Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted.

You are imagining that it has not been refuted.

 

Given your flawed logic, it would follow that you are imagining things.

[+Stephen]

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.

 

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.

It certainly is not mathematical nor is it the same thing as F=ma. There is no room for subjective opinions to creep into the F=ma equation. Nobody can argue the mass or gravitational constant.

 

I also don't know why it won't sink into your stubborn head that analog sticks give MORE range of control. I know you like to argue and in your own little world are always correct.

 

Let's forget these simple games like PacMan designed for a 4-way digital stick. Go play a modern racing simulator (Forza 3, Gran Turismo 5, etc) with the dual analog pads (stock controller for the XBox 360 or PS3), then play it using only the D-pad. I challenge you to find someone who can get better lap times and more control with the D-pad. Why is that? Maybe because in the real world, the car's gas, brake, and clutch are NOT digital in nature.

 

Talking to your two personalities is like arguing with a brick wall. I am obviously the retarded one since I keep responding to your drivel. And don't spew anything about name calling. I'll call myself retarded if I see fit.

[kool kitty89]

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.

 

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.

It certainly is not mathematical nor is it the same thing as F=ma. There is no room for subjective opinions to creep into the F=ma equation. Nobody can argue the mass or gravitational constant.

 

I also don't know why it won't sink into your stubborn head that analog sticks give MORE range of control. I know you like to argue and in your own little world are always correct.

 

Let's forget these simple games like PacMan designed for a 4-way digital stick. Go play a modern racing simulator (Forza 3, Gran Turismo 5, etc) with the dual analog pads (stock controller for the XBox 360 or PS3), then play it using only the D-pad. I challenge you to find someone who can get better lap times and more control with the D-pad. Why is that? Maybe because in the real world, the car's gas, brake, and clutch are NOT digital in nature.

 

Talking to your two personalities is like arguing with a brick wall. I am obviously the retarded one since I keep responding to your drivel. And don't spew anything about name calling. I'll call myself retarded if I see fit.

Digital vs analog is immaterial, it's high precision (wide range) variable vs limited low precision control that's the question, and for games (and real-life use) there's plenty of necessary cases of both.

The thing is, most cases of the term "digital" in this thread refers to simple 4-point (9 state) control, but that could easily be managed in analog as well (not as definitely accurate in a technical sense, but that's exactly what VCS to 5200 adapters do, or Geneses gamepads for the Vectrex, early gravis gamepads for the PC, etc)

Likewise you could have a fully digital controller using variable control (high precision multi-axis) using mechanisms other than analog resistance potentiometers like the N64's mouse-like mechani-optical or magnetic sensors like the Saturn or Xterminator. (or a purely rotary/slider switch based mechanism -I think the Atair Driving controllers may be done that way, but they might be analog -most dials on modern audio system amps are digital as such as well)

For the N64 and modern consoles/computers, it makes no difference to the hardware/software whether the mechanism is analog or any form of digital, but only that the serial data stream is compatible and there are suitable drivers.

 

 

If you go to low-tech non digitally assisted vehicles, the control is neither analog nor digital, but not electronic at all, so the comparison is not applicable in that sense.

Going to things like some modern cars, aircraft, of military vehicles, you may have analog electronics and digital electronics (for modern stuff all analog would be converted to digital at some point anyway, but some older stuff would have been pure analog), so that's not consistent either. However, the important thing is that you get the necessary range of precision regardless of analog or digital mechanisms being used.

[atariksi]

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.

 

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.

It certainly is not mathematical nor is it the same thing as F=ma. There is no room for subjective opinions to creep into the F=ma equation. Nobody can argue the mass or gravitational constant.

I have got news for you. A mathematical inequality and F=ma are both mathematical. There's nothing subjective about which provides better control. Only YOUR mental speculation/opinion that it's subjective. Nobody is arguing mass/g but the equation. Just like nobody is arguing what's a digital joystick or analog joystick but which provides better control. You seem confused or felt you just had to say something against digital joysticks providing superior control.

 

I also don't know why it won't sink into your stubborn head that analog sticks give MORE range of control. I know you like to argue and in your own little world are always correct.

 

Because you are WRONG. You are in your own world and I have proof of it. You asked the same thing several times in this thread and never replied (and probably never read) any of the refutations. Just recently as post #577 and #578. You have to open up your mind that there are things better than what you believe. That there are things that can be proven. Not everything is cloudy and vague and just opinion. Things that are uncertain to the user provide less control than things that have more certainty. Go back and read the replies before you repost the same thing again like a broken record. You are the stubborn one here. You are having a one-way conversation unless you address the replies made to your similar complaints before.

 

Let's forget these simple games like PacMan designed for a 4-way digital stick. Go play a modern racing simulator (Forza 3, Gran Turismo 5, etc) with the dual analog pads (stock controller for the XBox 360 or PS3), then play it using only the D-pad. I challenge you to find someone who can get better lap times and more control with the D-pad. Why is that? Maybe because in the real world, the car's gas, brake, and clutch are NOT digital in nature.

Don't forget any games. You think that people should switch over to analog because it makes you FEEL like you are pressing a car's gas or brake. Nothing to do with control nor is it providing better control. You have to rely on feedback and you already accepted it stinks compared to digital joystick in games like Pac-man, Donkey Kong, etc.

 

Talking to your two personalities is like arguing with a brick wall. I am obviously the retarded one since I keep responding to your drivel. And don't spew anything about name calling. I'll call myself retarded if I see fit.

 

You can stop speculating as there's more than two people in this thread who disagree with you what to speak of the world. Nor does majority make you right. Nor does speculating about people's character make your useless speculative argument any stronger.

[potatohead]

Really?

 

Who?

[+Stephen]

Really?

 

Who?

I'm also curious. It's odd that I am accused of repeating myself, not refuting points, and being stubborn. Seems that this would be another case to add to your list "Pot, kettle, black".

[potatohead]

Oh yeah. Forgot that.

 

I'll correct that in a bit. (got kinda busy, but I really did mean to post that up)

[sloopy]

wow over 650 posts, and still not much more content then the first few pages...

 

sloopy.

[JamesD]

Proved you wrong.

 

Did not!

 

Did so!

 

Did Not!

 

....

[JamesD]

wow over 650 posts, and still not much more content then the first few pages...

 

sloopy.

That's because it was dis-proven in the first few pages but the OP is in denial and once again, refuses to admit he is wrong.

[Divya16]

wow over 650 posts, and still not much more content then the first few pages...

 

sloopy.

That's because it was dis-proven in the first few pages but the OP is in denial and once again, refuses to admit he is wrong.

 

I know that it was disproven that analog joysticks provide better control, but new people showed up to repeat their mistakes and they also had to be disproven. The speed myth still goes on as people continue to imagine that speed can only be implemented with an analog joystick since most non-Atari/commodore audiences never played car racing and other games that allow for speed with digital joysticks with 100% control rather than vague/inexact/feedback reliant/crippled analog joysticks.

[+Stephen]

I would love to live in a fantasy land where my opinion was fact and I was never wrong. Can you offer me some guidance all knowing one?

[potatohead]

BTW: That's another explanation for the female persona. Could be a mini-cult going on or something like that. And just to be really, really clear, I'm not attacking said cult, if it exists, only highlighting the possibility that there may be one.

 

It explains the similar language and familiarity with the problem. Just saying that's as plausible as a persona split is.

 

And now! Stupid Shit People Do, When Confronted With The Task Of Acceptance!

 

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

1. Subject change

 

This can be anything. Usually it's abortion, gays, god, guns, etc... However, it can also just be some side discussion that's magnified and conchunkulated with the primary discussion.

 

2. Claim of too many opponents

 

Laughable at best, but often very effective. They can play the "lone warrior" card, or some other silly thing. Truth is, online, one has the time they need to participate in the conversation.

 

3. Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a non-rational conclusion.

 

Tricky! It's usually some class thing, particularly common with more wealthy Republicans. They will claim that others just haven't had the kind of experience it takes to really understand how the world works.

 

4. Silence

 

Just wait it out, then invoke the claim another day, citing lack of "disproval".

 

5. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being greater than scope of discussion

 

"It's too complex", or "you oversimplify", something like that.

6. Invoke false comparison

 

Or declare something to be a false comparison.

 

7. Transform rational argument into emotional one

 

After the winning points are made, an emotional fall back is always a good attempt to marginalize the whole thing, without actually accepting the loss.

 

8. The Bible says...

 

'nuff said!

9. Invoke redefinition of common words

 

No! You fool! Control means being able to pick a input state exactly, or something like that.

 

10. Invoke slippery label to redefine winners primary point at hand

 

This is like calling somebody out for being "not a real gamer", or to marginalize the point taken fairly.

 

11. Claim of invalid higher authority / Claim of no high authority

 

12. Obsfucation, where some degree of acceptance is seen, but wrapped in difficult to reference terms

 

This is an appeasement move. The winner has won, but deny them the easy opportunity of using later on to impact others.

 

13. "I forgot, could you remind me again?", used to force other parties to tire of the subject and move on.

 

Tons of variations on this one. "Too Intellectual", "book doctor", etc... It's a specialized personal attack. Nobody likes really smart people, right?

 

14. Necessary party unavailable for comment.

 

That's it for all the ones I've run into. You guys see any others? If so, put them in the comments. Thanks!!

15. The Chewbacca Defense seen here.

 

'Nuff Said on that one too, as it's familiar enough, and cited up-thread.

 

16. Personal attack.

 

Really, this is subject change, but I like to list it apart from that, because the personal attack form is INSTANT LOSS, where subject change really isn't until it's seen as avoiding acceptance of a point fairly taken. On another day, I'll perhaps list off personal attack forms. They are fun and interesting.

 

Enjoy folks!

Edited December 7, 2010 by potatohead

[+5-11under]

Potatohead, that was golden, and probably useful beyond this thread (if such a thing exists).

[potatohead]

Thanks, and please do share / use it. Honestly, a few lists like this are a very powerful tool for improving our ability to communicate. I have to do that professionally, and use online diversions like this as fuel for improvement. That has served me very well over the years, and it's absolutely not personal at all. It's just fun.

 

I've collected that list from many politics discussions over the years, and I have several of my own on it too! It pays to realize when one gets their own ass handed to them. Once there, the thing can be avoided in the future, making all parties stronger. Most of those are were I personally got my ass handed to me, going back to analyze just what the fuck happened, or somebody I know well dished one of these out, and I know them well enough to write it in a generic way, different from the others.

 

I'll go dig up my "instant loser" personal attack list and toss it up here shortly.

 

Here's the short version of how to use this:

 

If one or more of those paths is taken, the party imitating it loses their high ground position, suffering a burden to recover, and correct the matter, moving on to the greater discussion point at hand. It's not a personal thing, just a rational one.

 

Be careful of the discussion reverting to the list, rather than the subject matter at hand. Easy to do.

 

I prefer to cite the poor commentary, highlight how it is a fallacy, using the generic terms above, then post a plea to reconsider the discussion, or concede the point. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

Have fun! I do, enjoying this kind of thing, particularly when I get to bag a new one in the wild!

Edited December 7, 2010 by potatohead

[+remowilliams]

That's because it was dis-proven in the first few pages but the OP is in denial and once again, refuses to admit he is wrong.

 

It didn't even need disproving. The thread and the 'argutainmentdiscussiontheory' was stillborn as soon as such a blanket statement was made in the topic, with zero qualifications to it.

[kool kitty89]

BTW: That's another explanation for the female persona. Could be a mini-cult going on or something like that. And just to be really, really clear, I'm not attacking said cult, if it exists, only highlighting the possibility that there may be one.

 

It explains the similar language and familiarity with the problem. Just saying that's as plausible as a persona split is.

 

I don't think they have any relation to eachother outside of the internet and I doubt it's a clone account. (the admins would be able to check that pretty easily)

 

If you notice, diva's comments quite often clash with Atariksi's statements, and for all the stubbornness and such that Atariksi shows, he at least has a good technical understanding over the subject while Diva shows considerable errors on the topic in general. (one conflict in particular is Atariksi agreeing that a fully digital/switch based high precision control mechanism would be a good idea over analog while diva doesn't like the idea of any high precision control mechanism, Diva also seem to fail to recognize the difference between digital control and 9-state precision in general -ie including analog implementations of 8-way joysticks as with adapters to the 5200 or PC to use VCS sticks or similar, which would still be analog control- another thing is different usage of "in between states" while Atariksi seems to imply that in the context of calibration and rounding errors tied to the nature of resistance based analog control, diva seems to use that term to describe the high precision states in general -again missing the true context of analog vs digital)

Then there's other stuff like Atariksi's dislike of serial data transfer or slow polling, things that diva seems to not care about in the least.

 

 

 

 

But back to the topic at hand, in the true sense of digital control being superior, you could argue that that makes a stock N64 controller superior to most 3rd party controllers and most later console/PC gamepads using precision thumbsticks/joysticks because Nintendo used a pure digital mechanism with photo diodes and a mechanical-optical mechanism much like that of ball mice with direct pulse based 1-bit digital data output for each of 4 directions (or rather 2 1-bit pulses and recognition of the direction of axial rotation) like an optical ball mouse.

In the N64's case (and most/all subsequent PC/console controllers) the internal data (for buttons and control axes) is converted to a common serial data stream which is decoded by the console/computer internally, thus the 3rd party N64 controllers could use analog mechanisms with integral ADCs as well as serial data encoding hardware and the console and game/software wouldn't be able to tell the difference. However, by Atariksi's logic, the analog to digital mechanism is inherently flawed and thus the native Nintendo controllers offer superior control with all else being equal. (of course, throw, centering mechanisms, quality/accuracy/consistency of the analog pots and optical mechanisms as well as ADC precision and accuracy, polling, and serial data encoding processes will all plays roles in defining real-world performance)

Edited December 7, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

That's because it was dis-proven in the first few pages but the OP is in denial and once again, refuses to admit he is wrong.

 

It didn't even need disproving. The thread and the 'argutainmentdiscussiontheory' was stillborn as soon as such a blanket statement was made in the topic, with zero qualifications to it.

 

Why don't you address the points made in the thread rather than make blanket statements without any backing. Your words apply to you more than anyone else here. I gave logical proof, mathematical proof, and experimental proof. You opinion is worth ZERO. It's useless for those that don't follow "blind leading the blind" philosophy which you seem to subscribe to. You have yet to make any valid point in this thread. But I'm used to that since you did the samething elsewhere as I recall.

 

How something uncertain can provide better control than something that's direction exact. Can you answer that? Of course not. You are blind misleading others and quoting someone else who made an unfounded blind claim. Can you explain why digital joysticks which can minimize their throw beyond those of analog joysticks lead to better control? Of course not. You are just waiting around blindly for hoping and maybe praying that someone will refute my points. Bad news for you is that logic/math can NEVER be disproven. It's true for everyone whether you like it or not. Of course, you still have right to not follow it. Everyone has their independence and I would say you are misusing it here in this thread so far.

[bmcnett]

I've known atariksi for twenty years, and this thread fits his MO, though IIRC his flame wars from back then were about less prosaic things than Atari joysticks. A sock puppet would be a new twist.

 

Until I read this thread, I thought atariksi's enthusiasm for trolling arose from religious conviction, but now I'm not so sure. You might say I suffer from uncertainty - like an analog joystick user!

 

Anyway, so I've been programming videogames professionally for about ten years, and I'm no expert on joysticks, but I don't think they sell a videogame system today without analog input.

In fact, what look like digital buttons in today's game systems are often analog, though not all games interpret them as such.

For the last five years, the game industry has adopted wireless and debated getting rid of buttons and sticks altogether!

 

If I had to translate atariksi's words into the sort of thing that you or I would say, it would go like this:

 

"When playing thirty year old digital joystick arcade games on thirty year old home computers, I prefer digital joysticks of the era to analog joysticks of the era."

 

I think that everyone I know who cares about old games would have the same preference, too. So we are in violent agreement!

 

Warm regards,

 

Bryan McNett

[atariksi]

I've known atariksi for twenty years, and this thread fits his MO, though IIRC his flame wars from back then were about less prosaic things than Atari joysticks. A sock puppet would be a new twist.

Hey welcome to AtariAge. I guess you guess right that AtariKSI was your colleague at Stevens-Institute.

[atariksi]

Until I read this thread, I thought atariksi's enthusiasm for trolling arose from religious conviction, but now I'm not so sure. You might say I suffer from uncertainty - like an analog joystick user!

Don't just accept what you read in this thread regarding "trolling", "stubborn" ,etc. These are just excuses and speculations. Some people just beat around the bush.

 

Anyway, so I've been programming videogames professionally for about ten years, and I'm no expert on joysticks, but I don't think they sell a videogame system today without analog input.

In fact, what look like digital buttons in today's game systems are often analog, though not all games interpret them as such.

For the last five years, the game industry has adopted wireless and debated getting rid of buttons and sticks altogether!

 

If I had to translate atariksi's words into the sort of thing that you or I would say, it would go like this:

 

"When playing thirty year old digital joystick arcade games on thirty year old home computers, I prefer digital joysticks of the era to analog joysticks of the era."

 

I think that everyone I know who cares about old games would have the same preference, too. So we are in violent agreement!

 

Warm regards,

 

Bryan McNett

 

The experiment was based on analog joysticks and digital joysticks in post #1. Although modern analog joysticks also carry those uncertainties and long throws although not as bad as using POT-based analog joysticks.

[potatohead]

Well, I happen to really like both.

 

Having played games on systems with dual pots, and digital sticks, there are elements of the analog control scheme that DO NOT WORK digitally, WITHOUT COMPROMISING the action.

 

Period.

 

That said, I prefer thrashing on a good old Atari stick. What I like and prefer however, isn't about control. And on that element of this discussion "better" was not properly qualified; therefore, no consensus can be reached, end of story.

Edited December 8, 2010 by potatohead

[kool kitty89]

Well, I happen to really like both.

 

Having played games on systems with dual pots, and digital sticks, there are elements of the analog control scheme that DO NOT WORK digitally, WITHOUT COMPROMISING the action.

 

Period.

 

That said, I prefer thrashing on a good old Atari stick. What I like and prefer however, isn't about control. And on that element of this discussion "better" was not properly qualified; therefore, no consensus can be reached, end of story.

They all work digitally. However they may not work eight-way-ily. There's no need for analog circuitry of any kind... the Saturn's 3D controller and N64 did without it. (not sure if any 3rd party PS2/PS3/360/Xbox/GC controllers use all digital mechanisms or not)

 

Likewise you could have a fully switch based 8-direction all analog controller. (like the original gravis gamepad for the PC -the buttons are digital though)

 

I've been pushing this point for a while...

Edited December 8, 2010 by kool kitty89

[bmcnett]

Potatohead, I like analog control, too. But even if I didn't, there exists plenty of circumstantial evidence that analog control is objectively superior in some cases. For example, video gaming is nowadays a professional sport with large cash prizes, and none of the hundreds of people who have made a living at this sport have ever foregone analog for digital control.

 

Another example: I know of no military vehicles that operate via digital controls (a few may?) If digital control were always superior, it would have shown up as an advantage in warfare long ago.

 

atariksi was the mentor who introduced me to game programming, and I am grateful for that. But I do not recommend you argue with him on the computer. It will be punishing and nobody will win.

[potatohead]

@kool_kitty: Absolutely. Put a fair number of states on it, and I don't see a material difference in terms of control between that, and a pot, sampled in a coarse way.

 

My point being the binary only control means isn't inclusive, where a multi-state, analog, or I guess we need to say, analog type device, can easily be inclusive, and that's where better breaks down for me, along with the points that bmcenett just made. (greets, BTW)

 

It's just not hard to deal with the state issue in code, particularly on newer devices where there is more than enough compute resources, or some hardware features that can easily do that.

 

And how does one realize the kind of experience possible in SSX, for example, sans analog type devices? Doesn't have to be a pot, either. I'll not worry about the pot being less than optimal, compared to a encoder of some kind. That point was made above. Should have noted it earlier. I am now, and also am noting that it's not really material to the discussion.

 

I think putting somebody on a pot, asking for one of a coupla hundred states isn't any different from a encoder with a coupla hundred states, given mechanicals are similar, and that pot isn't crap. (crap pots are just crap)

 

If one is looking for the number 125, well, that's gonna suck in both scenarios. However, if one is observing the current game dynamic, and wants "a little more", that is where the difference lies, and being able to realize "a little more" is the core matter of control. Not being able to do that, or being able to do so in a way that constrains the game dynamics in a meaningful way, is simply less control overall.

 

So, I guess it's worth clarifying where I'm at on it, given all that was said.

 

Punishing?

 

Hell, I cracked him once a while back! No worries here. One thing you'll note is I will absolutely take as good as I give. And if it's ever not fun? Well, it's quite easy to just state that and move on. Life is short, and that's the easy, rational path, easily taken. The product of that is rarely, if ever a break down on my part. That's as good as it all ever gets, barring just not entertaining any of it at all.

 

Lots of great tech discussion has happened, and some good info presented by Atariski. No worries there either. A Atarian is a Atarian to me, and that part of things is all good.

 

As I wrote before, I've made some rough comments on this thread in response to what I see as bizzare behavior. That's not a personal issue with me, more like a curio. Let it be known here and now, many of our solid creative people were less than ordinary in many respects. Being socially liberal has it's advantages, and this being something easy to deal with is one of them.

 

Anybody that helps to mentor somebody into game programming, for whatever reason did a good thing. I've got my own to thank, and that's appreciated.

 

I did say I would rest on the above, and have. Refuted, on the basis of unresolvable qualification on "better", though I did have a entertaining, and educational time following on that, which is why I did.

 

Cheers all!

Edited December 8, 2010 by potatohead