Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

only the later speccy's (the one's amstrad released) had built in joystick ports (i.e speccy 128+2 and +3) though I can't remember what joystick option worked with these games (i.e kempston or sinclair) remembering that even then that games programmers were still putting the keyboard option as default and the joystick option as secondary (in regards to input for those games)

 

In regards to the PC, I think you'll find that very few modern pc games will have a joypad option (it has to be enabled somwwhere) or atleast support joypads as default, mostly it is keyboard and mouse only

 

Worth repeating the third item in the poll -- the keyboard option. That starts to fail for games like Ms. pac-man when action gets fast, for games like topper where diagonals are used (assuming your keyboard is normal four directions), and anywhere else lever plays a big role. And some of those joypad set-ups are like keyboards and their arrow keys.

[Mirage]

Sure, you've got a fan, and maybe a cheer-leader, but really that's not anywhere near enough to maintain the illusion of perfection and authority.

 

No he doesnt. He's got an extra account that he uses to back himself up.. It's blatently obvious and everyone on here knows it.

 

And to give himself some rep points so he doesn't look so pathetically alone.

 

You trolls still speculating fantasies and spewing out your venom rather than giving refutations for logical facts listed in post #951. I don't rely on rep points nor use them; if I did I wouldn't have started this topic which is opposed to the majority of controllers out there.

 

I guess you can't do much about the experiment as the data is already posted and speaks for itself unless you are unbiased enough and willing to go and repeat it and then confirm it or state your objections.

 

AGAIN!!!! There is nothing to give a refutation for! Your original assertion was malformed. End-of-discussion. You continue to ignore that.

 

If your alter-ego isn't a sockpuppet, please post a photo of the two of you together, with you holding the name of this thread handwritten on a piece of paper. Even that isn't proof, but at least that would be a little more convincing that it isn't all a lie. Smokescreen. It's all you have left, atariski. On that note, it's so funny that you say you got 4 people to perform the experiment. Really? There's really 4 people in the world that would be in the same room with you? (Assuming your real-life persona is anything like your online persona, I'm positive that can't be the case... - this isn't venom! Just observation based on reality, which you clearly have no grasp on).

 

Please follow this up with more denial & smokescreen. I look forward to it. You are refuted. Handily and definitively. You are the one who continues to ignore the valid refutations stated repeatedly in this thread.

[potatohead]

Keyboards?

 

Yeah, great discussion when it's with somebody who actually is willing to have a two way conversation.

 

There is no point to it with alwaysrightneverwrongski. Why bother? It's not like there would be any consideration given.

 

Debating liars and cheats is a fools game.

[atariksi]

Sure, you've got a fan, and maybe a cheer-leader, but really that's not anywhere near enough to maintain the illusion of perfection and authority.

 

No he doesnt. He's got an extra account that he uses to back himself up.. It's blatently obvious and everyone on here knows it.

 

And to give himself some rep points so he doesn't look so pathetically alone.

 

You trolls still speculating fantasies and spewing out your venom rather than giving refutations for logical facts listed in post #951. I don't rely on rep points nor use them; if I did I wouldn't have started this topic which is opposed to the majority of controllers out there.

 

I guess you can't do much about the experiment as the data is already posted and speaks for itself unless you are unbiased enough and willing to go and repeat it and then confirm it or state your objections.

 

AGAIN!!!! There is nothing to give a refutation for! Your original assertion was malformed. End-of-discussion. You continue to ignore that.

...[trollish bait and rubbish deleted]

 

Please follow this up with more denial & smokescreen. I look forward to it. You are refuted. Handily and definitively. You are the one who continues to ignore the valid refutations stated repeatedly in this thread.

 

You can stop your mental speculations. Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated). If you want to discuss off-topic things, go start your own thread. It's a sign of sore losers and trolling to discuss those things and personal attack as well. That's more of a smokescreen than anything I wrote. The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. There are other inherent flaws in the analog joysticks that are listed in post #951.

[potatohead]

Why bother?

 

You wouldn't own up to making a mistake, or being shown something new anyway.

[Mirage]

You can stop your mental speculations. Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated). If you want to discuss off-topic things, go start your own thread. It's a sign of sore losers and trolling to discuss those things and personal attack as well. That's more of a smokescreen than anything I wrote. The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. There are other inherent flaws in the analog joysticks that are listed in post #951.

 

It depends on the game/application. Period. Define "better" control more specifically, then you may have something to talk about. Until then, you are dead in the water as you have been since post #1.

 

When you start to lie, you make it a matter of discussion. Just as your mental illnesses become a matter of discussion as they become obvious.

 

But, PLEASE, by all means, continue!

 

Denial. Denial. Denial.

[potatohead]

And why do you say "mental speculations"?

 

Is there any other kind? Think about it really hard before you answer.

 

And why stop? Are they challenging your illusion of authority? Wouldn't the right answer be far less authoritarian?

 

Seems to me, it's completely possible to just have the conversation without acting like such an ass.

 

I think blindersonbigski has me on ignore again. Anybody care to quote a few choice questions for me? Thanks!

Edited December 24, 2010 by potatohead

[potatohead]

doubledownbigski says:

The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature.

 

Liar.

 

I think it's best if you just get shouted down for showing that kind of ignorance, and for acting the ass over being called out on it.

 

And actinglikeanassski, when you put people on ignore, they get to say stuff about you to all the other people, not on ignore. Did you think that through?

Edited December 24, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

You can stop your mental speculations. Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated). If you want to discuss off-topic things, go start your own thread. It's a sign of sore losers and trolling to discuss those things and personal attack as well. That's more of a smokescreen than anything I wrote. The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. There are other inherent flaws in the analog joysticks that are listed in post #951.

 

It depends on the game/application. Period. Define "better" control more specifically, then you may have something to talk about. Until then, you are dead in the water as you have been since post #1.

 

When you start to lie, you make it a matter of discussion. Just as your mental illnesses become a matter of discussion as they become obvious.

 

But, PLEASE, by all means, continue!

 

Denial. Denial. Denial.

 

There's no lie. I gave people following this thread a simplified BASIC program early in the thread to see for themselves the difference between knowing the exact state of the joystick vs. not knowing the exact state. You can also play those games as well (post #114) and see the higher failure rate for the analog joysticks especially in areas I pointed out. And your mental illness is making you think it's a lie and that others have mental illnesses.

[Mirage]

You don't even know what I'm referring to as lies. Because you're so in denial. You can't separate truth from lies.

[atariksi]

Which is exactly why you'd need a very large selection of both analog and digital controllers (and test subjects, games, etc) for any such comparison to be valid in the slightest. You'd probably also want to record feedback from the test subjects to better explain some results. (and possibly modify the experiment if you not a significant number of controllers/games/etc brought to your attention that were omitted)

 

If you factor out the skill level, then you don't need a bunch of different test subjects. That was the point of that mathematical expression Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D = E. It can be extended to Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D+Sn(g)*P+Sn(g)*K + Sn(g)*T + Sn(g)*M= E where P = paddles, K=keyboard controls, T=touch tablet, M=mouse, etc. But we're concerned mainly about A and D so just set the other variables P,K,M,T = 0. You perform the experiment E and just note down the terms and as you can't already assume the inequality one way or the other so E is the experimental activity. You do a need to play each game many times unless you know the exact point of failure and can repeatedly do that part and you do need to play a few different games but no need to bother with those that have similar points of failure. You can optimize the joysticks so you don't have to iterate over all the various joysticks in the world.

[Mirage]

By the way, I actually agree with you that for many applications, for many games, for many people, digital controls provide "better" control (I have to make a leap of understanding to define "better" in the way that I believe you to mean though).

 

But there are a vast array of situations where that is not the case (I'm not going to repeat them all for you to continue to ignore as you have mostly done). Your methods and presentation also are extremely flawed, as has already been outlined many times by others as well, so there is no point in doing so again. If you more narrowly define your case, and present it better, I, and many others, would probably agree with your assertion. But as presented, you've made it impossible for any reasonable person to agree with you.

[JamesD]

Asshat

when someone has clear and proven evidence against their point and yet refuses to accept the point being made against them. Thus the term someone who has their head up their ass.

Edited December 24, 2010 by JamesD

[potatohead]

The word "asshole" is not a word of specific generic exactitude. The

word "asshole," when used to describe a physical portion of the human

body, is a void surrounded by the anal sphincter muscle. On the other

hand, when used as a characterization of an individual, the word

"asshole" denotes that the individual possesses some or all of the

following:

 

a. His acts or omissions do not conform generally to an accepted

pattern among members of a particular social group of which the

individual using the characterization is a member.

 

b. A person who by his conduct causes derision to be heaped upon

him by one or more other persons.

 

c. A person whose conduct has attained the degree of contemptibility

such that it defies characterization by any conventional language.

 

d. A person generally considered by his peers to conduct himself in

such a manner as displays a callous disregard for the feelings of other

human beings and thus deserving of being shunned and ostracized.

Edited December 24, 2010 by potatohead

[+5-11under]

... The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. ...

Atariksi, why is this something you want to discuss or proclaim?

[atariksi]

... The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. ...

Atariksi, why is this something you want to discuss or proclaim?

 

I guess you are referring to 2nd line there. Because joysticks are also devices like any other digital or analog device. You know the exact state of the joystick in the case of digital as you would know the exact bits and where they are on an Audio CD, DVD, computer memory, etc. That knowledge leads to better control. That's a logical/mathematical truth. In the experiment, it shows up in game play and even taking into account some fluke results by some people, if you take it statistically (over some long run), digital MUST win in control. If a basketball player is shoots 60% from the free throw line, there's a probability of 6/10 that he will make his next shot from the line. However, if someone shoots 100%, he is guaranteed to make his next shot. Of course, you can have the 60% guy get a few in a row, but it will average out to that.

[potatohead]

The question was, "why?"

[Barnacle boy]

Which is exactly why you'd need a very large selection of both analog and digital controllers (and test subjects, games, etc) for any such comparison to be valid in the slightest. You'd probably also want to record feedback from the test subjects to better explain some results. (and possibly modify the experiment if you not a significant number of controllers/games/etc brought to your attention that were omitted)

 

If you factor out the skill level, then you don't need a bunch of different test subjects. That was the point of that mathematical expression Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D = E. It can be extended to Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D+Sn(g)*P+Sn(g)*K + Sn(g)*T + Sn(g)*M= E where P = paddles, K=keyboard controls, T=touch tablet, M=mouse, etc. But we're concerned mainly about A and D so just set the other variables P,K,M,T = 0. You perform the experiment E and just note down the terms and as you can't already assume the inequality one way or the other so E is the experimental activity. You do a need to play each game many times unless you know the exact point of failure and can repeatedly do that part and you do need to play a few different games but no need to bother with those that have similar points of failure. You can optimize the joysticks so you don't have to iterate over all the various joysticks in the world.

 

Funny how you cut out the post Kool Kitty was replying to, cutting out the very simple and obvious example that demonstrates that you cannot simply "factor out the skill level"

 

Let's put it back in for your benefit (I've added some further explanatory points in red to help remove any confusion you might be pretending to have):

 

 

Explain this then Atariksi:

 

I used to own an Amiga with two Konix speedking sticks. My mate also owned an Amiga, but he had two Quickshot sticks.

 

My Speedking and his Quickshot were both digital, though they were quite different in terms of construction and design.

 

During our many games of Speedball 2,we observed the following:

 

1) When he would come over to my place and play against me using the Speedking, I would usually beat him while he whined and moaned about the controller. (Note: In these instances we were both using Speedkings.)

2) When I would go to his place and play against him using the Quickshot, he would usually beat me, and I would moan about the controller. (Note: In these instances we were both using Quickshots.)

 

3) When either of us brought our preferred controller with us, our wins and losses over multiple games were fairly evenly matched. (Note: In these instances I was using a Speedking, he was using a Quickshot.)

 

 

He knew how to use the Speedking. I knew how to use the Quickshot. Neither of us needed an instruction manual. So how does your so-called 'logical expression', your factoring out of skill, and your resulting conclusion account for the outcomes we experienced?

 

If we apply Atariksi 'logic', then as I applied the 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Speedking, the Speedking is therefore scientifically proven to be the better joystick.

 

Yet as my mate applied his 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Quickshot, the Quickshot is therefore scientifically proven to be the better stick, according to Atariksi 'logic'.

 

The two conclusions are incompatible. Thus your logic is faulty. QED.

 

 

So far you have been too timid to address this. Either too timid, or too intellectually dishonest.

 

You have pretended to address it, with this post:

 

Yeah, as if he never changed-- using his own misunderstandings/misexperiments to blame others. What need was there to experiment with two digital joysticks given that you can use one digital joystick and get different scores by playing the same game multiple times.

 

But that was merely an attempt at avoiding the issue with intentional misconstrual (one of your favourite and most obvious tactics when proven wrong). I say intentional, as my example is so straightforward I find it hard to believe that you failed to understand. Furthermore, I've made a specific point of mentioning your reply here because if I didn't, you would most likely try to wriggle out of it by saying something like 'I already responded to this in Post #1121.'

 

 

But make no mistake: You haven't addressed the issue. You have not acquitted yourself in any way. Your logic is flawed. If it isn't, then please explain to me how the following claims --

 

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.

I'm so sorry, but the skill is of the same person using both types of joysticks and is thus factorable. When I played Miner 2049er with analog joystick and scored average of 35K and scored average of 48K with digital joystick-- I applied the same skills using those two joysticks. My skills didn't change. The controlled variable is ONLY the joysticks, and thus the conclusion from that experiment is that digital joystick provides better control. And I already listed five (5) items that back me up logically (inherently flawed analog joysticks). FYI, S(Miner2049er)*A < S(Miner2049er)*D, so given you have some skills to play the game (i.e, S(g)!=0), you divide by S(g) and thus A<D. QED.

If you factor out the skill level, then you don't need a bunch of different test subjects. That was the point of that mathematical expression Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D = E.

Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated).

 

-- can withstand being applied to my straightforward real-world example above. (Bold emphasis mine, btw.)

 

 

 

Let me remind you that in Post #1124 I said:

 

So I'm challenging you point-blank: Instead of dodging the question by resorting to intentional misconstrual and deflection, explain to me how your so-called 'logical expression' and your factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the scenario I described above, in which my mate routinely performed better with the Quickshot over the Speedking, while I routinely performed better with the Speedking over the Quickshot. Which is the better joystick?

 

That challenge stands. If you are too stubborn or too scared to honestly respond to my question, perhaps Divya16 can attempt on your behalf.

 

 

Come on Divya, you claimed the following:

 

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.

 

So how about you explain how Atariksi's so-called 'logical expression' and factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the example I presented above. Which is the better joystick?

 

 

 

By the way, if I'm starting to sound repetitive, it's because I have to be laboriously specific in order to minimise opportunities for Atariksi to weakly dodge the matter through any one of his typical avoidance tactics. This is a fact that does not reflect well on his character.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Barnacle boy

[potatohead]

I want to know how these two programs are different:

 

10 a=stick(0)

20 ?A

30 goto 10

 

10 a=paddle(0):b=paddle(1)

20 ?(a < 80)+((a > 140)*2)+((b < 80)*4)+((b > 140)* 8 )

30 goto 10

 

Now, ignore number of computations. If a sample can be obtained in a frame, that's a valid sample. I don't think there is a case where a faster sample makes any sense. Can't redraw the screen faster than that. State updates happen at blanks for the most part too. I'm open on that one though. Bring it on!

 

So, user can visually examine device, see the position, call out the state. User can move the device, and know the target state.

 

On both devices, there is a region where movement can occur, without a state change. On both devices, there is a learning about the states, and the movements associated with them.

 

Mechanically, both devices can vary in terms of quality.

 

???

Edited December 25, 2010 by potatohead

[+5-11under]

... The topic of the thread is true blue as described in post #1. All digital provide superior control over all analog due to the nature of analog's inexact nature. ...

Atariksi, why is this something you want to discuss or proclaim?

 

I guess you are referring to 2nd line there. Because joysticks are also devices like any other digital or analog device. You know the exact state of the joystick in the case of digital as you would know the exact bits and where they are on an Audio CD, DVD, computer memory, etc. That knowledge leads to better control. That's a logical/mathematical truth. In the experiment, it shows up in game play and even taking into account some fluke results by some people, if you take it statistically (over some long run), digital MUST win in control. If a basketball player is shoots 60% from the free throw line, there's a probability of 6/10 that he will make his next shot from the line. However, if someone shoots 100%, he is guaranteed to make his next shot. Of course, you can have the 60% guy get a few in a row, but it will average out to that.

D'oh, I gave you a +1 instead of hitting the reply button. Oh well, it's Christmas Eve, so it's all good... . And if that means nothing to you, hopefully at least you get a few days off from work or school.

 

To respond: Um, no. I'm wondering why you want to discuss/argue the topic of this thread? What did you want to gain or learn from this thread at the start, or now?

[carmel_andrews]

Since it is christmas and in the spirit of 'charity' may i be so bold as to propse that atariski suggeats some games that the other posters here can experiment with both analog(ue) and digital joysticks/pads and gamepads/keyboards etc (basically any device that allows you to interact with the game) and post their findings for the various games and devices used in this thread, that way we know which device is better suited to which game...and that way we can establisgh what is scientific fact (as it will be a much fairer and more opebn scientific experiment)

[RevEng]

If a basketball player is shoots 60% from the free throw line, there's a probability of 6/10 that he will make his next shot from the line. However, if someone shoots 100%, he is guaranteed to make his next shot. Of course, you can have the 60% guy get a few in a row, but it will average out to that.

You messed up in understanding your own analogy.

 

If he shoots the ball at 100% of his full power, like a digital control, he's going to miss every shot. He knows the state of power he's using a priori, and yet that knowledge won't help him sink one basket.

 

If he shoots the ball with a lower percentage of his full power, he's going to sink a lot more, despite the fact that he doesn't even know the exact percentage of power he's using.

 

In all earnestness, you need professional help. Playing these games on a forum is harmless enough - it's not a war as some have declared - but every day you engage in it, is a day you're ignoring dealing with your issues.

[atariksi]

If a basketball player is shoots 60% from the free throw line, there's a probability of 6/10 that he will make his next shot from the line. However, if someone shoots 100%, he is guaranteed to make his next shot. Of course, you can have the 60% guy get a few in a row, but it will average out to that.

You messed up in understanding your own analogy.

 

If he shoots the ball at 100% of his full power, like a digital control, he's going to miss every shot. He knows the state of power he's using a priori, and yet that knowledge won't help him sink one basket.

 

If he shoots the ball with a lower percentage of his full power, he's going to sink a lot more, despite the fact that he doesn't even know the exact percentage of power he's using.

 

In all earnestness, you need professional help. Playing these games on a forum is harmless enough - it's not a war as some have declared - but every day you engage in it, is a day you're ignoring dealing with your issues.

 

Didn't want to ruin the analog joystickists holidays, but *you* really messed this one up. The analogy is giving his shooting percentage not the power which he uses to shoot. I guess you don't know much about basketball. And no, 100% or 0% is not the only way to implement a digital state either. It's you who need help as you are arguing against an analogy which is used to help simplify the point being made. Instead of arguing the point, you attacked the analogy and misunderstood that as well. And FYI, both basketball players can use same power and still one ends up missing more than the other as the power doesn't determine the accuracy.

 

I'll reply to other posts after the holidays as this skunk was just trying to smell things up.

[potatohead]

Did you read about the asshole up-thread?

 

Skunk?

 

Your arrogance is getting in the way of your comprehension.

[atariksi]

Since it is christmas and in the spirit of 'charity' may i be so bold as to propse that atariski suggeats some games that the other posters here can experiment with both analog(ue) and digital joysticks/pads and gamepads/keyboards etc (basically any device that allows you to interact with the game) and post their findings for the various games and devices used in this thread, that way we know which device is better suited to which game...and that way we can establisgh what is scientific fact (as it will be a much fairer and more opebn scientific experiment)

 

As I mentioned DonkeyKong, Pac-man (or Ms. Pac-man, or any other pac-mans), Miner 2049er, and a few others you can try with both types of joysticks (and keyboard if you want) and you'll see the results quite easily. Others may take longer runs.