Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

 

You are wrong. But you are free to have an opinion that is wrong. So many do. Many people smoke although they know the consequences. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Infinite levels with control over zero. Then you reduce it a few so you can approximate you are in some state. What a joke. Approximation is better than exactness? Maybe in your imaginary world.

 

I would rather extract music digitally from a CD than digitize it in through a sound digitizer. Oops, I forgot you prefer using tapes since they provide more levels which in some convulated way means more control for you.

Is your definition of wrong "not in agreement with you"? I forgot - let me bow down to your all knowing arrogance. My most sincere and humble apologies know-it-all.

 

P.S.

I don't prefer tapes, but vinyl sounds better than CD. Take that scientific fact and sit on it.

 

It's not an opinion that analog joysticks provide inferior control. The regions of uncertainty play a part in controlling an analog joystick and so do longer switch times. That's what all those experiments with various games prove. And beyond scientific fact, you have the logic/math that employing infinite levels provide ZERO control. As far as vinyl sounds better than CD, you are mixing control with quality. You can't replicate the audio data exactly and modify single samples whereas in analog mode you have less control and duplicate analog recordings aren't exactly the same as the originals.

 

So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

 

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.

 

Wrong, it does. As far as a computer goes, it can't tell the difference. And that's the point. The computer game can't tell the difference.

 

A black box/simulation implies there's no relevance to physical appearance but to signals. If you made it look physically the same as well as signals, then it's a real disk drive or real joystick not a simulation.

[atariksi]

typo: "whereas" should be "so".

[potatohead]

Gotcaughtinthedressski said: my argument is the following:

 

(1) Analog joysticks have regions of uncertainty (for humans interfacing)

(2) Analog joysticks have slower switch times (for humans interfacing)

 

Seems to me, the thread title begs to differ, LOL!!

 

@cebus: morbid interest. That's all it is.

Edited November 30, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

 

You are wrong. But you are free to have an opinion that is wrong. So many do. Many people smoke although they know the consequences. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Infinite levels with control over zero. Then you reduce it a few so you can approximate you are in some state. What a joke. Approximation is better than exactness? Maybe in your imaginary world.

 

I would rather extract music digitally from a CD than digitize it in through a sound digitizer. Oops, I forgot you prefer using tapes since they provide more levels which in some convulated way means more control for you.

Is your definition of wrong "not in agreement with you"? I forgot - let me bow down to your all knowing arrogance. My most sincere and humble apologies know-it-all.

 

Obviously, I don't agree with you but it also happens to be true. Discussing a specific topic doesn't make anyone a know-it-all either. I was already debating this analog joystick stuff for quite some time in Atari 5200 forum.

 

@kool-kitty: Atari was trying to imitate intellivision as well as reduce chips. If they actually wanted analog joysticks, they could easily have manufactured them for Atari 800/VCS/etc. which have the capability in their ports. But it looks like they preferred digital as they went back to digital with Atari 7800/XEGS/Atari ST/STe/etc. And Atari ST and Atari 7800 was a newer design and incompatible with Atari 800 and after Atari 5200. Similarly with Amiga. And using analog inputs for a digital joystick wasn't their preference either since they went back to all digital; looks like they knew the analogicity makes things inexact and slower to sample.

[Cebus Capucinis]

@cebus: morbid interest. That's all it is.

 

Oh, I didn't mean you. I think you can guess who I want to stop....

[potatohead]

(they) said: It's not an opinion that analog joysticks provide inferior control...

 

Yes it is, because you are not qualifying "inferior".

[svenski]

Man, this thread is full of drama, just a good thing you guys don't have your fingers on the nuclear button

[potatohead]

LOL!!

 

It's the end of the WORLD!!

 

No it isn't!

 

Yeah?

 

Screw you!

 

No! Screw you big, and I got a button pal!

 

Yeah? I got a button too, want to see?

 

My button is bigger!

 

We shall see about that!

 

*click*

 

Well shit... click, click, click...

 

(100 years in the future)

 

Human priest, living in the 10 percent of the world still habitable.

 

...long ago, there was a thing called technology. It was hailed as the greatest human achievement.

 

...and today, we live small, in peace, happy to be here.

[RevEng]

Man, this thread is full of drama, just a good thing you guys don't have your fingers on the nuclear button

Is that button analog or digital?

[potatohead]

(snicker)

 

It's a big old, franken-switch.

 

If I were in charge of the "end of the world switch", it would look damn cool!

[+5-11under]

Here's a few switches. I like the first one :

[JamesD]

[svenski]

There is only one way to resolve this once and for all...

 

Call in the AA Joystick expert:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kool kitty89]

So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

 

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.

 

Wrong, it does. As far as a computer goes, it can't tell the difference. And that's the point. The computer game can't tell the difference.

We're not talking about the computer, we're talking about the actual disk drive. That's what you brought up, isn't it? A real disk drive doesn't function the same as a virtual one since the real disk drive has all sorts of mechanical components that could fail at any moment, and it might load disks at a slightly different rate than the virtual one.

 

In that case you'd need a simulator that takes into account all the limitations and characteristics of the physical drive as well and simulation of all those characteristics.

Of course no real disk simulator/emulator actually does that as it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

[kool kitty89]

Gotcaughtinthedressski said: my argument is the following:

 

(1) Analog joysticks have regions of uncertainty (for humans interfacing)

(2) Analog joysticks have slower switch times (for humans interfacing)

 

Seems to me, the thread title begs to differ, LOL!!

But those problems also apply to digital joysticks as the user has to feel and watch for feedback just as with analog. Only with practice and experience with a specific controller can you consistently "feel" when you pushed far enough or in the right direction and even then it changes due to wear and tear and the specific conditions. (how the controller is being held, etc)

 

You can have finicky and twitchy 4-switch digital controls of course and there are many, many cheap/worn joysticks and gamepads that have that problem. (longer throw also plays a part) And that would apply to 8-way analog (resistor based) controls as well.

 

The only difference with analog and digital variable control (again many examples using pure digital mechanisms) is that there's more states and a need for coordinated fine motor skills to manage the precision movement rather than feeling/watching for those 8 directions, unless of course it's a game not using variable control and then it's just up to getting a feel for the controller used in leu of a 4/8 direction stick/pad. (and the same trade-offs of feel, accuracy, etc needed for a pure analog or digital switch based controller)

All ignoring the software side of course and assuming all cases are done using games by competent programmers catering to the specific control mechanism.

 

 

And going back to the pure switch based digital controller you have an obvious case where it's more problematic than even the less than ideal analog joystick mechanism of the 5200 (with numerous games using less than ideal control catering to the sticks). That would of course be the finicky 16 direction disc of the Intellivision.

[potatohead]

Love the "switches"

 

Hey, that's actually a great example. I have a analog light switch in my room, and I get more control over the state of the light with the analog switch. The digital one is basically light on, or light off. This is all fine and good, until somebody wants, " some light, but not all the light", where the analog device makes accomplishing this rather easy.

 

In that scenario, there is MORE control available to the user of the switch, in that a state can be matched to a requirement or condition as deemed necessary by the dynamics in play at the time.

 

Additionally, I have a sub-set of that control available as binary! It's easy to get all the way on, or all the way off.

[atariksi]

But those problems also apply to digital joysticks as the user has to feel and watch for feedback just as with analog.

That's the biggest rubbish that's been posted in this thread for someone who has supposedly read the thread. If you haven't read the thread, then read posts #454, 512, 513 which talk about switching times. The BASIC programs given earlier show that you do NOT have to rely on feedback as you do for analog. You know the states of the joystick a priori-- I'm sure you remember that word; ledzep likes to repeat it in almost every sentence he makes. When you press a gas pedal, you have to rely on feedback because you have NO IDEA what state it's in; that's not as good as if you knew the state a priori. It's worse for analog joysticks since their construction is smaller and varies with some having short throws and some having longer throws. The regions of uncertainty do not exist on digital joysticks; you have 100% control and switching times are faster. All those screen shots of games where you need to press the jump button show how the failure rate is higher when you have those regions of uncertainty (post #114,137,etc.)

 

Only with practice and experience with a specific controller can you consistently "feel" when you pushed far enough or in the right direction and even then it changes due to wear and tear and the specific conditions. (how the controller is being held, etc)

 

I already answered this as well (can't remember the post # right now). You can approximate a few states WITH regions of uncertainty with a standard analog joystick with sufficient throw length. It takes a few minutes to use a digital joystick so just claiming "practice and experience" doesn't cut it. You can spend years trying to master even 16 states of an analog joystick. That's why you rely on feedback because the more levels you use, the less control you have.

 

All ignoring the software side of course and assuming all cases are done using games by competent programmers catering to the specific control mechanism.

You can't do anything in software to help you remove the length of throw nor the uncertainty regions. The 9-states are natural and easy: center, N, S, E, W, NE, SE, SW, and NW. No training needed nor do you want to train people to use software. These interfaces like mice are suppose to make things easy. Complexity also adds to control problems.

 

And going back to the pure switch based digital controller you have an obvious case where it's more problematic than even the less than ideal analog joystick mechanism of the 5200 (with numerous games using less than ideal control catering to the sticks). That would of course be the finicky 16 direction disc of the Intellivision.

 

That's more rubbish. It seems you wrote this post in an attempt to shove all the facts stated under the rug without addressing any of them. Most Atari 5200 games work better with digital joysticks although the interface with analog introduces some uncertainty not as bad as pure analog. And those that use analog like Super Breakout work better with paddles than analog joysticks. But breakout with digital joysticks is still better than analog joysticks as you have accurate localized control.

[+Stephen]

Love the "switches"

 

Hey, that's actually a great example. I have a analog light switch in my room, and I get more control over the state of the light with the analog switch. The digital one is basically light on, or light off. This is all fine and good, until somebody wants, " some light, but not all the light", where the analog device makes accomplishing this rather easy.

 

In that scenario, there is MORE control available to the user of the switch, in that a state can be matched to a requirement or condition as deemed necessary by the dynamics in play at the time.

 

Additionally, I have a sub-set of that control available as binary! It's easy to get all the way on, or all the way off.

How can you dim the light? You have zero control over the infinite positions. Must suck never getting the light at the right level.

[+Stephen]

But those problems also apply to digital joysticks as the user has to feel and watch for feedback just as with analog.

That's the biggest rubbish that's been posted in this thread for someone who has supposedly read the thread. If you haven't read the thread, then read posts #454, 512, 513 which talk about switching times. The BASIC programs given earlier show that you do NOT have to rely on feedback as you do for analog. You know the states of the joystick a priori-- I'm sure you remember that word; ledzep likes to repeat it in almost every sentence he makes.

No you don't immediately know the state. How do you know when you have closed the switch? It takes some amount of feedback to know of you have moved far enough. That can change with wear. If you can automatically know the precise point at which the switch opens and closes, then you can just as well know precise positions and states on an analog device.

[atariksi]

 

How can you dim the light? You have zero control over the infinite positions. Must suck never getting the light at the right level.

 

You can dim the light but you have NO IDEA what you dimmed it to and have to rely on feedback to even make a guess as to what you did. If you wanted to get the light at 55.0 volts (assuming 0..110V), you'll never know when it's there unless you attach some AC voltmeter. And a paddle type analog switch works better than an analog joystick without even bringing in a digital device to deal with step voltages.

[potatohead]

You have a mental problem.

 

I say this, not as a insult, but a simple statement of fact.

 

With a simple light switch, everything can be known in advance of a action. On, off, and the states between.

 

Your mental problem surrounds having to quantify a state with precision being necessary to establish control.

 

This is simply not necessary in ordinary life, and actually the case you are trying to make is a highly specialized thing, outside of ordinary experience, and where a lot of very flawed assumptions are made.

 

To the average user wanting to control the light, there is just the switch, it's possible states, and the resulting light product. Control is a holistic thing, where action from the user results in some change in the state of things.

 

In the case of the light, control is all about the state of the light. For that average person, there is off, on, and in between. With the binary switch, the user, if blind, for example, could choose, on or off, and know the state of the light, because the switch offers two controls. They could also, being blind, also reach the "dim" state, where the light is on, but not at full potential.

 

Those are all easy things, however, there is a greater point here, and the source of the mental problem.

 

Such a user, unable to perceive the light, having to operate only on the interaction with the control of the light, has no use for the light!!

 

This is true for game controls as well. A user forced to operate under the constraints you have set as the basis for your flawed opinion, flawed because the constraints are flawed mind you, has no ability to actually benefit from the control state so exercised!

 

In the example of the game, a user asking for "left" needs to see the product of "left" happen, so they can then decide to choose "neutral", or "right". It therefore is necessary to consider the feedback from the game, or program, or light, to have control over said thing that is productive.

 

Now having said that; namely, that control is holistic, from the intent to the desired action and feedback on that action, let's again compare the digital light switch with the analog one.

 

It is entirely possible for the user to simply entertain either binary state, simply by moving the device to it's mechanical limits. That's on, or off. Further, it is possible for that user to know the state of the device, before deciding to do anything, due to the haptic feeback, which is literally the current mechanical position of the device, in addition to that motion feedback delivered by the device in response to a desire for control.

 

I asked this quite a ways up thread, and shall ask it again?

 

Why work so hard to be right on something, when the terms of the problem are sufficiently impractical as to render the judgment of being correct, completely useless?

 

And a follow on, why completely ignore the perfectly human capacity to make decisions based on subjective input?

 

When we turn a car, we don't go 10 degrees, and we don't follow the curvature of the road as a stream of radii, or advanced curves. We don't apply 10 percent of the gas to start the vehicle, and we don't ask for 10 percent of the total light capacity when we simply want "very dim".

 

The world is filled with lots of analog states, and we cope every day, and if we didn't have the control necessary to operate, there would be a lot of problems. Most everybody understands that, save those that have some block in their reasoning that would place the value of some abstract norm above that reality they live in every day.

 

I think that's fucked up, like autistic kind of fucked up, where something is just broken.

 

Here's another example where digital results in a LACK of control, and I run into this one regularly.

 

Volume controls. Now I've experienced a few of these and am going to give a run down to show how completely bizzare this conversation really is.

 

The simple kind are on or off, where on means you can hear it, and off means you can't. Some little cheapo devices have things like this.

 

The next kind is analog, where there is simply off, and as loud as the device is capable of, with not that loud states in between, just like the light switch.

 

On my nicer stereo, it's actually a dial marked in -db, which is kind of cool, and a point of discussion to be noted in a moment. Hold the thought...

 

Finally, there is the digital kind, where some encoder steps through a fairly limited set of states.

 

So, then, what is control?

 

In the case of hearing the device or not, all of those are sufficient. Consider this the minimum.

 

In the case of "loud enough" to accomplish some goal, say being able to hear the people in the room talking, and hearing the music, the dial is superior, in that a appropriate "loud enough" state can be easily found, and even repeated, given indents, or markings on the dial.

 

Notably, that digital one, with the steps is inferior, because the limited range of possible volume state choices might not be sufficient to achieve "loud enough". This is a frequent problem for me, as the usual affair is 32 or 64 states, sometimes more, and rarely a linear progression, resulting in having to choose between two clearly less than adequate states, for a "good enough", but not "right" state of control.

 

Clearly inferior.

 

Finally, the fancy one with the db metrics is useful to return to a specific volume state, however, it really isn't any more control capable than the indented or marked and calibrated dial is, UNLESS the desire state is quantified in a scientific way, then clearly the device with db states is the best overall control, because a exact state may be reached.

 

Of these control schemes, the LEAST amount of control happens to be in the digital realm, where the scope of possible actions is considerably less than those desirable actions.

 

Now, in your game scenario, the scope of possible actions is constrained to a very small set. The design of the game must take into account THE DEGREE OF CONTROL possible, where binary control is very limited, only realizing a few states, and analog control being far less limited as a large number of states are possible.

 

Ever notice on a lot of games, they will display a metric, much like things in the real world do? The reason for this is the desired state often isn't a fixed thing, but one that can vary, depending on what the player has done, and more importantly, what their current state product of their actions is.

 

Only when they have processed those things, can the control loop be closed, and that's a fact you completely ignore, choosing instead to assert dominance on a perfectly useless point of contention.

[atariksi]

But those problems also apply to digital joysticks as the user has to feel and watch for feedback just as with analog.

That's the biggest rubbish that's been posted in this thread for someone who has supposedly read the thread. If you haven't read the thread, then read posts #454, 512, 513 which talk about switching times. The BASIC programs given earlier show that you do NOT have to rely on feedback as you do for analog. You know the states of the joystick a priori-- I'm sure you remember that word; ledzep likes to repeat it in almost every sentence he makes.

No you don't immediately know the state. How do you know when you have closed the switch? It takes some amount of feedback to know of you have moved far enough. That can change with wear. If you can automatically know the precise point at which the switch opens and closes, then you can just as well know precise positions and states on an analog device.

 

If you followed the discussion I had with ledzep earlier in the thread or the BASIC program, you can know the state of the digital joystick a priori. The software gets the state that you want it to get. For analog joystick, it's guesswork thanks to the uncertainty regions caused by thresholds and unstable signals. For those game screenshots, you can't rely on feedback. And just because you have some software that is fudged where you can rely on feedback doesn't make those faults of the analog joystick go away. It's just lack of experience of playing those games with both types of joysticks that leads people to speculate and dream up things that they are somehow the same.

[potatohead]

Like I said, you have a mental problem. You've got some fixation on a few very specific attributes, and feel the need to express these to others to validate that fixation.

 

Sorry. My life experience nicely contradicts your points, and since you've not contributed any data, or even peer reviewable means and methods, I have no inclination at all to grant you any recognition for your statements.

 

And don't think I have failed to notice you consistently put fault on others for failure to agree with you and your particular fixation. This is a common manifestation, BTW, so don't feel as though I'm singling you out. Lots of people fetish on many things, and they suffer the same need to externalize it.

 

I actually "followed" every word, as I have a morbid interest in this thing, and simply see you are completely full of shit. So this isn't some failure of mine, nor anyone else here. Repeating shit, is simply repeating shit. Let me know if you need additional help with that concept.

 

Finally, to reinforce "full of shit", you were observing those games while fixating correct? Well that's feedback, and it's necessary to have the control interaction with the game. Close your eyes, and tell me how effective "a priori" really is, on the matter of control. Feel free to turn the sound all the way up, and while you are at it, try a title you don't have some familiarity with and get back to me.

 

...ideally, with your data.

[potatohead]

Oh, I think I've got this sorted, in addition to the fetish on the joystick ports. That one is easy, but this is a bit harder.

 

Throughout the many threads (and yes, I took a bit to look), caughtinadresski always associates bias and emotional with flawed, wrong, bad, etc...

 

So, the other fetish is bias! Quite simply, Atariski believes he's capable of acting without bias, and values that very highly.

 

This explains why there is a conflict on data. This explains why when somebody fails to receive a point in agreement, it's their fault, their bias, or their inability to comprehend the one, true atariski, who has conquered bias to a point of being called Mr. Data's peer.

 

This explains how admitting wrongness is difficult. To be wrong in some conclusion would clearly be emotional and biased, just as we see regularly claimed in response to a rational and potent challenge, or contrictory bit of information.

 

This explains the never ending change in scope of argument, because it is a simple attempt to cut through our bias and join Atariski in his non-biased world.

 

Finally, it may well explain the multi-person. You see he swore off ever talking to me again, after getting flat out pinned in another discussion where I just didn't play nice at all.

 

But... that is bias! How to resolve this? Invoke another persona, so the conversation can continue indirectly, because that leads me to the last bit:

 

Bias is bad, and so there is a obligation for those few, higher order people, who somehow believe they are above bias, and that burden is to constantly challenge bias, so the world is clean, perfect, and just, for our good, biased and emotional heathens that we are. For those reading at home, that's elitism 101.

 

Now, of course, this is my opinion, however I find it compelling enough to share.

Edited December 1, 2010 by potatohead

[+Stephen]

That's a nicer conclusion than I came to. I put it down to pure and simple arrogance. Old multi-personality feels he is smarter than everyone else here, and has NEVER admitted to being wrong. It's almost a god complex, where we mortals had better not argue as we can never contradict the all knowing one(which is now two).

 

I would really love to know the cause of this arrogant attitude. With it comes the mistaken idea that opinion is fact, and differing opions are wrong.

 

Atariski/Divya(same person) would make great religious leaders. (S)he has all the traits.