Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

 

Thanks for admitting you're biased. At least that's better than saying what you have been saying before.

[RevEng]

You forgot to read the context and the word "like". I am speaking all digital. The amount of pressure doesn't matter nor do you need to spend time sampling it-- either its being touched in a certain direction or it isn't. And those digital joysticks that have very rigid sticks that hardly move resemble that.

 

If you want to compare such a thing with the analog trackpoint, that's a separate matter.

You opened the comparison when you imagined a digital joystick that could have as short a throw as an analog trackpoint. There isn't such a digital joystick, and there is such an analog joystick - the trackpoint itself.

 

How exactly does a trackpoint differ from an analog joystick again?

 

You're only now calling it a separate matter because you realize the folly of bringing it up in the first point. A digital joystick can't come close to the level of control of a trackpoint for moving a mouse. Nor can it come close in a game designed around speeds other than on/off.

[Divya16]

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."

 

with a completely nonsensical statement about what Einstein may have said. Einstein may also have said:

 

"Analog joysticks provide better control than digital joysticks."

Well, Einstein used the terms sticks and stones with wars many times as recorded.

 

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/sticks_and_stones/

 

And I used the word "may". He most likely would never say your quote given his views about finding exact equations of the universe. So yours is a bigger speculation and also already proven false whereas Einsteins stuff hasn't been proven false.

 

Three days?!? Without so much as a note? Tsk tsk. And she didn't contribute anything meaningful until Friday, Nov 12th at 11:52PM (Post #360). I mean, what a jerk, right? She just goes AWOL like that? I wonder what her commanding officer thinks about that. In the middle of a war, I mean, seriously, you must be so upset with her, haahahaa!

 

Don't worry about your vacation. It was the excuse you made that I thought was concocted (a lie)-- had to go to JFK for one week!

[Divya16]

You forgot to read the context and the word "like". I am speaking all digital. The amount of pressure doesn't matter nor do you need to spend time sampling it-- either its being touched in a certain direction or it isn't. And those digital joysticks that have very rigid sticks that hardly move resemble that.

 

If you want to compare such a thing with the analog trackpoint, that's a separate matter.

You opened the comparison when you imagined a digital joystick that could have as short a throw as an analog trackpoint. There isn't such a digital joystick, and there is such an analog joystick - the trackpoint itself.

You are misreading again; I clearly stated there are those digital joysticks with very rigid sticks that resemble that. They exist; they are not imaginary.

 

How exactly does a trackpoint differ from an analog joystick again?

 

You're only now calling it a separate matter because you realize the folly of bringing it up in the first point. A digital joystick can't come close to the level of control of a trackpoint for moving a mouse. Nor can it come close in a game designed around speeds other than on/off.

There's no folly. I would still use it as an example where you don't need a moving stick. You are the one who is desperate to switch to discussing these rather than the non-pressure based analog joysticks. Hey, at least admit those are inferior before changing topics to trackpoints. Or should I take that as a given. A mouse easily has better control than a trackpoint. Try playing missile command with a trackpoint vs. a digital joystick or a regular mouse. You'll see the difference. Now the throw distance is no longer the discussion but the pressure uncertainties. You were arguing the throw distance if you study this subject back a few messages. Now rather than admit your mistake, you want to use trackpoints and compare apples and oranges.

[RevEng]

Try playing missile command with a trackpoint vs. a digital joystick or a regular mouse. You'll see the difference. Now the throw distance is no longer the discussion but the pressure uncertainties. You were arguing the throw distance if you study this subject back a few messages. Now rather than admit your mistake, you want to use trackpoints and compare apples and oranges.

A trackpoint doesn't have zero throw. Have you used one before? There is deflection; it's short throw. The more pressure you apply, the more it deflects. It's just more stiff than you're used to.

 

Look at the position of the trackpoint as you push on the side. Even on such a short axis there's clearly some throw distance, albeit superior to your digital sticks.

 

I've played kaboom on stella with the trackpoint many times. It's nowhere near as good as paddles, but it's clearly superior to using a digital joystick on the same game. The same is true of the xbox controller thumbstick that I use on the other PC.

Edited November 26, 2010 by RevEng

[potatohead]

Let me fix that for you:

 

IN YOUR OPINION, I'm fighting a losing battle.

 

Well, given I've written that code before, and had it behave as stated here, I think I'll pass on your opinion.

 

The key words here are: "which I don't see possible"

I didn't program those games that's why I wrote that. I played various donkey kongs (did some compare along with Miner 2049er and some other games). I did a thread on that here a few months ago. And the timing is off using analog joysticks. In fact, impossible to consistently repeat those moves like the jump I mentioned.

 

Let me fix that for you. YOU THINK, it's impossible to consistently repeat those moves...

[Cebus Capucinis]

You guys sure like joysticks. :ponder:

[potatohead]

PSA: (from your pal potatohead, aka "spud")

 

Everybody is biased. Everybody. There are no exceptions to this fact.

 

This is why you are required to show your data. You do have data right? Megabytes of it, as I recall you claiming.

 

So, where is it?

 

Without the data, you lose, period. That's just the hard truth of how these things work.

 

 

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

 

Thanks for admitting you're biased. At least that's better than saying what you have been saying before.

[potatohead]

@cebus: Ideally, the analog kind! Actually, my fave remains the paddle, but I too am wondering just how many 'outs' will be taken to avoid admitting a rather gross error.

 

Seriously considering a list! It would be very instructive in other contexts.

[potatohead]

Yep. Lucid for sure.

 

 

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

[Divya16]

Try playing missile command with a trackpoint vs. a digital joystick or a regular mouse. You'll see the difference. Now the throw distance is no longer the discussion but the pressure uncertainties. You were arguing the throw distance if you study this subject back a few messages. Now rather than admit your mistake, you want to use trackpoints and compare apples and oranges.

A trackpoint doesn't have zero throw. Have you used one before? There is deflection; it's short throw. The more pressure you apply, the more it deflects. It's just more stiff than you're used to.

 

Look at the position of the trackpoint as you push on the side. Even on such a short axis there's clearly some throw distance, albeit superior to your digital sticks.

 

I've played kaboom on stella with the trackpoint many times. It's nowhere near as good as paddles, but it's clearly superior to using a digital joystick on the same game. The same is true of the xbox controller thumbstick that I use on the other PC.

 

Pressure is the main issue with trackpoints not some microscopic movement of the trackpoint. You wouldn't compare the throw of a digital and analog joystick with throw of a trackpoint as a fair comparison. Pressure on an analog joystick and digital joysticks as being compared in this thread don't affect the motion.

 

Kaboom is a paddle game. It works good with a mouse and paddle. That's your speculation that it's clearly superior to digital joystick. Is your thumbstick pressure based or are you back to non-pressure based joysticks?

 

And FYI, theoretical analog joysticks were also being compared earlier to real digital joysticks if you read back a page or two. So it's quite possible to have some microswitches that trigger off directions on a digital joystick with minimized touch. No reason to make it analog and bring in the uncertainty of pressure.

[potatohead]

Why not?

 

With a small bit of code, that uncertainty goes away, leaving just some action resulting in a known state, that is by the way binary.

[RevEng]

Pressure is the main issue with trackpoints not some microscopic movement of the trackpoint.

No, its not microscopic. Its quite visible to the naked eye from a few feet away.

 

Considering the short axis, its pretty significant.

 

You wouldn't compare the throw of a digital and analog joystick with throw of a trackpoint as a fair comparison. Pressure on an analog joystick and digital joysticks as being compared in this thread don't affect the motion.

 

They don't? On a self-centering stick? Really?

 

Have you used an analog stick before?

 

Is your thumbstick pressure based or are you back to non-pressure based joysticks?

 

I'm still on self-centering analog sticks, which require varying degrees of pressure for different in-between positions.

 

But the xbox one isn't based around a strain gauge.

 

Amazing how its better at Kaboom. It's almost as if the label "superior controller" depends on the type of game being played!

Edited November 26, 2010 by RevEng

[potatohead]

Ahh... Qualifers! What beautiful things!

 

Funny how those work to make the difference between a statement of value, and... well, let's just leave that as a exercise for the reader.

 

 

 

 

Pressure is the main issue with trackpoints not some microscopic movement of the trackpoint.

No, its not microscopic. Its quite visible to the naked eye from a few feet away.

 

You wouldn't compare the throw of a digital and analog joystick with throw of a trackpoint as a fair comparison. Pressure on an analog joystick and digital joysticks as being compared in this thread don't affect the motion.

They don't? On a self-centering stick? Really?

 

Have you used an analog stick before?

 

Is your thumbstick pressure based or are you back to non-pressure based joysticks?

I'm still on self-centering analog sticks, which require varying degrees of pressure for different in-between positions.

 

But the xbox one isn't based around a pressure gauge.

 

Amazing how its better at Kaboom. It's almost as if the label "superior controller" depends on the type of game being played!

[Divya16]

 

They absolutely do know the state of their controls. Go ahead, ask a pilot how he manages to fly a plane with those yokes that offer him ZERO control. Try not to stare too open-mouthed when he explains it to you.

You only expose your ignorance by claiming ZERO control. I don't remember much of my calculus, but I can understand the logic that if you employ more and more states in your game/application, the less control you have over those states if using an analog joystick. This also applies to trackpoint (in case RevEng is throwing out throw).

 

but have not proven that it's a scientific fact. The only way to do that is to either cite sources that support it or present all the data from comprehensive experiments that support that claim. You've done neither. You've made a lot of excuses and you've released data for one game played three times by one person. That's not "all the data". Try again.

Go back and read your own definition of scientific fact that you cited and you will notice that the truth is not final. So it's better to prove logically/mathematically since then the truth will be final. As far as data goes, it does confirm digital joystick provide better control. When Newton was trying prove F=ma, there was no rule that he has to perform at least 1,743 thousand experiments. So what if you get data for 10 experiments or 100. The principle behind is true for all games that employ digital and analog joysticks.

 

...show how it matters. But since you haven't supported your claims and simply invoke "logic" to get around your lack of evidence I like to see how many excuses you can come up with for failing to do the one thing that would end this thread right now. I look forward to your latest excuses and claims that you already refuted this and already proved that with logic and it's so OBVIOUS. None of that is proof.

You got both experimental data and logic/mathematics. You understood neither. You never even opened those files as far as I know. You never even understood the ZERO control as you have proven above.

 

You absolutely can refute a vague statement. You refute it by pointing out that it's too vague to apply to anything specific and the originator of that vague, useless statement must be more specific in order to make his claim stick.

No you can't refute the vague statement but have to ask for clarification before you refute it. Regardless, you refuted it with something other than what you wrote above. And your point was vague and now you conveniently want to add useless to it. It was vague ONLY to you. It was clear to me. I am reading samething you read. You purposely try to find fault by misreading, mocking, and misinterpreting whereas I read with an unbiased mind.

 

Try refuting this:

 

Digital joysticks surpassed analog joysticks.

 

A joystick simulator obviously does not count as a game controller, it counts only as a simulator. I see faults because you spray them all over the place. Thus your claim that I'm getting emotional is merely projection. I'll email you a tissue.

You definitely are emotional. More of a fanboy of analog joysticks regardless of their obvious flaws of inexactness, uncertainty, and slower switch times. You would refute F=ma if Newton handed you the data if you were born thinking and following BLINDLY that F=m*pi*a/v(t).

 

No, I'm right (completely). You claimed to have "perfectly simulated" a real joystick using arrow keys. That is categorically false. A simulator must be as close as possible to the thing it is simulating. Arrow keys aren't joystick buttons or switches, they don't act the same way unless the joystick is built out of keyboard parts. Arrow keys can be pressed in combinations that a joystick cannot duplicate. And software emulation of a physical device in no way is a replacement for the physical device.

Let the world decide this for you as you are GROSSLY mistaken. A digital joystick is essentially switches much like a keyboard. In fact modern digital controllers with only buttons are not called keyboards. Only the lever helps with the force/diagonals which doesn't affect the resultant signals if you are used to using both. I am.

 

The above contradiction of P and NOT P stands and you just added another one to your list. If you are refuting that the joystick simulator cannot produce the same signals as a real joystick then you can't ask for data. Don't be duplicitous. It's one or the other. Stick to a position. I already described what the joystick simulator does and also were allowing you to use it. Once again, it can remap any input device to signals for the DB9 joystick port of A8 (also other machines but that's irrelevant here). You can take an analog joystick's input and map it to DB9 signals for digital joystick. You can take a digital joystick's input and map it to DB9 signals for digital joystick. You can take CTRL/ARROW/Spacebar keys and map them to DB9 signals for A8 joystick. Etc. Etc.

 

Aw, another excuse to try to get people to agree that you don't have to release all the data to support your claim so you can get out of admitting you don't actually have "megabytes" of data? Fault again.

 

Of course I can ask for data from your joystick simulator even though it cannot produce the same signals as a real joystick. It's the only way to demonstrate to you that you gathered a bunch of worthless data. But of course you won't allow that to happen so you will avoid presenting that data at all costs. As you are doing right now.

You are the one making excuses here because you didn't want to admit that you contradicted yourself. If you already know the data is worthless then just say that for the data presented and don't ask for anymore. That way the entire body of people following this thread know that you aren't a duplicitous two-timer.

 

You are wrong. I never said I was discussing analog controllers in general with digital controllers in general. In the beginning of this thread, I wrote that construction make a big difference. If I wanted to get to say 100 states out of a steering wheel, the probability is much higher to get at the right state than it is with an analog joystick. That example of steering wheel/paddles is in the first post.

 

Who cares what you said you were discussing, by including a non-joystick in your poll (arrow keys) you opened the discussion to controllers other than digital and analog joysticks. You allowed the discussion to widen beyond your precious digital and analog joysticks with that mistake. Another fault.

You are really not understanding nor trying. The poll and experiment can be WHATEVER you want it to be. If I experiment with trackball and a paddle, I have no requirement to include other controllers. You need some help with how experiments work. Hardly any games exist that will allow you to use paddles, digital joystick, analog joystick, and keyboard. There's a major overlap on the 3 items in the poll. How you can't understand that it beyond me. You need some help. The only reason you want to bring paddles into it is because YOU LOST. You need help of paddles since they offer better accuracy and precision than your flawed analog controllers. Live with it. It's the truth. You were mislead.

 

I was arguing against arrow keys because they're not joysticks and you are the one crying about people (like me) including non-joystick controllers in this discussion. You should have followed your own advice and not mentioned arrow keys in your poll. Too late now. Another fault.

You don't know how to perform an experiment is YOUR fault. And it's not "another" regardless since you already repeated it a few times already. You are again GROSSLY mistaken here. I can experiment with just arrow keys and analog joystick if I wanted to. Who is to say no?

 

You can stick to whatever you like, doesn't change the fact that you included a non-joystick game controller (arrow keys) in this discussion by allowing them as a 3rd choice in the poll that is included in this discussion. You cannot break your own rule and then not allow others to as well. Arrow keys are legal in a discussion about digital vs. analog joysticks? Then so are paddles. Aww, man!

Then so re foot pedals, and so are real yolks. And so are flight cockpits. And so are those pressure based weight scales. Duh! What logic.

 

What do you mean "if"? You mean you don't know?!?

You also don't know logic. If you give an answer taking all possibilities into account, it means YOU DO KNOW. Duh. The answer is generic not only for you analog joystick but for all. Take this example:

 

If it's morning, take the kids to school (private or public).

If it's evening, take the kids to park.

If it's afternoon, take the kids out from school.

If it's night, put the kids to bed.

 

Oh, no, I used the word "if" that means I don't know anything about my kids.

 

Prove it. Present the parameters of these experiments that generated the data that applies to all three types of controllers. And, obviously, present all the megabytes of data along with the parameters. Money is on you making a new excuse for why you don't have to release anything.

First make up your mind and stop with the double standards.

 

You are not fooling anyone repeating your mistaken views. Analog joysticks are flawed. Nobody would be going digital if analog was providing superior control. Only reason they still use some analog controllers is because digital equivalents have never been built.

[potatohead]

"That way the entire body of people following this thread know that you aren't a duplicitous two-timer."

 

Yeah?

 

Well, by my home score, he handed your ass to you, big. I don't think he's "a duplicitous two-timer", which rules out "the entire body", now doesn't it?

 

When other people know the data is worthless, the entire premise built upon it becomes worthless too!

 

This is why it's a must to see the data, and know the method by which is was created. You've put your whole assertion into question, and have been avoiding that nasty bit the entire time! Now, it's highly likely you have no data, just pulled it outta your ass, got caught big, and are now working double over time to chewbacca your way clear.

 

Won't happen on this thread, with this crowd.

 

"flawed" What controller isn't? LOL!!

 

Personally, I think you just can't use the things, and are invoking all of this to avoid having to face your own personal limitations.

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

Pressure is the main issue with trackpoints not some microscopic movement of the trackpoint.

No, its not microscopic. Its quite visible to the naked eye from a few feet away.

 

Considering the short axis, its pretty significant.

 

You wouldn't compare the throw of a digital and analog joystick with throw of a trackpoint as a fair comparison. Pressure on an analog joystick and digital joysticks as being compared in this thread don't affect the motion.

 

They don't? On a self-centering stick? Really?

 

Have you used an analog stick before?

Do you really know what I wrote? If I take an analog joystick (take the Gravis one for example), its the distance that changes the value not the pressure on the stick. To prove it, just hold the stick in place with one hand and press against it with the other. There's no pressure controls involved.

 

Is your thumbstick pressure based or are you back to non-pressure based joysticks?

 

I'm still on self-centering analog sticks, which require varying degrees of pressure for different in-between positions.

Wrong. you are mixing pressure with throw. Pressure-based is different from throw-based. We were discussing throw-based. Pressure based also has its flaws, but I don't want to mix up the two and compare apples and oranges.

 

Amazing how its better at Kaboom. It's almost as if the label "superior controller" depends on the type of game being played!

No, it was answered several times already. There's no digital paddle available. I have played kaboom with analog joystick and paddles, and paddles clearly wins here. I don't have any digital joystick version of kaboom but given it's control is similar to breakout, I would say neither analog joystick nor digital joystick does the job. Mouse and paddles do work better than both.

[Divya16]

Ahh... Qualifers! What beautiful things!

I'm glad you saw that. He is mixing throw-based with pressure based. He needs to qualify and stick to his position.

[ledzep]

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.

 

Hahaha, that's exactly what the rest of us have been saying to you and aprioriksi!

 

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.

 

Yup, word for word. Of course you or he could silence all the critics. You have both claimed to have run experiments and gathered data that proves this digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks idea. Yet neither of you will do the scientifically correct thing and present the parameters of these supposed experiments along with all the data generated. Why?

 

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.

 

Really. Accepted by what "many"? Because all I see is you and aprioriksi. If you mean some site that has done what you cannot and actually run experiments that prove that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks then do us all a favor and provide the link. If you mean you know who these "many" are then tell us, we're dying to know.

 

And, again, what you wrote is word for word what we've been saying to you about many people preferring analog joysticks and scoring higher when using them.

 

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.

 

You really should hire an editor before you cut the knees out of your own position like that.

 

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.

 

No one is interested in deriving a conclusion from incomplete data when aprioriksi and you have both claimed to be in possession of all the data from your individual experiments. Why make people try to divine the results based off of a few samples of data instead of simply releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiments? Are they really that bad that you don't want anyone to see?

 

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.

 

Wrong again. If you reread your own words from Post #206 you will see that I am completely qualified to perform the experiment -

 

"@ledzep: have you ever driven a truck? I guess not so that disqualifies you from performing a controlled experiment with analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks."

 

Whoops! I have driven a truck so if anyone involved in this thread is qualified it's definitely me, haahahaa.

 

And, yet again, the same words apply to you and the guy who admits he hates analog joysticks (Post #82) -

 

You have to be unbiased to perform the experiment.

 

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.

 

What, exactly, is the control group for your experiment? And where is the experimental group, hmmmm? The scientific method, which you claimed to have followed - learn it, live it, actually follow it.

 

I am not the one claiming to have conducted experiments and to have generated "megabytes" of data to support the erroneous claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Neither am I the one who claimed that it was a scientific fact yet failed to show that it has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true (damn those mean ol' scientific definitions). That's you and aprioriksi. It's on you to present the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated once you have stated that you actually ran experiments.

 

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.

 

I can't see the experimental data because you and aprioriksi haven't released that data yet. Yes, I'm a fanatic about people actually backing up their claims, I expect people who claim to have run experiments to describe in detail the specifics of those experiments (how they were run, who participated, what gear was used, how the data was generated, etc.) and I expect people who claim to have data that proves their position to present that data for the rest of us to examine. Neither of you have satisfied those requirements.

 

You are a hypocrite. While claiming to have experimental proof for your side you refuse to allow anyone to examine it.

 

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.

 

This thread is all the data you need to see that I'm right and you're wrong. You and aprioriksi are one side, everyone else who has pointed out the multitude of errors in what you and aprioriksi have claimed are on the other. All you have to do is run the experiment yourself to see that I'm right. I already did but I will follow your lead and claim I have the data while not releasing it to you. Cool, huh?

 

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.

 

Oh it certainly is the claim. Maybe you should read the whole thread. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming people haven't read all the posts and you get upset by that?

 

His quote from Post #87 -

 

"I repeated the experiment and so have many others who have played the same games on A5200/PC/Atari 8-bit using analog joysticks and digital joysticks."

 

Until he proves that many others have repeated his experiments it is anecdotal. I can just as easily claim that I have run experiments that prove the analog joysticks provide better control and also so have many others and you would have to agree with me because you expect me to agree with aprioriksi based simply on his word. No way am I doing that without the data and hearing from these "many others" who have repeated the experiment. Maybe one of those imaginary supporters can actually describe the parameters of the experiment and present the data generated, huh?

 

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.

 

I got a better idea. You go gather up all the data you claim to have generated and present it here. While you're at it, describe the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and tell us who participated in it, who were in the control and experimental groups, what games were played, what joysticks were used, how the data was generated, etc. You know, the scientific method you claim to understand and follow.

 

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.

 

I have control of analog joysticks' states. I've run experiments that prove it. Megabytes of data, in fact. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.

 

Boy, that was really easy to claim! I can see why you two ignore requests for confirmation and proof and instead just keep making empty claims, it's much less work.

 

What was clear about the BASIC program that aprioriksi presented is that he doesn't know how to program for an analog joystick as a controller for a game that only requires signals for cardinal positions (Pac-Man type games). You know, the only thing a digital joystick can output. There is no reason for him to care about any values other than the cardinal positions so his BASIC program should filter for that. Someone else on this thread provided that very programming logic and aprioriksi ignored it as have you.

 

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

 

That simplistic bit of BASIC code was his, not some gaming company's. I looked at the screenshots. Wow, very pretty. They represent nothing besides the probability that aprioriksi has copies of those pictures. Those screenshots, by themselves, fail to prove -

 

( 1 ) that they were taken on his TV and/or at his place,

( 2 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were part of his experiment,

( 3 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were using analog joysticks,

( 4 ) that they were taken during the data gathering portion of his experiment,

 

He could tell us tomorrow that those screenshots were actually taken by someone he knows who lives in another city while someone else was playing those games with digital joysticks and we couldn't tell if he was telling the truth or not because there is no way to verify any of the parameters using just those screenshots. It is impossible to know the specific circumstances without seeing all the data. Which he will never, ever release.

 

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.

 

Aprioriksi has already stated that he doesn't feel the need to release the "megabytes" of data because he doesn't think I'll understand it. That means he actually has all the data and that he won't allow others to look it over. He doesn't get to decide what amount of "enough data" he needs to provide. In order to prove his claim that he ran experiments and that he generated "megabytes" of data from them he has to release all of it. Not some, not half, not "enough", but all of it. He has up to now refused to do that. It is you who is living in a bubble so long as you support his view that he can make claims about having data yet not release it all along with the parameters of his experiments (which, as you obviously haven't figured out by now, is part of "all the data").

 

I can't see the data until he provides it. He hasn't provided it so guess what can't be seen.

 

I am not opposing the data, I am opposing your and aprioriksi's assertions that small snippets of the data is sufficient. It isn't, not by a long shot. He only sticks to that because the alternative is admitting he doesn't actually have the data to present. I'm not demanding MORE data, I'm demanding ALL THE DATA. Because that's what is required. All of it.

 

I argue against equating arrow keys with joysticks and equating joystick simulators with actual joysticks. I argue against substituting inadequate replacements for the actual, easily-acquired joysticks that aprioriksi initially claimed he had included in his experiments.

 

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.

 

I keep repeatedly pointing out your repeated mistakes. The JFK reference was a joke, aprioriksi was updating us as to why he might not be answering some posts quickly because he had to go there, like anybody other than you would care. The only thing in this discussion that I think is important is for you and aprioriksi to stop merely stating that you've run experiments and generated data and get to presenting all the data and describing the specifics of these experiments. Only then can you expect anyone else to run the experiments themselves, only then can you hope to have anyone agree with your findings. Until you do that it's nothing but lies.

 

"I've run experiments and have data that proves I'm right."

 

"Oh really? Then tell us about the experiments and show us the data that proves your position."

 

"I don't have to, logic is good enough. It's so obvious."

 

Which equals you never conducted any experiments and you never generated any data. Why make false claims like that?

[potatohead]

Ahh... Qualifers! What beautiful things!

I'm glad you saw that. He is mixing throw-based with pressure based. He needs to qualify and stick to his position.

 

Oh no you don't! That was directed at you and Atariski, because I see you as one physical person, until I'm shown proof otherwise. Failure to qualify general statements and assertion of value judgements as facts, along with failure to demonstrate data, are the issues at hand here.

 

Quite simply, you are defending a losing position. Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

I won't comment on "throw based" vs "pressure based", just because that entertainment doesn't hold a lot of value for me. Others may however!

[Divya16]

First, someone who claims to have run a controlled experiment and collected data for that experiment is required to present the details of the experiment along with the data gathered.

I pictures I posted and explained is also DATA. I could have put it in hex. The REC files are also data. I can present more of the same but you haven't made up your mind whether you want to argue against the data genearted by the joystick simulator or want more of it. If latter, then you first need to understand the REC files and images given.

 

It is not on anyone to understand the data, it is on you to present all the data after you claim to have run experiments that have generated data that proves your position. Just because most people might not understand the data that a particle physics experiment generated, that does not absolve the scientist of the responsibility of releasing the parameters of his experiment along with all the data that that experiment generated. Otherwise no one will take him seriously. Sound familiar?

You know what sounds familiar is that you aren't accepting even the data that has been presented. I wouldn't want to present any data to you given your biased emotional duplicitous behavior. If you think data is worthless, prove it for the data given and you don't need to ask for any more. You will have a harder job proving data is worthless if you had megabytes of it. He made your job easier.

 

Pictures of screen grabs might be considered data if it was accompanied by all the rest of the data that you generated. But releasing a few examples is definitely not the same as releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiment. Not by a long shot.

It's so obvious those pictures are valid data. Let me help you out. For Miner 2049er example, you will have higher failure rate if you keep making those jumps in Miner 2049er with analog joystick when compared with digital joystick. That's data. The exact numbers don't matter if you want to prove digital joystick provides better control than analog joysticks. If the claim was digital joysticks provide 23.7% better control than analog joysticks then you can ask for megabytes of data to come to that figure. But we just want to prove: digital joystick control > analog joystick control.

 

You are the one saying you have the data from experiments that prove that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks yet you won't release all that data to demonstrate it. It would be like if you were the algebra teacher allowing students to see only 5 pages from the algebra book yet still expecting the students to learn algebra. What kind of crappy teacher would you be in that case?

No, by pinpointing the places where there's higher failure rate for analog joysticks, you reduce the data down and make it simpler. So algebra is a prerequisite for calculus would be correct. If you were given the entire megabytes of the data, you wouldn't even know what to look for.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

You don't see the data. I do.

You don't see the data. I do.

you don't see the data. I do.

You don't see the data. I do.

 

What a difference experience makes of having played those games compared to someone just blindly speculating his brains out.

[Divya16]

Ahh... Qualifers! What beautiful things!

I'm glad you saw that. He is mixing throw-based with pressure based. He needs to qualify and stick to his position.

 

Quite simply, you are defending a losing position. Nothing has changed in that regard.

 

I won't comment on "throw based" vs "pressure based", just because that entertainment doesn't hold a lot of value for me. Others may however!

 

You replied to RevEng so I presumed you were talking to him. I already answered that to you regarding the topic. It's a complete sentence; no qualifiers are missing. Digital joystick provide better control than analog joysticks. It's better than a scientific fact. Scientific facts can be refuted as Einstein did with Newton's. This is an undeniable truth now that logic/mathematics has gotten involved.

[potatohead]

LOL!!!

 

I've got data that says you and Atariski are one and the same physical person, but you've challenged that assertion, so I can't trust you with the remainder, until you prove to me the sample you have now is, in fact, worthless!

 

And I'm sitting on one hell of a pile of data too. Can't release it to just anybody you know. Some chump might just say it's bad data, and where would we be then?

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[potatohead]

I would go ask Atariski about complete sentences. He's got trouble with those. Anyway, whether or not it's a complete sentence has nothing to do with the necessary qualifiers. You have a VALUE JUDGMENT in there. Those need qualification, because they are subjective, not scientific.

 

Sorry, that's a loser on form alone.

 

"better" = loser, as "better" is subjective, and needs to be qualified before it has any real authority.

 

Oh, and another safety tip from your buddy potatohead. Having answered incorrectly doesn't carry any authority. It is, in fact, better to simply NOT answer, rather than dig the hole deeper. What you did was re-assert something already asserted, where that thing was simply not authoritative. It does not help to continue this. Additional information is required to support the assertion, not simple repetition.

 

Are you somehow implying that most of us are stupid? Need to hear it a lot of times? FOX news does that you know. They just say shit over and over, until the chumps believe it.

 

Treating us like chumps doesn't deal with the problem, though it might feel good. I would cop to that. Been there. No worries.

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

"That way the entire body of people following this thread know that you aren't a duplicitous two-timer."

 

Yeah?

 

Well, by my home score, he handed your ass to you, big. I don't think he's "a duplicitous two-timer", which rules out "the entire body", now doesn't it?

It doesn't matter what he is. It doesn't matter if you think the sun rises in the West. The logic is undeniable that he's a two timer. He has argued that Atariksi cannot use the data from the joystick simulator. He was given data (posts #114, 137, and some others) and he wants more. Well that's P and -P. He needs to accept that data and then ask for more or at least not argue against it.

 

Keep the cursing down as it doesn't help your case. I'll stop replying to you otherwise.