Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

You forgot to address any of my arguments. Any skunk smells bad so adding "flowery" won't help you.

 

Just joking around isn't helping you either. You just distort things and misunderstand simple analogies so it's pretty much useless to even bother replying to you as your intention is just to stink things up every so often just to say something. Oh, by the way your hypocracy is also quite evident; you can't be preaching "it depends on the game" when you are voting and only arguing on analog side.

Funny - you have still ignored the 2nd BASIC program that was posted which clearly proves that you can use an analog stick and know exactly what state it will be in by limiting the ranges of uncertainty you love to scream about.

 

Stop pointing out flaws in others which you clearly possess in greater quantity. It (among a dozen other things you have done here) really makes you look bad.

 

There are NO BASIC programs that allow you to know the exact states of the analog joystick a priori. They are all farce if they claim to be. You are sampling in in-between state data and thresholding so there's uncertainty for analog joysticks.

[+remowilliams]

I'm pretty sure every system of education for any subject has their qualifications.

 

What? Qualifications might matter for some reason at some point for something, somewhere?

 

 

[atariksi]

Here's his quote specific to the question:

 

5-11under wrote: maybe whether the moon is further from the earth than the sun,...

 

The question to answer looks like: Explain whether the moon is further away from the earth than the sun according to the philosophy.

How about we don't use philosophy for what science has easily proved. You know - actual measurements ans science that you seem so fond of.

 

Philosophy that's based on logic and deduction is superior to experimentation. Remember it's philosophical thought that led to Descartes coming up with the Cartesian coordinates. It's same logic from philosophy that allows you to solve: A(X*X)+B*X + C = 0 in a generic way without doing experimental trial and error for values of x which you may never get exactly for most cases.

[potatohead]

You forgot to address any of my arguments. Any skunk smells bad so adding "flowery" won't help you.

 

Just joking around isn't helping you either. You just distort things and misunderstand simple analogies so it's pretty much useless to even bother replying to you as your intention is just to stink things up every so often just to say something. Oh, by the way your hypocracy is also quite evident; you can't be preaching "it depends on the game" when you are voting and only arguing on analog side.

Funny - you have still ignored the 2nd BASIC program that was posted which clearly proves that you can use an analog stick and know exactly what state it will be in by limiting the ranges of uncertainty you love to scream about.

 

Stop pointing out flaws in others which you clearly possess in greater quantity. It (among a dozen other things you have done here) really makes you look bad.

 

There are NO BASIC programs that allow you to know the exact states of the analog joystick a priori. They are all farce if they claim to be. You are sampling in in-between state data and thresholding so there's uncertainty for analog joysticks.

 

And how is it different exactly?

 

So we've got program one, reading state input from the digital stick. And we've got program number 2 reading state info from the analog stick.

 

In each stick, and in each program, there is a range of motion, where the joystick does not return a valid state value, in each program, there is a well defined motion that does return a state value, and there is a motion beyond the motion required to return the state value.

 

Older atari joysticks have springs in them, so that the range of motion states involve a greater angular displacement, compared to the cheaper sticks, which use a plastic spring.

 

It is possible for a user to manipulate the joystick, either analog or digital and know in advance of motion, what motion is required to realize any state.

 

How exactly are these different? Given that you have a difference to present, which so far you have not, how is that difference from de-bounce code required to properly read digital sticks, and or hardware latches required for same?

 

Both the digital joystick and analog joystick feature mechanical uncertainty. The digital stick will trigger it's spring, or engage the metal contact spring at different angles per state, and even among sticks. Any player must operate the stick, or force it well beyond normal operating limits to be assured a given state will be input. The analog stick is the same way, with a strong mechanical motion being required to nail a state, and some variance in what lesser motion will actually trigger a state.

 

Now, I do think non-centering analogs are different, because the user must maintain a centering state on their own. However, centering ones have the same mechanical variances as the simple digital ones do, with the only real difference being scale, and mechanical design / quality issues, as seen in the older revision Atari digital joystick with the springs.

 

So, you've got to say it. It's not enough to just say the analog input is uncertain. The digital one is too, which is why de-bouncers, either in software, or via hardware latch / reset schemes are in use all over the world. It's not possible for a human to operate a digital input, and be sure of the state output because of the region of uncertain behavior at the moment of contact, and depending on the device, for some time after that moment of contact occurs.

 

So say it. How exactly are they different?

 

 

Given you power through that, please detail how "tail gunner" can be played with digital sticks in a way comparable to analog. With a digital stick, pulsing will be required to reach some screen positions from other screen positions. There is a latency cost for that, exactly as I detailed early on in this discussion, which you have ignored.

 

The analog joystick user, by comparison, can move from any screen position to any other screen position without the same time penalty.

 

On that game, the control delivered to the user is superior with analog devices, the control delivered to the user with digital is inferior for the number of states reachable "a priori" isn't comparable given the same period of time.

 

Because of that, your case of digital being superior ALWAYS, isn't valid. It absolutely must be qualified.

 

I know that hurts, but that's how it is wontadmitfaultski.

[potatohead]

And for reference:

 

10 A=paddle(0):B=paddle(1)

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

30 goto 10

 

A digital joystick, with buffer springs, like the original VCS joystick, operates on a range of input, just like the analog one does, however it lacks the ability to communicate anything other than the trigger points, where a analog joystick, built to perform in the same way mechanically, can communicate that, plus the motion vector, and velocity.

 

In a digital only scenario, those things must either be fixed, or contrived based on the game dynamic in play at the time, or the user is required to input more bits of information either via sequential input states over time, or by the use of other input means and methods, such as buttons, which increase overall input complexity.

Edited January 7, 2011 by potatohead

[potatohead]

Funny how that ignore thing works isn't it Blindersonatalltimesbutwhenitreallyhurtsksi?

 

You can just put that out there, "NO PROGRAM", but unless you step up and face me on it, answering the detail questions in a way that is compelling, everybody knows you are just sitting in your corner, sucking on sour grapes.

 

And before you bitch about me just keeping it out there, you asked for it. If that somehow doesn't make sense, as in you losing your ass big, you can always withdraw the challenge. I'll go easy, about my business, actually building some analog circuits for my micro, because somehow after this discussion, I find myself very interested in them now.

 

, or

 

You can post up some solid info that sorts the simple questions posted here.

 

, or

 

Qualify your statement, so that it is properly constrained to the set of things where you are more right about it than wrong. You know, that set totally exists! You've got a case, but only if you actually make one, instead of digging in for three months of bullshit, and invoking a spare persona, just because, well... you know, we all need a personal cheerleader right? Understandable, if a bit immature. No harm, no foul right? Just qualify it, and you will be flat out amazed at your increase in overall respectability, credence, and general stature here.

 

Anything else is just denial in all it's forms, detailed on this thread in case you forget and do one that's already been done. That's not very productive in general, because people tend to pick up on that kind of thing, which just ends up looking really bad. (you are welcome, from your buddy, Spud, who really doesn't mind delivering nicely on this, because he knows you want it that badly)

 

***I know late at night, when you think nobody is really looking you read this stuff anyway. Then it's probably a chant or something to keep control. That's gotta be tough, because this hasn't been all that easy, and the numbers are bad. You really don't have the hearts and minds on this, leaving you to just your imaginary cheerleader, and some tired, not wired, dogma that's way out of popular favor right now. Feel for you man. I really do.

Edited January 7, 2011 by potatohead

[Bryan]

Does anyone remember the Roklan Unroller? This is the atariksi answer to the trackball. Instead of allowing variable, controlled motion, the Unroller was a joystick with a giant hemisphere where the stick would be. As you attempted to "roll" it in each direction, you would simply close one of 4 switches.

 

I had one for a while (purchased in a game lot) and it's pretty much useless, but wonderfully digital.

 

 

Anyway, I nominate this thread for AA's hall of shame: An intentional trap to lure people into a surreal holy war about something that isn't even a realistic option for A8 users. May I suggest for a livelier debate, go hit on some dude's girlfriend in a biker bar next time.

[atariksi]

Does anyone remember the Roklan Unroller? This is the atariksi answer to the trackball. Instead of allowing variable, controlled motion, the Unroller was a joystick with a giant hemisphere where the stick would be. As you attempted to "roll" it in each direction, you would simply close one of 4 switches.

 

I had one for a while (purchased in a game lot) and it's pretty much useless, but wonderfully digital.

 

 

Anyway, I nominate this thread for AA's hall of shame: An intentional trap to lure people into a surreal holy war about something that isn't even a realistic option for A8 users. May I suggest for a livelier debate, go hit on some dude's girlfriend in a biker bar next time.

 

You do have an option of using both types of joysticks-- just play the similar game on Atari 5200 and Atari 800. If Atari 5200 isn't an option, you can use a joystick simulator for real machines or perhaps some of the emulators support using both types and configuring/calibrating them. And I am comparing actually joysticks pictured in post #1 or similar ones. Obviously, analog joysticks have evolved since then but digital joysticks haven't evolved so digital joysticks have room for improvement. In fact, the modern digital joysticks are more of a step back-- removing the sticks and putting arrow-type keys-- more like using a keyboard. No trap-- just a simple observation that led me to the experiment.

[Bryan]

You do have an option of using both types of joysticks-- just play the similar game on Atari 5200 and Atari 800. If Atari 5200 isn't an option, you can use a joystick simulator for real machines or perhaps some of the emulators support using both types and configuring/calibrating them. And I am comparing actually joysticks pictured in post #1 or similar ones. Obviously, analog joysticks have evolved since then but digital joysticks haven't evolved so digital joysticks have room for improvement. In fact, the modern digital joysticks are more of a step back-- removing the sticks and putting arrow-type keys-- more like using a keyboard. No trap-- just a simple observation that led me to the experiment.

 

Yes, I can buy a 5200 if I want to experience the poorly designed CX52, but this is the A8 forum and I bet no one here plays A8 games with an analog stick.

[+Stephen]

Here's his quote specific to the question:

 

5-11under wrote: maybe whether the moon is further from the earth than the sun,...

 

The question to answer looks like: Explain whether the moon is further away from the earth than the sun according to the philosophy.

How about we don't use philosophy for what science has easily proved. You know - actual measurements ans science that you seem so fond of.

 

Philosophy that's based on logic and deduction is superior to experimentation. Remember it's philosophical thought that led to Descartes coming up with the Cartesian coordinates. It's same logic from philosophy that allows you to solve: A(X*X)+B*X + C = 0 in a generic way without doing experimental trial and error for values of x which you may never get exactly for most cases.

I see - so rather than base the distance to the moon on such scientific measurements as laser based distance tracking, measuring the effects of gravity on the tides, not to mention pictures of the solar system as imaged by the Voyager probes, you'll just use philosophy and deduction. Brilliant.

[potatohead]

@Bryan, absolutely!!

 

Early on in the thread, the difference between preference and the "scientific fact" presented here is clear. I do not play games on A8 with Analogs. I like the Atari joystick a lot, and I prefer it for many of the classics.

 

However, that preference isn't a matter of science and control, which is really what the thread is about. And you are right on about it being a shitty debate.

 

Hell, we can't even get Cantdebateksi to really engage the questions! That's also what the thread is about. Shitonthreadsandtreatpeoplelikeshitski does this kind of thing regularly, with the theme "Atari is better" too. Don't mind some cheerleading, I do it myself. Lots of fun, I do mind the shitty, elitist attitude, and this particular time, he opened the door to push back, because he asked for it.

 

And if there is anything to note about asking for it, I find the whole idea that he's somehow being wronged, or that people have all the issues claimed here, in response to people actually delivering as promised, despite Atariksi being a complete asshole* on these things more often than not, morbid enough to push back. Call it a flaw. I'll own it easily enough, and because of that, I personally don't do this shit, because of where it leads to.

 

*asshole, per the definition posted earlier in the thread, which is actually the legal test for "asshole". Was surprised to find there was such a thing.

 

Rubbing his face in a little of it isn't uncalled for, because he asked for it. That's where I'm at on it.

 

When people are that quick to judge and take some elite, disconnected stand at the same time, generally attract this kind of attention. When they ask for it? Sorry, that's kind of golden. At times, too difficult to resist.

 

If this is such a problem, by all means lock the thread. I don't mind at all.

[+5-11under]

I'm imagining the moderators sitting around the boardroom table, discussing various AA threads. They get to this one, and they discuss whether to lock it or not. They discuss whether the name calling is bad, whether the talking about religion is getting too specific, whether the purpose of the thread has lost its course, and other factors. Then someone says, "well, if we do decide to lock it, who's going to be the one to actually make that final post in the thread, ending it forever". The room becomes silent, and they slowly retreat back into their cubicles at AA headquarters.

[bmcnett]

whether the talking about religion is getting too specific

 

Yeah... sorry to push the Krishna so hard, but I've been trying to make a point. An analogy will help illustrate: atariksi is Buzz Lightyear and doesn't realize that he's just a toy like the rest of us. The logic and pace of his arguments, and the utterances about "envious snakes" and "skunks" and "refrigerator bugs" seem random and crazy until you read the text on Buzz Lightyear's package, which tells the backstory of "Emperor Zurg" and "Star Command." I've been trying to point at atariksi's backstory to show that he's not simply insane - he's just a fish out of water.

 

There remains the problem that atariksi doesn't realize he's a fish. Pardon me for making sweeping generalizations, but we're all middle-aged men from Western culture with a fondness for engineering? You could hardly get further away from the kind of person who's likely to resonate with the logic of "Krishna Consciousness."

 

Let me tell you a brief story. I was about eight years old and one of my best friends was from South India. He brought me to some kind of lecture event where I was the only person who wasn't South Indian, and this was a novelty. After the lecture, they brought me on stage and asked me what I thought about it. I said "It was cool" and felt a cold reaction from the crowd. Instantly, I realized that American slang was inappropriate for this audience - they thought I meant the lecture was unmoving! So I quickly said "It was very interesting, thank you" which communicated effectively.

 

AFAIK atariksi's been in America for at least 25 years, and he hasn't learned that lesson yet? You can't escape the suspicion that he doesn't want to learn.

Edited January 7, 2011 by bmcnett

[atariksi]

I'm imagining the moderators sitting around the boardroom table, discussing various AA threads. They get to this one, and they discuss whether to lock it or not. They discuss whether the name calling is bad, whether the talking about religion is getting too specific, whether the purpose of the thread has lost its course, and other factors. Then someone says, "well, if we do decide to lock it, who's going to be the one to actually make that final post in the thread, ending it forever". The room becomes silent, and they slowly retreat back into their cubicles at AA headquarters.

 

And you're the one who started and wanted to bring off-topic things into the discussion. Later it was bmcnett. So first heal yourself before accusing others. And your speculation about me and moderators and others is just that- speculation.

[+Stephen]

I'm imagining the moderators sitting around the boardroom table, discussing various AA threads. They get to this one, and they discuss whether to lock it or not. They discuss whether the name calling is bad, whether the talking about religion is getting too specific, whether the purpose of the thread has lost its course, and other factors. Then someone says, "well, if we do decide to lock it, who's going to be the one to actually make that final post in the thread, ending it forever". The room becomes silent, and they slowly retreat back into their cubicles at AA headquarters.

 

And you're the one who started and wanted to bring off-topic things into the discussion. Later it was bmcnett. So first heal yourself before accusing others. And your speculation about me and moderators and others is just that- speculation.

Do you ever find anything humorous or funny? You seem completely unable to understand a joke (even a light hearted one). For crying out loud, we're all on a board dedicated to video games which should be fun! Laugh a little - laugh with others, laugh at yourself. It won't hurt you - I promise.

 

Don't take everything so personally and serious! Even after this entire thread, if I ever met you in person, I would gladly break bread with you. I would buy you a drink. I would shake your hand and discuss your philosophy with you.

[atariksi]

whether the talking about religion is getting too specific

 

Yeah... sorry to push the Krishna so hard, but I've been trying to make a point. An analogy will help illustrate: atariksi is Buzz Lightyear and doesn't realize that he's just a toy like the rest of us. The logic and pace of his arguments, and the utterances about "envious snakes" and "skunks" and "refrigerator bugs" seem random and crazy until you read the text on Buzz Lightyear's package, which tells the backstory of "Emperor Zurg" and "Star Command." I've been trying to point at atariksi's backstory to show that he's not simply insane - he's just a fish out of water.

You are the one who is insane. You want to discuss things that are off-topic and want to draw conclusions about things you know NOTHING about. You are the fish out of water. How hypocritical can you get. You can't even read properly the replies I have made to you and keep repeating your mistakes. For example, I wrote in post #1597:

 

"You forgot that the fact that you lost part of your brain to the bugs in your home and other stuff in your refridgerator disqualifies you from presenting any valid theories what to speak of facts."

 

No mention of refridgerator bugs which you concocted like the post I'm replying to. Learn to understand and stop trying to create fictional tales. You are mentally retarded if you can't read post #1 and understand that the topic is about digital joysticks and analog joysticks.

 

AFAIK atariksi's been in America for at least 25 years, and he hasn't learned that lesson yet? You can't escape the suspicion that he doesn't want to learn.

 

That was another one of your incoherent meaningless gibberish that you keep spewing out. You already proved you can't learn a simple point-- that googling stuff isn't the samething as systematic learning of a subject and keep repeating that mistake as well as claiming "I'm willing to learn." Well, apply your own advice to yourself. Take care, you need help.

[+5-11under]

I'm imagining the moderators sitting around the boardroom table, discussing various AA threads. They get to this one, and they discuss whether to lock it or not. They discuss whether the name calling is bad, whether the talking about religion is getting too specific, whether the purpose of the thread has lost its course, and other factors. Then someone says, "well, if we do decide to lock it, who's going to be the one to actually make that final post in the thread, ending it forever". The room becomes silent, and they slowly retreat back into their cubicles at AA headquarters.

 

And you're the one who started and wanted to bring off-topic things into the discussion. Later it was bmcnett. So first heal yourself before accusing others. And your speculation about me and moderators and others is just that- speculation.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything in that post. You need to relax a bit. Have some fun. Go play some Kaboom!

[atariksi]

Here's his quote specific to the question:

 

5-11under wrote: maybe whether the moon is further from the earth than the sun,...

 

The question to answer looks like: Explain whether the moon is further away from the earth than the sun according to the philosophy.

How about we don't use philosophy for what science has easily proved. You know - actual measurements ans science that you seem so fond of.

 

Philosophy that's based on logic and deduction is superior to experimentation. Remember it's philosophical thought that led to Descartes coming up with the Cartesian coordinates. It's same logic from philosophy that allows you to solve: A(X*X)+B*X + C = 0 in a generic way without doing experimental trial and error for values of x which you may never get exactly for most cases.

I see - so rather than base the distance to the moon on such scientific measurements as laser based distance tracking, measuring the effects of gravity on the tides, not to mention pictures of the solar system as imaged by the Voyager probes, you'll just use philosophy and deduction. Brilliant.

 

It is brilliant. If you had the deductive means to calculate it, you wouldn't need the approximation method that you mentioned. Look at how many medicines are researched based on trial and error experimentation and later they have had to update/modify them. Look at how many theories have to be revised over and over as more experimentation shows exceptions or anamolies. If you had the better means, you wouldn't have to rely on experimentation.

 

For those who haven't read this thread, the logic vs. experiment is related to this topic as the rate of error for an analog joystick is higher than a digital joystick then by logic of law of averages, you would end up with digital winning over analog. Experimentation is another means to see the inferior control of the analog joystick vs. a digital joystick.

[atariksi]

You do have an option of using both types of joysticks-- just play the similar game on Atari 5200 and Atari 800. If Atari 5200 isn't an option, you can use a joystick simulator for real machines or perhaps some of the emulators support using both types and configuring/calibrating them. And I am comparing actually joysticks pictured in post #1 or similar ones. Obviously, analog joysticks have evolved since then but digital joysticks haven't evolved so digital joysticks have room for improvement. In fact, the modern digital joysticks are more of a step back-- removing the sticks and putting arrow-type keys-- more like using a keyboard. No trap-- just a simple observation that led me to the experiment.

 

Yes, I can buy a 5200 if I want to experience the poorly designed CX52, but this is the A8 forum and I bet no one here plays A8 games with an analog stick.

 

Actually, you can play the Atari 5200 games with Wico, PC joysticks (a couple of capacitors to convert the resistance levels), Masterplay, and digital joysticks and many have done this. And many people in this forum are familiar with PC analog joystick-based games, Atari 5200, and A8 games as is evident from the discussion.

[bmcnett]

You are the one who is insane... You are the fish out of water.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7xH72dFySg

[+Stephen]

I see - so rather than base the distance to the moon on such scientific measurements as laser based distance tracking, measuring the effects of gravity on the tides, not to mention pictures of the solar system as imaged by the Voyager probes, you'll just use philosophy and deduction. Brilliant.

 

It is brilliant. If you had the deductive means to calculate it, you wouldn't need the approximation method that you mentioned. Look at how many medicines are researched based on trial and error experimentation and later they have had to update/modify them. Look at how many theories have to be revised over and over as more experimentation shows exceptions or anamolies. If you had the better means, you wouldn't have to rely on experimentation.

Please explain to me how one can "deduce" the distance from the earth to the moon? Laser based distance measurements are in no way an approximation.

[Bryan]

Please explain to me how one can "deduce" the distance from the earth to the moon? Laser based distance measurements are in no way an approximation.

Simple. Yell "Hello" at the moon and wait for the echo.

[Bryan]

You do have an option of using both types of joysticks-- just play the similar game on Atari 5200 and Atari 800. If Atari 5200 isn't an option, you can use a joystick simulator for real machines or perhaps some of the emulators support using both types and configuring/calibrating them. And I am comparing actually joysticks pictured in post #1 or similar ones. Obviously, analog joysticks have evolved since then but digital joysticks haven't evolved so digital joysticks have room for improvement. In fact, the modern digital joysticks are more of a step back-- removing the sticks and putting arrow-type keys-- more like using a keyboard. No trap-- just a simple observation that led me to the experiment.

 

Yes, I can buy a 5200 if I want to experience the poorly designed CX52, but this is the A8 forum and I bet no one here plays A8 games with an analog stick.

 

Actually, you can play the Atari 5200 games with Wico, PC joysticks (a couple of capacitors to convert the resistance levels), Masterplay, and digital joysticks and many have done this. And many people in this forum are familiar with PC analog joystick-based games, Atari 5200, and A8 games as is evident from the discussion.

 

You can even hook up digital sticks too!

 

So why is this not a better topic for the 5200 forum?

[+Stephen]

Actually, you can play the Atari 5200 games with Wico, PC joysticks (a couple of capacitors to convert the resistance levels), Masterplay, and digital joysticks and many have done this. And many people in this forum are familiar with PC analog joystick-based games, Atari 5200, and A8 games as is evident from the discussion.

 

You can even hook up digital sticks too!

 

So why is this not a better topic for the 5200 forum?

It started there and somehow spilled over to this forum. I think the 5200 folks got tired of it so now we get to deal with the fun.

[JamesD]

Good luck playing this game with digital joysticks

Yawn, who wants to play xbl. Try some pacman with that analog stick. good luck..

 

I can't tell from that video link what's so analogish about that game or would require analog joystick(s).

I think we are all aware that you will refuse to acknowledge that any game would be superior with or require analog joysticks.

Anyone that has played it would quickly disagree with you.