be able to top 104K although I can't mix your experience with certain games with my experience. There are some games you can get away with the flaws of the analog joystick because game is slow-paced or messing up a pixel or two here or there doesn't adversely affect gameplay.

 

Wow. just. wow.

 

If you dug just a tiny bit deeper, you'd see I didn't play the first 8 games, nor the last, so that's 6 (not 5) wins in 16 attempts

 

1st: 6 times

2nd: 7 times

3rd: 1 time

4th: 2 times

 

So being champion, and finishing 1st or 2nd in 13 of 16 games is not an indicative metric?

Surely, being so massively handicapped with a joystick where I have zero control should have prevented any wins.

 

(oh btw, this stuff here is called "data". it is used to evaluate an experiment and possibly draw conclusions)

 

I think you misunderstood the ZERO CONTROL stuff. At least everyone knows that ledzep did although it was specifically answered for him already.

[RevEng]

You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Huh? I thought we were just posting in a web forum. Did I miss the part where someone declared this a war?

 

And if it is a war... what is it good for?

[jetset]

You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Huh? I thought we were just posting in a web forum. Did I miss the part where someone declared this a war?

 

And if it is a war... what is it good for?

 

Absolutely nothing, say it again!

[Divya16]

You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Huh? I thought we were just posting in a web forum. Did I miss the part where someone declared this a war?

 

And if it is a war... what is it good for?

 

FYI, when someone argues AGAINST everyting written even if obviously true, in the argument world it's called a "war". Go look it up. Why are you are arguing if it's good for nothing? I like many others don't accept "blind leading the blind" or "blind following the blind" philosophy. Perhaps, you don't care.

[ledzep]

ledzep, I'm surprised you made it home alive, with the pilot not knowing the exact state of their controls.

 

I know!!

Well, 5-11 admitted not reading the thread. At least you should since you are the one trying to refute things around here. Stop the trolling. You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Doesn't matter if 5-11 read the thread or not, it doesn't change any of the erroneous specifics that you and aprioriksi support -

 

(1) It is not a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control until someone shows that it has been confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

(2) Claiming to have conducted an experiment that resulted in "megabytes" of data is a lie until the details of that experiment and all the data generated by that experiment are presented (regardless of how difficult it might be for someone to interpret that data). You have both claimed to have run experiments yet neither of you have satisfied the requirements inherent in those claims.

(3) Stating that the theory is a comparison between a set of listed digital and analog joysticks and then admitting to only having data from an inadequate joystick simulator invalidates the experiment until the experiment is conducted using the actual controllers that were included in the original theory. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

(4) Claiming to have followed the scientific method in order to generate the data for the experiment is a lie until the experiment meets the requirement of the scientific method which includes using a control group and an experimental group to test a single variable at a time. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

(5) It is the responsibility of the original claimant to corroborate his/her claims of having run experiments and/or having generated data and/or having established that something is a scientific fact once someone demands proof of those claims. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

 

Since when is this a war? Do you think anybody but you sees this thread as that important? Its a debate about something that aprioriksi and you have claimed to be true and that the rest of us claim is not true. For every anecdotal instance that aprioriksi references to support his position someone else has an anecdotal instance to reference that refutes his position. He says lots of other people score better using digital joysticks, many of us claim to know people who score better using analog joysticks. It is now a stalemate until you or he presents the data that would put the argument to rest.

 

Since aprioriksi made the initial claim..., which claim? This one -

 

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

 

it has become his responsibility to provide the information to support it, our only responsibility is to say "Prove it" if we don't agree (and we don't agree). Providing the information to support his theory does not mean

 

- screen grabs of random video games (that cannot by themselves be proven to show the game in question was played in the manner claimed with the controller claimed),

- a jpeg of a menu from a joystick simulator,

- heresay and second-hand accounts of how anonymous gamers also score better using digital joysticks than when using analog joysticks,

- statements that merely prove that he doesn't have good control using analog joysticks (but that he extrapolates out to apply to all gamers simply because that's what he believes),

- statements that merely prove that he can't competently code for a game that is controlled by an analog joystick.

 

The choice for you two is simple. Either you release all the data along with a description of the experiments conducted that shows how the data was generated and how it applies in the proof of the original theory, or just keep on dodging, stalling and making excuses for not satisfying the basic requirements for proving that you actually ran experiments and generated data. You two have consistently chosen the latter.

 

It's cowardly to go to JFK? Wow, does aprioriksi know about that?

[kool kitty89]

I should be more clear on the other side of length of throw: short throw is necessary for fast movements and is thus necessary for a wide range of things: and so long as the design is not a crap implementation (both hardware and software in terms of both precision and accuracy -and taking predicted range of errors and such) you can have a very nice analog thumbstick (albeit it's not always implemented as true resistive analog but other variable mechanisms like optical and magnetic) along with triggers (not buttons, but slider triggers) are standard features in modern game control schemes (tending towards that since ~1996).

 

 

Long throw is not particularly good for some of the common action game uses, especially without self centering, but flight sticks cater more towards that with the exception of all being self centering as well. Anyone using a decent gamepad with decent fine motor skills should be able to manage most flight sim games fine or even better than with a flight stick (persona; preference and force of habit) though flight sticks match the intended experience more in some cases... with exceptions of some console games designed for gamepad controls only. (blazing Angles for example plays like crap using a flight stick+keyboard+throttle and is really meant for dual 2-axis analog control plus 4 buttons plus 2 triggers -I forget if it uses the shoulder buttons but iirc the d-pad is used for action command toggling)

 

In the cases where an analog joystick is truly advantageous, self centering is necessary for optimal use as well. Only in paddle type situations is it not (ie position tracking rather than variable input speed/vector), though you have the odd case of things like star wars (Space Harrier used that in the arcade too though I honestly think that's a worse use) but even there I think (for joysticks rather than the custom non-centering yolk) something like a modern (high precision, not cheap/crappy) gamepad or the vectrex controller would be preferable in general. (almost definitely with inverted "normal" X/Y axis line in the arcade and the GameCube version in Rogue Squadron III -works quite well with a good GC controller, unplayable with a cheap 3rd party one due to poor precision -very few unique states apparently)

 

Track ball type control should always use speed sensitive control with an analog joystick, not position tracking. (Ie ypu push harder and it moves faster, you center it and the cursor stops where it currently is, not moving back to the center -great for missile command, centipede, etc)

A shame the 5200 had games that were rarely if ever programmed to properly use analog joysticks like that... in the few cases that do I believe it was usually limited to 2 speeds per axis (or 2 speeds for 8 directions) rather than finer variable control. (you wouldn't need a full 127 states per 4 directions, but something like 7 -ie 4-bit precision per axis- would have been nice)

 

 

 

 

There's also the issue of implementation in general: you could have rotary paddles or wheels for single axis analog, but you could also have slider paddles (as some pong games used), or lever based paddles (much like a non-self-centering analog joystick limited to 1 axis). So a lot of factors varying physical input: a massive range of actual joystick design and the same for both analog and digital in that sense (and for gamepads and sticks and hybrids) not only varying in form factor but in consistency, quality, and performance. (again, compare the Flashback II sticks to CX-40s or CX-10s for that matter, or the 7800 joysticks, or various 3rd party controllers, etc, etc)

 

And then there's the issue of pseudo digital controls using a simple resistor DAC.

It would be very interesting to rig up a CX40 like that for the 5200 and do a blind test comparing the real-world performance playing A8 and 5200 versions of the same games -of the 5200 games that use the same 4 or 8 direction control schemes with no other odd modifications like Frogger's button press -Pac Man and Ms Pac Man would be good cases. (polling pots is slower for sure, but the question is if the user actually notices or not)

Technically speaking such a controller would have been significantly cheaper to make than full pot based analog control and thus it's very odd that no such controller was offered for the 5200. (be it 1st or 3d party)

Edited November 22, 2010 by kool kitty89

[ledzep]

You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Huh? I thought we were just posting in a web forum. Did I miss the part where someone declared this a war?

 

And if it is a war... what is it good for?

 

FYI, when someone argues AGAINST everyting written even if obviously true, in the argument world it's called a "war". Go look it up. Why are you are arguing if it's good for nothing? I like many others don't accept "blind leading the blind" or "blind following the blind" philosophy. Perhaps, you don't care.

Well, there are flame wars, which I don't think you mean.

 

What do you call it when someone argues AGAINST everything written if obviously false like claims that infinite control actually provides ZERO control? Who made that claim, by the way? Oh, I remember, it was the person who had no answer for how

could have complete control of a fully analog fretless bass when it's like so obvious that in reality he has ZERO control. Didntknow16, I think. Sort of like aprioriksi's opposite example of mistaking piano keys as digital controls, haahaaha.

 

There you go again. Where do you get the idea that after you state that something is a fact that it's up to someone else to do your work for you and look it up? Who taught you how to debate in this lazy manner? You are the one who is supposed to provide links or information to support your point of view, not us. Then the rest of us can see what you mean and see that it's common knowledge or an accepted fact and the disagreement on that point ends. Unless, of course, you didn't provide a link to the definition because there is no such definition of an argument world "war" and you know this already, right? Why else wouldn't you link to something that you feel is so obvious and well-known? If it's obvious and well-known then it should be easy for you to find the link and provide the link. Stop asking us to do your work for you.

 

So do it right, your statement should have looked more like this -

 

"..., in the argument world it's called a "war"." Aw, whoops, I gave you the wrong link, that's the link to that scientific method you failed to follow.

 

I'll try again. You are a terrible debater. How do I know? Is this where I tell you to look it up? No, I will instead support my own position. You have blown all those steps but specifically you've really fallen short on #7 and #8 -

 

( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

 

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

 

Of course you have to provide some external evidence and authoritative sources first, right? You and aprioriksi have come short only of killing your own grandmothers to avoid that.

[Divya16]

ledzep, I'm surprised you made it home alive, with the pilot not knowing the exact state of their controls.

 

I know!!

Well, 5-11 admitted not reading the thread. At least you should since you are the one trying to refute things around here. Stop the trolling. You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Doesn't matter if 5-11 read the thread or not, it doesn't change any of the erroneous specifics that you and aprioriksi support -

It does matter since he LIKE YOU are repeating your mistaken views that were already answered and refuted and not even addressing those points. You think just by restating the same thing over and over again like a broken record, people are going to accept YOUR erroneous claims. Your first reply is a typical example. It was answered multiple times already and you just emotionally blurted out the same thing again like a troll. Read the thread. Just declaring something erroneous doesn't make it so.

 

(1) It is not a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control until someone shows that it has been confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

It is accepted as true by many and nor is data the only method of refutation given for your erroneous claims. Just because they are not all participating in this thread doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

(2) Claiming to have conducted an experiment that resulted in "megabytes" of data is a lie until the details of that experiment and all the data generated by that experiment are presented (regardless of how difficult it might be for someone to interpret that data). You have both claimed to have run experiments yet neither of you have satisfied the requirements inherent in those claims.

Screenshots, scores, recordings, explanations, etc. are all data. It's megabytes but you can derive the conclusion from the data given if you can't follow the math/logic.

 

(3) Stating that the theory is a comparison between a set of listed digital and analog joysticks and then admitting to only having data from an inadequate joystick simulator invalidates the experiment until the experiment is conducted using the actual controllers that were included in the original theory. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

If you read the thread, you were DISQUALIFIED for performing the experiment, for not understanding the data, and being biased toward your position. You have to be unbiased to perform the experiment.

 

(4) Claiming to have followed the scientific method in order to generate the data for the experiment is a lie until the experiment meets the requirement of the scientific method which includes using a control group and an experimental group to test a single variable at a time. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

More mistakes from you. It is a control group. You haven't satisfied the requirements for performing the experiment nor understanding the results. You slip under the rug everything you can't answer and a few days later come and repeat the same thing again.

 

(5) It is the responsibility of the original claimant to corroborate his/her claims of having run experiments and/or having generated data and/or having established that something is a scientific fact once someone demands proof of those claims. Neither of you have satisfied that requirement.

Blind people can't see. You are too trapped emotionally in your fanatical views that you can't see the clear logic nor the experimental data. Again just blurting out things won't help your case. You are hypocrite. While demanding proof from the other side, you make claims that are unfounded and already refuted.

 

Since when is this a war? Do you think anybody but you sees this thread as that important? Its a debate about something that aprioriksi and you have claimed to be true and that the rest of us claim is not true.

Don't speak for others. You are speculating. You have NO idea how many people are against your erroneous claims and how many are in your favor. Leave it to the individual to decide whether it's important or not. One thing is obviously clear is that it's important for you to keep repeating your erroneous values to try to dismiss everything written against you. And you got the name wrong many times-- an clear indication that you are not only a blind follower but an emotionally biased one.

 

For every anecdotal instance that aprioriksi references to support his position someone else has an anecdotal instance to reference that refutes his position. He says lots of other people score better using digital joysticks, many of us claim to know people who score better using analog joysticks. It is now a stalemate until you or he presents the data that would put the argument to rest.

That's not even the claim. He showed examples where the failures of analog joysticks occurs. And I experienced the same. And there's logic/science behind that. It's actually the analog joystick scores that are anecdotal. F=ma is true regardless whether you happen to come up with some measurements that don't match it. You are grossly in ignorance.

 

- screen grabs of random video games (that cannot by themselves be proven to show the game in question was played in the manner claimed with the controller claimed),

You go play it yourself. They are not random video games. You have to repeat the experiment but are incapable of because you ONLY prefer analog joysticks as you already admitted in this thread.

 

- statements that merely prove that he doesn't have good control using analog joysticks (but that he extrapolates out to apply to all gamers simply because that's what he believes),

Nobody has control of analog joysticks' states. Wasn't that clear to you with the BASIC program given. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.

 

- statements that merely prove that he can't competently code for a game that is controlled by an analog joystick.

The games are coded by others if you ever looked at the screenshots.

 

The choice for you two is simple. Either you release all the data along with a description of the experiments conducted that shows how the data was generated and how it applies in the proof of the original theory, or just keep on dodging, stalling and making excuses for not satisfying the basic requirements for proving that you actually ran experiments and generated data. You two have consistently chosen the latter.

You are living in a bubble. You can't see data in front of your eyes. There's enough data to completely prove all your replies are rubbish. You also shoved under the rug the fact that you are maintaining a duplicitous position. You are opposing the data and demanding MORE of it. You argue against construction of a joystick making a difference and also in favor of it. How can you live with such a state of mind is beyond me.

 

It's cowardly to go to JFK? Wow, does aprioriksi know about that?

Figured you would mess that up as well. You really should step back and think about for even asking this. To leave in the middle of a war is cowardly not going to JFK which also I doubt you even did. You are the only one making excuses. More likely you chickened out until you can think of something against the proof presented. If you think this discussion is important, then you wouldn't leave and come back a week later. If you think its not important, then why bother with it now? Maybe you were trying to leave the country. Who cares. Better excuse for you would have been you were sick. Nonetheless the more important point is that you keep repeating things that are already refuted several times.

[Bryan]

Even the guys in the Jaguar forum are going damn!

[Divya16]

You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

Huh? I thought we were just posting in a web forum. Did I miss the part where someone declared this a war?

 

And if it is a war... what is it good for?

 

FYI, when someone argues AGAINST everyting written even if obviously true, in the argument world it's called a "war". Go look it up. Why are you are arguing if it's good for nothing? I like many others don't accept "blind leading the blind" or "blind following the blind" philosophy. Perhaps, you don't care.

Well, there are flame wars, which I don't think you mean.

 

What do you call it when someone argues AGAINST everything written if obviously false like claims that infinite control actually provides ZERO control? Who made that claim, by the way?

You are inept at understanding it. I bet you don't even understand the proof of zero control for infinite levels. In fact, you instead of addressing the argument made a claim about not giving you data and kept asking for that to be addressed instead. Sly way to shoving things under the rug.

 

Didntknow16, I think. Sort of like aprioriksi's opposite example of mistaking piano keys as digital controls, haahaaha.

Let me address your name calling again here which was also refuted:

 

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

 

Seems given your high failure rate in addressing the points, you have resorted to personal attacks within your comments in some desperate hope that they will help you out of mistaken imaginary world.

 

There you go again. Where do you get the idea that after you state that something is a fact that it's up to someone else to do your work for you and look it up? Who taught you how to debate in this lazy manner? You are the one who is supposed to provide links or information to support your point of view, not us.

You are unfit to even understand the experiment what to speak of repeating it. Your views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

 

I'll try again. You are a terrible debater. How do I know? Is this where I tell you to look it up? No, I will instead support my own position. You have blown all those steps but specifically you've really fallen short on #7 and #8 -

You are the one with self-contradictory views and you blame others for being terrible debaters.

 

( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

 

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

You are giving rules to others who have better understanding then you. Let me give you some rules to follow:

 

(1) read the thread before you try to refute everything.

(2) don't mock people's user ids/names or any other personal attacks.

(3) be open minded that there's a truth that may or may not agree with your emotional biased views

(4) don't argue against things that you never experienced or don't understand

(5) if you think the debate is important, don't take a vacation without notification or a better excuse

 

Of course you have to provide some external evidence and authoritative sources first, right? You and aprioriksi have come short only of killing your own grandmothers to avoid that.

 

Oh, first you are demanding things and now you are ASKING something. Desperately trying to find fault. If scientists were like you, there would be no progress. We would still be stuck with theories/experiments from hundreds of years ago.

 

Regarding your personal attack, as I said in the 5 golden rules for you above, don't do personal attacks. It doesn't help your views which are basically drivel anyway.

[potatohead]

Excuse me?

 

A FUCKING WAR??

 

Are you high? Somebody piss in your Cheerios? Get beat for no reason as a kid?

 

Never in my life have I seen such extreme mental contortions to avoid having to admit being wrong, or that something is a mere opinion.

 

Now I would have tuned out on this LOOOOONG ago, but it's actually clinical to me. Last time I pinned Atardivya16 on something obviously wrong, I got threats, and some very ugly challenges, shouting and god knows what else, on a subject matter that was not worthy --not even close to worthy of that level of interaction.

 

I mean, being wrong on this stuff is on par with losing your car keys, or quoting somebody badly. Nobody really gives a shit about the wrongness, and in fact, if they did, we wouldn't have a hobby to participate in, because everybody would be clocked up so tight, nothing could ever happen.

 

We all love our retro machines, but good grief, this is morbid in the extreme. Seriously, like entering "you really need help" territory.

 

Oh, and just to be perfectly healthy here, REFUTED!!

 

(seriously, refuted sixteen ways to Sunday, pounded home FUCKING SOLID, DEAD WRONG, REFUTED!)

 

Edit: Here's the fucking golden rule:

 

Don't expect to prevail on a matter of subjective taste, without including a qualifier.

 

You broke that rule, it's well known, not debatable, basic grade school critical thinking stuff, and are now calling WAR???

 

(Does it hurt to have a ego that big?)

Edited November 22, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

And then there's the issue of pseudo digital controls using a simple resistor DAC.

It would be very interesting to rig up a CX40 like that for the 5200 and do a blind test comparing the real-world performance playing A8 and 5200 versions of the same games -of the 5200 games that use the same 4 or 8 direction control schemes with no other odd modifications like Frogger's button press -Pac Man and Ms Pac Man would be good cases. (polling pots is slower for sure, but the question is if the user actually notices or not)

Technically speaking such a controller would have been significantly cheaper to make than full pot based analog control and thus it's very odd that no such controller was offered for the 5200. (be it 1st or 3d party)

 

Frogger already has digital controls-- you can use the keypad on the A5200. And the digital adapters do work better for those games. And it's not necessarily a blind test if you do the experiment as a controlled experiment.

 

It's suprising how some people can't see the clear logic that with the uncertainty in regions of analog joysticks, you are prone to make more mistakes in the game than if you had more certainty. No experiment needed to see this logic if you think about it and don't let the emotions get in the way. Yeah, Koolkitty89, we do know what modern systems are using but is it a NECESSITY. You yourself were entertaining some alternative digital methods. And I have seen so many so-called "analog" games done with digital controls- missile command, star wars, centipede, pole position, super breakout, etc. And some of those are paddle games (not even analog joystick games).

[potatohead]

Oh look! I'll bet a "PAC MAN" cart, "they've" got me on ignore again. LOL!!

 

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

(sits back, passes popcorn bowl to the Jag forum netizens)

[ledzep]

Oh look! I'll bet a "PAC MAN" cart, "they've" got me on ignore again. LOL!!

 

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

(sits back, passes popcorn bowl to the Jag forum netizens)

What is the over/under for this thread reaching 500 posts without aprioriksi presenting the parameters of his experiment or all the "megabytes" of data that that experiment supposedly generated? I could use the extra cash.

[atariksi]

Tried to reply to some stuff and got:

 

[#2001] Sorry, the server is too busy to handle your request, please try again in a moment.

 

Hopefully, this short reply goes through and then I'm going back to sleep.

 

I should be more clear on the other side of length of throw: short throw is necessary for fast movements and is thus necessary for a wide range of things: and so long as the design is not a crap implementation (both hardware and software in terms of both precision and accuracy -and taking predicted range of errors and such) you can have a very nice analog thumbstick (albeit it's not always implemented as true resistive analog but other variable mechanisms like optical and magnetic) along with triggers (not buttons, but slider triggers) are standard features in modern game control schemes (tending towards that since ~1996).

 

Is this related to what you wrote in post #393 or my reply in #403: you're only talking about analog thumbsticks going partially from center rather than to the extremes? As I said earlier in the thread, the experiment was mainly with joysticks as pictured in post #1 or similar ones. The analog thumbsticks may have improved some of the flaws in those bigger joysticks although the uncertainty would still be greater than digital joysticks. I haven't taken apart too many modern analog thumbsticks but if they implemented some sort of voltage controls like deadbands found in some medical joysticks, it would help with the centering.

 

I agree short throw is preferred for faster switching yet you have the dilemma that longer throws are required to better get to the in-between states if you happen to use them in the game/application. And those longer throws mean more erroneous samples as you switch directions. And shorter throw analog sticks mean in-between states are practically useless but less erroneous samples as you switch directions. Of course, the results of my experiment (like for games mentioned in #114,137) still applies to both cases (like jumping from the edge in Miner 2049er).

[+Stephen]

Even the guys in the Jaguar forum are going damn!

LMAO - that puts it into perspective.

[ApolloBoy]

Well, 5-11 admitted not reading the thread. At least you should since you are the one trying to refute things around here. Stop the trolling. You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

[+5-11under]

I feel so bad now that I haven't read every post in this thread.

I suggest that anyone who hasn't read every word of this thread refrain from pos

[kool kitty89]

And then there's the issue of pseudo digital controls using a simple resistor DAC.

It would be very interesting to rig up a CX40 like that for the 5200 and do a blind test comparing the real-world performance playing A8 and 5200 versions of the same games -of the 5200 games that use the same 4 or 8 direction control schemes with no other odd modifications like Frogger's button press -Pac Man and Ms Pac Man would be good cases. (polling pots is slower for sure, but the question is if the user actually notices or not)

Technically speaking such a controller would have been significantly cheaper to make than full pot based analog control and thus it's very odd that no such controller was offered for the 5200. (be it 1st or 3d party)

 

Frogger already has digital controls-- you can use the keypad on the A5200. And the digital adapters do work better for those games. And it's not necessarily a blind test if you do the experiment as a controlled experiment.

Yes, but the keypad is far from ideal, especially the 5200 keypad (an actual keybard would be fine for the most part -always depends on implementation/design though).

 

But by a blind test, I mean the people playing the game wouldn't know which was the 5200 version and which was the A8 version, a closed box set-up where they can't see the system being used.

 

It's suprising how some people can't see the clear logic that with the uncertainty in regions of analog joysticks, you are prone to make more mistakes in the game than if you had more certainty. No experiment needed to see this logic if you think about it and don't let the emotions get in the way. Yeah, Koolkitty89, we do know what modern systems are using but is it a NECESSITY. You yourself were entertaining some alternative digital methods. And I have seen so many so-called "analog" games done with digital controls- missile command, star wars, centipede, pole position, super breakout, etc. And some of those are paddle games (not even analog joystick games).

And some people just cant see the inferiority of limited states with certainty of FAR TOO FEW available values to work in the desired fashion. Again, 5200 missile command is far from ideal, but a good analog stick would always be better for that game than plain 8-way digital with proper programming. With paddle games, digital controls makes it take a huge hit compared to proper variable control though an analog joystick/thumbstick wouldn't be ideal either or a track ball for that matter. (an analog joystick would probably be better off treated as a mouse/track ball in the majority of such cases)

 

You can do almost any game with analog or digital control, but when properly catering to both mechanisms, some games will favor digital, and others will favor analog. (or variable with a wide range of states per axis, not necessarily resistance based analog)

 

Some games only take a minor hit when made digital, just as some digital optimized games only take a minor hit going to analog, but in other cases it can be unacceptable. (the vast majority of modern 3D games would take pretty big hits dropping to 8-way control -some bigger than others, more so if you removed all the analog axes -no triggers, neither analog stick, etc)

 

The precision is simply too low for some applications.

 

 

And that's all aside from poorly designed controllers and poorly designed controls programmed into the game.

Edited November 22, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Divya16]

I feel so bad now that I haven't read every post in this thread.

I suggest that anyone who hasn't read every word of this thread refrain from pos

 

Given your previous wrong information about digital joystick being implementable with an analog joystick, people are better off not following your advice blindly.

 

Taking it logically, you are advising people to refrain from reading something that you admit you yourself haven't read. You fit in perfectly with those blind leading the blind. Your advice is also self-contradictory which you would have realized if you weren't so emotional. If thread is just crap, then it follows that your post is also which is part of this thread. Since you are opposed to others posts who don't think it's crap, it follows that its only your stuff that's crap since both P & -P cannot be true simultaneously in this case.