Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

Forgot to address the "tyrant mentality". You assume a role of a leader although you have no qualifications-- a tyrant mentality. Not a personal attack. Once again you distort things to suit your needs of framing innocent people. Oh, by the way ALTERNATIVE is NOT synonymous with substitute. Another distortion.

 

Hopefully, people are smart enough to know that your replies are trash.

Well, we are all smart enough to know that you and atarksi are the same person. Does that count?

 

You aren't that smart. If some other people like Atarian or others who favor digital joysticks used similar arguments as me then you would accuse them of being AtariKSI. I don't mind, it's just one more speculation from the myriad of speculations offered by the analog joystickists in this thread.

[+Stephen]

You aren't that smart. If some other people like Atarian or others who favor digital joysticks used similar arguments as me then you would accuse them of being AtariKSI. I don't mind, it's just one more speculation from the myriad of speculations offered by the analog joystickists in this thread.

Maybe that's the difference between the two of us. I am not stupid or narrow minded enough to see everything as black & white. I said on the first page of this ridiculous thread that digital sticks are good for PacMan games, and analog sticks are good for Flight Sims.

 

You admitted in a round about manner that paddles are great for games like Breakout. WTF do you think a paddle is? It's a single axis analog "stick" with a know rather than a shaft. I'm sure you and your female persona are experts at knobs and shafts.

 

Why do you keep calling me stupid? Do I threaten you somehow? Like I said smart ass - let's compare IQs and GPAs. If I am as stupid as you say, you'll have no problem putting me in my place.

[atariksi]

Talk about biased envious snakes,

 

I can deal with various people on the level they are at-- some are not worth replying to. In that post, your behaviour was like an envious snake. That's the fact. You actually should have accused Ledzep of the personal attacks first and then discussed whether my rebuttal constitutes any. But you didn't do that. I am as cool as ever. If someone argues with me that the moon is made of yellow cheese, it doesn't upset me but the false accusations were more of the concern there.

 

Regarding your modern analog joysticks, although they are somewhat different from the ones in post #1-- you are missing control. You have NO IDEA what state your joystick is in and you are relying on feedback to help your determine the state of your crippled joystick. They purposely made those games for their analog joysticks. Had they made digital joysticks for those games perhaps with multiple buttons or whatever, you would have better control than analog joysticks. I suggest your review those 5 points I mentioned regarding faults with analog joysticks and some or most would apply to modern analog joysticks as well.

 

Regarding other analog controllers, I am only going to discuss digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks as I don't want to digress to other things again.

If you think I am envious of an arrogant split personality (half female at that) internet troll, you are more delusional than for thinking that people buy your scientific fact bullshit. I make a damn good living coding at a global company, so I am not at all threatened by your pompous ass. You want to compare IQ results or college transcripts and GPAs, go for it. I'll gladly post mine since you feel you have something to prove.

Oh, please follow your own advice and leave out the personal attacks. It's a scientific fact and it does affect you since you are into modern consoles and their controllers -- that's why you are spending the time arguing with me. Okay, post your transcripts and GPAs -- if it's anything like your arguments they should be good for a laugh. I guess the money part doesn't count since you are forced to use analog joysticks if they are part of your work -- pressured by the society, marketing, etc.

 

Why don't you want to discuss anything else? Tired of losing the debates to people who are smarter than you? You seem to suffer from "little man" syndrome. Wonder exactly what is missing that you are compensating for?

 

I can't use the steering wheel to play all those games like Donkey Kong, Pac-man, Miner 2049er, etc. I can't use a clutch or yolk either. But the three items mentioned in the poll-- keyboard, digital joystick, and analog joystick can be used for all these games so the experiment is controlled.

[+Stephen]

Oh, please follow your own advice and leave out the personal attacks. It's a scientific fact and it does affect you since you are into modern consoles and their controllers -- that's why you are spending the time arguing with me. Okay, post your transcripts and GPAs -- if it's anything like your arguments they should be good for a laugh. I guess the money part doesn't count since you are forced to use analog joysticks if they are part of your work -- pressured by the society, marketing, etc.

 

Why don't you want to discuss anything else? Tired of losing the debates to people who are smarter than you? You seem to suffer from "little man" syndrome. Wonder exactly what is missing that you are compensating for?

 

I can't use the steering wheel to play all those games like Donkey Kong, Pac-man, Miner 2049er, etc. I can't use a clutch or yolk either. But the three items mentioned in the poll-- keyboard, digital joystick, and analog joystick can be used for all these games so the experiment is controlled.

You seem to have major trouble following your own advice. Why do you think people post personal attacks against you? Maybe because you start the shit and then try to take the moral high-ground when it gets turned back around on you. That my delusional friend is called karma. Something you should be an expert at.

 

Your experiment is not controlled - it is biased, shallow minded, and completely flawed. You know it and everyone here knows it. Why haven't you responded to the bit about taking out the "analog" controls in my car? You think you could drive better with a digital switch for steering and gas / brake in a real car? Have you ever driven a car (car not camel)?

[+Stephen]

Damn - off in the corner pouting, or maybe putting on his dress so divya can post. Come back - I am lonely already (I have no life because I am stupid)

[atariksi]

I didn't say you were stupid in general, but just for that comment. Sometimes people make not-so smart comments. I am sure you can solder stuff and are good at installing a VBXE in your Atari. Maybe it would be harder if you had to install it in a modern surface mounted motherboard.

 

Oh, my car does rely on feedback. Imagine if two kids tried to drive the car-- one was pressing the gas pedal but couldn't see the windshield and the other was telling him-- go to 50 mph. I'm sure he won't be able to do it. Similarly for the brakes.

[+Stephen]

I didn't say you were stupid in general, but just for that comment. Sometimes people make not-so smart comments. I am sure you can solder stuff and are good at installing a VBXE in your Atari. Maybe it would be harder if you had to install it in a modern surface mounted motherboard.

 

Oh, my car does rely on feedback. Imagine if two kids tried to drive the car-- one was pressing the gas pedal but couldn't see the windshield and the other was telling him-- go to 50 mph. I'm sure he won't be able to do it. Similarly for the brakes.

Hmm - I don't base my "smartness" on my soldering ability. And yes, you did call me both stupid and an envious snake, of which I am neither. That's OK though - I don't take internet stuff to heart.

 

With the car, you couldn't really expect to do exactly 50MPH without some kind of feedback (looking at speedometer, or watching the dotted lines on the road go by). But you will certainly reach a desired speed more smoothly with the standard "analog" (in the sense that you have infinite positions) gas pedal than you would with a full on / full off style controller. Might not be very noticeable in a little 4-cylinder car. Try fully smashing the gas in a big-block V8 car, and you will be in for a nasty (but very fun) surprise.

 

This really should be simple to see. Both types of control have their place. To argue that only one is better in every case is just being stubborn. And you know it - there's no harm in admitting you are just trying to get a rise out of all of us.

[Cebus Capucinis]

trying to get a rise out of all of us.

 

Maybe that's why he puts on the dress? :woozy:

[JamesD]

Aww crap, I can't resist....

 

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.

As someone who designs and executes experiments for a living, I humbly suggest that it is you, atariksi, who does not understand what a controlled experiment entails. Can we see your test plan, hmmmmmm?

Just for your information as I don't think some of these other people can understand this simple point:

 

If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves. Newton performed the control experiment himself-- didn't depend on other people doing the samething for him to do the control experiment. The target is to determine which joystick provides better control not how various people fare at various games.

Ok, first of all S0(g) for A is not the the same as S0(g) for D. Skill with a digital joystick cannot be assumed to be the same as for an analog joystick.

 

How do you derive S0(g) and S1(g)? How did you quantify skill? What measurements were performed to indicate skill?

 

How did you determine the relationship between Sx(g) and the joystick A or D is multiplication? How was the formula derived?

 

How did you apply a value to A and D? Sure they are different but how can you apply a value to them?

You can't. They are like a subscript. S0(A,g)+S0(D,g) is total skill for S0 for game g. That tells us nothing of how they compare.

 

Given that... why did you add the analog and digital results when you are attempting to compare results? Wouldn't that require equivalence which is subtraction, and whether the result is > < or = would determine which is better? As such, skill level would be a key factor, thus substantiating arguments that your skill was the determining factor rather than the joysticks. And since skill level depends on the person, a sample size of 1 only proves results for that 1.

 

Factor out S0 and S1? No you can't. Cancellation depend on LIKE TERMS. S0 <> S1... unless maybe S0 = atariksi and S1 = Divya16 in which the two cancel out and you have proven the results for one person.

 

Seriously, what you just said proves you don't know Algebra or at the very least your memory is hazy and has impacted your results. As such, you have to throw out the results. Since A0 <> A1 (let alone skill levels), that proves you have to use more participants in your study.

This is why we wanted you to show your math.

[potatohead]

LOL!!!

 

Stay calm people. That's one of only a few outs!

 

1. Piss people off, then claim high ground and indignity.

 

(don't let it happen)

 

2. Make some friends, and build a case for the same, claiming something like "it's all speculation, and those assholes"

 

3. Go silent, and hope it goes away. (I'm personally not allowing that. I'll be nice, but I won't allow it, because Atariski ASKED FOR IT, and I'm very entertained and willing to step up to what appears to be a grand challenge!)

 

4. Withdraw the challenge. Could be for any reason, I would predict unworthy participants as a primary theme to support elitism. This would support the claim of a botched challenge, which is exactly why I'm noting that NOW. Wasn't botched at all.

 

5. Thread lock, and a loss as the refute goes on record, and it's all rather ugly right now.

 

6. Admit it is simply not a viable proposition to attempt to prove that blanket assertion that digital offers better control over analog.

 

Oh, and hidinginaskirtski, I am completely pleased that you don't consider me worth talking to. Know what that means? (sorry ladies who may be reading --it's not sexist, just funny to watch a guy invoke "that special friend who is loyal" in this way. Seriously funny! Never seen anything like it, EVER!!)

 

(and Atariski, for a second time, that's a high compliment! You are quite possibly the most difficult case I've ever encountered!)

 

...it means I've got it very close to right, just like the others, who are not worth talking to. He knows the outs are not coming, and is playing best cards, hoping for a better hand over time.

 

You will notice ALL of those options, but for admission have been explored on this thread!

 

Refuted. (no new data, nor point of logic presented to date)

Edited December 21, 2010 by potatohead

[potatohead]

Re: Smart?

 

Well, I figured that out a long time ago. Simply smart enough, and that's true for the other contributors here as well. See how that works, wonttalktopotatoheadbecauseheistakingthechallengeseriouslyski?

 

It's not about smarts in these things. It's about will, conduct, and form. You are going to learn that this time.

Edited December 21, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

I didn't say you were stupid in general, but just for that comment. Sometimes people make not-so smart comments. I am sure you can solder stuff and are good at installing a VBXE in your Atari. Maybe it would be harder if you had to install it in a modern surface mounted motherboard.

 

Oh, my car does rely on feedback. Imagine if two kids tried to drive the car-- one was pressing the gas pedal but couldn't see the windshield and the other was telling him-- go to 50 mph. I'm sure he won't be able to do it. Similarly for the brakes.

Hmm - I don't base my "smartness" on my soldering ability. And yes, you did call me both stupid and an envious snake, of which I am neither. That's OK though - I don't take internet stuff to heart.

You acted like a snake so that's what you got called. Ever read what you have called me undeservingly. Ever read what ledzep writes before you wrote your comment. I guess not. And I said "not so smart" which you interpreted as general stupidity but it was for that comment. Some stuff on the internet is serious.

 

With the car, you couldn't really expect to do exactly 50MPH without some kind of feedback (looking at speedometer, or watching the dotted lines on the road go by). But you will certainly reach a desired speed more smoothly with the standard "analog" (in the sense that you have infinite positions) gas pedal than you would with a full on / full off style controller. Might not be very noticeable in a little 4-cylinder car. Try fully smashing the gas in a big-block V8 car, and you will be in for a nasty (but very fun) surprise.

 

This really should be simple to see. Both types of control have their place. To argue that only one is better in every case is just being stubborn. And you know it - there's no harm in admitting you are just trying to get a rise out of all of us.

 

Ahm, you don't have to go all on or all off with the gas using a digital control. That's your idea. Pole Position on Atari 800 has automatic gradual speed-up with brakes that also take some time to slow down the car. Pole Position on Atari 5200 uses one digital button for gas and one for brakes. And how many people do you think actually know the in-between states of their gas pedals-- if they only had 4 or 5 digital states, most people wouldn't know the difference. When I drive, I'm pressing the gas "somewhere in the middle" and waiting for feedback on the speedometer. And after driving various cars, I noticed they aren't consistent either as to how much you press the gas pedal.

[potatohead]

Is this one of those serious things Atariski?

 

Is that why we have all been the subject of your various negative characterizations? Go look they are there! The beauty of this format is the record is clear! Maybe it would make for another interesting list?

 

I have to seriously wonder about any ideology that justifies this behavior.

 

Do you have a fellow devotee there, or are you seriously trying to hold the higher ground with the spare persona? I am open to either being true, but will default to the secondary persona, unless you atariski clear that matter up for me. Do tell:)

 

And remember, you asked for it! Still having fun? Willing to give it up yet? The next level may cause considerable discomfort. Best to offer a yield first. That is just good form you know.

[Barnacle boy]

If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves.

 

 

Wow. There have been some pretty lol-worthy arguments made in this thread, but this one is a doozy.

 

Let me get this straight. What we're seeing here is an attempt to take the example of a person playing the same game with two different types of joysticks and represent it in mathematical terms in order to argue that the differences between different individuals is irrelevant (ie: the level of skill exhibited by the test subject can be factored out) as in any given test the individual's skill level "applies equally to both games" (though I think he meant 'to both gaming sessions' or 'in both cases' as it is in fact the same game being played, just a different controller... but never mind that.)

 

First off, the attempt to illustrate the concept mathematically as presented above makes NO SENSE AT ALL. You simply came up with some labels for the key concepts and strung them together with a few operators, sticking a plus sign in the middle in the hope of of making it vaguely resemble a factored equation. But the result is absolutely meaningless and comes across as nothing more than a Chewbacca defense-like attempt to obfuscate the issue.

 

Secondly, the assertion that a person's skill applies equally in both cases completely ignores the possibility that the individual being tested could be more experienced and more adept with a particular controller, which would undoubtedly have an effect on this nebulous attempt at quantifying a subject's skill level as being somehow fixed and equivalent in both cases.

 

To put it another way, what happens if a subject with skill S0 does better with digital stick, yet the subject with skill S1 does better with the analog? How does that mesh with the argument that differences between the subjects can be 'factored' out in your nonsensical attempt at a mathematical representation?

 

And hey, can you show me how it would look with the subject's skill level factored out? Factor out 'S0' and show me what you're left with, hmm?

 

One more question: By your logic, if I want to test the effects of a certain medication, can I perform the test on one person and then state that the results apply to the population as a whole? Can I argue that as I applied the experiment hundreds of times on this single subject and the results were the same each time, I have scientifically proven something about the effects of that medication across the population? Can I HONESTLY make such a claim?

[potatohead]

On my car, 5 states would not be anywhere near enough. Same problem as the coarse volume control. A lot of states are needed to compensate for wind, road, overall speed, gear ratio, load in car, etc...

 

Unless, one is happy always speeding up, or slowing down, FOR LACK OF CONTROL to do otherwise...

[Barnacle boy]

Oh, and for the record, I suspect that Atariksi and Divya are not the same person.

 

My suspicion is that Divya is Atariksi's offspring, and that much of the refusal to accept reality exhibited in this thread is driven on the one hand by a desire for parental approval coupled with the need to see one's parent as right and wise, and on the other hand, a desire to save face in the presence of one's child.

 

Of course, that's just my MENTAL SPECULATION on the matter.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Barnacle boy

[+Stephen]

With the car, you couldn't really expect to do exactly 50MPH without some kind of feedback (looking at speedometer, or watching the dotted lines on the road go by). But you will certainly reach a desired speed more smoothly with the standard "analog" (in the sense that you have infinite positions) gas pedal than you would with a full on / full off style controller. Might not be very noticeable in a little 4-cylinder car. Try fully smashing the gas in a big-block V8 car, and you will be in for a nasty (but very fun) surprise.

 

This really should be simple to see. Both types of control have their place. To argue that only one is better in every case is just being stubborn. And you know it - there's no harm in admitting you are just trying to get a rise out of all of us.

---

Ahm, you don't have to go all on or all off with the gas using a digital control. That's your idea. Pole Position on Atari 800 has automatic gradual speed-up with brakes that also take some time to slow down the car. Pole Position on Atari 5200 uses one digital button for gas and one for brakes. And how many people do you think actually know the in-between states of their gas pedals-- if they only had 4 or 5 digital states, most people wouldn't know the difference. When I drive, I'm pressing the gas "somewhere in the middle" and waiting for feedback on the speedometer. And after driving various cars, I noticed they aren't consistent either as to how much you press the gas pedal.

Well, let's look at your Pole Position example. You say that it has gradual speed up and slow down. How do you know which point in the speedup or slowdown is? Do you rely on audio/visual feedback from the game? Do you count to yourself because you know that 1.75 seconds will get you to the desired speed? To me, that is no different than "knowing" by feel where to hold an analog controller.

 

*** Edited only to fix quote tag ***

[atariksi]

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).

 

I used the Gravis, Gemini, and Atari 2600 style joysticks in the experiments. You can use anyone as long as they are not comparing apples and oranges. No reason to pick a worse case digital joystick and best case analog joystick.

... WHICH Gravis analog stick? You need to compare more than a few controllers... you'd need to compare many controllers from different platforms (gamepads and joysticks -with various configurations, throw length, etc -most thumbsticks have less than 1/2" of throw) and a lot of different games on many different platforms (consoles and computers) with different control schemes...

 

The gravis in the picture in post #1 was the main analog joystick used. It allows for self-centering to be on or off. It allows for tightness, calibration, etc. Plus, the buttons are easily accessed and programmable and easily accessible like Atari 2600 joystick. It's not like you are trying to jump in donkey kong and having to press the button on the top of the stick which is already in motion. I did play around with a few other analog sticks but gravis by far gave the best results so that was the one used.

 

If you chose an extremely simple, primitive game for a comparison, you'll also find that 1 button could be "superior" to a controller with a few (or many) buttons as you'd ignore games that absolutely require many button inputs. (or key inputs, but using a gamepad/joystick with many built-in buttons can often be preferable by far -games using a mouse favor keyboard a bit more, but gamepad/joystick is great to have with many buttons -joy to key is great for converting old keyboard specific games to comprehensive joysticks/gamepads).

Hell, there's games that choke with as many as 7/8 buttons (have to rely on combos), like the console ports of Wing Commander.

 

I've got several games where I max out the 12 buttons (plus 4 analog axes and 8 direction hat) on my Logitech Wingman pro joystick and STILL have to supplement some functions with the keyboard (obviously the most-used stuff is on the stick).

 

The compression algorithm applies here. There's no reason to have 12+ buttons if most games only use 1 or 2. Complexity affects control as well. The less the user has to think about in relation to the controller, the better. If most of your image is gray-scale 0..15, saving it as 24-bit is a waste of space. Just save as 4-bit nibbles and make some exceptional pointers where the content differs. So for joysticks, just have one or two buttons and if there are a few games that use 10+, use some auxiliary keypad (like Star Raiders) as there is no reason to add the confusion for all games. Some games purposely use the extra buttons for stuff that's unnecessary for the gameplay.

[potatohead]

Editing posts is bad now?

 

Guess that's just another distraction from the main point at hand; namely, the false assertion that analog controllers are inferior to digital ones in general.

 

I edit my posts to get them right, and often reconsider how something is said, and will make the edit so that it all is as clear and accurate as possible.

[Divya16]

If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves.

 

 

Wow. There have been some pretty lol-worthy arguments made in this thread, but this one is a doozy.

 

Let me get this straight. What we're seeing here is an attempt to take the example of a person playing the same game with two different types of joysticks and represent it in mathematical terms in order to argue that the differences between different individuals is irrelevant (ie: the level of skill exhibited by the test subject can be factored out) as in any given test the individual's skill level "applies equally to both games" (though I think he meant 'to both gaming sessions' or 'in both cases' as it is in fact the same game being played, just a different controller... but never mind that.)

 

First off, the attempt to illustrate the concept mathematically as presented above makes NO SENSE AT ALL. You simply came up with some labels for the key concepts and strung them together with a few operators, sticking a plus sign in the middle in the hope of of making it vaguely resemble a factored equation. But the result is absolutely meaningless and comes across as nothing more than a Chewbacca defense-like attempt to obfuscate the issue.

 

Secondly, the assertion that a person's skill applies equally in both cases completely ignores the possibility that the individual being tested could be more experienced and more adept with a particular controller, which would undoubtedly have an effect on this nebulous attempt at quantifying a subject's skill level as being somehow fixed and equivalent in both cases.

 

To put it another way, what happens if a subject with skill S0 does better with digital stick, yet the subject with skill S1 does better with the analog? How does that mesh with the argument that differences between the subjects can be 'factored' out in your nonsensical attempt at a mathematical representation?

 

And hey, can you show me how it would look with the subject's skill level factored out? Factor out 'S0' and show me what you're left with, hmm?

 

One more question: By your logic, if I want to test the effects of a certain medication, can I perform the test on one person and then state that the results apply to the population as a whole? Can I argue that as I applied the experiment hundreds of times on this single subject and the results were the same each time, I have scientifically proven something about the effects of that medication across the population? Can I HONESTLY make such a claim?

 

Medication tests aren't the samething since you are interested in what effects it has on various patients. In this case you are interested in what effects the two types of JOYSTICKS have on various games. As long as you know how to use both joysticks (which isn't a big deal), that's all that matters. If I play pac-man with both joysticks 100 times, then the skill level I apply for the game is the same-- only the controllers would make the difference. In fact, I can play better now than I did a few years but that still doesn't affect the relationship. The experiment activity is S(Pac-man)*A + S(Pac-man)*D. I guess you can use a scaling factor A and D since the specifics of the function S(g) can encompass everything else. It's an expression of logic in mathematical terms.

[+5-11under]

Medication tests aren't the samething since you are interested in what effects it has on various patients. In this case you are interested in what effects the two types of JOYSTICKS have on various games. As long as you know how to use both joysticks (which isn't a big deal), that's all that matters. If I play pac-man with both joysticks 100 times, then the skill level I apply for the game is the same-- only the controllers would make the difference. In fact, I can play better now than I did a few years but that still doesn't affect the relationship. The experiment activity is S(Pac-man)*A + S(Pac-man)*D. I guess you can use a scaling factor A and D since the specifics of the function S(g) can encompass everything else. It's an expression of logic in mathematical terms.

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score. Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

[Divya16]

Medication tests aren't the samething since you are interested in what effects it has on various patients. In this case you are interested in what effects the two types of JOYSTICKS have on various games. As long as you know how to use both joysticks (which isn't a big deal), that's all that matters. If I play pac-man with both joysticks 100 times, then the skill level I apply for the game is the same-- only the controllers would make the difference. In fact, I can play better now than I did a few years but that still doesn't affect the relationship. The experiment activity is S(Pac-man)*A + S(Pac-man)*D. I guess you can use a scaling factor A and D since the specifics of the function S(g) can encompass everything else. It's an expression of logic in mathematical terms.

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score. Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

 

You really should think about it before you reply. The test is valid for the joysticks not for the person as the skill isn't that important. The score's value isn't important; it's the comparison. Think about it some more or better yet, do the experiment.

 

You were wrong before and are wrong again.

[+Stephen]

You really should think about it before you reply. The test is valid for the joysticks not for the person as the skill isn't that important. The score's value isn't important; it's the comparison. Think about it some more or better yet, do the experiment.

 

You were wrong before and are wrong again.

The differing skill per person is every bit as valid as the differing effects of medicine. It is you who needs to think a little harder.

 

Just because I suck at using chopsticks as opposed to a fork doesn't mean that forks offer better control. It means that I am not good at controlling them.

 

I don't know why you feel so entitled, and believe that what applies to you applies universally. Your opinion is NOT fact no matter how much you would like to believe it is.

[Divya16]

You really should think about it before you reply. The test is valid for the joysticks not for the person as the skill isn't that important. The score's value isn't important; it's the comparison. Think about it some more or better yet, do the experiment.

 

You were wrong before and are wrong again.

The differing skill per person is every bit as valid as the differing effects of medicine. It is you who needs to think a little harder.

 

Just because I suck at using chopsticks as opposed to a fork doesn't mean that forks offer better control. It means that I am not good at controlling them.

 

I don't know why you feel so entitled, and believe that what applies to you applies universally. Your opinion is NOT fact no matter how much you would like to believe it is.

 

You are wrong like him. You don't even understand what the target of the experiment is. Your analogy is also wrong. You have be able to use both types of joysticks before you can perform the experiment. That's been stated like 10X times already. YOu don't know if it's an opinion. It's just your opinion. It's a fact, but you don't see it is a better way to put it honestly.

[Divya16]

With the car, you couldn't really expect to do exactly 50MPH without some kind of feedback (looking at speedometer, or watching the dotted lines on the road go by). But you will certainly reach a desired speed more smoothly with the standard "analog" (in the sense that you have infinite positions) gas pedal than you would with a full on / full off style controller. Might not be very noticeable in a little 4-cylinder car. Try fully smashing the gas in a big-block V8 car, and you will be in for a nasty (but very fun) surprise.

 

This really should be simple to see. Both types of control have their place. To argue that only one is better in every case is just being stubborn. And you know it - there's no harm in admitting you are just trying to get a rise out of all of us.

---

Ahm, you don't have to go all on or all off with the gas using a digital control. That's your idea. Pole Position on Atari 800 has automatic gradual speed-up with brakes that also take some time to slow down the car. Pole Position on Atari 5200 uses one digital button for gas and one for brakes. And how many people do you think actually know the in-between states of their gas pedals-- if they only had 4 or 5 digital states, most people wouldn't know the difference. When I drive, I'm pressing the gas "somewhere in the middle" and waiting for feedback on the speedometer. And after driving various cars, I noticed they aren't consistent either as to how much you press the gas pedal.

Well, let's look at your Pole Position example. You say that it has gradual speed up and slow down. How do you know which point in the speedup or slowdown is? Do you rely on audio/visual feedback from the game? Do you count to yourself because you know that 1.75 seconds will get you to the desired speed? To me, that is no different than "knowing" by feel where to hold an analog controller.

 

*** Edited only to fix quote tag ***

 

You can't know where to hold the controller without relying on feedback. Using feedback, you can do anything with a digital joystick as well. I saw a pinball game use a GUI with a digital joystick. That opens up quite a few possibilities. But your control is inferior than where can know what will occur without relying on feedback.