Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

Atariksi, I haven't laughed this hard all week.

I repeat... your experiment only applies to the one performing the experiment. That's the limit of the scope.

Keep having fun!

 

But the logic/math applies to everyone. That's how it works. If F=ma was true for everyone/everywhere, Einstein wouldn't have disproven it. You trust those performing the experiment and accept it blindly.

 

Your laughing in ignorance change the facts. And there's a lot more than two of us who have the experience with this digital vs. analog joystick.

It doesn't really matter if F is not equal to ma under certain circumstances. Given the same circumstances, experiments regarding F and ma will give the same results. The same is not true for different people playing the same game under the same circumstances.

That's your speculation. How do you know it will give the same results without having performed the experiment? F=ma is proven for ONLY those that performed the experiment. I don't follow blindly so I won't take your word for it. The uncertainty and long throws are constants for all analog joysticks being compared here; that's more of a fact than F=ma. You will always have less control with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks. All you do is blurt out whatever comes in the top of your head without even reading the posts. For example, I just wrote a few posts ago how just the analog interface itself causes distortions even for digital joysticks and nobody addressed it. What to speak of the analog joystick itself's issues.

 

I'm mostly laughing because I was away for only about 3 hours, and found about a page and a half of posts, many from you, stoically trying to weasel out of a corner.

 

What corner. You are hallucinating. My points haven't even been addressed in the past 25 or so posts. Again, you just speculated something to try to suppress things. Mostly just trolls and off-topic comments.

I read the last posts, but nothing you wrote made an impression on me. I ain't re-reading them, but I still remember laughing... I'm laughing again, because you're so serious, and I think you're lying to yourself, or joking, or something. Is this thread an experiment???

 

I don't know if serious is the right word, but TRUTH is a better word. It's TRUE that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Again, you didn't explain what corner you are talking about. If you are talking about the philosophy issues that someone raised, that I purposely didn't go into details.

[+5-11under]

Hi Atariksi,

 

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

 

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

 

Thanks,

5-11under

[+remowilliams]

34 pages and coming up on 850 posts in should be exponentially enough time for people to notice that they are 'debating' with someone who is either suffering from mental illness and/or the most dedicated internet troll ever. It's not going to end, and you're not going to convince them/him.

[svenski]

34 pages and coming up on 850 posts in should be exponentially enough time for people to notice that they are 'debating' with someone who is either suffering from mental illness and/or the most dedicated internet troll ever. It's not going to end, and you're not going to convince them/him.

 

 

Well said. I think this thread is bogus, probably some attempt to get into the Guinness Book of World Records !

[Mirage]

34 pages and coming up on 850 posts in should be exponentially enough time for people to notice that they are 'debating' with someone who is either suffering from mental illness and/or the most dedicated internet troll ever. It's not going to end, and you're not going to convince them/him.

 

Nailed it. It's one or the other.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Nailed it. It's one or the other.

 

10OUTOF9 DIVYA16S ARE ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY ATARIKSI SOCKPUPPET BRAIN TORTURERS

[Mirage]

Nailed it. It's one or the other.

 

10OUTOF9 DIVYA16S ARE ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY ATARIKSI SOCKPUPPET BRAIN TORTURERS

 

Thank goodness this is finally turning into a fun thread. I think we all need a mental health break after all this nonsense.

[Shawn Jefferson]

I never even posted in this thread, because everyone knows analog joysticks suck. What's to talk about?

[MEtalGuy66]

You can speculate whatever you want. You should speak for yourself as everyone is not you nor do you even know everyone.

 

I Know alot more people on here than you apparently realize. And even if that were not the case, I can easily judge how it may appear to the average person. And it would also appear that plenty of others share my oppinion on this (as they have stated in the last 3 pages of responses)..

Edited December 15, 2010 by MEtalGuy66

[atariksi]

34 pages and coming up on 850 posts in should be exponentially enough time for people to notice that they are 'debating' with someone who is either suffering from mental illness and/or the most dedicated internet troll ever. It's not going to end, and you're not going to convince them/him.

 

If you actually read the thread, you would have noticed that I stopped posting around November 14th as I had stated my arguments. It's not my problem that new people or others keep coming and repeating their mistaken views or disparaging things unnecessarily like yourself. I didn't post again until this took place about a week later. You have yet to address any argument in this thread and just repeated your trollish antics again. A troll declaring others to be a troll makes you also a hypocrite. Or maybe it's you who have a mental illness that makes you behave like a hypocritical troll. It's easy to speculate and another thing to actually use your brain and address the points. I can also speculate that someone paid you to post your remarks or that your brain is stuck in an infinite loop that you keep coming to this similar remarks everytime someone wins an argument that doesn't suit your views. You are grossly mistaken since you can't distinguish between facts and opinions.

 

Once again your comments apply to you and those who agree with you.

[JamesD]

34 pages and coming up on 850 posts in should be exponentially enough time for people to notice that they are 'debating' with someone who is either suffering from mental illness and/or the most dedicated internet troll ever. It's not going to end, and you're not going to convince them/him.

You can find several such topics on this board involving atariksi.

What you have here, is a battle of wills that by no coincidence also involves several people that have had run ins with atariksi before, and they are well aware of atariksi's behavior.

 

I really don't think atariksi is trying to be a troll. I think he really sees himself as a great philosopher and he believes his is right... or more accurately, cannot accept he is wrong. He also has an... um... shall we say unhealthy desire to have the last word all the time.

It's one thing to try to rule your philosophy class where people yield because class is over and they want to leave, or they don't want to upset the professor... it's a totally different thing to exhibit this behavior out in the real world.

 

atariksi's biggest fail as a philosopher is that he takes a position and will defend it to the death no matter how much evidence proves he is wrong. A truly great philosopher would recognize an error, change his position and then he really would be right. And by no great coincidence, this is very similar to the scientific method. You come up with a hypothesis that explains something you observe and you conduct experiments to test the hypothesis. However, if any observed results by you or others indicate your hypothesis is inaccurate, you adjust the hypothesis to match observed results. Then you perform additional experiments to verify the new hypothesis. One thing you do not do is try to steer the results to match your hypothesis. Something that atariksi clearly hasn't learned.

[potatohead]

Stated LOSING arguments on the 14th.

 

Let's be honest. Post #1 was a FAIL, due to lack of qualifier on "BETTER", changed to "MORE" mid-thread.

 

Refuted.

 

Actually, self refuted, which I personally find rather humorous.

 

Like I wrote earlier, it's gotta be a beat down. Nothing else will work.

 

Just for the record, I harbor no illusions that wontadmitfaultski will ever actually do that. The closest we get is a back door admission, wrapped in a healthy serving of denial, straight from the list.

 

But, what does happen, is over time, the people that need to know do, leaving it all working out organically.

 

Oh, and I totally agree with Remo, here for the morbid entertainment factor only.

Edited December 15, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

You can speculate whatever you want. You should speak for yourself as everyone is not you nor do you even know everyone.

 

I Know alot more people on here than you apparently realize. And even if that were not the case, I can easily judge how it may appear to the average person. And it would also appear that plenty of others share my oppinion on this (as they have stated in the last 3 pages of responses)..

 

Only a few people were beating around the bush with that idea who already have an emotional disposition against what I write in this thread. Hardly the ones to be trusted especially in the last 3 pages. It's the sore loser mentality basically as described earlier.

[+Stephen]

Only a few people were beating around the bush with that idea who already have an emotional disposition against what I write in this thread. Hardly the ones to be trusted especially in the last 3 pages. It's the sore loser mentality basically as described earlier.

Serious question - have you ever in your life admitted to being wrong about anything? Or do you really believe you are incapable of error? Do not answer this in context of this thread as there is a much bigger world out there.

[JamesD]

Actually, self refuted, which I personally find rather humorous.

[Charlie_]

Serious question - have you ever in your life admitted to being wrong about anything?

 

Not if he is anything like my wife! She has never been wrong in 42 Years.

Well we got married 13 years ago, and I think she once claimed to have been wrong about 1 thing back around that time....

 

Anyway, this thread is awesome. Atariksi/Divyaksi is just funny.

[potatohead]

You can speculate whatever you want. You should speak for yourself as everyone is not you nor do you even know everyone.

 

I Know alot more people on here than you apparently realize. And even if that were not the case, I can easily judge how it may appear to the average person. And it would also appear that plenty of others share my oppinion on this (as they have stated in the last 3 pages of responses)..

 

Only a few people were beating around the bush with that idea who already have an emotional disposition against what I write in this thread. Hardly the ones to be trusted especially in the last 3 pages. It's the sore loser mentality basically as described earlier.

 

Hardly.

 

It's the "good grief, what will happen next to avoid acceptance of a point fairly taken?" mentality. There is no reason not to be perfectly honest about that, is there Atariski?

 

I'm hoping for another acceptance list entry, and just so you know, I've got another list on all the "INSTANT LOSS" personal attack forms I've seen coming very soon. Gotta polish it up some, and I'll drop it here for reference.

 

In the future, it will be very simple to just look that one over, see the match, and call out the losing behavior --you know, emotional and biased behavior? Quickly and easily. There is no need for emotions and bias on this stuff right?

 

Well, your buddy Potatohead is just working to help you get it done Atariski.

[frogstar_robot]

 

I'm hoping for another acceptance list entry, and just so you know, I've got another list on all the "INSTANT LOSS" personal attack forms I've seen coming very soon. Gotta polish it up some, and I'll drop it here for reference.

 

 

I've been posting my identifications from this list here for years:

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

[NorthPole(heeHAW)]

Imagine if someone in like 5 years time becomes interested in the A8 and looks at this forum for reference. It's hardly gonna be useful is it?

[+5-11under]

 

I'm hoping for another acceptance list entry, and just so you know, I've got another list on all the "INSTANT LOSS" personal attack forms I've seen coming very soon. Gotta polish it up some, and I'll drop it here for reference.

 

 

I've been posting my identifications from this list here for years:

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

Good fun. Nice illustrations, too.

[JamesD]

Imagine if someone in like 5 years time becomes interested in the A8 and looks at this forum for reference. It's hardly gonna be useful is it?

And they would care whether a digital joystick provides better control than analog joysticks why?

They would get the joystick their system requires. It was a worthless topic from the start.

[atariksi]

Imagine if someone in like 5 years time becomes interested in the A8 and looks at this forum for reference. It's hardly gonna be useful is it?

 

What if someone searches and finds this forum today and then becomes interested in A8 because it has superior joystick interfaces (or at least to check them out)? Then he wouldn't miss out on the fun that modern console gamers and analog joystickists are missing out on.

 

Complexity also plays a role in control if you think about it. In fast paced games using controllers with 10+ buttons (digital or analog), it's hard for someone to react quickly as to which button to press when in the 11th hour. The whole purpose of the human interface devices was to make things easier.

[kool kitty89]

Not really. Let's take another example to see the point more clearly. Let's say you have a movie camera focused on some subject and hooked up to an analog monitor. Now the input is analog and output is analog. So that's a pure analog setup. Now let's hook up a computer like an Atari to the same monitor. Now you have BETTER CONTROL of the picture as you have a video memory that consistently spits out the same data to the analog monitor and you have 100% control over the video memory. However, the analog monitor may distort some data somewhat on a frame by frame basis. Now the computer-based control is still a digital control although it ends up being converted to analog later. For even better control, you can have a computer hooked up to an LCD. So a digital joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 or through a gameport's POT lines has better control than an analog joystick hooked up to the gameport's POT lines. The former is a digital joystick interface. The human is controlling things digitally although there's some distortion of the digital signal in converting later to analog and back to digital.

:ROFL:

Use an A8 and you'd have shit all for video and basically ruin all the quality of high precision analog video or film (as the case may be), or even if you were recording with shitty VHS you'd ruin it with that. Even mid 90s PCs didn't have enough color depth and resolution to really manage high quality digital video, let alone the storage space to manage that.

There's a reason the Amiga was used for ANALOG video editing using genlock (which is analog), and not digital video... though you might have some digital effects being overlaid in analog (ie RGB, s-video, or composite) and recorded externally (namely with tape), but it wasn't until recently that digital video (or photography for that matter) got to the point where it was acceptably competitive with analog film/video. (SDTV resolutions got reasonable with standards like DV, but only very recently did HD stuff become really useful, and even then it's still not up to professional film quality yet -digital editing is done, but by using analog film that's digitized to very high resolutions -much higher than 1920x1080- and color depths -usually at least 32-bit color- with lossless compression and huge amounts of storage space)

Do note though that with digital cameras, it's still largely up to lens quality too, as with analog: you could have great quality film (or great resolution/compression) but ruin it with poor lenses.

 

 

Same thing with Analog Audio... only relatively recently has high-fidelity digital audio (be it lossless or lossy) surpassed the best analog audio quality. (ie vinyl or laserdisc) Back when Laserdisc started offering digital audio, it was usually a significant step down from analog stereo of contemporary discs, though part of that is the digital recording processes/hardware used and the other part the limitations of digital audio itself. (24-bit 96/192 kHz audio with modern digital recording/conversion hardware/software pretty much addresses that though)

 

In an extreme case, let's take the A8 again: you could easily have software driven 4-bit >8 kHz (you could probably manage 16 kHz reasonably well, probably higher depending what else you were doing), but the resolution is so low it would be considerably worse than playing analog mono audio through the cassette deck (which the A8 can do -it dedicates one stereo channel for mono audio with the other for data), or even hacking it to manage 4 POKEY channels in parallel for 6-bit resolution would be weaker than compact cassette quality audio, and that's not taking into account the storage space you'd need for that digital data.

[atariksi]

Not really. Let's take another example to see the point more clearly. Let's say you have a movie camera focused on some subject and hooked up to an analog monitor. Now the input is analog and output is analog. So that's a pure analog setup. Now let's hook up a computer like an Atari to the same monitor. Now you have BETTER CONTROL of the picture as you have a video memory that consistently spits out the same data to the analog monitor and you have 100% control over the video memory. However, the analog monitor may distort some data somewhat on a frame by frame basis. Now the computer-based control is still a digital control although it ends up being converted to analog later. For even better control, you can have a computer hooked up to an LCD. So a digital joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 or through a gameport's POT lines has better control than an analog joystick hooked up to the gameport's POT lines. The former is a digital joystick interface. The human is controlling things digitally although there's some distortion of the digital signal in converting later to analog and back to digital.

:ROFL:

Use an A8 and you'd have shit all for video and basically ruin all the quality of high precision analog video or film (as the case may be), or even if you were recording with shitty VHS you'd ruin it with that. Even mid 90s PCs didn't have enough color depth and resolution to really manage high quality digital video, let alone the storage space to manage that.

There's a reason the Amiga was used for ANALOG video editing using genlock (which is analog), and not digital video... though you might have some digital effects being overlaid in analog (ie RGB, s-video, or composite) and recorded externally (namely with tape), but it wasn't until recently that digital video (or photography for that matter) got to the point where it was acceptably competitive with analog film/video. (SDTV resolutions got reasonable with standards like DV, but only very recently did HD stuff become really useful, and even then it's still not up to professional film quality yet -digital editing is done, but by using analog film that's digitized to very high resolutions -much higher than 1920x1080- and color depths -usually at least 32-bit color- with lossless compression and huge amounts of storage space)

Do note though that with digital cameras, it's still largely up to lens quality too, as with analog: you could have great quality film (or great resolution/compression) but ruin it with poor lenses.

 

 

Same thing with Analog Audio... only relatively recently has high-fidelity digital audio (be it lossless or lossy) surpassed the best analog audio quality. (ie vinyl or laserdisc) Back when Laserdisc started offering digital audio, it was usually a significant step down from analog stereo of contemporary discs, though part of that is the digital recording processes/hardware used and the other part the limitations of digital audio itself. (24-bit 96/192 kHz audio with modern digital recording/conversion hardware/software pretty much addresses that though)

 

In an extreme case, let's take the A8 again: you could easily have software driven 4-bit >8 kHz (you could probably manage 16 kHz reasonably well, probably higher depending what else you were doing), but the resolution is so low it would be considerably worse than playing analog mono audio through the cassette deck (which the A8 can do -it dedicates one stereo channel for mono audio with the other for data), or even hacking it to manage 4 POKEY channels in parallel for 6-bit resolution would be weaker than compact cassette quality audio, and that's not taking into account the storage space you'd need for that digital data.

 

But the point was control. You have an analog movie camera focused on some point and you are influencing the infinite levels of grays or colors on the analog monitor (and position of the image) by changing the camera angle or lighting but you have less control over those levels and position than even with an Atari 800 video memory spitting out 16-gray at almost exact points on the analog monitor.

 

Well, Atari 800 can do >14Khz audio playback while streaming in data through one of the I/O ports like 4-bit joystick port. Maybe more with 8-bit combined joystick ports. That's with the screen on in antic mode F with all the DMA active.

[kool kitty89]

Divya, it's true... the results of your "experiment" will only be valid for:

 

1. You

AND

2. The specific joystick(s) you select

AND

3. Likely the specific game(s) you select

 

Change one condition, and the results could change. F=ma this isn't.

 

Have a different person, under the exact same conditions play a game... get different results.

Exactly time the drop of a feather under the exact same conditions... get the same results.

 

I'd actually call it a "study" or something else (depending on what meaning you attach to these words), because under the same conditions, others would get different results.

It just proves your only support is you.

Sample size = 1

Hi Atariksi,

 

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

 

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

 

Exactly, to make a valid scientific study you'd need hundreds of random samples (test subjects) as well as many, many examples of different digital and analog joysticks/gamepads AND games with an even selection of digital and analog specific intended controls as well as some others that might be more of a gray area.

 

Only then would get valid results to support/disprove the hypothesis, and even then the sampling is a bit small and you'd need to run the experiment several times to account for error. (and in this specific case, you'd also want to give time for the test subjects to become accustomed to each different game and controller before gathering data)

So it would be a huge (and rather impractical) undertaking.