Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

 

And I'm sitting on one hell of a pile of data too. Can't release it to just anybody you know. Some chump might just say it's bad data, and where would we be then?

 

No, data has been posted and he's been arguing data from joystick simulator cannot be used and wants more at the same time.

[potatohead]

Well, I get to fucking say "ass", and since you are asserting I am "cursing", I'll just own up to that solid. We get to say ass you know. It's not profane, and it's not cursing at all in this context.

 

It is diminutive though. Grant you that one. But, I meant it to be, because you did lose on that exchange big.

 

That's ok, if you don't want to reply. Perhaps another persona will be invoked to solve that problem? We shall see.

 

In any case, I'll just watch others pound it home with morbid interest to see just how bizzare the mental contortions become to avoid simply admitting error. Amazing.

 

 

 

 

"That way the entire body of people following this thread know that you aren't a duplicitous two-timer."

 

Yeah?

 

Well, by my home score, he handed your ass to you, big. I don't think he's "a duplicitous two-timer", which rules out "the entire body", now doesn't it?

It doesn't matter what he is. It doesn't matter if you think the sun rises in the West. The logic is undeniable that he's a two timer. He has argued that Atariksi cannot use the data from the joystick simulator. He was given data (posts #114, 137, and some others) and he wants more. Well that's P and -P. He needs to accept that data and then ask for more or at least not argue against it.

 

Keep the cursing down as it doesn't help your case. I'll stop replying to you otherwise.

[potatohead]

 

And I'm sitting on one hell of a pile of data too. Can't release it to just anybody you know. Some chump might just say it's bad data, and where would we be then?

 

No, data has been posted and he's been arguing data from joystick simulator cannot be used and wants more at the same time.

(edited)

 

Oh, you mean that stuff you contributed to the thread? That is data. Want some more?

 

0010, 0111, 0111, 0101, 1001, 01, 10, 11, 00

 

There! That proves my point nicely. Thanks for playing!

 

Oh, by the way, in my experience, the number one thing people do when confronted with a difficult position is assert moral purity. Congratulations for continuing that long string of similar experiences.

 

Finally, you are asserting the full dataset is worth consideration, right? That it is, in fact, authoritative? Well, the fragment does as much to support your case as the data above does mine.

 

Where does the burden lie then? With you, of course! If you are going to assert the rest of the data is valid for consideration, despite the sub-set of data failing to meet that bar, then it's on you to go the distance on that one, as previously noted multiple times, by more than one contributor here. If you don't do that, then the data isn't worth squat.

 

'twas you that opened that door, so don't go bitching now that it's hard to walk through.

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[ApolloBoy]

Atariksi/Divya16 is an experimental AI being forced on us by the government! It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it!

 

But seriously, reading through their posts makes me think they have little experience talking to actual people before. They talk like they're robots or something and it makes me even less convinced of their arguments. I'm guessing this is already obvious to most people, but still...

[ledzep]

Well, there are flame wars, which I don't think you mean.

 

What do you call it when someone argues AGAINST everything written if obviously false like claims that infinite control actually provides ZERO control? Who made that claim, by the way?

You are inept at understanding it. I bet you don't even understand the proof of zero control for infinite levels. In fact, you instead of addressing the argument made a claim about not giving you data and kept asking for that to be addressed instead. Sly way to shoving things under the rug.

 

You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual

. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

 

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.

 

Didntknow16, I think. Sort of like aprioriksi's opposite example of mistaking piano keys as digital controls, haahaaha.

Let me address your name calling again here which was also refuted:

 

"Joysticks and stones will break my bones and words will never hurt me."

 

Seems given your high failure rate in addressing the points, you have resorted to personal attacks within your comments in some desperate hope that they will help you out of mistaken imaginary world.

 

Let me address your address:

 

"Who cares."

 

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.

 

There you go again. Where do you get the idea that after you state that something is a fact that it's up to someone else to do your work for you and look it up? Who taught you how to debate in this lazy manner? You are the one who is supposed to provide links or information to support your point of view, not us.

You are unfit to even understand the experiment what to speak of repeating it. Your views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

 

You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

 

Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is. You must have, oh I don't know, some evidence to support that assertion, right? Remember your failure at the tree? Where I pointed out to you how you are supposed to competently debate a point? Specifically -

 

( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

 

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

 

So you now claim that what I wrote and linked to is not what the real "scientific method" meaning is. Fantastic, then stop making excuses and actually link to some more authoritative source that supports your version of what "experiment" (you know, claiming to have run an experiment yet failing to reveal how it was run, who was in the control group, who was in the experimental group, what data you gathered, how that data was gathered, etc.) means. Go ahead. See how long you have to search to find something that doesn't sound like this example which you and aprioriksi have both failed to adhere to. I can't wait for you to find an authoritative source for the "real" meaning of what "experiment" means. But I know I'll be waiting a long long long long time because if there's one thing you positively do not do, it's research your theories by citing sources.

 

I'll try again. You are a terrible debater. How do I know? Is this where I tell you to look it up? No, I will instead support my own position. You have blown all those steps but specifically you've really fallen short on #7 and #8 -

You are the one with self-contradictory views and you blame others for being terrible debaters.

 

What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.

 

( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

 

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

You are giving rules to others who have better understanding then you. Let me give you some rules to follow:

 

(1) read the thread before you try to refute everything.

(2) don't mock people's user ids/names or any other personal attacks.

(3) be open minded that there's a truth that may or may not agree with your emotional biased views

(4) don't argue against things that you never experienced or don't understand

(5) if you think the debate is important, don't take a vacation without notification or a better excuse

 

I'm giving basic debating rules to others who don't have an understanding of them. Like you.

 

(1) I have read the thread. How do you think I find the specific posts that illustrate your individual screw ups?

(2) I mock people who make empty claims about having conducted experiments and having data from them that supports their theories.

(3) I'm much more open-minded than you are, I use and like all kinds of game controllers and use the best one for the task at hand, I don't go out of my way to use only one specific type of controller even when it isn't appropriate for the game being played.

(4) Don't make references to experiments you've never conducted or data you've never collected.

(5) If you think the debate is important, don't disappear for three days to eat popcorn.

 

Of course you have to provide some external evidence and authoritative sources first, right? You and aprioriksi have come short only of killing your own grandmothers to avoid that.

 

Oh, first you are demanding things and now you are ASKING something. Desperately trying to find fault. If scientists were like you, there would be no progress. We would still be stuck with theories/experiments from hundreds of years ago.

 

Regarding your personal attack, as I said in the 5 golden rules for you above, don't do personal attacks. It doesn't help your views which are basically drivel anyway.

 

If there's one thing I definitely don't need to do, it's "desperately" trying to find fault. You and aprioriksi are wellsrpings of fault, it's as easy as "trying" to find leaves on the ground during Autumn. If scientists were like you, there would not be one experiment ever conducted or any data to support a single hypothesis. If scientists were like you they'd simply say they had run experiments and then avoid proving those claims and they would say they had data and then avoid presenting that data. And when pressed for data they'd present pictures of themselves inside of labs or pictures of components they supposedly used.

 

I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.

[atariksi]

 

Hahaha, that's exactly what the rest of us have been saying to you and aprioriksi!

...

Yup, word for word. Of course you or he could silence all the critics. You have both claimed to have run experiments and gathered data that proves this digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks idea. Yet neither of you will do the scientifically correct thing and present the parameters of these supposed experiments along with all the data generated. Why?

What parameters do you see missing? There's nothing missing. I ran through hundreds of games and noted points where there's high failure rate of analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks. The analog joysticks are in the picture in post #1. The digital joysticks are the gemini and the Atari 2600 style joystick for which I recorded actual motion parameters for a sample for you. The pictures are some of the samples where there's high failure rate. I have more pictures, but you don't seem to care about those pictures. I also have the joystick recording files but you don't accept joystick simulator generates same data as real joystick. So either you accept the pictures and recordings or you stop asking for more data.

Really. Accepted by what "many"? Because all I see is you and aprioriksi.

That's Dr. Frog's philosophy. Once a frog living by the Atlantic Ocean came to visit Dr. Frog who lived in his well all his life.

 

The Atlantic frog told Dr. Frog, "There's this huge body of water out there much bigger than this well."

 

Dr. Frog replied: "That's a myth. Nobody has seen such a body of water. Just ask all these frogs that have been happily living in this well all their lives. They never seen any such thing."

 

The Atlantic frog replied: "But I just came from there. Just follow these directions and you'll get there."

 

Dr. Frog replied: "You never saw any such body of water. Theoretically, there may exist some wells that have double or quadruple capacity, but an 'ocean' with 'waves' is highly unlikely as something must encompass all that water."

 

And so on. Majority doesn't matter, but there are other people who have done the experiment and know digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

[atariksi]

Sorry, Atariage is giving error on total quotes exceeed. Perhaps, you want to stop with all those italics/misquotes and state your point rather than trying to refute everything although it is already answered.

 

And, again, what you wrote is word for word what we've been saying to you about many people preferring analog joysticks and scoring higher when using them.

The difference is I provided to you some of the data so far, logic, mathematics, etc. and you are just all talk that's your mental speculation of what I did.

 

No one is interested in deriving a conclusion from incomplete data when aprioriksi and you have both claimed to be in possession of all the data from your individual experiments. Why make people try to divine the results based off of a few samples of data instead of simply releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiments? Are they really that bad that you don't want anyone to see?

It's not incomplete. If you understand the nature of the data, you can understand that other data will be similar in nature. Newton didn't do F=ma for every possible weight and acceleration.

 

You wrote: "And, yet again, the same words apply to you and the guy who admits he hates analog joysticks (Post #82) -"

 

I hate analog joysticks because they provide inferior control. I hate meat because its fat is unhealthy for the arteries. Etc. Etc. As I told you, you can hate things that are based on science not because of bias. The hatred comes after the fact is established not before. You prefer analog joysticks but you haven't performed any controlled experiment nor refuted the facts presented so your the one with the bias. The driving the truck and driving the plane are analogies that you messed up in understanding.

 

What, exactly, is the control group for your experiment? And where is the experimental group, hmmmm? The scientific method, which you claimed to have followed - learn it, live it, actually follow it.

 

I am not the one claiming to have conducted experiments and to have generated "megabytes" of data to support the erroneous claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Neither am I the one who claimed that it was a scientific fact yet failed to show that it has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true (damn those mean ol' scientific definitions). That's you and aprioriksi. It's on you to present the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated once you have stated that you actually ran experiments.

See you are already speculating that it's an erroneous claim but you have done absolute NOTHING-- no experiment, no logic, no mathematics, etc. just your flawed opinion. It is repeatedly confirmed. I can go back and do the same experiment again and I'll get the same results. So can others who aren't biased and only prefer one type of joystick.

 

I can't see the experimental data because you and aprioriksi haven't released that data yet. Yes, I'm a fanatic about people actually backing up their claims, I expect people who claim to have run experiments to describe in detail the specifics of those experiments (how they were run, who participated, what gear was used, how the data was generated, etc.) and I expect people who claim to have data that proves their position to present that data for the rest of us to examine. Neither of you have satisfied those requirements.

 

You are a hypocrite. While claiming to have experimental proof for your side you refuse to allow anyone to examine it.

You got your English all screwed up here. First of all data was posted for you to examine and you didn't. You tried to dismiss the data-- that it doesn't count. And not allowing someone to examine the data doesn't make one a hypocrite. Look up the meaning of that word. You are the real hypocrite. You make claims that are unfounded and yet go around asking for proof from others. If you want people to take your word for it, then don't ask for proof from others (although it was provided to you in many forms).

[atariksi]

This thread is all the data you need to see that I'm right and you're wrong. You and aprioriksi are one side, everyone else who has pointed out the multitude of errors in what you and aprioriksi have claimed are on the other. All you have to do is run the experiment yourself to see that I'm right. I already did but I will follow your lead and claim I have the data while not releasing it to you. Cool, huh?

You would have to be blind if you think you're right after all the evidence in front of your face. Nobody has pointed out any errors with the experiment. Oh, by the way, you are allowed to refute scientific facts. But it doesn't work by just writing something-- you have to perform the same experiment and show it gives opposite results. For one example, show me that with an analog joystick you can make the same exact wide jumps from one edge to the other in the "pie screen" third platform in Donkey Kong with a lower failure rate than with a digital joystick.

 

Until he proves that many others have repeated his experiments it is anecdotal. I can just as easily claim that I have run experiments that prove the analog joysticks provide better control and also so have many others and you would have to agree with me because you expect me to agree with aprioriksi based simply on his word. No way am I doing that without the data and hearing from these "many others" who have repeated the experiment. Maybe one of those imaginary supporters can actually describe the parameters of the experiment and present the data generated, huh?

 

You can't just label things as anecdotal without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't performed the experiment and just use analog joysticks, the only thing you can do is say "I don't know" or if you actually understand the logic/mathematics of why analog joystick have inferior control then you can say that my experiment is true blue without performing it. You are just making false claims otherwise.

 

You go play it yourself. They are not random video games. You have to repeat the experiment but are incapable of because you ONLY prefer analog joysticks as you already admitted in this thread.

 

I got a better idea. You go gather up all the data you claim to have generated and present it here. While you're at it, describe the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and tell us who participated in it, who were in the control and experimental groups, what games were played, what joysticks were used, how the data was generated, etc.

I see you never read the thread or pretending as if these things weren't done. You want me to dump you more recordings of those failure points in the games because you are inept at seeing the logic behind it? And stop juggling the word parameter. I clearly stated which joysticks are being used and the screenshots I showed are some of the games that were played. Nobody has time to play every game ever made just like no one ever tried to prove F=ma by trying every possible mass, acceleration, force to see if they match. If you can't understand the data presented, you have a problem.

 

Nobody has control of analog joysticks' states. Wasn't that clear to you with the BASIC program given. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.

 

I have control of analog joysticks' states. I've run experiments that prove it. Megabytes of data, in fact. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.

See all you do is try to say the samething back without understanding that what I wrote is FACTUALLY true and what you wrote is just your MENTAL SPECULATION. You come to my home and I'll run the BASIC program and I'll see how many states you get right.

 

What was clear about the BASIC program that aprioriksi presented is that he doesn't know how to program for an analog joystick as a controller for a game that only requires signals for cardinal positions (Pac-Man type games). You know, the only thing a digital joystick can output. There is no reason for him to care about any values other than the cardinal positions so his BASIC program should filter for that. Someone else on this thread provided that very programming logic and aprioriksi ignored it as have you.

I have answered this 5 times already. I didn't ask for every state. I only asked for states which will cause change in direction from center. Go back and read it. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But getting to any state is just as improbably as any other state. Do you know at which point the analog joystick will cause the pac-man to go left? I hope you understand by now that thresholds are being used. Don't blame the programmers. You are the one who needs help.

 

That simplistic bit of BASIC code was his, not some gaming company's. I looked at the screenshots. Wow, very pretty. They represent nothing besides the probability that aprioriksi has copies of those pictures. Those screenshots, by themselves, fail to prove -

 

( 1 ) that they were taken on his TV and/or at his place,

( 2 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were part of his experiment,

( 3 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were using analog joysticks,

( 4 ) that they were taken during the data gathering portion of his experiment,

Ha ha! Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. (1) they were but that is irrelevant, (2) duh, of course they represent gameplay of people doing the experiment, (3) they represent gameplay for all three-- analog joysticks, digital joysticks, and keyboard, (4) as I said, I can repeat it anytime and I'll get similar results. It's related to the fact that analog joysticks have uncertainty while digital joysticks don't. That uncertainty also relates to switching time being inferior on analog joysticks as well.

 

He could tell us tomorrow that those screenshots were actually taken by someone he knows who lives in another city while someone else was playing those games with digital joysticks and we couldn't tell if he was telling the truth or not because there is no way to verify any of the parameters using just those screenshots. It is impossible to know the specific circumstances without seeing all the data. Which he will never, ever release.

I can play those anytime, anywhere, and any place. They will yield similar failures for analog joysticks. Other unbiased people will also get same results. I don't know about you since you only prefer analog joysticks.

 

You are living in a bubble. You can't see data in front of your eyes. There's enough data to completely prove all your replies are rubbish. You also shoved under the rug the fact that you are maintaining a duplicitous position. You are opposing the data and demanding MORE of it. You argue against construction of a joystick making a difference and also in favor of it. How can you live with such a state of mind is beyond me.

 

Aprioriksi has already stated that he doesn't feel the need to release the "megabytes" of data because he doesn't think I'll understand it. That means he actually has all the data and that he won't allow others to look it over. He doesn't get to decide what amount of "enough data" he needs to provide. In order to prove his claim that he ran experiments and that he generated "megabytes" of data from them he has to release all of it. Not some, not half, not "enough", but all of it. He has up to now refused to do that.

First things first. Do you accept the data presented. If yes, then say YES I accept that is valid data. If not, don't ask for anymore.

 

It is you who is living in a bubble so long as you support his view that he can make claims about having data yet not release it all along with the parameters of his experiments (which, as you obviously haven't figured out by now, is part of "all the data").

Nope, people who prefer analog joysticks thinking they have better control are living in the bubble. People who don't see data in front of them are living in a bubble.

 

I am not opposing the data, I am opposing your and aprioriksi's assertions that small snippets of the data is sufficient. It isn't, not by a long shot. He only sticks to that because the alternative is admitting he doesn't actually have the data to present. I'm not demanding MORE data, I'm demanding ALL THE DATA. Because that's what is required. All of it.

And what constitutes ALL? You can generate terabytes of data if you keep playing the game. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data is what it is and then the rest would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, I would have to post it on some server to avoid clogging up AtariAge.

 

I argue against equating arrow keys with joysticks and equating joystick simulators with actual joysticks. I argue against substituting inadequate replacements for the actual, easily-acquired joysticks that aprioriksi initially claimed he had included in his experiments.

There you go again. P and -P. All that crap about presenting data and now you want to argue against the data. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

 

I keep repeatedly pointing out your repeated mistakes. The JFK reference was a joke, aprioriksi was updating us as to why he might not be answering some posts quickly because he had to go there,

 

Stop the rubbish. This is the first time you mentioned "it was a joke". Everyone is free to interpret it as he/she likes. My going to JFK was real and no joke. And I was ACTUALLY stuck in traffic there. I have witnesses since I went to pick up people there.

 

Until you do that it's nothing but lies.

It doesn't really matter what you label things. Only the facts count. The fact remains digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Once you are out of your P and -P, we'll talk about the experiment or the logic some more.

 

"I've run experiments and have data that proves I'm right."

 

"Oh really? Then tell us about the experiments and show us the data that proves your position."

 

"I don't have to, logic is good enough. It's so obvious."

 

Which equals you never conducted any experiments and you never generated any data. Why make false claims like that?

You are COMPLETELY wrong. I gave you the four catagories remember-- (1) logic/math, (2) experimental data, (3) mental speculation, (4) blind following the blind. I said, I proved it using (1) and (2). That means the experimental data is there as well as the logic/math. The logic/math is superior. Don't try to create a dichotomy of one or the other. Don't misquote others. So far you are only proving you are in catagory number (4) and using mental speculation to try to support your blind following.

[ledzep]

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

 

Ya, that's you and aprioriksi alright. I like how you answer rebuttals directed at him. You really help support the theory that you and he are the same person.

 

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

 

It's best to present the data you claim to have generated and the parameters of the experiment you claim to have conducted rather than try to convince people that a few misquotes about logic are just as acceptable.

 

Do us all a favor, when you (or your other personality) responds to this post, remember to attach the files for the parameters of the experiments you supposedly ran and the megabytes of data that you/he/they have collected.

[atariksi]

Well, there are flame wars, which I don't think you mean.

 

What do you call it when someone argues AGAINST everything written if obviously false like claims that infinite control actually provides ZERO control? Who made that claim, by the way?

You are inept at understanding it. I bet you don't even understand the proof of zero control for infinite levels. In fact, you instead of addressing the argument made a claim about not giving you data and kept asking for that to be addressed instead. Sly way to shoving things under the rug.

 

You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual

. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

 

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.

You are speculating that he has infinite levels of control. You can play the guitar and be off at the position on the string by about a millimeter or so and nobody would notice the difference in the music. What bullcrap are you talking about infinite levels of control. I don't think you even understand what I wrote about more levels leads to less probability of control. Some people can't tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed music and there's huge difference in terms of the data. You are taking something subjective (you hearing the same music) and just speculating he has infinite levels of control. And this is a person who has practiced many many years not something like picking up an analog joystick and playing a game. And your example is not even an analog joystick. Getting to strings on a guitar type instrument is more like a touchpad-- you have random access and the strings are digital-- discrete items that it would be hard to mess up. The position on the string you could mess up.

 

Let me address your address:

 

"Who cares."

 

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.

FACT: I have run the experiment, you haven't.

FACT: You are IN FACT mocking and calling names; no pretending; it's here in black and white.

FACT: I care. I have no obligation to reply to a fanatical emotionally biased person who mocks people. I rather deal with serious inquiries. Since you are making misleading remarks and distorting things, I have to keep wasting my time with you.

 

You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

You are just making things up. The experiment is real.

 

Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

Already did. You don't need links to others if you have done the experiments yourself. If Newton had to provide links to others, nothing would have been discovered by him as scientific fact. Of course, I am sure others have experienced the same results as I don't know every person on the planet.

 

What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.

You didn't understand the English. I think its time for you to take a nap. I'll continue with this if you realize your mistake here.

 

I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.

 

You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. It's not a personal attack. You are biased toward analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow analog joysticks because many others are doing it (again your own admission). Your P and -P for many things is illogical. Attacking people's user IDs doesn't follow from any argument anyone presented here nor bringing in people's mothers/grandmothers or whoever you bring in.

[atariksi]

 

It's best to present the data you claim to have generated and the parameters of the experiment you claim to have conducted rather than try to convince people that a few misquotes about logic are just as acceptable.

 

Do us all a favor, when you (or your other personality) responds to this post, remember to attach the files for the parameters of the experiments you supposedly ran and the megabytes of data that you/he/they have collected.

 

Logic wasn't misquotes. P and -P any logician will agree is your state regarding demanding data and dismissing it a priori. It's best you take a nap now. You are getting more and more incoherent and irrational. Look up the word parameter when you get time after your nap.

 

I think I'll go reply to something more intellectual.

[atariksi]

Pole Position example I mentioned also uses speed using digital joystick.

How so? And how many states of speed? (for modern games at a bare minimum you'd want at least 16 states per axis and thus 256 unique states possible for total motion, but in man cases you want more than that, and then you have many cases where you need at least 4 axes and often 6, so that's a minimum of 16.78 million states possible even using low 4-bit precision per axis and that's not counting use of buttons which would push closer to a billion states)

 

You don't have control over 16 states with an analog joystick. It's based on feedback really. Pole position uses gears to set speed levels. With low gear, you can go from 0..105mph and then high gear takes you up to 195mph. So there's no reason you can't have multiple gears and leave the joystick as digital. That's one form of speed implementation where you maintain 100% control.

 

Yeah, your digital idea of several digital states on each axes also works but it would be harder to control at which state you were at without some training. May still work for 8 or 16 states if joysticks were built in a consistent manner.

[atariksi]

Atariksi, you'd never need to go the full throw with analog to reach an input. A game could be programmed (and should be assuming any decent analog stick) to use the near center values as well, though for 4-way and 8-way games you'd probably want to program a bit more selective range in that to avoid conflicts (ie more neutral area), but those are the sorts of games you'd always have an advantage with plain digital (or analog) switch based controllers anyway unless you had a logn throw digital controller (ie wide range of motion with no contact until pushed to the very edge). -Again, IMO simple pseudo-digital (8-way resistor based) joysticks should have been standard or at least common accessories for the 5200, but not even 3rd parties offered them commonly. (no good for games actually using the analog nature, but preferable for others -and usable though weaker for analog games using speed based analog control rather than paddle like position tracking)

That's of course disregarding analog vs digtial polling schemes in hardware, let alone efficient vs poor software routines. (after the fact, resistor DAC was still an option regardless and cheaper than pots too if you want to go for the drop PIA to save cost argument)

 

In the context of an analog controller forced to do 4-way control (for the sake of argument) the obvious way to arrange that is to have 4 sets of ranges for the active movement positions and everything else set to neutral. (the trick is to set the ideal ranges to allow quick response but without getting the regions too close together and thus easily conflicting)

 

RevEng was arguing using the in-between states so that proof in post #454 is refuting that argument. And his argument is stronger than yours since you have the support of the PCB when going to extremes which helps a lot and fast-paced games jerking back and forth. You are claiming going partially and not using the full throw for the digital games in order to get faster switching. That makes it harder for the user and applying physics you will see that digital joystick still wins:

 

Suppose two exactly same type cars (A and D) in separate tracks start off at same time going as fast as possible and travel distance d. One car hits a wall after distance d and comes to a stop (car D). The other car has no wall but there's an ocean after distance d so it needs to slow down and come to a stop (car A). Which car gets to the destination (distance d) faster?

[potatohead]

Yeah, like you can't stomp a snake with both feet in the bucket, right?

[+5-11under]

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

 

Thanks for admitting you're biased. At least that's better than saying what you have been saying before.

I give an inch, and you need to take more, eh? Anyway, I take nothing back from what I've said before.

 

Moving on, I love ledzep's fretless bass guitar example. It's great, because you can "picture" the beauty of the resulting music. The same can be said about violins, trombones, slide guitars, and plenty more, I'm sure. There's beauty in being able to slide into a note, and change the pitch of a "note" over time. The good players have immense control over the pitch at any time, and use the available variability of pitch to their advantage. Otherwise, they'd be playing fretted instruments, most likely. Note that even fretted instruments (and many non-stringed instruments) still have much control over pitch. You can bend strings or apply different amounts of tension to the string to gain more control over the resulting pitch.

 

I think the above levels of "analog" control can be useful, beneficial, and even beautiful, for videogames.

[potatohead]

I just want to note ledzep's perfectly fine form here. I don't see that level of clarity on form and process very often. Nicely done.

 

This is notable: (from post 510)

 

FACT: You are IN FACT mocking and calling names; no pretending; it's here in black and white.

FACT: I care. I have no obligation to reply to a fanatical emotionally biased person who mocks people. I rather deal with serious inquiries. Since you are making misleading remarks and distorting things, I have to keep wasting my time with you.

 

Later, if... [you will admit my judgment of you] I will continue. [paraphrase mine, of course]

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is really bizzare. If one were to tally the instances of "biased", "emotional", and other diminutive language used on this thread, Divariski has by far the leading count.

 

So then, we have "I care", but then this interesting contradiction where there is no obligation to reply to [buffoons], then this sense of duty, where even though somebody as competent as Divariski is has no real obligation to respond to such lower people, they do because misleading remarks and distortion force Divariski to waste time?

 

Seriously?

 

On a purely subjective matter such as this?

 

Now as bizzare as that is, there is more! This next conditional, almost a bargain really, phrased as some kind of back handed command, takes the cake! If you admit your flaws, I will continue with you, like it's some favor, or manna handed down from the high to the low, because, well you know... Divariski is a benevolent person, always looking to enlighten the masses.

 

Holy crap!

 

Divariski, dude(ette), that's fucked up! Now I've had some fun here, like everybody else has, but good grief! It's subjective. You know this, or maybe you really don't? And this need to cleanse the world of lies, distortions and such?

 

You do know you, yourself, Divariski, are biased, unclean, unpure, flawed, just like the rest of us right? Is that why you always move to a very personal mode when challenged on fact or form? Worried that it might break the illusion, or worse, not aware enough to know that, and just angered that one with such mental acumen and discipline would even be challenged, yet you asked for just that?

 

Perhaps that cycle of need explains why you will do this on a subjective matter? I find that curious.

 

And this is futile, but don't take the Psych 101 personal. I don't have a beef with you at all Divariski. That's honest and genuine commentary on my reaction to very bizzare behavior. Behavior I frankly have never seen elsewhere.

[+remowilliams]

Behavior I frankly have never seen elsewhere.

 

I have. In managed care wards and internet forums.

[potatohead]

Behavior I frankly have never seen elsewhere.

 

I have. In managed care wards and internet forums.

 

Holy crap!! You are right! Now, I've not seen it in other forums. Could just be the subject matter doesn't align well with this kind of thing, but I have seen it in the wards. Interesting... (some more well off family ended up in those places, and well, let's just say those were not among my more favorable childhood experiences)

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared.

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

 

Thanks for admitting you're biased. At least that's better than saying what you have been saying before.

I give an inch, and you need to take more, eh? Anyway, I take nothing back from what I've said before.

 

Moving on, I love ledzep's fretless bass guitar example. It's great, because you can "picture" the beauty of the resulting music. The same can be said about violins, trombones, slide guitars, and plenty more, I'm sure. There's beauty in being able to slide into a note, and change the pitch of a "note" over time. The good players have immense control over the pitch at any time, and use the available variability of pitch to their advantage. Otherwise, they'd be playing fretted instruments, most likely. Note that even fretted instruments (and many non-stringed instruments) still have much control over pitch. You can bend strings or apply different amounts of tension to the string to gain more control over the resulting pitch.

 

I think the above levels of "analog" control can be useful, beneficial, and even beautiful, for videogames.

 

As I said, it's not an analog joystick nor is it providing control over infinite levels of which ledzep was trying to convince us. It's approximate where you hit the string. The resultant music does have infinite levels, but the control isn't of infinite levels. You can use both digital and analog joysticks to try to approximate such an instrument, but some custom controller would do a better job. For one thing, you don't have random access to various points in the range of the string using an analog joystick.

[potatohead]

this is crap

 

I do play music, and have performed vocally many times. The analog means are where the art is. When you speak of "control", I wonder if you are not confused over just what that means.

 

Have you ever witnessed somebody performing like a god? When it hits, and thought is action, and they just nail it? Surely you can't assert they would have "better" control given a more limited means!

 

Perhaps you just have no skill, or are inhibited somehow.

 

And that's not some attack, but a genuine question. There are lots of us who do not have skill, that perception of the world that links thoughts and actions. Those that do work years for it, and reach that point of control --and it is control of the highest order.

 

A perfect example of what I will say below is this "random access" thing. It doesn't connect to the greater point at hand, other than to reinforce "flawed" in your generally known sense of the word. Then again, somebody can just move the thing to the point desired, where with a digital device, they can't, without stepping through, taking time and such... A movement, compared to stepping, or holding for a time, are both difficult means of control, right?

 

They are both flawed too, right?

 

So then who gives a shit about that? The product of invoking that "lack of random access" does not compute, given the subject matter, so why invoke it?

 

You seem to get confused over absolutes, trying to assert them where none exist. Really, I see this entire thread as a expression of that. The world must be very difficult for you, because it is messy, full of states and things, running all over the map.

 

There is a feedback loop that occurs when we do things. Throughout this entire thread, you've basically ignored that, and it bugs me as to why. Like the states, and completely ignoring where code can operate on them.

 

Why factor that out?

 

Is there some purity you are reaching for, minimalist expression?

 

So, that's where it is for me Divariski. What's the end game here? Is this some kind of Zen journey, where the path taken is the reward, not the product? Is it like scratching a itch, when relieved, is a loss in some bizzare need to do the scratching itself, rather than resolve the itch?

 

I know you can write programs, so I know you can very easily deal with the range of analog states, and author a program that would operate just as your simplistic basic program presented here does. That's not hard, and I would wager just about everybody contributing here can do the same, so why deny that?

 

And the timing stuff you mention about joystick ports all the time. Considered as a discrete entity, your comments have merit, however, when considered in the context of the experience, or task they don't.

 

Fetish maybe? I think there is a case for that, given what you often write here. What I don't get is the denial of simple, obvious, basic --and I mean really e-ffing basic things!

 

That is what is fucked up. Seriously.

 

Another one was the color resolution bit. Ataris have 160 pixels of color resolution. When we discussed that, you went to extraordinary lengths to marginalize otherwise rational facts to equalize the discussion to favor the Atari, biased as hell I might add, where that marginalization was to such a extreme it made conclusions, if entertained under those constraints, completely useless as they would have NO value outside of that limited context!

 

Why do that?

 

How is it in any way productive? That's my question really, and again, not a attack, just a fair question. You work really, really, really hard, like double overtime, over the point of obsession, hard to get there, and for what?

 

To see those words, "yes, you are right about that?"

 

So then, let me ask you this: What good are those words when the framing on the question is so convoluted as to render the exercise futile in the end? Useless.

Edited November 26, 2010 by potatohead

[kool kitty89]

You get exact states, as far as the game is concerned, by using code to filter the range of values produced by the controller.

 

The values are arranged in a 2D plane, which can be divided into regions, each region associated with one of the otherwise binary states. When the controller is moved, values in the region simply present that state to the rest of the code, which operates NO DIFFERENTLY than it would, if programmed for a digital input device.

 

There is a scaling issue, where the amount of movement required to reach the state will vary on a fair number of things, but then again, on the digital device, that same scaling learning is required to determine action to state mechanics. ie: How much effort does it take to reach the state, and what's the timing of that effort? Those questions are the same questions with both controllers, just different answers.

 

Very few games I know of, update more than once per frame. So then, it's a scan for the pot value, run through the code to determine region, then the rest of the game sees binary, up, down, right, left, etc...

 

There is some variability in the analog device in that the amount of movement to trigger a given binary state will not always be the same, however, that variability in terms of time will simply get rounded to the nearest video frame rate, as that's when the game state will update, prior to the machine rendering the display result of the new game state logic result.

 

In other words, the assumption that a single value will be fetched and acted on in a discrete, atomic way, is a flawed assumption. That's probably unrealistic, given the range and variability of the values. A range check, and some software latches to deal with changes that might happen (jitter), will render the number of states required by the game logic, which operates ABOVE the code used to handle the input from the user.

 

Yes, exactly what I've been saying at several points... and that all applies to all cases, not just the 5200. In the filtering process a game should be taking into account the general accuracy of the analog device used and take acceptable error margin into account. (some controllers are more accurate than others -not talking about precision- and it's tougher to compensate for with non-standard controllers especially in the DOS days of PCs -though the per-game calibration process would help to some extent depending how comprehensive the game's calibration system was)

 

 

And as to updating more than once per frame, you can even do that with POKEY's pots anyway with the fast pot scan mode. (I think it's 15.7 kHz, so once per scanline/hblank period rather than once per frame/vblank)

 

 

 

 

Regardless of all this there's still obvious splits between games that play best with responsive, clean 4-point control (8-way, 9-state) and others tha benefit for more variable ranges (the actual precision needed varying -paddle type games much more so than some others including modern games -many of which would probably be fine with 4-bit ADCs).

However that doesn't even split it into analog and digital but only low precision vs high precision and you could have pure digital mechanisms or analog mechanisms for either.

And now I'm back to the point of how it's odd that Atari (or even 3rd parties) didn't commonly offer a resistor based 8-way "digital" analog joystick (which should have been cheaper to make than POT based controllers). From the users perspective it would more or less be a "digital" joystick just as the converters to use VCS controllers on the 5200 (etc) which ARE still analog but restricted to 9 output states. (or rather 3 states per axis, one voltage for centered, one for min -usually just grounded- and one for max -sometimes bare +5V but some games don't like that so resistors should be used for center/neutral and max)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you want to force people to admit things that are obviously wrong? Digital joysticks always have superior switching since you can minimize the distance as much as possible unlike for analog. In the ultimate case, you can make the throw distance ZERO so that just the pressing to move in a direction moves the joystick (like a trackpoint on a mouse).

Hahahahahahaha... [wipes tear]

 

A trackpoint is a short-throw analog, specifically a strain-guage. Notice how more pressure moves the mouse faster?

 

Amazing how useful all those inbetween states are with such a short throw. And I agree, it really is the ultimate case! Much more control than a digital stick could ever provide.

True, you can have a variable controller (be it analog or digital -and many such are pure digital) that has ZERO throw and purely senses pressure. That's how many FBW controls work in fighter aircraft (early models had zero throw but most later ones added some give due to pilots' complaints) which is done to allow full control under high G forces when movement is difficult.

 

Sony used the same mechanism of pressure sensitive switches in the PS2 dualshock 2 controller with all the buttons having variable control with pressure sensitivity and I believe even the d-pad does.

 

So you have long-throw flight sticks to shirt throw analog thumbsticks to pressure sensitive controls with no or almost no range of motion.

[potatohead]

Yes, that is odd.

 

Perhaps it was seen as counter productive then. The state of controller acumen was not anywhere near where it is today. Maybe it was that, and the life of the machine and the state of change going on at the time that just left that niche unexploited.

 

I'm still thinking some VCS analog action needs to happen. With all the nice improvements in overall code efficiency we know now, plus hardware like the Harmony, maybe it's time for that?

 

The only real bummer is having to either get somebody to tool up with modded controllers, or roll your own to play.

 

Beyond that, it would be good to see, IMHO.

[atariksi]

 

Yes, exactly what I've been saying at several points... and that all applies to all cases, not just the 5200. In the filtering process a game should be taking into account the general accuracy of the analog device used and take acceptable error margin into account. (some controllers are more accurate than others -not talking about precision- and it's tougher to compensate for with non-standard controllers especially in the DOS days of PCs -though the per-game calibration process would help to some extent depending how comprehensive the game's calibration system was)

You don't understand what I mean by exact states. A user knowing the exact states of his controller is different from software getting exact states. A computer always has exact states-- it's all digital. We are concerned with user getting to exact states and that's not possible with analog joysticks. Digital joysticks always have 100% control. You sacrifice control to get some extra inexact in-between feature which works better with some analog joysticks than with others. Software has to deal with all types of joysticks some with short throw and some with long throw. Obviously, the longer throw ones have a better chance of getting to those in-between states.

 

And as to updating more than once per frame, you can even do that with POKEY's pots anyway with the fast pot scan mode. (I think it's 15.7 kHz, so once per scanline/hblank period rather than once per frame/vblank)

I never argued frame rates, but once you can remove the regions of uncertainty, you will see that sampling with one LDA 54016 or similar is MUCH BETTER than taking 1 ms or a frame to sample in a data. You can really screw up samples waiting around for an entire frame. PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz. Atari 5200 can but adds overhead to the software so nobody does it and it still would be more subject to error than LDA 54016. One good thing is that Atari/Commodore/Sega/etc. stuck with digital joysticks and Atari 5200 seemed like some experiment with analog joysticks as they went back to digital (I guess they learned from their mistakes). And analog interface produces errors as well. Just try digitizing a still frame many times and see how many times you get the same data.

 

However that doesn't even split it into analog and digital but only low precision vs high precision and you could have pure digital mechanisms or analog mechanisms for either.

Nope, you cannot mimic a digital joystick using the analog joysticks. Analog joysticks are erroneous and never exact. Thresholds make software to use regions of uncertainty. I think you are not understanding the logic so its better for you to experiment and see the results for yourself.

 

And now I'm back to the point of how it's odd that Atari (or even 3rd parties) didn't commonly offer a resistor based 8-way "digital" analog joystick (which should have been cheaper to make than POT based controllers). From the users perspective it would more or less be a "digital" joystick just as the converters to use VCS controllers on the 5200 (etc) which ARE still analog but restricted to 9 output states. (or rather 3 states per axis, one voltage for centered, one for min -usually just grounded- and one for max -sometimes bare +5V but some games don't like that so resistors should be used for center/neutral and max)

But if you think analog joysticks can produce same exactness as digital why would you say it's odd? So you know there's a big difference then. If research had continued with digital joysticks, they could easily have implemented so many other features with 100% control and also reduced the throw to near zero using microswitches or other technology.

 

Why do you want to force people to admit things that are obviously wrong? Digital joysticks always have superior switching since you can minimize the distance as much as possible unlike for analog. In the ultimate case, you can make the throw distance ZERO so that just the pressing to move in a direction moves the joystick (like a trackpoint on a mouse).

Hahahahahahaha... [wipes tear]

 

A trackpoint is a short-throw analog, specifically a strain-guage. Notice how more pressure moves the mouse faster?

 

Amazing how useful all those inbetween states are with such a short throw. And I agree, it really is the ultimate case! Much more control than a digital stick could ever provide.

True, you can have a variable controller (be it analog or digital -and many such are pure digital) that has ZERO throw and purely senses pressure. That's how many FBW controls work in fighter aircraft (early models had zero throw but most later ones added some give due to pilots' complaints) which is done to allow full control under high G forces when movement is difficult.

 

Sony used the same mechanism of pressure sensitive switches in the PS2 dualshock 2 controller with all the buttons having variable control with pressure sensitivity and I believe even the d-pad does.

We're not discussing analog buttons and their uncertainties, but if used as a joystick, the pressure-based devices have even more uncertainty in producing in-between states than the analog joysticks with some throw distance. Asking someone to go 1/3 on an analog joystick with a decent throw distance is easier than telling someone to apply 1/3 of full pressure for the pressure-based device. Analog joysticks provide less control than digital joysticks and the pressure-based analog joysticks would provide even lesser. Digital joysticks are always providing 100% control. Using your or RevEng's logic above, analog tape recordings provide better "control" rather than CDs since tapes provide greater levels of recording for the audio. However, that's a misuse of the word control since you have no control over those levels; you have more control if they are in digital format. You can sacrifice that control to get recordings of more levels. You sacrifice control for all games just to get some in-between inexact feature.

 

So you have long-throw flight sticks to shirt throw analog thumbsticks to pressure sensitive controls with no or almost no range of motion.

 

But you transferred the uncertainties over to pressure which is even harder to discern in levels.

As if the analog joysticks implementing speed wasn't inexact enough. As far as control goes, analog joysticks are completely useless and inferior technology compared to digital joysticks. Other analog controllers like paddles, foot pedals, steering wheels, etc. still have some use given no digital equivalents exist to replace them.

[RevEng]

...

Why factor that out?

 

Is there some purity you are reaching for, minimalist expression?

 

So, that's where it is for me Divariski. What's the end game here? Is this some kind of Zen journey, where the path taken is the reward, not the product? Is it like scratching a itch, when relieved, is a loss in some bizzare need to do the scratching itself, rather than resolve the itch?

...

I don't believe there is an end game, other than an attempt to inflate self image...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex#Definition_and_Potential_causes

 

...its the inferiority complex I'm pointing to in that entry, and I'm not trying to be unkind or glib. Its just the only explanation that makes sense to me at this point.

 

I'm done with the game. I had fun with everyone examining the broken logic and the desperate attempts at patchwork, but now it's getting a bit creepy.

Edited November 27, 2010 by RevEng

[potatohead]

???

 

So then, let's say a user wants the "left" state, on a analog device. Don't they simply move it left, leaving the range check to the code? Of course they do! This is no different from a digital device, in that some action on the part of the user results in a state to be acted upon in a running program.

 

The end product is just "left" to the program, due to the processing done at the input level. This is known as compartmentalization. Once the input processing has been written, it then is ignored at other levels in the running program.

 

Code overhead isn't significant. It's easier, and quite nice to just read a register and act on it, however, it is not necessary at all to do this. Arguably, older machines are slower and this could be at issue on a machine that requires CPU sampling, however modern devices are quite fast, making this perfectly serviceable. Hardware counters and other such things can easily render this a light task. It sure is on my micro. I've not NO issues reading analog states. Ataris make doing this kind of thing really easy!! Just read the number, like the digital device. Damn cool, in my book, and deffo a feature, not some flaw to be marginalized.

 

Simply reading a register isn't supportable as a definition of "control" as far as the user is concerned.

 

As for not emulating digital on analog, again, code written to factor the data down to a binary state isn't difficult, and at that point, the user just sees a binary state. Some binary devices are precise on state activation, others have slop, depending on their mechanical attributes. Emulation is completely possible.

 

It's not possible to quantify control in this context, without considering the code that serves to determine the user intent. In all cases, some code is required to determine that intent, with the only differences being the amount of code, and to some degree it's nature.

 

There is a case for digital devices being easier to determine state, or user intent. Totally agree with that. A simple register read is less complex than a sample, and parsing to reach the same state. However, control does invoke everything from the user intent to the response they get from the running program.

 

If their input device is parsed down to binary states, that's all the control they have. If it's not, that is poor programming, not some lack of control in the input device.

 

eg: silly basic program to display lots of states, presented to user with request to select one specifically, where doing that is not a best practice.

 

See Divariski? Are we really just talking about your joystick input register fetish here? Everybody knows you think the Atari joystick ports are the shit. Is it worth it to work that hard to justify that, when the end product gets you nothing in return?

 

I'm quite sure plenty of people here, who have written code, can tell you that it's nice to just fetch a number and act on it, but then again, it's not required at all to deliver the amount of control required for the task at hand.

 

And you've written "completely useless", with so many flawed statements?

 

Honestly, I think you can't use them, or have difficulty writing code for them, or likely both, which is the real point here, so rather than own up to that, you would rather marginalize those other control options so you feel better about the whole thing.

 

@reveng: Yeah, I hear you on that. It's plausible, and that's all I can say about it.

 

(goes back to writing some video driver code)

Edited November 27, 2010 by potatohead