Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

 

It's a fact. You know the state of the digital joystick a priori but not for the analog joystick. And the rotary phone example is example of where a priori information is needed. If you relied on the feedback, that would mean hearing those pulse tone sounds on the line and seeing if you got them right. Else redial entire number.

[potatohead]

Did you run the short Atari basic program above, that I wrote?

 

It works with a analog device, just as the one neverreallysurewhoIamtalkingtoski wrote, including this a priori bit, being tossed around.

 

The output of that program is 0 for center, and one state each for the 8 directions, and it is completely possible for the user to know the state in advance of a input. All the user needs to do is move it, like they would a digital one. They can slam it, just tap it, nudge in and out of the direction states, and all manner of things, with exactly 9 states output.

 

REFUTED

 

Is the other persona really necessary? Seriously?

 

Come on. Give it up. There are not that many options you know. Basically you are pinned on this one, big. Everybody knows it.

Edited December 18, 2010 by potatohead

[potatohead]

(needs break from Propeller analog code)

 

So, Atariski... I like that you know lots of Atari stuff. That's why most of us are here. I like Ataris too, and in fact have one on my bench, and the old 400 on display, along with a nice new Tandy Model 100 on display in my office, as fun curios. You would be surprised how many Atarians there are out there. They will pick that thing up, and you can see it! They remember, and almost have some fun story to tell. Hell, that's worth having the machine right there. Everybody wonders at the keyboard and the lines of the design. Very striking machine. Iconic really.

 

...then again, maybe not! We are all about that age now.

 

Back in the day, it was great to enjoy the 8 bit wars. I personally missed out on a lot of the 16 bit wars, trapped in PC land, thinking all was lost, until we got APOGEE games. Then came WOLF3D! It was, and is, so impressive! A 3d FPS, that really feels classic, but I digress.

 

Today, it's over man, unless you want to come join the micro scene. It's heating up between AVR, Propeller, others. Funny actually. Some things never change. (If you do, please leave the other persona here, where I think it's accepted enough to be viable --not gonna be true outside this nice forum)

 

One other thing about micro land, is being able to build up ports, video, and other things, retro style, with some kick! Want a single read digital port? Do it! Want to do analog, or maybe a Wii style motion controller? Do it! Fun stuff, and retro is relevant because of the scale. Love it personally. The funny thing about that is the old school way of doing things still packs a punch on the newer micros, often making the difference between the possible and not possible... And I digress again.

 

Fun times then, and fun times today!! All we've got is the old machines, programs left behind, and ourselves to rock on this stuff. If it's not us, then it's probably nobody, but a few nerds, who see it for what it all is.

 

Why burn the fun so damn badly? Is it inability to let go? Nothing fun in the modern world? (feel for you there, if true, because I tend to feel the same way often) Looking for a sand box to play in, where the other kids really aren't competing? Need that illusion of authority? What?

 

From what I can tell, we've a good crowd here, and elsewhere! A bit quirky, but hey! That kind of comes with the hobby, I suppose. Seems universally true for me. Most retro fans I know will put up with a lot, because the common love for the pixels kind of runs beneath the politics and other differences we all may have. My theory on that is the tie back to being kids, where most of us would set nearly anything aside for a day of fun. Were you actually there? Did you have that experience? If so, why not think back on that, and remember... That is what it is all about man!

 

You could make a lot of friends fast, almost be a hero, for a bit of humility that's healthy for anyone you know. Doesn't take much. Just, "OK, It's opinion! I really like the digital controls, because..." and that's perfectly human, and more than acceptable!!

 

Hell, we all like what we like, and that's why we are here! Doesn't need to be science. Doesn't need to be proven, and in fact, the secret is, having it not be proven, because there lies the end game, stale, over.

 

The story is what counts here. Many years, still some new things happening, and that puts a little spark in some old stuff, connecting us to happy days long past. Fighting on that is like fighting age. You won't win. Nobody does.

 

Maybe it's all jaded for you, with only the spark of battle bringing the real joy. If so, I really feel for you, because that's just not cool. It's old, dead, and worn, tired, and hollow. Honestly, that's why I'm writing this.

 

Know what makes my day?

 

Seeing a new project, or being able to share some of this stuff, like when I take the Atari to the office, set it up, and come back to see some people playing KABOOM, or Space Invaders. (everybody loves Space Invaders) Or, when the kids, who are all getting to be adults now, ask for the stuff, and we set it up for a few hours escape from all that we face.

 

Got the CoCo setup right now, with it's analog, just because I've not wired something to the Atari yet. So, I'll type in some BASIC and play a little, remembering what it was like at 14, looking at the screen, learning, and just enjoying the wonder of a little machine, where I can get at the pixels, and maybe make it do a little of what I want on that there TV.

 

That never gets old man. When I travel, I carry around the Prop, with a battery, capture card, and in the evenings move sprites, make sounds, and just learn stuff and do things. Maybe play a few retro style games, or run a emulation. Happy days!

 

Now I did say I was here because I just really don't roll well with such a facade as this. That's true, but down deep, I also realized I'm actually curious, morbidly so, as to WHY? What does one get out of this kind of thing that is worth the cost of it?

 

Maybe you are locked in, solidified, unable to break the mold. That's understandable, if somewhat sad. Hope not. Lots of folks here to have fun with, if you can break outta that mental prison you've built over the years. Just so you know.

 

Tell me why at least. Honestly, not a personal attack, just why. Maybe doing that helps some, and if it does, I'll take it, because the point of it is to have the fun on the retro tech.

 

...or withdraw your challenge. No need to admit fault. Just step away, go and think it all over, and maybe go have some fun, no harm, no foul. You did ask for it you know. That's always fun, until it isn't. Is it still fun? If not, that's human too. Let us know.

Edited December 18, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

If you side with a troll, then you can also be labeled as a troll. I am only comparing analog joysticks with digital joysticks. Yes, if there's no digital version of flight controls the current set up would provide the best control available.

 

Thumb sticks was refuted as well earlier. If you expect the user to come to a complete stop without relying on the PCB (going extreme) to try to shorten the throw then that's still inferior to a digital joystick. In a digital joystick, not only do you have the easier control of hitting the extreme but you come to a stop immediately whereas in a thumb stick you have to come to a stop. A car hitting a brick wall traveling distance d compared to the same car coming to a stop before hitting a brick wall. Which one travels distance d faster? Also, the bigger level also helps the digital joystick compared to a thumb stick. A thumb has less force as well compared to using the full hand/wrist.

 

Point #3 you made is clearly false if you think all games require feedback for their controllers in order to figure out what the controller did. The rotary phone example shows how a priori is superior to waiting for feedback.

Hardly ad admission - "if there's no digital version" then the analog flight stick is the best. Find any flight sim on a modern console and play it with a digital 8-way stick then any analog controller and tell me which gives less control. Hitting any extreme on the controller will not make for a steady flight. And fast tapping the controller doesn't count. By your own standards that would require looking at the screen to get feedback. No a priori knowledge there.

 

With regards to the rotary phone. How can you have a priori knowledge about what number will be dialed before looking at the number you want? Unless you memorize every position on the dial and hit it with your eyes closed. And if you are capable of that, it is the same thing as memorizing the position of an analog stick.

 

Try a bit harder next time.

 

In a rotary phone vs. an analog joystick, you don't know the state of the analog joystick in selecting the number before you hit trigger or something to dial that number. In a rotary phone, you spin the dial for the number so no need to wait for some feedback. You are also looking at the analog joystick, but there's no way to tell what state it's in. That's not the feedback, the feedback is after you dial do you know what you dialed a priori? You don't. It's uncertain.

 

If you rely on feedback, you can have flight simulation controls with a digital joystick. They already exist. I think what he was talking about was the REAL flight controls in an airplane which don't have any digital equivalent.

 

@appolloboy: if you side with a criminal in a crime, you are an accomplice. Same logic. Oops, I forget, you don't know logic.

 

On another note, the mechanism used for a rotary phone is much like a 1-bit digital/serial/pulse mechanism... as such you can quite literally "dial" by tapping out the correct number of pulses manually or using a digital device to output 1-bit clicks to the analog audio line. (rotary phones use 1=1, 2=2, etc up to 10=0)

 

Although it's set up to output the pulses, still the human's interface is via an analog paddle type of input using in-between states that has better control than an analog joystick would using its in-between states which would be uncertain.

 

Just as you can't write any software to make that analog joystick equivalent to the rotary phone, similarly for all those games mentioned like DK, pac-man, etc. you can't do any software that produces the same results as the digital joystick. Anyone thinking such has no experience with these games nor knows the technical details. They are deluded.

[+5-11under]

Hey Potatohead,

 

I agree with you fully in your last post, #978. I, too, am working on some technical projects. I've got a Prop, too, but haven't worked with it yet (it was meant for a project, but that fell through). I'll probably start by building the propalyzer. Tomorrow is my family's Christmas get-together. I'm bringing the ColecoVision, with a multicart, component to VGA adapter, and an LCD monitor (nice as compact/light). I'm looking forward to seeing them play my games and of course some of the classics; it should be lots of fun.

 

Yes, I'm back, at least for a bit... I reserve the right to be inconsistent, change my mind, etc.

 

Have fun.

[kool kitty89]

You look at both the joystick and the phone. The feedback referred to is to find out what number you dialed. Imageine the analog joystick is hooked up to a phone device, you hold the joystick in some state on an axis and maybe press the trigger to register the number. This is inferior control than using the rotary system since you need feedback for the analog joystick to decide which number you pressed. Don't mix it with other feedbacks-- just for the dialing is what the device was implemented to do.

If that's the case (dialing only), then we will restrict this conversation to paddle controllers, because they operate in the same manner as a phone dial. In this case, you could have the numbers painted on the dial. Same as phone, same control. You said WAY back in this thread that paddle controllers offer better control for games like breakout.

 

Therefore, your comparison of an analog joystick to a rotary dial phone is both null&void, and refuted.

Actually no, you couldn't do that because a phone dial has finite values... it's rotary, but only for rotation and has a very limited and fixed number of output values and more or less a digital mechanism (it's really analog, but in the context of this conversation it's "digital" and could be interpreted as 1-bit serial digital data by a computer in any case).

 

With a phone dial you've got a mechanism that produces a series of clicks (generated by a single switch) with finite values... a mechanism marked with numbers that denote the position needed to be reached to output the necessary number of clicks. (you can indeed simulate the dial by tapping out digits manually -using the hook switch (rather than the dial switch -but both create similar clicks). That can even be done with most corded touch tone phones as well.

 

 

Now, if you wanted a controller with such definite states, you'd need a switch based one with definite positions spaced accordingly with a corresponding plate marked with the positions and a restrictor mechanism to "click" each position into place. Of course, you could easily have such a dial with the 8-bit precision (or higher) used for many potentiometer based devises (including the atari dials used for paddle games), and as such I already described numerous digital mechanisms that provide "analog" control (that is, high precision and thus "analog" from the average programmer's standpoint, but not a hardware one).

 

The problem with doing that with real potentiometers is that there aren't definite states in hardware: you have a true analog signal converted to digital, and calibration will vary... though you could probably make a design accurate/consistent enough to manage that at least at low resolution, but not the full 8-bit precision. (you could probably at least do 16 consistent states with printed numbers/markers on the dial rim as such with a similar restrictor "clicking" the dial into place)

OTOH, you could easily get definite values by having a numeric display on the screen (or, more useful for the average person, a bar/line displaying the digital position values of the respective analog axes), and in that sense, you wouldn't have to play by "feel" or look down at the controller... you only have to observe the screen as you do for all video (or vector graphic) games regardless of the control mechanism. (you need visual -and sometimes audio- feedback to play ALL such games, but the way you respond to that feedback/on-screen action will vary depending on the controller mechanism or even the specific controller form factor used -or the game itself, including sloppy/loose/laggy/slippery programming where you have to compensate a bit by staying a step ahead of the game -not an analog/digital related problem, but a general control/game design one)

 

Of course, you could also have all-digital rotary mechanisms that wouldn't be useful as a phone dial marked type thing either, as they're not position sensitive per se, or rather they don't track a fixed position, but track rotation/movement in general (technically real rotary phones do that too, but they have an end plate restrictor and spring mechanism, not free rotation). That's the case with track balls/mice, and you could easily have a dial that did that as well (and there are such devices as well as joysticks that use similar mechanisms). Actually, I think the Atari Driving controllers may use such a digital mechanism, but I'm not sure. (they could, but they may also be using analog instead -you could ue either for mice as well, of course, but analog mice weren't all that common -Tandy used them iirc)

One such case for digital dials configured as such, would be the knobs on most modern stereo/surround sound systems/amps and some remote controls with similar wheels (I think it was more common with late VHS decks for the latter, but I don't think that's the only case). Sometimes they're speed sensitive too (like a mouse), but others it's similarly rotational motion oriented. (ie with speed sensitiveity you would get a higher input value/change than for the same rotation position -like a computer mouse, but with rotational position/motion tracking alone, you get a fixed position shift per angle/rotation change no matter how fast you turn the dial)

[potatohead]

@5-11, yeah funny thing about the Props. It's been fun to build up older-school video and controller action, then work with the SPIN language to make it all go. It runs about as fast as Batari Basic does, just for perspective! That means, hard stuff can go assembly language, with most everything else in a fairly high level, clean language. Love that combination. It feels very retro to me, a lot like writing BASIC programs around the Atari chips, and some assembly language helpers.

 

Deffo have fun.

 

@kool_kitty, the driving controller appears to be a digital encoder. It outputs grey code with a 45 degree angular change / per bit resolution. Pretty coarse actually.

 

Given this whole state discussion, the driving controllers are probably worth some thought. There really isn't anything like them out there, though they would be easily emulated. INDY 500 really has a great feel because of how that all maps out.

 

 

 

 

You look at both the joystick and the phone. The feedback referred to is to find out what number you dialed. Imageine the analog joystick is hooked up to a phone device, you hold the joystick in some state on an axis and maybe press the trigger to register the number. This is inferior control than using the rotary system since you need feedback for the analog joystick to decide which number you pressed. Don't mix it with other feedbacks-- just for the dialing is what the device was implemented to do.

If that's the case (dialing only), then we will restrict this conversation to paddle controllers, because they operate in the same manner as a phone dial. In this case, you could have the numbers painted on the dial. Same as phone, same control. You said WAY back in this thread that paddle controllers offer better control for games like breakout.

 

Therefore, your comparison of an analog joystick to a rotary dial phone is both null&void, and refuted.

Actually no, you couldn't do that because a phone dial has finite values... it's rotary, but only for rotation and has a very limited and fixed number of output values and more or less a digital mechanism (it's really analog, but in the context of this conversation it's "digital" and could be interpreted as 1-bit serial digital data by a computer in any case).

 

With a phone dial you've got a mechanism that produces a series of clicks (generated by a single switch) with finite values... a mechanism marked with numbers that denote the position needed to be reached to output the necessary number of clicks. (you can indeed simulate the dial by tapping out digits manually -using the hook switch (rather than the dial switch -but both create similar clicks). That can even be done with most corded touch tone phones as well.

 

 

Now, if you wanted a controller with such definite states, you'd need a switch based one with definite positions spaced accordingly with a corresponding plate marked with the positions and a restrictor mechanism to "click" each position into place. Of course, you could easily have such a dial with the 8-bit precision (or higher) used for many potentiometer based devises (including the atari dials used for paddle games), and as such I already described numerous digital mechanisms that provide "analog" control (that is, high precision and thus "analog" from the average programmer's standpoint, but not a hardware one).

 

The problem with doing that with real potentiometers is that there aren't definite states in hardware: you have a true analog signal converted to digital, and calibration will vary... though you could probably make a design accurate/consistent enough to manage that at least at low resolution, but not the full 8-bit precision. (you could probably at least do 16 consistent states with printed numbers/markers on the dial rim as such with a similar restrictor "clicking" the dial into place)

OTOH, you could easily get definite values by having a numeric display on the screen (or, more useful for the average person, a bar/line displaying the digital position values of the respective analog axes), and in that sense, you wouldn't have to play by "feel" or look down at the controller... you only have to observe the screen as you do for all video (or vector graphic) games regardless of the control mechanism. (you need visual -and sometimes audio- feedback to play ALL such games, but the way you respond to that feedback/on-screen action will vary depending on the controller mechanism or even the specific controller form factor used -or the game itself, including sloppy/loose/laggy/slippery programming where you have to compensate a bit by staying a step ahead of the game -not an analog/digital related problem, but a general control/game design one)

 

Of course, you could also have all-digital rotary mechanisms that wouldn't be useful as a phone dial marked type thing either, as they're not position sensitive per se, or rather they don't track a fixed position, but track rotation/movement in general (technically real rotary phones do that too, but they have an end plate restrictor and spring mechanism, not free rotation). That's the case with track balls/mice, and you could easily have a dial that did that as well (and there are such devices as well as joysticks that use similar mechanisms). Actually, I think the Atari Driving controllers may use such a digital mechanism, but I'm not sure. (they could, but they may also be using analog instead -you could ue either for mice as well, of course, but analog mice weren't all that common -Tandy used them iirc)

One such case for digital dials configured as such, would be the knobs on most modern stereo/surround sound systems/amps and some remote controls with similar wheels (I think it was more common with late VHS decks for the latter, but I don't think that's the only case). Sometimes they're speed sensitive too (like a mouse), but others it's similarly rotational motion oriented. (ie with speed sensitiveity you would get a higher input value/change than for the same rotation position -like a computer mouse, but with rotational position/motion tracking alone, you get a fixed position shift per angle/rotation change no matter how fast you turn the dial)

[potatohead]

Deluded??

 

Seriously?

 

Must you always devalue those that don't see it the way you do? Most of us, actually about all of us have been pretty decent so far.

 

You know, that can change...

Edited December 18, 2010 by potatohead

[kool kitty89]

@kool_kitty, the driving controller appears to be a digital encoder. It outputs grey code with a 45 degree angular change / per bit resolution. Pretty coarse actually.

Ah, so if you opened it up, it would probably be 8 tabs on a disc/wheel at 45o positions that hit a single switch as they go past it and some sort of mechanism to determine the direction of rotation. (so a second switch either actuated by similar tabs -with the tabs and switches designed to only get pressed in one direction like a ratchet, or have the second switch dedicated to detecting direction and the other switch get pressed when rotated either direction -I think the former mechanism might have been easier to do)

In either case, it would given 3-bit resolution per rotation. (but you'd only need 2 bits to transmit the data, one bit for pulses in either direction or 1 bit for directional movement and 1 for clockwise/counterclockwise select)

 

 

In either case, that seems very much like how digital knobs/dials on some VCR remotes and newer stereo systems work. (rather than pots, it's all digital -our ~5 year old JVC surround unit it like that, out previous JVC stereo from the late 80s was pot based, of course)

 

It really is rather like how a mechanical (optical) ball mouse works and the N64 "analog" stick (1st party controllers -most 3rd parties used pots iirc), but using direct mechanical contact to generate the pulses rather than a perpherated disc, light source, and photo diode.

[atariksi]

@kool_kitty, the driving controller appears to be a digital encoder. It outputs grey code with a 45 degree angular change / per bit resolution. Pretty coarse actually.

Ah, so if you opened it up, it would probably be 8 tabs on a disc/wheel at 45o positions that hit a single switch as they go past it and some sort of mechanism to determine the direction of rotation. (so a second switch either actuated by similar tabs -with the tabs and switches designed to only get pressed in one direction like a ratchet, or have the second switch dedicated to detecting direction and the other switch get pressed when rotated either direction -I think the former mechanism might have been easier to do)

In either case, it would given 3-bit resolution per rotation. (but you'd only need 2 bits to transmit the data, one bit for pulses in either direction or 1 bit for directional movement and 1 for clockwise/counterclockwise select)

 

 

In either case, that seems very much like how digital knobs/dials on some VCR remotes and newer stereo systems work. (rather than pots, it's all digital -our ~5 year old JVC surround unit it like that, out previous JVC stereo from the late 80s was pot based, of course)

 

It really is rather like how a mechanical (optical) ball mouse works and the N64 "analog" stick (1st party controllers -most 3rd parties used pots iirc), but using direct mechanical contact to generate the pulses rather than a perpherated disc, light source, and photo diode.

 

So it's like a digital paddle.

[potatohead]

I only have one set, and they work great!! (so I'm not gonna crack them open. Their output is 3 bits per revolution, one bit change per state change. Next time I have them out, I'll have to see whether or not it's absolute or relative encoding.

 

If it's absolute, I would agree with the digital paddle deal, if not, then it's more like a mouse.

[atarian63]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority. The simple FACT is analog is imprecise and therefore hard to adjust to. I guess if you are younger and grew up using an imprecise device you may think it's great as that is what you know.

Classic arcades are better with digital.

[kool kitty89]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority. The simple FACT is analog is imprecise and therefore hard to adjust to. I guess if you are younger and grew up using an imprecise device you may think it's great as that is what you know.

Classic arcades are better with digital.

 

Not imprecise, but FAR more precise, but accuracy is an issue. Of course, that's assuming you're not talking about analog vs digital, but wide range (high precision) vs restricted low precision (high accuracy) controls. (the N64 controller is not analog at all for example -unless you count 3rd parties)

 

There's many, many applications where added precision is really necessary for the best gameplay, especially in many 3D genres, but other cases where low-precision high accuracy control is preferable. In both cases, there's other issues tied to form factor (human interfacing), quality of a product, programming, etc.

Tons of all digital controllers that have shitty accuracy and are worse than a decent quality medium/short throw analog joystick/thumbstick. (like some crappy 3rd party gamepads, the Intellivision disc, etc -to a lesser extent the colecovision controller, at least for any games needing the buttons -for stick only games you can get by pretty well using your thumb)

 

 

For most console games who grew up in the 90s, 8-way digital directional control was the norm, only in the tail end of the 90s did "analog" really come into play (and only standard on the N64). Prior to that it was pretty much limited to PC gaming and no consoles had had analog on standard controllers since the vectrex (real analog or "analog" like digital like the N64), though you did have accessories like the rare AX-1 gamepad for the genesis (intended for After Burner and Space harrier iirc -to cater to the analog arcade controls) and the flight stick on the 3DO and saturn. (and the racing wheel) "Analog" thumbsticks didn't appear on consoles until 1996. (N64, Saturn 3D controller, PS1 Dual Analog)

[ApolloBoy]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority.

Still doesn't make it a fact though.

[atariksi]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority. The simple FACT is analog is imprecise and therefore hard to adjust to. I guess if you are younger and grew up using an imprecise device you may think it's great as that is what you know.

Classic arcades are better with digital.

 

Not imprecise, but FAR more precise, but accuracy is an issue. Of course, that's assuming you're not talking about analog vs digital, but wide range (high precision) vs restricted low precision (high accuracy) controls. (the N64 controller is not analog at all for example -unless you count 3rd parties)

Some people use the term precise in a different way. Anyway, accuracy is more important than precision.

 

There's many, many applications where added precision is really necessary for the best gameplay, especially in many 3D genres, but other cases where low-precision high accuracy control is preferable. In both cases, there's other issues tied to form factor (human interfacing), quality of a product, programming, etc.

Current implementations don't matter as they already target analog a priori. If they were targetting both, then you can compare between the two.

 

Tons of all digital controllers that have shitty accuracy and are worse than a decent quality medium/short throw analog joystick/thumbstick. (like some crappy 3rd party gamepads, the Intellivision disc, etc -to a lesser extent the colecovision controller, at least for any games needing the buttons -for stick only games you can get by pretty well using your thumb)

Granted some digital joysticks aren't built optimally but so are many analog joysticks and I would say some of the huge analog joysticks with very long throws are much worse. But regardless, when trying to experiment with which provides better control, you would pick the optimal ones from each side or the ones that are normally used. I'm pretty sure the arcades won't pick some cheap/suboptimal crap. You wouldn't study diseased or mutated bees in a scientific lab when trying to study the behavior of bees in general. You would study the normal ones first. Those bad ones are exceptions.

[JamesD]

Granted some digital joysticks aren't built optimally but so are many analog joysticks and I would say some of the huge analog joysticks with very long throws are much worse. But regardless, when trying to experiment with which provides better control, you would pick the optimal ones from each side or the ones that are normally used. I'm pretty sure the arcades won't pick some cheap/suboptimal crap. You wouldn't study diseased or mutated bees in a scientific lab when trying to study the behavior of bees in general. You would study the normal ones first. Those bad ones are exceptions.

So why the flight sim type analog joysticks in the photo when you are playing arcade games designed for digital joysticks?

Are you admitting you didn't use those is your tests?

 

So, what criteria was used in determining which ones were optimal for your tests?

[JamesD]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority.

Still doesn't make it a fact though.

Let alone a scientific fact.

[potatohead]

There are difference between preferences and what was stated here. Atariski posted up something as plausible given scientific debate, then proceeded to ask for others to refute it.

 

That was done nicely, and repeatedly, and with style in some cases!

 

Refuted.

 

Preferences are like music, we like what we like, and we have the skill we have.

 

Honestly, the data presented here leads one to conclude that Atariski really isn't well equipped mentally to deal with analog sticks. (skill in input, and state fetish, in particular, just to be clear) And that's just rational at this point, not diminutive. The diminutive elements under discussion were by his own hand, nobody else.

 

Finally, let's keep perspective. The original proposition was not qualified, and is therefore self-refuted, which leads one to wonder, as I have, "why the challenge in the first place?"

[Divya16]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority.

Still doesn't make it a fact though.

Let alone a scientific fact.

 

Depends on the reason why they voted.

[+poobah]

uh.. no... :roll

 

Gaming de evolution/ Joystick (Atari) >Gamepad (Nintendo)> analog joystick> Kinect (MS)

bottom reached.

Which is your opinion, not a fact.

On a retrogaming site, it's easily in the majority.

Still doesn't make it a fact though.

Let alone a scientific fact.

 

Depends on the reason why they voted.

 

No, it does not. voting is not relevant to establishment of facts.

[kool kitty89]

There's many, many applications where added precision is really necessary for the best gameplay, especially in many 3D genres, but other cases where low-precision high accuracy control is preferable. In both cases, there's other issues tied to form factor (human interfacing), quality of a product, programming, etc.

Current implementations don't matter as they already target analog a priori. If they were targetting both, then you can compare between the two.

Not talking about current implementations specifically: but ALL implementations for games (or otherwise) ever made and in reasonably significant use.

 

And as for "analog priori", even if that were an issue (and it isn't, since I wasn't referring to controllers with d-pads tacked on...), that would only apply to systems/controllers released after 1996/97, and really the first that did so would be the Dreamcast. (the PS1's controller was initially d-pad only -until the 1996 optional accessory analog controller was released- regardless of it being poor or not, and all consoles before that focused on digital/d-pad/joysick control, but it was still hit and miss quite often for overall human interfacing, comfort, reliability, functionality, etc for both 1st and 3rd party controllers, pack-in and accessory)

 

But my point was that that also applies to analog control (with good and bad implementations for a number of categories), and then there's "analog" (any sort of high precision/wide range device regardless of being analog based) and genuine analog designs, but in this discussion, "analog" has almost always been stuck to wide-range and "digital" to 9-state control regardless of being analog or digital.

 

You would study the normal ones first. Those bad ones are exceptions.

Then why bring up the 5200 controller? It's among the exception for bad analog controllers... regardless of it being standard, like the Intellivision or Colecovision for digital control (the PS1 pad is somewhat in that category as well though some don't mind it that much -then again, some don't mind the CV controller either).

 

You should compare the best cases first if that's the point: and compare both best cases of control hardware AND software: so compare games with high optimization of the digital or analog control mechanisms employed and also compare an array of games that was aimed specifically at one or the other but with control schemes for both mechanisms. (that means efficent and comprehensive sorting routines for reliably managing analog states for 4/8-way games -and of course modifying control to cater to limited 8-way control for games catering to high precision)

That would be the only way to get any realistic sort of comparison... using DK, Pac Man, etc is worthless alone, so is comparing only 70s/80s games, unless you wanted to include that in the context.

[ledzep]

I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:

(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;

(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;

(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;

(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);

(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;

and other spots requiring timing things.

 

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.

 

No, you didn't begin to give all the parameters. I gave them to you, more than once. For a start, you have failed to present who comprised your control and experimental groups of gamers. Multiple gamers is a requirement for any experiment that claims that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for every gamer.

 

Nobody gives a shit how many times you played anything or what you played it with, don't you understand? If you played a games at least 10 times then all you have is data for yourself. And since we all know you suck at using analog joysticks the data is worthless for substantiating any claims about digital joysticks applying to any gamers other than yourself (and your lipsticked imaginary pal).

 

I will "consider" the Donkey Kong "experiment" when you release all the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated by them. Until then it's just biased speculation on your part that your results apply to anyone else. I am able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role for you because you suck at playing games with analog joysticks. What has yet to be established is evidence that they play a detrimental role for anyone else. You know how you can begin to establish that? Hmm? You got it, release data that shows how other game players suffered the same problems with your "uncertainty regions" and "long throw play". Aaaaaaw, but that would mean you'd have to do something you are philosophically against doing and that is actually running a comprehensive, unbiased experiment using a control and an experimental group. Aw, man!

 

I have done both. You just keep misreading or not reading the points I have made. And stop with the name calling. You need to be emotionally unbiased to even discuss scientific experiments what to speak of performing them.

 

[some rubbish deleted]

 

You have?!? Well hot damn, that's great! So where is it? Where is your evidence that your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true?

 

[awaiting some rubbish relating to how you don't need to provide links to authoritative sources because you don't want to]

 

No, if you make 100 experiments of F=ma and you release 10 experiments that show F=ma. What difference does it make whether you post data for the other 90. I posted the ones that are popular titles and narrowed the data to where there's high failure rate for analog joysticks; its easier to discuss small sets than to dump megabytes of the hard drive on a discussion forum.

 

Almost. If I, like you, claimed to have run 100 experiments of F=ma and then only release the parameters and data from 10 of those experiments while refusing to release the parameters and data for the other 90 by hiding behind idiotic claims that logic is an acceptable substitute or that people can infer the results for the other 90 experiments based off of the measly 10 that I grudgingly present then I would be laughed out of whatever scientific institution I had made that claim in. Just like everyone (minus Didntknow16) has been laughing at you ever since you revealed that you don't have the "megabytes" of data for the supposed "hundreds" of experiments you pretend to have run.

 

Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.

 

Retroactive excuses to distance yourself from your admission of bias don't play here, my redundantly incorrect friend.

 

So you have established that analog joysticks are inferior? When/where did you do that? I mean, if you'd done that you'd have like, I don't know, evidence to back up this new, unsubstantiated claim, right? Do you? Let's see it.

 

Dare I say it? Put-up or shut-up time again, haahahaa.

 

Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

 

You didn't address the argument. So you are now claiming that you have to resort to math or deductive logic (neither of which you've done effectively) as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range? Haahahaa, you are now stating that all your "hundreds" of experiments that are the core of your "scientific fact" are flawed or inconclusive!! Fantastic, you've just negated yourself and all the hours you've spent taking pictures of TV screens with games displayed on them and pretending that that was "data". What a colossal blunder.

 

And, for the record, if you want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throws in general you most definitely do not need a logical/mathematical proof, you need to physically measure all the joysticks and the ranges of their travel. Any claim about a physical property must be proven or supported by physical measurements, genius. Only an idiot would attempt to use a logical/mathematical proof to prove a physical property of something that can be physically measured.

 

How do you prove that DVDs hold more information than CDs? Logic/math? No, you see how much data can be stored on each type, from each manufacturer using each method of disk writing. How do you prove that plasma monitors display a wider color range than LCD monitors? Logic/math? No, you pump the same images into both types, from multiple manufacturers and you physically measure the color ranges of those monitors. How do you prove that analog joysticks have longer throws than digital joysticks? Logic/math? Only if you're retarded. You measure the joystick lengths and travel ranges of every available joystick, analog and digital, that you can get your hands on and rely on manufacturers' specs for the ones you can't get to. "Logic/math" is for people who don't want real data when it's freely available. "Logic/math" is for people who know that the physical data will refute their faulty claims, so better to not even introduce it.

 

You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

 

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

 

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.

 

I admit, it's hard to tell when I'm talking to you or you since aprioriksi and Didntknow16 both answer posts in the same way using the same phrases. It's not like I can see when you're dressed like a boy and when you're dressed like a girl, right?

 

You have every right to corroborate your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments that generated "megabytes" of data (and not those useless jpegs of TV screens) yet you refuse. Why? No mistake, you have disparaged yourself by making excuses for not providing the minimum to prove your claim. What's the minimum? Why, all the parameters for your experiments and all the data those experiments generated, of course.

 

[more excuses and distractions about "logic" and "emotion" expected]

 

I don't want more data, I want all the data. I'm not saying your data is useless, I'm saying providing incomplete, out-of-context subsets of your claimed total amount of data is useless. And it is useless for you to hold back the rest of this supposed data. All that does is reinforce the obvious truth that you don't actually have any of those "megabytes" of data.

 

You are unfit to talk about having run "hundreds" of experiments until you release all the data and all the parameters of your claimed experiments. So far you have fallen so very short.

 

As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -

Once again, just making a claim doesn't make it true. Read on:

 

Definition of HYPOCRITE

 

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

That doesn't apply to anyone.

 

Oh yes it does. You. You have tried multiple times to present an appearance of virtue. You cry about "personal attacks" as if everyone is using them on you and you have never done the same on this thread (another fault), you try to turn your monumental failures to support your claims of running hundreds of experiments that generated megabytes of data into a virtue by hiding behind "logic" and "math", like those are higher forms of proof instead of simply shutting everyone down by presenting all your data.

 

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.

 

You misunderstood that definition. You are making claims that are unfounded yet demand proof from others. That's hypocracy as it applies to you.

 

You misunderstand your understanding of the definition. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread, you are guilty of personal attacks on forum members while simultaneously complaining about personal attacks you claim are aimed at you, you guilty of claiming to have followed the scientific method while failing to have run a comprehensive experiment using control and experimental groups as well as communicating your results and you have claimed that your biased opinion about digital joysticks is a scientific fact while failing to have shown where it has been confirmed repeatedly and been accepted as true (that means by most everybody, not just you and your menstruating puppet).

 

Put-up or shut-up time again. Release all the data and all the parameters from all your experiments or admit by your failure to do so that you are a fraud.

[atariksi]

I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:

(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;

(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;

(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;

(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);

(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;

and other spots requiring timing things.

 

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.

 

No, you didn't begin to give all the parameters. I gave them to you, more than once. For a start, you have failed to present who comprised your control and experimental groups of gamers. Multiple gamers is a requirement for any experiment that claims that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for every gamer.

I don't care about your crap. If you understood even the simplest form of controlled experiment, you wouldn't keep coming back here with your crap. No, you don't need multiple scientists to do a controlled experiment. You DON'T know what a controlled experiment is. So stop advising others on what you have no knowledge about. You are a mental speculator that just keeps coming back and regurgitating his drivel over and over again.

 

Nobody gives a shit how many times you played anything or what you played it with, don't you understand? If you played a games at least 10 times then all you have is data for yourself. And since we all know you suck at using analog joysticks the data is worthless for substantiating any claims about digital joysticks applying to any gamers other than yourself (and your lipsticked imaginary pal).

You don't give a crap, but the scientific method does. As I said above, *YOU* are the problem not the scientific method. I can beat you at most games with an analog joystick what to speak of a digital joystick so keep your mouth shut with your drivel. If you had the eyes to see, you wouldn't make a comment like that.

 

I will "consider" the Donkey Kong "experiment" when you release all the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated by them. Until then it's just biased speculation on your part that your results apply to anyone else. I am able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role for you because you suck at playing games with analog joysticks...

It applies to everyone. The regions of uncertainty are facts. The experiment with Donkey Kong just shows that they affect the game. Get your facts straight. Take this example, when I move the joystick left from center and press the trigger on a digital joystick, I know a priori what will take place but with a threshold system like: If JoyX<40 and Trigger=0 (pressed), you have a region of uncertainty as to when the user presses the button and when motion starts.

 

You have?!? Well hot damn, that's great! So where is it? Where is your evidence that your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true?

I posted the REC files for three games already-- Popeye, Donkey Kong, and Pole Position. You don't see the evidence in the Donkey Kong so you are blind. For you giving any more data is like telling a kindergarten student to figure out the integration equations in a calculus book.

 

Almost. If I, like you, claimed to have run 100 experiments of F=ma and then only release the parameters and data from 10 of those experiments while refusing to release the parameters and data for the other 90 by hiding behind idiotic claims that logic is an acceptable substitute or that people can infer the results for the other 90 experiments based off of the measly 10 that I grudgingly present then I would be laughed out of whatever scientific institution I had made that claim in. Just like everyone (minus Didntknow16) has been laughing at you ever since you revealed that you don't have the "megabytes" of data for the supposed "hundreds" of experiments you pretend to have run.

Straw-man argument. Logic is not a substitute but an alternative way to prove undeniably that analog joysticks provide inferior control. The experimental method is one way to showing proof although not undeniable as these type of experiments can never be exhaustive for all cases. As I said, you can't even understand one experiment what to speak of 10 or more and there is NO REQUIREMENT to show data for 100. It's an arbitrary number. Nobody is laughing except the ignorant people like you who don't even understand the data that's in front of their faces.

 

Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.

 

Retroactive excuses to distance yourself from your admission of bias don't play here, my redundantly incorrect friend.

Liar. I SAID : "GO BACK AND READ IT". It's there. And I never edit my posts. If you can't understand English, that's even a bigger disqualification for you to continue mocking others. English is a pre-requisite to discuss the scientific method in this thread. You are lost.

 

Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

 

You didn't address the argument. So you are now claiming that you have to resort to math or deductive logic (neither of which you've done effectively) as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range? Haahahaa, you are now stating that all your "hundreds" of experiments that are the core of your "scientific fact" are flawed or inconclusive!! Fantastic, you've just negated yourself and all the hours you've spent taking pictures of TV screens with games displayed on them and pretending that that was "data". What a colossal blunder.

The only blunder is yours here. You cannot experiment on a limit approaching infinity for levels. You have to use math. Nor is that limit required for the experiment. I addressed the argument, you just missed it.

 

And, for the record, if you want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throws in general you most definitely do not need a logical/mathematical proof, you need to physically measure all the joysticks and the ranges of their travel. Any claim about a physical property must be proven or supported by physical measurements, genius. Only an idiot would attempt to use a logical/mathematical proof to prove a physical property of something that can be physically measured.

You are the idiot. If you can prove mathematically, you don't need to waste your time with experimenting. If I can prove that if 2(X*X) = 50 then X must be 5 or -5 then the experiment can only prove the SAME result. Experiments can only show a subset of what's proven mathematically or logically. Mathematics and logic apply for all time and in all cases.

 

How do you prove that DVDs hold more information than CDs? Logic/math? No, you see how much data can be stored on each type, from each manufacturer using each method of disk writing. How do you prove that plasma monitors display a wider color range than LCD monitors? Logic/math? No, you pump the same images into both types, from multiple manufacturers and you physically measure the color ranges of those monitors. How do you prove that analog joysticks have longer throws than digital joysticks? Logic/math? Only if you're retarded.

You are mentally retarded. If you know the schematic/specification of the device, you don't need to make any measurements. You are Dr. Frog. You don't need to write to the disk to figure out how much it will hold if you knew the construction of the disk. In fact, people squeezed 2MB on the 1.44MB disks because they knew the internal logic/math behind the construction and disk controller. If they just went by experimental knowledge, we would never have 2.0MB disks. How dumb can you get. You can measure the throw of the joysticks; I never opposed it anyways. But a mathematical proof is BETTER. I proved it BOTH ways.

 

You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

 

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

 

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.

 

I admit, it's hard to tell when I'm talking to you or you since aprioriksi and Didntknow16 both answer posts in the same way using the same phrases. It's not like I can see when you're dressed like a boy and when you're dressed like a girl, right?

More rubbish and mental speculation. It's a forum. Anyone is free to field any post he wants. If you can't understand that, you are the one who is retarded. And FYI, it's you who are copying our phrases and throwing them back at us although they don't apply. Get your facts straight, analog joystick fanboy.

 

I don't want more data, I want all the data. I'm not saying your data is useless, I'm saying providing incomplete, out-of-context subsets of your claimed total amount of data is useless. And it is useless for you to hold back the rest of this supposed data. All that does is reinforce the obvious truth that you don't actually have any of those "megabytes" of data.

 

You are unfit to talk about having run "hundreds" of experiments until you release all the data and all the parameters of your claimed experiments. So far you have fallen so very short.

Nope, all I said was I ran hundreds of experiments. The data that was submitted was for the most popular games that most people here are familiar with. It's sufficient to show my point.

 

Oh yes it does. You. You have tried multiple times to present an appearance of virtue. You cry about "personal attacks" as if everyone is using them on you and you have never done the same on this thread (another fault), you try to turn your monumental failures to support your claims of running hundreds of experiments that generated megabytes of data into a virtue by hiding behind "logic" and "math", like those are higher forms of proof instead of simply shutting everyone down by presenting all your data.

You are the one making personal attacks while I prove that they apply to you more. You can't just look up words in the dictionary and start applying any of the meanings randomly. Hypocrite is what I wrote previously. Take it in context.

 

You misunderstand your understanding of the definition. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread, you are guilty of personal attacks on forum members while simultaneously complaining about personal attacks you claim are aimed at you,...

 

Again, learning to read would help you. If you just read what you wrote in this very reply-- words like "retarded, idiot, etc." These are the personal attacks that don't apply to me. But they do apply to you given your reply. You are the one who is living in P and -P land as proven already. You demand proof yet make claims that are unfounded. I know the scientific method better than you as proven above.

 

Put-up or shut-up time again. Release all the data and all the parameters from all your experiments or admit by your failure to do so that you are a fraud.

 

You are the only fraud here. Just declaring people-- retarded, idiots, frauds, etc. doesn't mean much. I can also call you names, but I'm more interested in facts. Just for Donkey Kong, you are dismissing the data and want more of the data. Make up your mind. Point out exactly why that data is invalid. Prove that it only applies to me and that results will be different for someone else who does the same experiment. Prove how the uncertainty regions and longer throws will magically disappear when someone else other than me does that experiment. Let's settle on one for now and then we can discuss the other games. If you DO NOT KNOW, then don't claim "it only applies to me."

[potatohead]

Take this example, when I move the joystick left from center and press the trigger on a digital joystick, I know a priori what will take place but with a threshold system like: If JoyX<40 and Trigger=0 (pressed), you have a region of uncertainty as to when the user presses the button and when motion starts.

 

Already refuted.

 

When the user has prior experience with the controller, they understand where the trigger regions are. With a binary stick, it's when one pushes hard enough to set the trigger.

 

With the analog stick, scale is used to determine where the control point is. And the user understands, that if they push hard enough, the trigger will happen.

 

Both dynamics can be known in advance, with only mechanical differences in play.

 

And then we have the self-refuted, "better" or "more" sans qualification, rendering this little side discussion moot.

[+5-11under]

Post 1000?

 

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

Edited December 20, 2010 by 5-11under