Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

Major points: Analog joysticks have regions of uncertainty which lead to less control. Analog joysticks have longer throw (and need to have longer throw) than digital joysticks which lead to less control. The experiments with the games confirm that there's higher failure rate in areas of the game due to analog joystick usage but not when using digital joysticks.

Okay, I'll take a stab at that. Your premise, "Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks," is an ambiguous statement. It doesn't address such questions as:

 

"Better" for whom?

"Better" in what sense?

"Better" for what purpose?

Like duh! You missed the subject and lot of othert things: better for control. It's perfectly clear for those who read post #1. It doesn't matter for whom as it's not a subjective thing just as "the sun rises in the east." I suggest you read some of the thread as the points you brought up were addressed already, but you selectively quote things from the thread yet do not address the refutations. I'm not trying to address your points, but just pointing out your erroneous biased approach in your post like the following:

 

"You've also failed to address the relative skills of the player(s) involved. Have they never used an analog joystick before? Have they used nothing but analog joysticks? "

 

This was just addressed with Jetset/Atariksi.

 

It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it

No it isn't, and I think I just did. Next?

 

See it's people like you that cause the thread to get bigger. You made the SAME EXACT points that were refuted already. Let's see if he's willing to repeat it for due to your lazy reading skills.

[Mirage]

 

P.S. And post 858 is absolutely the truth. Just because you don't have the self-awareness to see it doesn't make it any less true.

 

You are caught in your bubble. You are speaking only drivel. Some envious snake like proven by atariksi in the Atari 5200 forum. Maybe out for revenge without anything to back up your statements. It's a waste of time to even address your garbage. Do us a favor and start your own topic as ALL of your comments are unrelated, incoherent, and irrelevant to this topic. You are completely inept at even understanding the simplest point. I'm done with you for good.

 

Good! Then I can just admire your garbage and useless driven from afar! Yes, YOU. Atariksi/Divya16, one and the same. Envious snake out for revenge LOL, you are too rich. Further proving my point about how unaware of your own self you are.

 

By arguing all your points over and over with everyone in this thread disagreeing with you and your statements, you are stating that everyone else is stupid. That everyone else has no comprehension of logic. You are delusional and conceited to the extreme.

 

I cannot believe I keep feeding you, troll. Normally I don't. But with you, it's just so entertaining. You are the biggest troll I have ever witnessed, and I am truly honored that you disagree with me, are done with me, and cannot understand my simple points. If you did understand me, then there would definitely be something messed up about MY logic!

 

Have a nice time trying to get through life with your attitude, buddy!

 

P.S. - I've already explained why there is no need to back up my statements and why it would be pointless to do so. So much for your reading comprehension skills.

[Charlie_]

Atariski's*

*Yes, I know it's atariksi.

 

I like Atariski* better.

[Divya16]

Divya, it's true... the results of your "experiment" will only be valid for:

 

1. You

AND

2. The specific joystick(s) you select

AND

3. Likely the specific game(s) you select

 

Change one condition, and the results could change. F=ma this isn't.

 

Have a different person, under the exact same conditions play a game... get different results.

Exactly time the drop of a feather under the exact same conditions... get the same results.

 

I'd actually call it a "study" or something else (depending on what meaning you attach to these words), because under the same conditions, others would get different results.

It just proves your only support is you.

Sample size = 1

Hi Atariksi,

 

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

 

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

 

Exactly, to make a valid scientific study you'd need hundreds of random samples (test subjects) as well as many, many examples of different digital and analog joysticks/gamepads AND games with an even selection of digital and analog specific intended controls as well as some others that might be more of a gray area.

You wrote "exactly" but he didn't say anything about hundreds of test subjects. Perhaps, you want to revise that. I know scientist(s) who study bee behaviour and they don't need hundreds of scientists-- just one sometimes two or three. Maybe you meant number of games not test subjects. The experiment can be repeated by others but for one scientist to perform the experiment or two doesn't make the experiment invalid.

[JamesD]

No, I said that to you and to him in this very thread. If you misread or don't know how to read properly (in haste maybe), then it's NOT a personal attack to tell someone "you can't read." Don't distort things or frame people to think it's a personal attack.

So you get to decide what is or is not a personal attack?

It seems pretty obvious to everyone else that:

1. It is not related to what we are discussing, joysticks.

2. It is an insult directly aimed at another forum member.

 

Do we really need to revisit the slapdown you took in the late 500's from this thread?

You know, where you said you read the entire other thread and I posted the link that refuted your statement.

By your own logic that would mean that YOU can't read. And not in a small way. That was only the first post the search turned up, there was a long list.

 

Like I said before, no framing required. If you post it, you should be man enough to take your punishment instead of blaming everyone else for "framing" you. But oh wait, the persona you are using doesn't have a pair, but then...

 

atariksi, what is the point of having a sockpuppet if you don't even avoid using your most common phrases and insults? Biggest fail ever.

[+5-11under]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

[+5-11under]

Divya, it's true... the results of your "experiment" will only be valid for:

 

1. You

AND

2. The specific joystick(s) you select

AND

3. Likely the specific game(s) you select

 

Change one condition, and the results could change. F=ma this isn't.

 

Have a different person, under the exact same conditions play a game... get different results.

Exactly time the drop of a feather under the exact same conditions... get the same results.

 

I'd actually call it a "study" or something else (depending on what meaning you attach to these words), because under the same conditions, others would get different results.

It just proves your only support is you.

Sample size = 1

Hi Atariksi,

 

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

 

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

 

Exactly, to make a valid scientific study you'd need hundreds of random samples (test subjects) as well as many, many examples of different digital and analog joysticks/gamepads AND games with an even selection of digital and analog specific intended controls as well as some others that might be more of a gray area.

You wrote "exactly" but he didn't say anything about hundreds of test subjects. Perhaps, you want to revise that. I know scientist(s) who study bee behaviour and they don't need hundreds of scientists-- just one sometimes two or three. Maybe you meant number of games not test subjects. The experiment can be repeated by others but for one scientist to perform the experiment or two doesn't make the experiment invalid.

 

No, it just makes the results of the experiment invalid outside of the original scope. The point is that a successful experiment should be able to be repeatable, by another scientist for example, and get the same results. "Your" experiment is not repeatable in the same way.

-6under

[+Stephen]

All you did was spew out what you THINK and shove the facts under the rug as if they didn't exist. All experiments are ONLY PROVEN for the person performing the experiment. *** Endless drivel snipped ***

Then please pray tell why you seem to feel that YOUR results apply to everyone else? Why does your supposed hundreds of megs of (picture) data supposed to make us bow down to you and say "You are correct - analog sticks are better"?

 

You have really been contradicting yourself a lot lately.

 

I never said "analog sticks are better". I have no idea where you read that. The experiment shows that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

Check this out, it will be a new thing for you. I made a mistake - I meant to say "digital sticks are better" (which you keep thrusting on us). Unlike you, I can admit when I am wrong.

 

Why do you still refuse to address the fact that you believe YOUR results apply to everyone else? You certainly don't feel that way when anybody else here posts conflicting evidence.

[Divya16]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

[Divya16]

Divya, it's true... the results of your "experiment" will only be valid for:

 

1. You

AND

2. The specific joystick(s) you select

AND

3. Likely the specific game(s) you select

 

Change one condition, and the results could change. F=ma this isn't.

 

Have a different person, under the exact same conditions play a game... get different results.

Exactly time the drop of a feather under the exact same conditions... get the same results.

 

I'd actually call it a "study" or something else (depending on what meaning you attach to these words), because under the same conditions, others would get different results.

It just proves your only support is you.

Sample size = 1

Hi Atariksi,

 

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

 

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

 

Exactly, to make a valid scientific study you'd need hundreds of random samples (test subjects) as well as many, many examples of different digital and analog joysticks/gamepads AND games with an even selection of digital and analog specific intended controls as well as some others that might be more of a gray area.

You wrote "exactly" but he didn't say anything about hundreds of test subjects. Perhaps, you want to revise that. I know scientist(s) who study bee behaviour and they don't need hundreds of scientists-- just one sometimes two or three. Maybe you meant number of games not test subjects. The experiment can be repeated by others but for one scientist to perform the experiment or two doesn't make the experiment invalid.

 

No, it just makes the results of the experiment invalid outside of the original scope. The point is that a successful experiment should be able to be repeatable, by another scientist for example, and get the same results. "Your" experiment is not repeatable in the same way.

-6under

 

The experiment is repeatable by anyone. Anyone who plays those games with a digital joystick and analog joystick will find that digital joystick provides better control. I don't see anything to indicate that results would be different. Only if you purposely mess up or don't know how to use those joysticks will there be some subjectivity or bias in the experiment. And the joysticks used are in the picture in post #1. You can even adjust those Gravis for tightness, self-centering, and calibration which is not always an option for analog joysticks.

[JamesD]

I know scientist(s) who study bee behaviour and they don't need hundreds of scientists-- just one sometimes two or three.

But what they publish is a study and they aren't going around saying "It's a scientific fact! I proved it!" They propose an experiment, gather data, perform analysis of the data, and then publish the results. If another researcher wants to duplicate the experiment, the study should include enough details so that it can be redone and the researcher can request information from the original scientist(s). If another researcher wants to do additional analysis on the original data, the data is usually provided for that purpose as a courtesy. Any new published material based on that data must credit the original researcher(s). What they observed in the study is not considered a scientific fact until it is recognized as such within the scientific community. And even then it will probably be called a theory if the math cannot be 100% verified or if it is subjective. But then I believe that was already stated back in the first 3 or so pages of this topic.

 

One researcher (I'm guessing he had assistants) did identify the bacterium that causes peptic ulcers, debunking generations of "it's stress". But the scientific community rejected the idea until he gave himself the bacterium, he actually got very sick, he got ulcers, and then he took anti-biotics and got rid of the ulcers. When other researchers were able to verify the anti-biotics cured other people's ulcers then it became accepted as fact. However, it is also recognized that not all ulcers are caused by the bacterium. The scientist that made the discovery was awarded the Nobel prize, but other people had to verify the results.

 

One serious problem (one of many) with your experiment, is that other people have posted instances of where your blanket hypothesis is wrong and you just ignore them. Once evidence is presented that disproves your theory, especially from multiple sources, it would never be considered a scientific fact. Adjust your hypothesis to reflect the instances where it is not true and there may be some agreement. Otherwise you will never get anywhere no matter how much you argue.

 

Maybe you meant number of games not test subjects.

In the case of the bees, the scientist is an observer. In your experiment, you are a participant and your direct actions impact the outcome. Unless you have a larger number of test subjects, the results would only be true for you... and for the games/joystick/systems you tested for that matter. Which has already been stated repeatedly.

 

The experiment can be repeated by others but for one scientist to perform the experiment or two doesn't make the experiment invalid.

Incomplete would be a better word. Unless you address the sample size issue with participants, joysticks, games... basically everything people have been saying... it is just an isolated observation and in no way represents a complete study of the subject matter. As such it is not a scientific fact and you did not prove it.

And given the instances provided where the hypothesis would be wrong, you would need to adjust your hypothesis anyway.

[JamesD]

Well, about 5% is crap

What? No use of bullcrap this time?

 

and that's from people like Mirage and few others who just write things unrelated to the topic. Treat that stuff as a mirage (illusion) as if it doesn't exist since it has no meaning or relevance to the topic. I try to sum up my points everytime I repeat myself in arguing with someone and that was as recently as posts 820..825.

If you are going to refer to posts by number, right click on the post number, copy the direct link to the post and embed the link in your new post. It's not that hard to do.

 

Major points: Analog joysticks have regions of uncertainty which lead to less control.

And you have posted what proof of this?

 

Some facts...

1. The analog component of the joystick always returns a value that relates to the joystick's position. There are no places where the joystick returns an value that would result in a large error in reading the joystick's position.

2. There are a large number of values representing joystick position along each axis. If there is a minor variance between returning position 45 and 46 on one axis depending on the position along the opposite axis, it is indistinguishable by the person holding the joystick do to the resolution involved. The variance is small.

3. Games made for digital joysticks do range checking. Any value less that a certain number or greater than a number will indicate a joystick is left, up, down, right, or centered. Any number within a range is determined to be a specific state for that axis. (This is the lookup table I mentioned when you claimed it was hard to program for analog joysticks) There is no uncertainty. Anywhere past a certain point is interpreted as a state change.

 

Analog joysticks have longer throw (and need to have longer throw) than digital joysticks which lead to less control.

You have leaped from longer throw to less control in a single bound. You didn't even qualify it as for games designed for digital joysticks. Try connecting a digital joystick in place of an analog one and try flying a plain in a flight simulator. Talk about less control!

And then there is my reference to Doubleback which you keep ignoring.

 

The other problem with this argument is that the software determines how far you need to throw the joystick before it considers the joystick to be in a given state. This is a function of the software, not the hardware. The analog joystick may allow you to throw further but you only need to throw it as far as the game requires. A game could actually be configured to respond to a very short throw before the state is altered. You do not have to move the joystick completely to minimum or maximum positions for a game to determine a digital state.

 

Here is a small example. On the Tandy CoCo, the joysticks had 64 values. To interpret them as a digital joystick position you could do something like this:

10 DIM A(64):DIM B(3):FOR I=0 TO 63:READ A(I):NEXTI:FOR I=0 TO 5:READ B(I):NEXT I
20 X=A(JOYSTICK(0)):Y=A(JOYSTICK(1))
30 PRINT @0,"X=";B(X),"Y=";B(Y+3);"      "
60 GOTO 20

1000 DATA 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1010 DATA 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1
1020 DATA 1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
1030 DATA 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
1040 DATA "LEFT", "CENTER", "RIGHT", "UP", "CENTER", "DOWN"

 

This reads the left joystick and converts the input to a digital state... in this case in the form of a string. This could very easily be a bit pattern for each axis that when ORed together results in a value that could be tested with a CASE (C language) type block of code.

 

Altering the size and position of the area with 1's determines throw and configures where the joystick is centered.

The larger the area of 1's in the table, the longer the throw you need. The smaller the area, the shorter the throw.

 

The experiments with the games confirm that there's higher failure rate in areas of the game due to analog joystick usage but not when using digital joysticks.

And you jump back you your subjective experiment, based on games designed for digital joysticks, with only one test subject, and after hundreds of posts you still have no real answer to satisfy questions about your experiment.

So that statement carries no weight whatsoever.

[potatohead]

Nice visual program way to illustrate analog! I see a controller map! Cool!

 

(prolly, comparisons are faster, but that's nicely arranged)

 

For reference, here's sweetsixteenski's first post:

 

Digital joysticks provide better control than Analog joysticks. They are easier from programming point of view since you only read on/off states for the directions and fire button(s). They are easier to use-- you don't have to worry about in-between states-- whether you have pressed sufficiently in a particular direction. Instant change in direction. I accept there are few games that can do better with the analogicity as in Paddle type games like Super Breakout or car racing where you need a steering wheel. I have played hundreds of games using both types of joysticks and always get better results with Digital joystick. Leaving out subjectivity like "I like the looks of the analog one", "I'm more used to the analog one", or "That one looks like my neighbor or reminds me of old times" please select in an objective manner according to your own experience with both. I will provide more arguments as needed and later.

 

It's worth highlighting this:

 

I will provide more arguments as needed and later.

 

That hasn't happened. All of the info in that post is not properly qualified, and the topic of control is mixed up with ease of programming, and "instant" ignores the time to move the digital stick, so that's really instant+movement time.

 

Not to mention this just isn't scientific, at all. The only qualifier that makes any sense is the rough attempt to factor out preference from control, "reminds me of old times". Credit for that, but it's only partial credit, given the mess above.

[+5-11under]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

[potatohead]

But you forgot a priori!!

 

Jesus man! With a digital stick, you can just wiggle it around, playing the game with no feedback at all!

[jaybird3rd]

Like duh! You missed the subject and lot of othert things: better for control.

Well, obviously, but control of what? Every game? Certain types of games? Does "better" mean faster, more precise, or what? If you're going to be making "scientific statements," you need to be specific.

 

 

It's perfectly clear for those who read post #1. It doesn't matter for whom as it's not a subjective thing just as "the sun rises in the east." I suggest you read some of the thread as the points you brought up were addressed already, but you selectively quote things from the thread yet do not address the refutations. I'm not trying to address your points, but just pointing out your erroneous biased approach in your post like the following:

 

...

 

See it's people like you that cause the thread to get bigger. You made the SAME EXACT points that were refuted already. Let's see if he's willing to repeat it for due to your lazy reading skills.

"For whom" certainly does matter, as people who are already accustomed to using an analog joystick will naturally find it easier to use than those who are not. But even your assumption that "it doesn't matter for whom" is something that has to be proven before you can call the statement that depends on it a "scientific fact." Where is the data that proves it?

 

I didn't see any effective refutations of the points I brought up (including in post #1); just more arbitrary assertions. If the refutations are so obvious, why don't you just restate them, since you didn't make yourself clear enough the first time? And what did I "selectively quote?" I quoted AtariSki's (or should I say your) entire "summary" and responded to it.

 

What about my points about the importance of documentation and experimental verification, a standard that your "scientific statement" fails to meet? Have you "refuted" those as well?

[Divya16]

No, I said that to you and to him in this very thread. If you misread or don't know how to read properly (in haste maybe), then it's NOT a personal attack to tell someone "you can't read." Don't distort things or frame people to think it's a personal attack.

So you get to decide what is or is not a personal attack?

It seems pretty obvious to everyone else that:

1. It is not related to what we are discussing, joysticks.

And that's your fault since you brought this up. Secondly, that point is itself unrelated to personal attack which is being discussed currently with you.

 

2. It is an insult directly aimed at another forum member.

If you think telling someone "you can't read" when he factually misreads or can't read is a personal attack then you can't read.

 

Do we really need to revisit the slapdown you took in the late 500's from this thread?

You can't read. You took the slapdown. "You can't read" cannot be claimed to be a personal attack. First of all there are people out there who can't read. Secondly, there are people who misread things or skip around in haste where "you can't read" applies temporarily.

[Divya16]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

 

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

[+5-11under]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

 

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

 

After doing a bit of research (checking one web site ), it looks like Pole Position takes advantage of the analog controller, to allow better control of your vehicle. If this is true, it's even better. Now you can perform shallow turns to get between vehicles and the side of the road, rather than jerkingly pulsing the joystick between full left or right and straight. Yes, you'll have to adjust the "steering" position if you're not going straight when you want to, but that's life - try something, observe results, try something else. After some training, we can usually skip a few steps in the process, because we have a good idea of where the first "try" should be. Feedback is very natural. It's not too different when using a digital joystick - the timing usually just ends up being more important. Take a corner/turn/bend in Pole Position for example. Analog: find the appropriate position that will turn you the rate you're looking for. Adjust as required. Digital: find the appropriate timing of pulses in one direction. Adjust as required. Both work. Both are valid in games. What's easier, more preferable, more enjoyable, or closer to reality, is a question each of us can answer on our own.

[Divya16]

Like duh! You missed the subject and lot of othert things: better for control.

Well, obviously, but control of what? Every game? Certain types of games? Does "better" mean faster, more precise, or what? If you're going to be making "scientific statements," you need to be specific.

Better control means superior control like examples were given earlier of controlling audio in digitized format vs. using some analog tape recorders. Faster also plays a part since that relates to the throw. Obviously, if you want to move Mario on the screen to avoid a barrel or jump on, the longer the delay the worse your control. And obviously, if your Mario starts moving before you press the trigger, you have inferior control of the jumps because of uncertainty of the state of the joystick. You have no control of the state of the joystick is the main theme whereas you know the state of the digital joystick a priori.

 

It's perfectly clear for those who read post #1. It doesn't matter for whom as it's not a subjective thing just as "the sun rises in the east." I suggest you read some of the thread as the points you brought up were addressed already, but you selectively quote things from the thread yet do not address the refutations. I'm not trying to address your points, but just pointing out your erroneous biased approach in your post like the following:

 

...

 

See it's people like you that cause the thread to get bigger. You made the SAME EXACT points that were refuted already. Let's see if he's willing to repeat it for due to your lazy reading skills.

"For whom" certainly does matter, as people who are already accustomed to using an analog joystick will naturally find it easier to use than those who are not. But even your assumption that "it doesn't matter for whom" is something that has to be proven before you can call the statement that depends on it a "scientific fact." Where is the data that proves it?

You mean data like in post #114. For whom doesn't matter since it's a controlled experiment. That's where the F=ma analogy came in. If Newton proves it for various forces, masses, and accelerations then it should work equally well for other people doing the experiment.

 

I didn't see any effective refutations of the points I brought up (including in post #1); just more arbitrary assertions. If the refutations are so obvious, why don't you just restate them, since you didn't make yourself clear enough the first time? And what did I "selectively quote?" I quoted AtariSki's (or should I say your) entire "summary" and responded to it.

Those are not arbitrary assertions. Those items in the summary are two things that are TRUE statements. You were making the arbitrary assertions regarding not knowing the scientific method but it seems by bringing in that the person makes the difference, you don't even understand what the target of the experiment is. I didn't bother refuting them since they were recently refuted in this thread so I left it to him if he felt like refuting them again.

 

What about my points about the importance of documentation and experimental verification, a standard that your "scientific statement" fails to meet? Have you "refuted" those as well?

 

The experimental data was posted in this thread and the description of how the experiment was performed.

[Divya16]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

 

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

 

After doing a bit of research (checking one web site ), it looks like Pole Position takes advantage of the analog controller, to allow better control of your vehicle. If this is true, it's even better. Now you can perform shallow turns to get between vehicles and the side of the road, rather than jerkingly pulsing the joystick between full left or right and straight. Yes, you'll have to adjust the "steering" position if you're not going straight when you want to, but that's life - try something, observe results, try something else. After some training, we can usually skip a few steps in the process, because we have a good idea of where the first "try" should be. Feedback is very natural. It's not too different when using a digital joystick - the timing usually just ends up being more important. Take a corner/turn/bend in Pole Position for example. Analog: find the appropriate position that will turn you the rate you're looking for. Adjust as required. Digital: find the appropriate timing of pulses in one direction. Adjust as required. Both work. Both are valid in games. What's easier, more preferable, more enjoyable, or closer to reality, is a question each of us can answer on our own.

 

Perhaps, you should have done the research before you starting debating the issue. The analog joystick is NOT giving you better control. It relies on feedback. It's like saying a poor man is also rich because he currently happens to be living with a rich man (i.e., he can rely on feedback). Say something about the analog joystick itself. That's what I was speaking about which you didn't even address. And it's not jerkingly left or right with digital either. If you want to rely on feedback, you can do the same thing with a digital joystick and currently you can tap the joystick to go a few degrees rather than all the way. You need to do some more research. Feedback may be natural for some games but it's inferior to knowing the state of the joystick a priori. If that isn't obvious to you, it's no sense in proceeding any further. They both work but the analog joystick has uncertainty and longer throw and thus you do not have 100% control like the digital joystick gives.

[+5-11under]

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

 

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

 

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

 

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

 

After doing a bit of research (checking one web site ), it looks like Pole Position takes advantage of the analog controller, to allow better control of your vehicle. If this is true, it's even better. Now you can perform shallow turns to get between vehicles and the side of the road, rather than jerkingly pulsing the joystick between full left or right and straight. Yes, you'll have to adjust the "steering" position if you're not going straight when you want to, but that's life - try something, observe results, try something else. After some training, we can usually skip a few steps in the process, because we have a good idea of where the first "try" should be. Feedback is very natural. It's not too different when using a digital joystick - the timing usually just ends up being more important. Take a corner/turn/bend in Pole Position for example. Analog: find the appropriate position that will turn you the rate you're looking for. Adjust as required. Digital: find the appropriate timing of pulses in one direction. Adjust as required. Both work. Both are valid in games. What's easier, more preferable, more enjoyable, or closer to reality, is a question each of us can answer on our own.

 

Perhaps, you should have done the research before you starting debating the issue. The analog joystick is NOT giving you better control. It relies on feedback. It's like saying a poor man is also rich because he currently happens to be living with a rich man (i.e., he can rely on feedback). Say something about the analog joystick itself. That's what I was speaking about which you didn't even address. And it's not jerkingly left or right with digital either. If you want to rely on feedback, you can do the same thing with a digital joystick and currently you can tap the joystick to go a few degrees rather than all the way. You need to do some more research. Feedback may be natural for some games but it's inferior to knowing the state of the joystick a priori. If that isn't obvious to you, it's no sense in proceeding any further. They both work but the analog joystick has uncertainty and longer throw and thus you do not have 100% control like the digital joystick gives.

Tapping/jerking, it's all the same. That sounds really bad.

Sure, maybe you can know exactly the status of the joystick with digital, but you still need to determine the tapping time - how long to keep it in position, and how long between taps. How do you do this? With feedback, that's how. You look at the screen, and react accordingly, to make your car go around the bend. Not turning sharp enough, as viewed on the screen: hold the tap longer, and/or with less time between taps. Turning too sharp, as viewed on the screen: don't tap as long, and/or have more time between taps. You're relying on feedback from the screen, as you should. Very similar case, as I've described above, with analog - instead of fine-tuning the timing the taps, you just need to fine-tune the position of the joystick.

I think it's unnatural to speak of "100% control", as if an analog joystick gives you 0% or some other percentage, like 50% control. It's a CONTROLler. It controls. Also, what's up with this a priori business, and research, all together. Pick one or the other, not both. Do you think it's a priori, or is experimentation required?

Anyway, the point is, your digital joystick also relies on feedback, and your example of Pole Position fits quite nicely.

[potatohead]

You need to do some more research. Feedback may be natural for some games but it's inferior to knowing the state of the joystick a priori. If that isn't obvious to you, it's no sense in proceeding any further. They both work but the analog joystick has uncertainty and longer throw and thus you do not have 100% control like the digital joystick gives.

 

 

Translation: I've made my case, and despite the fact that nobody actually buys it, you are at fault for not agreeing with me.

 

LOL!!!

 

FAIL.

[Bryan]

Tapping/jerking, it's all the same. That sounds really bad.

...and all anyone's been doing for the past 30 pages.

[ApolloBoy]

You are completely inept at even understanding the simplest point. I'm done with you for good.

We'll see how long that lasts.