Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

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.

 

You are not giving any argument above. Name calling or even if I am arrogant doesn't refute the facts that are stated. Address the arguments. So far I refuted all of your arguments although they were already refuted earlier in the thread. Run the BASIC program blind-folded and see the results if you are unable to run all those game experiments. Here's examples of opinions and facts/logic.

 

Opinions: I don't like the Nintendo Wii controllers because they look like medical equipment. Or I don't like the XBOX controllers because they are like Darth Vador ships.

 

Facts: There's a higher failure rate of analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks in game scenarios like the Donkey Kong "pie" screen 3rd level jumps (as recently posted) due to regions of uncertainty. Analog joysticks have longer switch times. If you rely on feedback to tell you what you actually accomplished with your analog joystick and you don't with a digital joystick, that proves that your analog joystick is INFERIOR in control to a digital joystick. I.e., your analog joystick is crippled that it has to rely on continuous calibration in addition to worrying about the game elements.

 

I'll tell you the insults/arrogance that is invisible to you. Stating that an analog joystick can produce same results as a digital joystick is actually an insult and state of ignorance or arrogance and lack of experience given there's numerous companies that produced digital adapters for various platforms that have analog interfaces. For example, just for the Atari 5200, there's the Masterplay digital interface, Redemption adapter, digital joystick adapter, and many customized ones. In effect, you are claiming they were all stupid since they are useless. And Atari was also stupid to even bother putting separate digital lines in for digital joystick given they had the analog inputs to implement an analog joystick which could mimic the digital joystick. We could have had 5-pin joystick ports instead of 9-pin. You never saw that arrogance/insults that was implicit.

 

P.S.: the analog switch example is comparing apples and oranges since you never tried to implement it with digital switch or looked at the digital versions of it. You can easily implement various voltages with just one bit (what to speak of using multiple bits) especially if you have feedback to rely on-- just make "On" position mean step voltage by 10V every 1 second or so and "off" means stop the stepping. QED.

[+Stephen]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact. I didn't call you an arrogant a-hole as that would have been name calling.

 

You will not admit that an analog controller has advantages such as allowing slower / faster movement in a racing game. You never addressed the issue of fretless guitar players. You never stated why real life airplanes have "analog" yokes for flight control. You never stated why a real car's clutch pedal is not a digital (full on, full off) type of controller.

 

You take the single-minded narrow sighted approach of re-stating your OPINION 1000 times to make it seem like it carries more weight. You offer no scientific data. You fail to explain why you feel a digital joystick is superior to a steering wheel controller with pedals for racing games.

[atariksi]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact. I didn't call you an arrogant a-hole as that would have been name calling.

 

You will not admit that an analog controller has advantages such as allowing slower / faster movement in a racing game. You never addressed the issue of fretless guitar players. You never stated why real life airplanes have "analog" yokes for flight control. You never stated why a real car's clutch pedal is not a digital (full on, full off) type of controller.

 

You take the single-minded narrow sighted approach of re-stating your OPINION 1000 times to make it seem like it carries more weight. You offer no scientific data. You fail to explain why you feel a digital joystick is superior to a steering wheel controller with pedals for racing games.

 

I actually did address the fretless guitar issue and yolks and other flight controls as well as car pedals. You are mixing up controllers in general. My focus has been analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks. The data has also been posted for the analog vs. digital joysticks. A big paddle like a steering wheel offers more control than an analog joystick (addressed in post #1 and elsewhere). A fretless guitar is more like a paddle with also random access to various points (more accurate than a paddle). I suppose a digital controller for a fretless guitar would be like a disk head mechanism-- go seek to a particular string and then go to a point on the string. Nonetheless all the analog controllers aren't giving you 100% control. Focusing on joysticks, there are various ways to implement speed using a digital joystick depending on the game. Pole position does it with using gears and automatic acceleration. But take for argument's sake that you cannot implement the speed in some scenario, that's no reason to switch over to analog and sacrifice the 100% control the digital joystick provides for everything else. The speed they implemented for example in SuperBreakout using analog joystick backfires when you have to move a pixel or two. You gained something by going fast back and forth from left to right and lost on the local accuracy. And you carry the flawed control of the analog joysticks to all other games that may or may not need the variations in speed. So it's net gain is negative. I'm only speaking of analog joysticks not other analog controllers.

[potatohead]

Is it so hard to simply say you don't see merit in analog joysticks?

 

This is why I wrote what I did. Doing that would be coming to some self acceptance on your own bias.

 

We all are biased. Everybody always.

 

Why is that admission difficult?

[Divya16]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact.

 

I think it was you who was complaining before about being forced to accept digital joysticks being superior and now you are trying to force people to accept they are wrong blindly without a shred of evidence. Digital joysticks run circles around analog joysticks. If majority of modern machines were using digital controllers and someone argued analog were superior, you would argue in favor of digital. It's the normal blind following the blind philosophy. There's no use for analog joysticks at all. If they didn't exist, nobody would miss them. They are inherently flawed.

[potatohead]

Seriously?

 

Trying to force people?? Wasn't it gotcaughtinadresski who issued the challenge? "Let's see who can refute it!"

 

Well, it's pretty well refuted.

 

Not hard, given no qualifer for "better", LOL!!

 

And so the others, answering and being entertained by the challenge are at fault how? At the end of the day, you asked for this thread, so let's be honest here, shall we?

 

Just remember that. You ASKED for it --BIG!

 

Refuted. End of story. If you've got no data to support your position, above and beyond that you have presented here, you lose. Over. Done.

 

Got your ass kicked.

[atariksi]

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.

 

You are not giving any argument above. Name calling or even if I am arrogant doesn't refute the facts that are stated. Address the arguments. So far I refuted all of your arguments although they were already refuted earlier in the thread. Run the BASIC program blind-folded and see the results if you are unable to run all those game experiments. Here's examples of opinions and facts/logic.

 

Opinions: I don't like the Nintendo Wii controllers because they look like medical equipment. Or I don't like the XBOX controllers because they are like Darth Vador ships.

 

Facts: There's a higher failure rate of analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks in game scenarios like the Donkey Kong "pie" screen 3rd level jumps (as recently posted) due to regions of uncertainty. Analog joysticks have longer switch times. If you rely on feedback to tell you what you actually accomplished with your analog joystick and you don't with a digital joystick, that proves that your analog joystick is INFERIOR in control to a digital joystick. I.e., your analog joystick is crippled that it has to rely on continuous calibration in addition to worrying about the game elements.

 

I'll tell you the insults/arrogance that is invisible to you. Stating that an analog joystick can produce same results as a digital joystick is actually an insult and state of ignorance or arrogance and lack of experience given there's numerous companies that produced digital adapters for various platforms that have analog interfaces. For example, just for the Atari 5200, there's the Masterplay digital interface, Redemption adapter, digital joystick adapter, and many customized ones. In effect, you are claiming they were all stupid since they are useless. And Atari was also stupid to even bother putting separate digital lines in for digital joystick given they had the analog inputs to implement an analog joystick which could mimic the digital joystick. We could have had 5-pin joystick ports instead of 9-pin. You never saw that arrogance/insults that was implicit.

 

P.S.: the analog switch example is comparing apples and oranges since you never tried to implement it with digital switch or looked at the digital versions of it. You can easily implement various voltages with just one bit (what to speak of using multiple bits) especially if you have feedback to rely on-- just make "On" position mean step voltage by 10V every 1 second or so and "off" means stop the stepping. QED.

 

Just for reference when I said "In effect, you are claiming..." I am referring to poster of post #565.

[+Stephen]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact.

 

I think it was you who was complaining before about being forced to accept digital joysticks being superior and now you are trying to force people to accept they are wrong blindly without a shred of evidence. Digital joysticks run circles around analog joysticks. If majority of modern machines were using digital controllers and someone argued analog were superior, you would argue in favor of digital. It's the normal blind following the blind philosophy. There's no use for analog joysticks at all. If they didn't exist, nobody would miss them. They are inherently flawed.

I'm not forcing anything. I refuted a statement you made and provided ample evidence which dozens of other people seemed to easily comprehend. You two(one) are the ones trying to shove your OPINIONS as fact on everyone else here. Seems that everyone else on this thread except you two(one) can see that. Just because a large number of people agree on something doesn't make it right. However, your biased opinions are no more right than the rest of ours are wrong.

 

Believing otherwise proves the arrogance I referred to earlier. I sincerely hope everything in your life isn't as black and white as this issue is for you. I cannot comprehend going through life being so narrow minded.

[atariksi]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact.

 

I think it was you who was complaining before about being forced to accept digital joysticks being superior and now you are trying to force people to accept they are wrong blindly without a shred of evidence. Digital joysticks run circles around analog joysticks. If majority of modern machines were using digital controllers and someone argued analog were superior, you would argue in favor of digital. It's the normal blind following the blind philosophy. There's no use for analog joysticks at all. If they didn't exist, nobody would miss them. They are inherently flawed.

I'm not forcing anything. I refuted a statement you made and provided ample evidence which dozens of other people seemed to easily comprehend. You two(one) are the ones trying to shove your OPINIONS as fact on everyone else here. Seems that everyone else on this thread except you two(one) can see that. Just because a large number of people agree on something doesn't make it right. However, your biased opinions are no more right than the rest of ours are wrong.

 

Believing otherwise proves the arrogance I referred to earlier. I sincerely hope everything in your life isn't as black and white as this issue is for you. I cannot comprehend going through life being so narrow minded.

 

Just calling something/someone arrogant, opinion, etc. doesn't make it so. Maybe for you things aren't as clear cut. But things that are factual are clear cut. The sun rises in the east is not a matter of opinion. Nonetheless you don't need to accept it. Similarly, you have no right to force people to accept they are wrong even though it's an opinion. Although in this case, it's a matter of fact. When I see actual refutation of the facts stated, I will reply. I don't care about people's imagination or mental speculation that they are refuted.

[svenski]

Maybe... one day ... this thread will close?

[potatohead]

It's not name calling - you're arrogance and failure to admit you are wrong (which you have never done because in your eyes you have never been wrong) is a fact.

 

I think it was you who was complaining before about being forced to accept digital joysticks being superior and now you are trying to force people to accept they are wrong blindly without a shred of evidence. Digital joysticks run circles around analog joysticks. If majority of modern machines were using digital controllers and someone argued analog were superior, you would argue in favor of digital. It's the normal blind following the blind philosophy. There's no use for analog joysticks at all. If they didn't exist, nobody would miss them. They are inherently flawed.

I'm not forcing anything. I refuted a statement you made and provided ample evidence which dozens of other people seemed to easily comprehend. You two(one) are the ones trying to shove your OPINIONS as fact on everyone else here. Seems that everyone else on this thread except you two(one) can see that. Just because a large number of people agree on something doesn't make it right. However, your biased opinions are no more right than the rest of ours are wrong.

 

Believing otherwise proves the arrogance I referred to earlier. I sincerely hope everything in your life isn't as black and white as this issue is for you. I cannot comprehend going through life being so narrow minded.

 

Just calling something/someone arrogant, opinion, etc. doesn't make it so. Maybe for you things aren't as clear cut. But things that are factual are clear cut. The sun rises in the east is not a matter of opinion. Nonetheless you don't need to accept it. Similarly, you have no right to force people to accept they are wrong even though it's an opinion. Although in this case, it's a matter of fact. When I see actual refutation of the facts stated, I will reply. I don't care about people's imagination or mental speculation that they are refuted.

 

 

Sure if you need to coddle your ego. The notable thing here is your challenge your rules and your judgment. You got totally spanked and rather than own that, you simply put fault on everybody in the hopes you can lie to yourself well enough to avoid your issues.

 

Nobody else needs that because noboby else has the need. We are all just fine being the people we are unthreatend by error because we don't define our value by how we are never wrong.

 

If you don't reply, my judgment stands. You got your ass handed to you and are now entering bunker personality mode to avoid some crisis.

[Divya16]

Maybe... one day ... this thread will close?

 

It's basically closed some time ago but then ledzep showed up. It's basically closed now as no one seems either be able to refute the arguments presented. Just a few people flailing in the dark or imagining their fantasies.

[JamesD]

If Divya16 is an atariksi sockpuppet, then atariski posted in a thread he was banned from with a sockpuppet.

Isn't that grounds for a permanent ban?

 

Link

[Divya16]

If Divya16...

[mental speculation deleted]

 

Haven't you done enough trolling? You have promised to keep out of this thread and you keep coming back. How low can you sink? Maybe if you wanted to improve your life, you can address some points in the thread and say something on-topic. Its you who deserved to be banned from that thread. I bet all you do all day is go finding fault with others you don't like and do whistle-blowing of some sort. Maybe you need a better life rather than trying to frame people. You typify the sore loser mentality. Can't beat him so find some other means to do him in.

[potatohead]

Maybe... one day ... this thread will close?

 

It's basically closed some time ago but then ledzep showed up. It's basically closed now as no one seems either be able to refute the arguments presented. Just a few people flailing in the dark or imagining their fantasies.

 

Oh no. I called it dead, because there was no action. Then elitiski decided to declare himself the winner, sparking a new round of spanking, because, well, because it's just entertaining, and elitiski asked for it.

 

Remember that. Asked for it. Trapped too! Trapped because basically asking for it to stop would admit what? Losing? Imperfection? Bias? LOL!! It's a perfectly evil twist, and self inflicted too. Good grief!

 

Now, this community delivered big too! Got a great discussion with all kinds of good points made all around. I personally think that's a wonderful thing, and am very entertained. Don't mind being wrong either. I don't think most of us do.

 

And that's the crux right there isn't it caughtinadresski? Always somebody's fault, isn't it? Well, consider whether or not the thread would have died, had the challenge not been renewed. Intriguing indeed!

 

**I really have no issue with the doppleganger deal going on. It's entertaining as all get out, and absolutely nothing personal. Fun actually. Comes with being a liberal guy. Maybe some of us just need a doppleganger sometimes. No worries here. Really.

Edited December 2, 2010 by potatohead

[potatohead]

If Divya16...

[mental speculation deleted]

 

Haven't you done enough trolling? You have promised to keep out of this thread and you keep coming back. How low can you sink? Maybe if you wanted to improve your life, you can address some points in the thread and say something on-topic. Its you who deserved to be banned from that thread. I bet all you do all day is go finding fault with others you don't like and do whistle-blowing of some sort. Maybe you need a better life rather than trying to frame people. You typify the sore loser mentality. Can't beat him so find some other means to do him in.

 

And you did not deny the charge!! Never answered my single body question either. Don't think I forgot that or something. Not a chance. Just figured there would be a better time for that kind of thing.

[ledzep]

 

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.

 

All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to, what you did it with, where and when you did it. You have to describe the control and experimental groups, you have to list the specific games used, the specific joysticks used for each game played by each game player in both groups. You have to present the specs for any hardware and/or software you used to measure or record the data. And, yet again, you have to release all the data. And not just in raw form, you have to organize it into something readable that can be used by you to support your theory. Something along the lines of

 

"As you can see in this graph, over 70% of the players scored better for each game played when using any of the digital joystick choices over the analog joystick choices. Each player played a total of 10 games (games chosen with a variety of digital and analog joystick requirements and advantages) and each game they played was played 9 times, 3 using digital joysticks, 3 using analog joysticks, and 3 using randomly-chosen joysticks that the players did not know whether they were digital or analog. Their final scores and total gameplay times are listed next to each of their initials."

 

Have you seriously never run a comprehensive experiment in all the time you've been in school? Never tested different chemicals for heat or acidity or anything like that? Never made measurements of stars in the night sky for an astronomy lab and had to test some law or anything? That is the only excuse for you completely boning this opportunity to present compelling data that would support your cause. All you've actually accomplished is convince everyone except your female personality that you haven't conducted any experiments and that you're just too stubborn to admit it.

 

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.

 

Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

 

Before the puma could say anything to him, Dr. Jackass said: "roller skates provide better traction than clogs. It's a scientific fact, let's see who can refute it."

 

The puma replied: "A scientific fact? Who says? Did Mr. Owl figure that out or maybe Sammy Squirrel?"

 

Dr. Jackass replied: "No, it's simple logic."

 

The puma answered: "Wait, then how can it be a scientific fact if it hasn't been confirmed repeatedly or accepted as tr... oh, I bet you conducted some scientific experiments to test your theory, right?"

 

Dr. Jackass replied: "You better believe it. Hundreds of experiments. I got all the proof right here."

 

Now the puma was curious. He asked: "Really? Can I see your results?"

 

To which Dr. Jackass answered: "I don't need to show you any of my results. You can conduct the experiment yourself."

 

The puma was confused: "Wait, you said you have all the proof right here, why won't you just let me see it?"

 

And Dr. Jackass replied: "Because I already showed you everything! See, right here, this is a picture of my shoe closet, and here is another picture showing someone's foot wearing a golf cleat. I have a shoe simulator that you can use, I'll send you a picture of the front page of its instruction manual."

 

The puma was getting a bit bent by now: "So is that a picture of one of the people who participated in your footwear testing experiment?"

 

Dr. Jackass answered with: "Maybe. It doesn't matter. You asked for data, there it is! If you can't figure it out I'm not going to bother showing you the rest of my proof."

 

And so the puma tore Dr. Jackass' guts open with a swipe of his paw.

 

As for you last, latest lie, if there are other people who have "done the experiment" can you point us to any of them? Maybe one of them has the brains to coherently describe the specifics of the "experiment" he ran and isn't scared to present the data supporting this baseless claim of yours.

[ledzep]

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.

 

Perhaps you want to stop stalling and finally release all the parameters of your supposed experiments along with all the data?

 

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.

 

The difference is I'm not the one who claimed to have run "hundreds of experiments" (Post #58) along with having megabytes of data and then refused to present any of it. That was you. So since you have claimed that you ran experiments and have data from them it's on you to present all that imaginary crap. Since you have claimed that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks you it's on you to show where this has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. You have done neither.

 

Yes, big difference. You are the only one making idiotic definitive statements and then failing to substantiate them. I would mention Didntknow16 doing the same thing but split personalities are no laughing matter and I don't want to enable yours.

 

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.

 

If you understand the English language then you should know that if you claim the "data" you have released up to now is complete then by definition it is impossible that there could be "other data". If a set has all the parts then there cannot be "other parts" to that set somewhere else. What I understand about the nature of your "data" is that you don't have any for the "hundreds of experiments" you imagine you have conducted or you would have presented all of it by now in a triumphant downloading of "megabytes" of data to prove us all wrong. Something is stopping you from doing that. It's the fact that you don't actually have the data.

 

You hate analog joysticks which makes you biased. Which means that no one believes for a second that you ran a comprehensive, unbiased experiment and therefore everybody wants to see the parameters of these fictional experiments of yours to see what you think a "fair" comparison of digital and analog joysticks would be. And you know this, you know that what you have pretended to have "tested" up to now has in no way been comprehensive or competently tested.

 

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.

 

See you are already trying yet again to change the subject so that you can avoid admitting that you have made claims about scientific facts, running experiments and generating data that are baseless. Otherwise you would stop trying to convince us with pleas to "logic" and "mathematics" and would have instead presented the parameters of your experiments, your control and experimental groups and all the data that these fake experiments of yours included. Every post of yours that doesn't include attached files of your experiment parameters and all the data is another confirmation that you never did any of that crap that you claimed. Way to go.

 

Wow, so not only have you not run "hundreds of experiments" nor have "megabytes" of data, you're now sinking low enough to state that you could go back and fake doing them again? Amazing, so tell me, how many times in a given 24 hour period could you not-run your experiment on non-existent control and experimental groups and not-generate megabytes of data from those imaginary experiments? I wonder how many terabytes of disk space you'd need to hold none of that data that you haven't generated, must be close to ZERO, huh?

 

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).

 

You've got your personalities all screwed up here. First of all these responses were directed at Didntknow16, not you. Yes yes, your therapist has explained that you and "she" are the same but for the purposes of this thread you insist on being two people so pay attention to who you are supposed to be at the moment. Second of all a tiny bit of the data was posted which, out of context, is completely useless. Nothing less than the megabytes of data you claim (that's you, not you) to have generated will suffice, along with a complete description of the experiments that generated that data and lists of the participants who comprised the control and experimental groups along with the specific games and joysticks they tested with. Ya, I know, your next rebuttal will be a new rewording of why you don't have to follow through on your own claims. Nobody is agreeing with that, unfortunately for you.

 

As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -

 

Definition of HYPOCRITE

 

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

 

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.

[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.

 

All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to,

I gave you list of games in post #114, 137. That's enough for the conclusion which also happens to be logical and mathematically supported. All parameters are present. My playing of Popeye and DK was given in REC files. I don't need to play the whole game to show the higher failure rate of analog joysticks. Just spots where the uncertainty and long throw a play a big role. If you want to see the experiment repeated live, come over and I'll put it in your face since you can't seem to do it yourself. As I said, I played hundreds of games but whatever data is presented is sufficient to draw the conclusion.

 

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.

 

Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

You are just choosing random analogies. Dr. Frog did not want to perform the experiment because he was narrow-minded and considered himself a big-shot. You are just name-calling. Once again you fail to understand that logic/math is not a replacement for the experiment. The experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove my point.

 

"Accepted by many" doesn't have to mean majority. There are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks-- I mentioned some of those big names-- MasterPlay, Amiga Corp., Commodore, Atari, etc. etc. And you see from the polls many people besides the two active arguers accept the same. You are just speculating and acting like Dr. Frog: "I don't know of anyone besides you two who makes such a claim." That's your limited vision.

[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.

 

Perhaps you want to stop stalling and finally release all the parameters of your supposed experiments along with all the data?

I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:

(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;

(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;

(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;

(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);

(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;

and other spots requiring timing things.

 

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.

 

Since you have claimed that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks you it's on you to show where this has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. You have done neither.

I have done both. You just keep misreading or not reading the points I have made. And stop with the name calling. You need to be emotionally unbiased to even discuss scientific experiments what to speak of performing them.

 

[some rubbish deleted]

 

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.

 

If you understand the English language then you should know that if you claim the "data" you have released up to now is complete then by definition it is impossible that there could be "other data". If a set has all the parts then there cannot be "other parts" to that set somewhere else. What I understand about the nature of your "data" is that you don't have any for the "hundreds of experiments" you imagine you have conducted or you would have presented all of it by now in a triumphant downloading of "megabytes" of data to prove us all wrong. Something is stopping you from doing that.

No, if you make 100 experiments of F=ma and you release 10 experiments that show F=ma. What difference does it make whether you post data for the other 90. I posted the ones that are popular titles and narrowed the data to where there's high failure rate for analog joysticks; its easier to discuss small sets than to dump megabytes of the hard drive on a discussion forum.

 

You hate analog joysticks which makes you biased. Which means that no one believes for a second that you ran a comprehensive, unbiased experiment and therefore everybody wants to see the parameters of these fictional experiments of yours to see what you think a "fair" comparison of digital and analog joysticks would be. And you know this, you know that what you have pretended to have "tested" up to now has in no way been comprehensive or competently tested.

Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.

 

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.

 

See you are already trying yet again to change the subject so that you can avoid admitting that you have made claims about scientific facts, running experiments and generating data that are baseless. Otherwise you would stop trying to convince us with pleas to "logic" and "mathematics" and would have instead presented the parameters of your experiments, your control and experimental groups and all the data that these fake experiments of yours included. Every post of yours that doesn't include attached files of your experiment parameters and all the data is another confirmation that you never did any of that crap that you claimed. Way to go.

Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

 

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).

 

You've got your personalities all screwed up here. First of all these responses were directed at Didntknow16, not you.

You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

 

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

 

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.

 

As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -

Once again, just making a claim doesn't make it true. Read on:

 

Definition of HYPOCRITE

 

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

That doesn't apply to anyone.

 

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.

 

You misunderstood that definition. You are making claims that are unfounded yet demand proof from others. That's hypocracy as it applies to you.

[potatohead]

And if your foundation is wrong???

 

Are you implying that you don't make that error? You know, everybody does. That is why we review each others conclusions, and if there is a point of disagreement, a common foundation must be found, or the assertion cannot be accepted as true.

 

You have made several assertions that do not align well with commonly accepted truths.

 

Burden is on you, not everybody else, to overcome that. Instead, you generally declare others who bring this point to the floor, flawed, speculative, emotional, biased, etc...

 

That's elitism, and it's a clear sign of irrational behavior, which I characterized as a fixation, or fetish, being justified on anything other than some acceptance that you have that fixation or fetish.

 

It's like saying big hooters are scientifically better than small hooters, when the reality is some of us are just hardwired to like big hooters!!

 

There is no harm in these things, except in the denial of them.

 

You asked to be refuted. Normally, that kind of thing is a lot of fun, because it's a win-win either way! If not refuted, then it was a solid proposition to begin with. If refuted, well, now something is known that was not known before, leading to a improved and more solid proposition. That's a powerful thing, and the core of why we even have controllers to discuss in the first place.

 

The hypocrisy here, and the arrogance is your constant devaluing of others, who happen to contribute information that is contradictory to that you provided here.

 

Put simply, you asked to be refuted, but not really. I'm quite sure the original intent was to "educate" people about your discovery, then it was found that discovery really wasn't so profound, or true, and it got shitty, and here we are.

 

So, the other thing you should be seriously worried about, given how you value technical acumen, is the inability to accept being wrong --refuted, means you really can't learn the higher order things necessary to progress in the tech.

 

There is a big world out there, beyond the joystick ports you know.

 

And you never, ever can establish that you are right, by devaluing other people. It has to be solid, with merit, real and inclusive before others will agree with you.

 

(hint: That's where releasing your data and methodology comes into play)

Edited December 2, 2010 by potatohead

[JamesD]

If Divya16...

[mental speculation deleted]

 

Haven't you done enough trolling?

 

You have promised to keep out of this thread and you keep coming back.

You better read it again. I posted a picture of Bart Simpson writing on a chalk board for the purpose of humor, which many people in the thread can understand.

 

How low can you sink?

Pointing out atariksi may have thumbed his nose at the admins after getting a slap on the wrist for breaking rules of the board is sinking low?

 

Maybe if you wanted to improve your life, you can address some points in the thread and say something on-topic.

Personal ignored.

 

I already did address points in this thread and the points have never been appropriately addressed.

Which is why other people keep saying the same things. They just get ignored or it gets dismissed over and over.

 

Bad scientific method, no data, no consensus, claim refuted... I think everyone has been reiterating the same points and they are doing a good job so I really don't see the need for me to repeat myself.

 

Its you who deserved to be banned from that thread. I bet all you do all day is go finding fault with others you don't like and do whistle-blowing of some sort.

Personal again.

 

Maybe you need a better life rather than trying to frame people.

More personal.

 

Frame? Other people started the accusation, I said "If". And if the admins wanted to know if you are atariksi's sockpuppet, they could probably just look at logs and compare IP addresses. Exactly how could I frame him? Hack the site and change the IP addresses in the logs?

 

I really don't have an issue with using a sockpuppet per se. Frankly, if you have to resort to a sockpuppet to support your argument, then you probably don't have a good argument and it isn't going to help you.

 

You typify the sore loser mentality. Can't beat him so find some other means to do him in.

And getting personal again.

 

If you/atariksi want to win the argument, address people's concerns.

That is not the same thing as dismissing them.

 

Frankly, I think the original hypothesis is too generalized to ever gain a scientific consensus no matter what argument or data you present because it leaves too much room for exceptions.

[ledzep]

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.

 

I'd love to see some evidence. All I've seen so far is a few stills of TVs with video games on them, a few random formulas, some pointless analogies from you that confirm you don't know what is and isn't digital in the modern world and a whole lot of excuses for you not presenting all the parameters of your fictional experiments along with all the data those experiments supposedly generated.

 

I can't "run the experiment myself" until I know, in specific detail, how you ran the experiment. Which means you need to explain what hardware and software you used to record the data, what various video games you included in the experiments, how many people were in the control and experimental groups, how many times each game player played each game with each joystick (digital and analog), etc., etc., etc. But for whatever reason you absolutely refuse to supply those parameters so it is impossible for anyone to "perform the same experiment" given the total lack of information from your end.

 

Oh, by the way, you are allowed to prove that you ran experiments. But it doesn't work by just stating that you ran them -- you have to present the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. For one example, show me that you ran the experiments that you claim to have run.

 

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 can't just label things as proven without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't presented any information about the experiment you claim to have conducted or all the data generated by it the only thing you can do is say "I haven't run any experiment" or if you actually understand the scientific method then you can actually conduct and then present a thorough experiment and data that actually supports your opinion about digital joysticks. You are just making false claims otherwise.

 

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.

 

I see you have never conducted an experiment in your life or are pretending that stating that you ran experiments is the same thing as actually performing experiments. I want you to present all the parameters of your experiments along with all the data generated by those supposed experiments. And quick misunderstanding the word 'parameter' (See, when you can easily find definitions on the internet that means you're probably on the right track and as I schooled your female personality on this subject, authoritative sources bolster your argument.), I clearly stated what that entails and what you, as the liar who boasted of performing "hundreds of experiments", is responsible for presenting. Nobody has the time to listen to you try every excuse ever invented for not backing up your claims of having run "hundreds of experiments" and having "megabytes of data" like how you keep invoking F=ma as if Newton had been as stupid as you have been and claimed that he'd run hundreds of experiments but then refused to present any of the parameters for his experiments along with all the data from those experiments. If you can't understand the scientific method, you have a problem.

 

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.

 

See all you do is try to use the same excuses without understanding that what you claim is just your MENTAL SPECULATION until you actually present proof that you ran "hundreds of experiments" and you also present all the data so that others can judge for themselves if you have conducted a fair, unbiased experiment. What I just wrote about you is FACTUALLY true, too.

 

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.

 

You have been rebutted at least 5 times already. Your program checks for every state. Yet if you want to use an analog joystick for a game that is geared towards a digital joysticks (cardinal directions only) it's a waste of time to check for anything other than what the outputs of the cardinal directions on an analog joystick would be. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But knowing "a priori" any state is just as improbable as any other state given that you don't take into account the various fractions of a second that comprise the chain of events that starts at the player moving the joystick to the joystick sending a signal to the computer register receiving the output from the joystick to the program checking the register to the program acting on the new information to the program updating the game graphics and, if necessary, score and position to the TV monitor displaying the change. There is no way for you to prove that you or anybody else can distinguish between those various states in that one scenario. Of course, you could conduct an experiment to... who am I kidding, we all know that's the last thing on Earth you'll ever do, right? No wait, let me guess, you've run that experiment "hundreds" of times, too! Hahaahaa!

 

I hope you understand now that state changes are not singular nor instantaneous. Don't blame the speed of light or electrical resistance. 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.

 

Ha ha HA! Now you're really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel. (1) Prove it, (2) duh, prove it, (3) prove it, (4) as I said, prove it. It's related to the fact that all you've done is claimed to have conducted "hundreds of experiments", you have yet to prove that you have run even a single experiment.

 

The longer you make excuses and avoid providing proof (description/parameters of your experiment + all the data) the more certain everyone is that you never ran an experiment in your life, much less hundreds of experiments testing joysticks.

 

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.

 

More empty claims.

 

Prove it. Play those anytime, anywhere, and any place, detail the parameters of your tests and release all the data generated from the tests. Other unbiased people will finally admit that you actually ran an experiment that produced data. I don't know about you since you haven't run any actual experiments yet.

 

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.

 

First things first. Do you actually have all the data you have lied about generating? If yes, then say YES and release all the data along with the parameters of the experiments that generated that data. If not, don't make bullshit claims about having run "hundreds of experiments", having "megabytes of data" and claiming that "many others" have also run these experiments.

 

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.

 

Nope, people who make false claims about having conducted experiments that produced megabytes of data and then refuse to provide the parameters of those experiments along with all the data generated are living in a bubble. That's you and your lipsticked split personality, Bubble Boy. People who don't release data in front of them are liars.

 

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.

 

What? You're that dumb? All constitutes ALL. You can release terabytes of data if you actually generated terabytes of data. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data that you have grudgingly presented out of context of the whole is worthless and then the totality of your fuckups would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, you would have to stop making suggestions about your fictional data and actually present your fictional data in order to convince anyone that you ever conducted an experiment in the first place.

 

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.

 

There you go again. Excuse and excuse. All that crap about pretending that you have megabytes of data and now you want to argue that you don't know what "all" means. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

 

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.

 

Stop the excuses. Who cares where you were going or where you got stuck in traffic. Get to the point and present the parameters of your experiments and release all the data generated by them.

 

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.

 

It doesn't really matter what excuses you try. Only the facts count. The fact remains that you claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks (it isn't a scientific fact), you claim to have conducted experiments to test this opinion of yours (you haven't conducted any experiments) and you claim to have megabytes of data from these experiments (you have no data to present). Once you actually conduct some experiments and present the specifics of how you ran them, who you ran them on, what you ran them with and include all the data from those experiments we'll talk about your idiotic theory and whether your data supports it or not 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.

 

I am COMPLETELY right. We refuted your four categories remember. If "the experimental data is there" then release all of it. Your excuses for failing to do so are inferior. Don't try to substitute an excuse for actual proof. Don't misunderstand basic scientific principles. So far you are only proving you have no concept of what an experiment is, no clue of how to conduct one and no proof of having run any experiments yourself and using mental speculation to try to convince people you've done something you clearly have not.

[atariksi]

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.

 

I'd love to see some evidence. All I've seen so far is a few stills of TVs with video games on them, a few random formulas, some pointless analogies from you that confirm you don't know what is and isn't digital in the modern world and a whole lot of excuses for you not presenting all the parameters of your fictional experiments along with all the data those experiments supposedly generated.

I suggest you read the replies to your posts before blurting out the same crap over and over again. I posted the motion files for the screenshots for the evidence you are requesting. It's there in post #540. Your so-called math was random-- desperate attempt to just defy anything that's stated regardless of its truth value. My math is REAL and applies to REALITY. My analogies apply perfectly and so does the logic. Your analogies are random as shown in previous replies.

 

I can't "run the experiment myself" until I know, in specific detail, how you ran the experiment. Which means you need to explain what hardware and software you used to record the data, what various video games you included in the experiments, how many people were in the control and experimental groups, how many times each game player played each game with each joystick (digital and analog), etc., etc., etc. But for whatever reason you absolutely refuse to supply those parameters so it is impossible for anyone to "perform the same experiment" given the total lack of information from your end.

You definitely haven't read the replies to your posts. While I don't mind explaining it again, I need some hints that you even care about what is being stated. As I said earlier, some people are just emotionally opposed and there's nothing you can do stop them from even refuting F=ma.

 

Oh, by the way, you are allowed to prove that you ran experiments. But it doesn't work by just stating that you ran them -- you have to present the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. For one example, show me that you ran the experiments that you claim to have run.

I gave you many reasons-- gave you the REC files, allowed you to run the joystick simulator yourself, allowed you to come over and see for yourself, etc. etc.

 

You can't just label things as proven without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't presented any information about the experiment ...

Okay, now I know you are just beating around the bush. I just attached the entire REC file for the Donkey Kong instead of just where the failure was high. I already gave you information of how to view the file as well earlier for Popeye game. It's the same format for all the games. In fact, you can even play them back on games that use repeated fixed patterns. I have given proof; you have just speculated things. And I told you just consider it all of the data. You NEVER have all the data if you think about it. F=ma can be experimented on even today and you would be adding to the data. Duh! How did you mess that up. I'll continue later (to give you time to think about your absurd remarks) as you apparently are trying to defy things that are undeniably true and already refuted so many times like:

 

"I hope you understand now that state changes are not singular nor instantaneous. Don't blame the speed of light or electrical resistance. You are the one who needs help."

 

Duh! You already agreed with me earlier that nanosecond intervals don't matter when software is only sampling in milliseconds. That's so dumb, it's like saying Atari DLI routines aren't cycle exact since there's some nanosecond difference in the data hold time. Duh! Who cares. The spec is for 1.78Mhz or 114 cycles/line. The subcycles don't matter. You REALLY need help. What happens within the cycle is a black-box as long as result of the cycle is the same.

 

You must have been drunk when you replied to this so I am giving you some time to think about it again before I refute your already refuted drivel again. And now you are replying to things that were many many posts ago. It's better to go chronologically as some arguments build upon what was written before. A clear case that you are completely confused as to what you want to state.

joydkong.zip

[JamesD]

Instead of arguing about atariksi's experiment or lack of data, provide a real experiment that disproves the hypothesis.

Once you do that, it's over.