Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Mirage]

Well, about 5% is crap

What? No use of bullcrap this time?

 

LOL! He's so predictable that when his behavior varies slightly, it really stands out, doesn't it.

 

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.

 

It said something about him true that hurt, and he didn't want to re-visit it. Denial.

[Mirage]

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

We'll see how long that lasts.

 

He is "done with" anyone who won't get sucked into his little mindjerk game of pseudo-logic bullcrap. He can't understand that there is nothing left to debate on his original topic until he starts to make sense.

 

When a normal person runs into a situation where every last person (aside from his pseudonym) disagrees with them, they stop and re-evaluate the possibility that their assertion is incorrect. Or that they are being misunderstood, or are communicating improperly. Atariski doesn't. To him, everyone else is just obviously wrong. He can't even comprehend that his wrongness has nothing to do with the original assertion, but everything to do with his logic and methods. To him, the answer is simply that everyone else in the world is stupid and ignorant and can't read! Muy loco and narcissistic to the extreme.

 

Continue to feed the troll. Its persistence is amusing.

[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.

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.

So, I point our your reply was a personal attack.

You claim it's not and I'm framing you.

You were off topic in the first place with "you can't read", and I'm not allowed to point out why it was a personal attack.

And it's my fault.

What planet are you from?

 

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.

So you admit you can't read? (see followup below)

 

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.

Ok... look at message 1150. I proved you wrong and you didn't even reply, yet you claim I took the slapdown? I can find more insults in the other thread as further proof if you still want to mouth off.

 

"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.

If that can't be considered an insult then neither can implications about your mental state because you have clearly demonstrated irrational and delusional behavior... or you are the worlds most persistent troll. And you misread, misquote, misrepresent, ignore, (insert long list here), all the time. See the list that potatohead posted regarding your tactics.

 

"You misread" would be temporary... notice past tense referring to the incident that took place in the past. "You can't read" is present tense. This is taught in grade school English. Either you chose present tense as an insult and are now trying to cover up for it... or maybe English is your 2nd language.

 

 

There are several things in this thread we have learned about you atariksi/Divya16. Lets examine those so we can evaluate your reliability as a source for information since your entire argument depends on that.

 

1. We learned that you use a sockpuppet to support your arguments to leave the appearance that your argument is supported by other people. Would that make you a liar, a fraud, or both?

 

2. When you signed up for the account for the sockpuppet, you stated the sex as female... but for your regular account you list male. So, which is the lie? Either the female part is a lie, or atariksi has no balls.

 

3. When you were banned from the other thread for personal attacks, you ignored the ban and posted in the thread anyway by using the sockpuppet. No respect for others, rules, or authority perhaps?

 

4. You stated that you did not make personal attacks in that other thread, and you said you read the entire thread, it wasn't true, and that I was trying to frame you. But I proved you wrong. Either you lied or you can't read.

 

5. Someone that knew you said you misrepresented yourself to get hundreds of dollars worth of hardware free. Look up the definition of fraud. You know fraud is a crime right? Isn't committing a crime grounds for dismissal from your position in spite of tenure?

 

<sarcasm>That sounds real trustworthy.</sarcasm>

 

Like I said before... zero credibility.

[Mirage]

 

3. When you were banned from the other thread for personal attacks, you ignored the ban and posted in the thread anyway by using the sockpuppet. No respect for others, rules, or authority perhaps?

 

 

Oh, I can field this one for atariski! The authority in question who banned him can't read, cannot comprehend simple logic, and framed him, so therefore, since atariski is correct on all counts, it's logically permissible for him to circumvent the ban.

 

That was easy.

 

And I vote no balls.

[atariksi]

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.

I'll answer this. You are twisting things like you have done before in this thread. Tapping works great. You don't know how to use a digital joystick that's all or pretending not to know how to use a digital joystick. It's much worse to assume you are at a certain heading and rely on feedback. Tapping is done in many games and does NOT require feedback once you are used to it. I use tapping in Miner 2049er, Donkey Kong, and many others to move a pixel or two. I do the same thing in Pole Position.

 

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.

100% wrong. I can tap the joystick in Pole position and other games without relying on feedback. And you are misreading her statement: she wrote: "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." I.e., you can also use feedback with a digital joystick as well. But no need to given you have 100% control over the state. For complex maneuvers with timing, you can rely on feedback as well.

 

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.

 

Wrong. You have no experience with gaming with digital joysticks. "A priori" relates to the BASIC experiment I posted earlier where you can guess the state of the joystick 100% of the time and much less for the analog joystick. You can put a percentage on it but I am only concerned with an inequality that for analog joystick <100% and for digital joystick it's 100%. Knowing the states a priori is MUCH BETTER control than relying on feedback. Feedback is optional if you use a digital joystick. And you have misunderstood if you want to pick between "a priori" and "experimentation". Those are not in clash. Yes, a controller controls and digital one is a BETTER controller. I recall that you are the one who was asking about the BASIC experiment and how to conduct it. Why don't you try it out or accept the result that digital joystick provides 100% control for the user. Analog joystick is crippled and inexact and useless. If you didn't have feedback, it's a piece of trash. Relying on feedback is no credit to the controller. It's like helping a blind man cross the street.

[Mirage]

Wrong. You have no experience with gaming with digital joysticks.

 

Yes, someone into retrogaming on a site called AtariAge would obviously not have any experience gaming with digital joysticks.

 

That's totally logical.

[ApolloBoy]

Wrong. You have no experience with gaming with digital joysticks.

WTF? You're saying this on an Atari message board?! Do you even realize what you're saying? I think everyone on here has played games with digital joysticks.

[Mirage]

Analog joystick is crippled and inexact and useless.

 

Blanket statement without qualification. Useless to what end and under what circumstances?

 

It's too easy to find logical flaws with this guy's statements without even trying. I salute those of you who have the patience to write the long logical analyses because there's a never ending stream of material to refute!

[Mirage]

Wrong. You have no experience with gaming with digital joysticks.

WTF? You're saying this on an Atari message board?! Do you even realize what you're saying? I think everyone on here has played games with digital joysticks.

 

Ha ha, see how quickly we both spotted that one!? This guy is a basket case.

[+5-11under]

SkiAtari,

 

I don't think I said that tapping doesn't work great. It does. So does moving an analog joystick to certain position.

 

You're pretty much always relying on feedback, regardless of what joystick you're using... unless you close your eyes (and ears).

 

A priori has several meanings. Who uses these phrases, anyway? It can mean to know something without needing to experiment. That's what I was guessing. It can also be an argument without a logical basis. This must be what you mean.

 

And, finally, to answer your question, yes I indeed have used a digital joystick. There's one case closed, at least.

[JamesD]

I salute those of you who have the patience to write the long logical explanations, because there's a never ending stream of material to refute!

Not sure if I'm included in that list or not, but I don't have the time for this any more. Those explanations take time and it can be exhausting. This guy must not have anything better to do outside of class.

[atariksi]

SkiAtari,

 

I don't think I said that tapping doesn't work great. It does. So does moving an analog joystick to certain position.

Thanks for admitting it since you wrote "it sounds bad". It's more exact than an analog joystick.

 

You're pretty much always relying on feedback, regardless of what joystick you're using... unless you close your eyes (and ears).

But the feedback of finding out what you did with your joystick is different from looking to see what the game is doing. You have to distinguish that. I gave the example of rotary phone vs. analog joystick earlier in the thread to distinguish that.

 

A priori has several meanings. Who uses these phrases, anyway? It can mean to know something without needing to experiment. That's what I was guessing. It can also be an argument without a logical basis. This must be what you mean.

Wrong guess. That's not how to tell the meaning by randomly looking up various meanings in a dictionary. A word's meaning depends on the context. And if you read the thread, it means beforehand. I.e., doesn't involve relying on feedback in going by context.

 

And, finally, to answer your question, yes I indeed have used a digital joystick. There's one case closed, at least.

 

Not used, but used to using a digital joystick. There's a difference.

[JamesD]

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

 

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

The advantage of this approach is that you can easily configure the throw length and center to suit the player/joystick.

Something that is rarely done on any 8 bit let alone the 5200.

It could make all the difference when it comes to response time on a twitch game.

 

If I were to use this approach I'd actually use a table for each axis and use lower bits for one axis and higher bits for the other. You bitwise or them or add them.

30 J=A(JOYSTICK(0)) + B(JOYSTICK(1))

Then you have one value that represents both axises.

Edited December 17, 2010 by JamesD

[Mirage]

Not used, but used to using a digital joystick. There's a difference.

 

That's not what you said. You said "You have no experience with gaming with digital joysticks." If you parse your sentence, and comprehend your own writing, you will clearly see that that's not what you said. You cannot read.

[atariksi]

As a reminder, a rotary phone (like a paddle) you dial the number with the circle and don't need to wait for feedback to determine which number you dialed. So you know what you did "a priori". For an analog joystick to try to map to this phone dialing, you need to move to a position from 0..9 which is uncertain unless there's some feedback to tell you what number you state (or number in this case) you hit. The latter is inferior control.

[JamesD]

As a reminder, a rotary phone (like a paddle) you dial the number with the circle and don't need to wait for feedback to determine which number you dialed. So you know what you did "a priori". For an analog joystick to try to map to this phone dialing, you need to move to a position from 0..9 which is uncertain unless there's some feedback to tell you what number you state (or number in this case) you hit. The latter is inferior control.

You need to move anywhere within the range. No exactness is required. Already addressed, already refuted.

 

In the case of the rotary phone, you have to identify the location before you turn the dial. The feedback is visual or tactile when you search for that number, only after finding the number can you rotate the dial until you reach the stopper without the need for additional feedback. Therefore your statement that you don't need to wait for feedback is false because the feedback is at the beginning, before you even move it.

[jaybird3rd]

All right, I'm officially bailing out of this thread. I can think of at least a half dozen issues I can raise about AtariSki/Diva16's reasoning and analysis skills, and his decidedly unimpressive "scientific research" and methods of "experimentation," but pointing them out seems to be an exercise in futility. I've got better things to do.

[Mirage]

All right, I'm officially bailing out of this thread. I can think of at least a half dozen issues I can raise about AtariSki's reasoning and analysis skills, and his decidedly unimpressive "scientific research" and methods of "experimentation," but pointing them out seems to be an exercise in futility. I've got better things to do.

 

I agree. It's only entertaining for so long. Now, it's just futile and a waste of time.

 

I hope everyone will just stop feeding this troll. Here and elsewhere. Then he will go away and stop wasting our time.

 

Adios.

[+5-11under]

All right, I'm officially bailing out of this thread. I can think of at least a half dozen issues I can raise about AtariSki's reasoning and analysis skills, and his decidedly unimpressive "scientific research" and methods of "experimentation," but pointing them out seems to be an exercise in futility. I've got better things to do.

 

I agree. It's only entertaining for so long. Now, it's just futile and a waste of time.

 

I hope everyone will just stop feeding this troll. Here and elsewhere. Then he will go away and stop wasting our time.

 

Adios.

Agreed.

Ciao

[atariksi]

All right, I'm officially bailing out of this thread. I can think of at least a half dozen issues I can raise about AtariSki's reasoning and analysis skills, and his decidedly unimpressive "scientific research" and methods of "experimentation," but pointing them out seems to be an exercise in futility. I've got better things to do.

 

I agree. It's only entertaining for so long. Now, it's just futile and a waste of time.

 

I hope everyone will just stop feeding this troll. Here and elsewhere. Then he will go away and stop wasting our time.

 

Adios.

Agreed.

Ciao

 

Thanks to all trolls for leaving; I think I need more intellectuals than trolls here anyway. I don't mean you since you were one of the people I respected and spend the time replying to. To finish that point, yes joystick tapping is an exact science once you get used to it. If you had that experience, you wouldn't have said "it sounds bad". It's better than moving an analog joystick to some uncertain position. And the Pole Position game is an analog-type game that was also made for digital joysticks. And it works just fine as most of the time you are going extremes anyway and for that exact motion of going between two cars that joystick tap works miracles. I have played both the analog and digital interfaced versions of the game. I can tell you there's uncertainty of how much the car is moving when I use the analog joystick EVEN AFTER feedback unless I go extreme.

[ApolloBoy]

Thanks to all trolls for leaving; I think I need more intellectuals than trolls here anyway.

And the most ironic statement of the year goes to...

[potatohead]

notsurewhoheisski said: "A priori" relates to the BASIC experiment I posted earlier where you can guess the state of the joystick 100% of the time and much less for the analog joystick.

 

And I wrote a basic program that duplicates that perfectly with a analog controller.

 

FAIL

 

Re: Leaving.

 

Yeah, notwillingtoadmitfaultski wants that, so he can wait it all out, then post up some garbage that frames it as a win. Won't work this time. Not at all.

 

It's gonna come down to fault, or a thread lock. Nothing else will be permitted. Trust me on that.

Edited December 17, 2010 by potatohead

[+Stephen]

Thanks to all trolls for leaving; I think I need more intellectuals than trolls here anyway.

And the most ironic statement of the year goes to...

If his IQ was 1/4 of his ego and arrogance he'd put Stephen Hawking to shame! I would love him to teach me. I want to truly believe I am all knowing and infallible. Maybe he could teach me double (female) personalities as well. Everyone tells me I have girl's hair.

[JamesD]

Thanks to all trolls for leaving; I think I need more intellectuals than trolls here anyway.

And the most ironic statement of the year goes to...

"You messed up in understanding."

[JamesD]

I can say that I've learned something today. I had always thought atariksi was a cool hacker and stood up for him back in the day, when people gossiped about his appearance or beliefs. Seeing him here try to "edit the matrix" to assert moral and technical dominance over me puts an end to all that.

I didn't really pay attention to this the first time I read it, but I think that tells us a lot.

For one, I think it rules out trolling. He really is like this in person.