Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

Then why bring up the 5200 controller? It's among the exception for bad analog controllers... regardless of it being standard, like the Intellivision or Colecovision for digital control (the PS1 pad is somewhat in that category as well though some don't mind it that much -then again, some don't mind the CV controller either).

 

I used the Gravis, Gemini, and Atari 2600 style joysticks in the experiments. You can use anyone as long as they are not comparing apples and oranges. No reason to pick a worse case digital joystick and best case analog joystick.

[+Stephen]

Post 1000?

 

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

Can you feel the anger rising in each successive atariksi post? For someone who accuses others of being emotional and dishing out personal attacks in every one of his posts, he sure does quite a bit of the same.

 

Last post had "idiot", "retard", "I don't care about your crap", his favorite "straw man argument". Sadly, the "chewbacca defense" was not called out. I miss that one.

[potatohead]

That is because he's pinned, and has been for quite some time!

 

The only real out is to get others pissed off, so he can then confuse the issue, claim purity, and leave in disgust from having to deal with the heathens. Honestly, so long as everybody holds to basic protocols, he's either got to own up, or go for the thread lock! A win is simply not possible, given the mess made of the challenge at this point. (wasn't possible on post #1, but it was entertaining --still is)

 

If you are on his side of things, "nice post with no bias". If not, he wants to marginalize as quickly as he can, then go silent, so as to keep the real number of opponents low, and prevent consensus. Notice how he wouldn't discuss things with me after the vote?

 

That's why.

 

**Love the Chewbacca defense. Used it on a politics forum this weekend. Was epic! The other party was absolutely indignant for being called on it.

 

Pinnedandnotgonnatakeitanymoreski, had enough yet? Still fun?

 

Come on buddy! Everybody goes through this in life. Consider it a "growth" lesson! That's what my Grannie used to say about these kinds of things. The sooner you own up to being bested on your challenge, the sooner it's possible to move on to more fun and entertaining things!

 

Give it up. It's over and everybody knows it Atariski.

Edited December 20, 2010 by potatohead

[JamesD]

Straw-man argument. Logic is not a substitute but an alternative way to prove undeniably that analog joysticks provide inferior control. The experimental method is one way to showing proof although not undeniable as these type of experiments can never be exhaustive for all cases. As I said, you can't even understand one experiment what to speak of 10 or more and there is NO REQUIREMENT to show data for 100. It's an arbitrary number. Nobody is laughing except the ignorant people like you who don't even understand the data that's in front of their faces.

Definition of substitute : "put in the place of another; switch seemingly equivalent items;"

Definition of alternative : "alternate: serving or used in place of another;"

 

You said it's not one but the other, but in this case, the definitions mean the same thing so your argument contradicts itself to begin with.

 

You are trying to replace math with logic.

Your entire argument relies on whether or not your logic is as good as math.

Logic is no substitute for math, nor an alternative for math.

Especially when your logic is biased and people have pointed out flaws in your logic.

 

The only blunder is yours here. You cannot experiment on a limit approaching infinity for levels. You have to use math. Nor is that limit required for the experiment. I addressed the argument, you just missed it.

So... where is your math? This contradicts your earlier statement (which was self contradictory anyway) that you could use logic.

Where have you provided a mathematical proof that proves there is a limit approaching infinity?

 

You are the idiot. If you can prove mathematically, you don't need to waste your time with experimenting. If I can prove that if 2(X*X) = 50 then X must be 5 or -5 then the experiment can only prove the SAME result. Experiments can only show a subset of what's proven mathematically or logically. Mathematics and logic apply for all time and in all cases.

Personal attack. And you keep saying math is required but provide none related to the experiment. You repeatedly provide math that has noting to do with your experiment. Then you try to equate logic and math as equals, thus allowing you to skip math and just use logic. The two are not equivalent, your logic is flawed, your argument contradicts itself and has been refuted repeatedly.

 

You are mentally retarded. If you know the schematic/specification of the device, you don't need to make any measurements. You are Dr. Frog. You don't need to write to the disk to figure out how much it will hold if you knew the construction of the disk. In fact, people squeezed 2MB on the 1.44MB disks because they knew the internal logic/math behind the construction and disk controller. If they just went by experimental knowledge, we would never have 2.0MB disks. How dumb can you get. You can measure the throw of the joysticks; I never opposed it anyways. But a mathematical proof is BETTER. I proved it BOTH ways.

More personal attacks.

Where is your math? You claim to have proved it but repeatedly ignore requests to post it.

 

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.

Given your responses or lack thereof, it appears as though you believe anyone that disagrees with you is unfit to talk about scientific experiments, and as such, they don't count so you conveniently win because all opposition is disqualified.

But given your clear bias that would rule you out.

 

More rubbish and mental speculation. It's a forum. Anyone is free to field any post he wants. If you can't understand that, you are the one who is retarded. And FYI, it's you who are copying our phrases and throwing them back at us although they don't apply. Get your facts straight, analog joystick fanboy.

You have posted nothing but mental speculation to support your hypothesis.

And that would be a strawman argument. People here that disagree with you aren't analog joystick fanboys. They just don't believe digital joysticks are always superior to analog which is your claim.

 

Nope, all I said was I ran hundreds of experiments. The data that was submitted was for the most popular games that most people here are familiar with. It's sufficient to show my point.

And what data you released only shows games designed for digital joysticks.

You have provided no evidence you conducted any tests on games where the analog sticks would have provided superior control.

People have provided examples of where an analog joystick would perform better than a digital joystick but you just choose to ignore that.

 

Not only that, but the data includes no analysis or description of how analysis was done in order to quantify and finally determine digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.

You leave out the most important part of the work. I posted the logic required for an equivalence comparison, it is quite simple. But you never provide a method to quantify the results which could be used to compare the two.

 

 

 

You are the one making personal attacks while I prove that they apply to you more. You can't just look up words in the dictionary and start applying any of the meanings randomly. Hypocrite is what I wrote previously. Take it in context.

So your argument is that they aren't personal attacks if you believe you have proved them.

 

Again, learning to read would help you. If you just read what you wrote in this very reply-- words like "retarded, idiot, etc." These are the personal attacks that don't apply to me. But they do apply to you given your reply. You are the one who is living in P and -P land as proven already. You demand proof yet make claims that are unfounded. I know the scientific method better than you as proven above.

Personal attacks are insults, whether you believe them to be true or not makes no difference.

You have clearly shown you don't know much about the scientific method.

 

You are the only fraud here. Just declaring people-- retarded, idiots, frauds, etc. doesn't mean much.

Or that they can't read...

 

I can also call you names, but I'm more interested in facts.

You certainly can and you only seem to be interested in what you want to be facts.

 

Just for Donkey Kong, you are dismissing the data and want more of the data. Make up your mind. Point out exactly why that data is invalid. Prove that it only applies to me and that results will be different for someone else who does the same experiment. Prove how the uncertainty regions and longer throws will magically disappear when someone else other than me does that experiment. Let's settle on one for now and then we can discuss the other games. If you DO NOT KNOW, then don't claim "it only applies to me."

The data you provide for DK is useless! The data people want/need is how you quantified the results, what the quantities you used were, and how you analyzed the results.

 

If you do not know, then don't claim it applies to everyone and for all games. Since you did not perform experiments with other people or games designed for analog joysticks, you can't know. It is just speculation.

[atariksi]

Post 1000?

 

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

Can you feel the anger rising in each successive atariksi post? For someone who accuses others of being emotional and dishing out personal attacks in every one of his posts, he sure does quite a bit of the same.

 

Last post had "idiot", "retard", "I don't care about your crap", his favorite "straw man argument". Sadly, the "chewbacca defense" was not called out. I miss that one.

 

Talk about biased envious snakes, did you just read my words or the words I was replying to you as well. Because LEDZEP is the one who was using those words and all I did was stick them right back at him. That's called defense not personal attack. Get your definitions straight. Go buy yourself a good dictionary and some reading comprehension skills booklets while you are at it. It's not anger, it's called defense. Did you read the post after that one where I replied to kool-kitty. Of course not, because that would contradict everything you and other trolls have written. Refute the points made and don't be a sidekick for others. All those people who can't distinguish between personal attacks, who first initiates them, and what a defense is, keep away and stop wasting my time. If you actually read what Ledzep writes, they are FULL of personal attacks. Don't be one-sided. He writes self-contradictory comments and then blames me for making them. He is scraping the bottom of the barrel copying my phrases about self-contradiction and just throwing them at me including the kitchen sink. He knows he is DEAD wrong and can't deal with the logic nor the experimental data NOR can you. That's why you just brushed aside what he wrote and just addressed what I write from a persona point of view rather than the argument itself.

 

You really need a break.

 

Digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks is the topic. If you can't stick to it, then don't bother commenting.

[potatohead]

Looks to me, like you stepped on your dick, mentalspeculatorski.

[JamesD]

Talk about biased envious snakes, did you just read my words or the words I was replying to you as well. Because LEDZEP is the one who was using those words and all I did was stick them right back at him.

You are missing the point. You aren't allowed to use personal attacks no matter what someone says to you.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, you have to take the moral high ground.

[potatohead]

Thus... the dick.

[Divya16]

Talk about biased envious snakes, did you just read my words or the words I was replying to you as well. Because LEDZEP is the one who was using those words and all I did was stick them right back at him.

You are missing the point. You aren't allowed to use personal attacks no matter what someone says to you.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, you have to take the moral high ground.

 

It's ledzep who did the personal attacks so stop with the tyrant mentality. And for your information "not being able to read" is not a personal attack. He is factually misreading -- maybe on purpose. I don't think it's a personal attack if you bothered reading the post. Ledzep claimed it's idiotic to use math (which AtariKSI used). But on the contrary, using mathematical proof is better than experimental so that makes him the idiot. Not really a personal attack but true. And initiator is Ledzep. And he's been doing it for like two months including mocking the user IDs which are more personal items.

[JamesD]

Talk about biased envious snakes, did you just read my words or the words I was replying to you as well. Because LEDZEP is the one who was using those words and all I did was stick them right back at him.

You are missing the point. You aren't allowed to use personal attacks no matter what someone says to you.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, you have to take the moral high ground.

 

It's ledzep who did the personal attacks so stop with the tyrant mentality.

Now it's tyrant mentality rather than looser mentality because atariksi stooped to Ledzep's level by using personal attacks?

Whatever.

 

And for your information "not being able to read" is not a personal attack.

It is an attack. You are implying they are illiterate or too stupid to read.

 

He is factually misreading -- maybe on purpose. I don't think it's a personal attack if you bothered reading the post. Ledzep claimed it's idiotic to use math (which AtariKSI used).

Whether he is "factually misreading" is your interpretation.

 

This has to do with the subjective nature of preference. I don't agree that you can't use math at all, but this is more something for statistical analysis which would indicate a preference, not prove better control as an absolute.

 

And if atariksi used math, please point out where he posted the mathematical formula, how he applied values to the results, and how those results were gathered. A file that lets you play a section of the game does not tell us any of that.

 

That also does not change the fact that atariksi's reply was self contradictory and he stooped to Ledzep's level.

 

 

But on the contrary, using mathematical proof is better than experimental so that makes him the idiot. Not really a personal attack but true. And initiator is Ledzep. And he's been doing it for like two months including mocking the user IDs which are more personal items.

No it's not. Many mathematical theories have been proposed over the years and later experiments have dis-proven the theory.

The math may work but that doesn't mean it accounted for all the variables.

 

The big bang theory works mathematically. It was generally accepted as true though still called a theory. But when equipment finally became available to measure expansion of the universe, scientists discovered that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. And the funny part... scientists don't know why. Um... dark matter... maybe? That is their best answer.

The observed results also indicate the universe is younger than the age carbon dating indicates for rocks on the earth. That is a real conundrum. If that isn't accurate, the earth is much younger and all sorts of theories that depend on that fall apart.

 

String theory works great in the math, but even supporters hedge their bets when it comes to claiming it's a fact. We won't know until experiments can fully back it up or refute it.

 

Math in itself does not guarantee fact. You must have the right math, and that is evaluated through experimentation. Logic is not the same as a mathematical formula and must also be evaluated through experimentation. The data provided doesn't show the path of mathematical data from individual experiments to final results. That is the problem here. You keep saying it is there, but what we are asking for is not there and the calls for THAT data just get ignored.

 

Personal attack. And that is your opinion. Ask the admin if calling someone is an idiot is a personal attack since that is the person that would do the enforcement.

 

And you sound like a little child saying "but he started it". And what is the parental response? "I don't care who started it! You are both guilty." Try taking that argument into a court of law and see if a judge says "oh well... it's ok since he started it". Good luck with that.

 

Don't use a sockpuppet and people won't call you out on it. Same phrases, same attacks, same arguments...

[Divya16]

Talk about biased envious snakes, did you just read my words or the words I was replying to you as well. Because LEDZEP is the one who was using those words and all I did was stick them right back at him.

You are missing the point. You aren't allowed to use personal attacks no matter what someone says to you.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, you have to take the moral high ground.

 

It's ledzep who did the personal attacks so stop with the tyrant mentality.

Now it's tyrant mentality rather than looser mentality because atariksi stooped to Ledzep's level by using personal attacks?

Whatever.

 

And for your information "not being able to read" is not a personal attack.

It is an attack. You are implying they are illiterate or too stupid to read.

 

He is factually misreading -- maybe on purpose. I don't think it's a personal attack if you bothered reading the post. Ledzep claimed it's idiotic to use math (which AtariKSI used).

Whether he is "factually misreading" is your interpretation.

 

This has to do with the subjective nature of preference. I don't agree that you can't use math at all, but this is more something for statistical analysis which would indicate a preference, not prove better control as an absolute.

 

And if atariksi used math, please point out where he posted the mathematical formula, how he applied values to the results, and how those results were gathered. A file that lets you play a section of the game does not tell us any of that.

 

That also does not change the fact that atariksi's reply was self contradictory and he stooped to Ledzep's level.

 

 

But on the contrary, using mathematical proof is better than experimental so that makes him the idiot. Not really a personal attack but true. And initiator is Ledzep. And he's been doing it for like two months including mocking the user IDs which are more personal items.

No it's not. Many mathematical theories have been proposed over the years and later experiments have dis-proven the theory.

The math may work but that doesn't mean it accounted for all the variables.

 

The big bang theory works mathematically. It was generally accepted as true though still called a theory. But when equipment finally became available to measure expansion of the universe, scientists discovered that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. And the funny part... scientists don't know why. Um... dark matter... maybe? That is their best answer.

The observed results also indicate the universe is younger than the age carbon dating indicates for rocks on the earth. That is a real conundrum. If that isn't accurate, the earth is much younger and all sorts of theories that depend on that fall apart.

 

String theory works great in the math, but even supporters hedge their bets when it comes to claiming it's a fact. We won't know until experiments can fully back it up or refute it.

 

Math in itself does not guarantee fact. You must have the right math, and that is evaluated through experimentation. Logic is not the same as a mathematical formula and must also be evaluated through experimentation. The data provided doesn't show the path of mathematical data from individual experiments to final results. That is the problem here. You keep saying it is there, but what we are asking for is not there and the calls for THAT data just get ignored.

 

Personal attack. And that is your opinion. Ask the admin if calling someone is an idiot is a personal attack since that is the person that would do the enforcement.

 

And you sound like a little child saying "but he started it". And what is the parental response? "I don't care who started it! You are both guilty." Try taking that argument into a court of law and see if a judge says "oh well... it's ok since he started it". Good luck with that.

 

Don't use a sockpuppet and people won't call you out on it. Same phrases, same attacks, same arguments...

 

You make lame excuses rather than factually refute things. Big Bang theory is a theory and is not a mathematical proof. Mathematical proofs are ALWAYS true for all time. The limit proof is what ledzep was referring to and that was given earlier in the thread. You are also making personal attacks-- speculating about people's identity or whatever are all personal attacks unless you PROVE them. Samething with whether someone can read or not. You don't understand the difference between mathematical proofs and experimental proofs.

 

My eye doctor told me I can't read one of those snellen charts (sample given below); so did he make a personal attack on me. Stop the framing of innocent people. You may have gotten away with your whistle-blowing mentality earlier because no one spoke out against you, but I don't accept that sort of blind mentality. Why don't you attack Ledzep when he makes those personal attackish comments where they factually are personal attacks.

[potatohead]

You are not this stupid.

 

That is a attempt to deceive, with intent to convince another to yield, not some rational basis for discussion.

 

Refuted.

 

Gonna give it up yet?

Edited December 20, 2010 by potatohead

[Divya16]

Forgot to address the "tyrant mentality". You assume a role of a leader although you have no qualifications-- a tyrant mentality. Not a personal attack. Once again you distort things to suit your needs of framing innocent people. Oh, by the way ALTERNATIVE is NOT synonymous with substitute. Another distortion.

 

Hopefully, people are smart enough to know that your replies are trash.

[potatohead]

Forgot to address the "tyrant mentality". You assume a role of a leader although you have no qualifications-- a tyrant mentality. Not a personal attack. Once again you distort things to suit your needs of framing innocent people. Oh, by the way ALTERNATIVE is NOT synonymous with substitute. Another distortion.

 

Hopefully, people are smart enough to know that your replies are trash.

 

Yes, they are smart enough. You and your imaginary friends do not have the high ground in the discussion.

 

NotsurewhoItalktoski has not been wronged here. NOT AT ALL.

 

Gotcaughtinadresski ASKED TO BE REFUTED.

 

The truth is, your entire argument was self-refuted on the very first post, for failure to properly qualify "BETTER". All else on this thread either supports that, or has been commentary and analysis of the very bizarre behavior we've all seen linked to your personal difficulty with being refuted, not the quality of the refutation itself.

 

You can't take the high ground, while stepping on your dick. Call that a truism. It is not going to be possible to get out of this by simply marginalizing everybody, or shouting them down, or lying to them, about them, or speculating about them.

 

You got it wrong. It's really that simple, and for EVERY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR HERE, a non-issue, something to laugh about, and have fun with, not some assault on the ego, as you incorrectly frame it to be.

 

Give up yet?

Edited December 20, 2010 by potatohead

[JamesD]

Just for future reference:

Description of Personal Attack

 

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Link

[+poobah]

Aww crap, I can't resist....

 

I don't care about your crap. If you understood even the simplest form of controlled experiment, you wouldn't keep coming back here with your crap. No, you don't need multiple scientists to do a controlled experiment. You DON'T know what a controlled experiment is. So stop advising others on what you have no knowledge about. You are a mental speculator that just keeps coming back and regurgitating his drivel over and over again.

As someone who designs and executes experiments for a living, I humbly suggest that it is you, atariksi, who does not understand what a controlled experiment entails. Can we see your test plan, hmmmmmm?

 

You are the idiot. If you can prove mathematically, you don't need to waste your time with experimenting. If I can prove that if 2(X*X) = 50 then X must be 5 or -5 then the experiment can only prove the SAME result. Experiments can only show a subset of what's proven mathematically or logically. Mathematics and logic apply for all time and in all cases.

Only if X is a real scalar.

Engineers often 'prove' stuff in MATLAB, only to have it fail miserably in the real world.

Would you care to use math/logic to tell me how big my monitor is, or how many keys on my keyboard?

 

You are mentally retarded.

Well, there's a well thought out, rational argument.

 

Nope, all I said was I ran hundreds of experiments. The data that was submitted was for the most popular games that most people here are familiar with. It's sufficient to show my point.

No, it is not.

[JamesD]

You make lame excuses rather than factually refute things.

Distract and attack.

 

Big Bang theory is a theory and is not a mathematical proof.

No it's not a mathematical proff. I was posting an example of a theory based on math and physics which proved to be false. If you look up the theory you will find numerous references to such things as red shift, gravity, etc... all which involve math and physics.

I was referring to the actual experiment and data which is not a fact or mathematical proof.

I was responding to this:

"using mathematical proof is better than experimental"

 

You are also making personal attacks-- speculating about people's identity or whatever are all personal attacks unless you PROVE them.

Again with the crap about something not being a personal attack if you prove it.

 

I pointed out the evidence which looks pretty convincing.

It was a rebuttal to atariksi, and where is the insult or abuse?

 

You don't understand the difference between mathematical proofs and experimental proofs.

Yup, I sure do. But then I was just pointing out this wasn't a mathematical proof.

 

My eye doctor told me I can't read one of those snellen charts (sample given below); so did he make a personal attack on me.

That is a medical analysis of your condition made by a licensed ophthalmologist, not an attack on another person. Are you an eye doctor? Did you do an eye exam of any of the people that insult has been flung at?

 

Stop the framing of innocent people.

Again with the framing and innocent. Claiming to have the high ground while not taking it.

Did or did not atariksi use abusive language aimed at other people?

The words are clearly in the post.

 

Hypocrite definition:

"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

Link

 

There have been personal attacks from other people as well, it does not change the fact that atariksi responded in kind.

 

You may have gotten away with your whistle-blowing mentality earlier because no one spoke out against you, but I don't accept that sort of blind mentality.

If I find you or anyone's language or behavior offensive I have the right to report them if I see fit. I haven't reported anyone here but I do have the right.

 

BTW, read atariksi post 998 which states "It's a forum. Anyone is free to field any post he wants."

Somehow it's ok for you to post what you want but the same rule somehow doesn't apply to me?

And what are you going to do, report me for pointing out personal attacks in the thread?

 

Why don't you attack Ledzep when he makes those personal attackish comments where they factually are personal attacks.

I wasn't responding to Ledzep, it wasn't an attack, and why do I have to point out everyone's personal attacks?

 

Instead of responding in kind, point out the personal attacks like I have done, respond without the insults, and stick to the argument. How difficult is that?

Edited December 21, 2010 by JamesD

[+Stephen]

Post 1000?

 

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

Can you feel the anger rising in each successive atariksi post? For someone who accuses others of being emotional and dishing out personal attacks in every one of his posts, he sure does quite a bit of the same.

 

Last post had "idiot", "retard", "I don't care about your crap", his favorite "straw man argument". Sadly, the "chewbacca defense" was not called out. I miss that one.

 

Talk about biased envious snakes,

 

You really need a break.

 

Digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks is the topic. If you can't stick to it, then don't bother commenting.

Wow - sounds like you are really upset. I am really hurt that you think I am a snake. I am crying as I type this.

 

Thanks for making me see how shitty analog sticks are. I'll quit using them when playing my 360. I'll stick to PacMan and Donkey Kong on my 30 year old A8.

 

Hell - I am also disconnecting the accelerator pedal, clutch, brake, and steering wheel on my car and installing digital switches so I control my car better. Can't wait to see how much control I have been missing all these years

[+Stephen]

It's ledzep who did the personal attacks so stop with the tyrant mentality. And for your information "not being able to read" is not a personal attack. He is factually misreading -- maybe on purpose. I don't think it's a personal attack if you bothered reading the post. Ledzep claimed it's idiotic to use math (which AtariKSI used). But on the contrary, using mathematical proof is better than experimental so that makes him the idiot. Not really a personal attack but true. And initiator is Ledzep. And he's been doing it for like two months including mocking the user IDs which are more personal items.

Hey atariksi. How stupid do you think everyone is on this board? Same mailing address, same IP address, same typing style, same bullshit arguments, answering "each others" posts all the time.

 

Cause for a ban - as well as all of your personal attacks. For someone who believes in karma, you sure act like an asshole and treat people bad.

[+Stephen]

Forgot to address the "tyrant mentality". You assume a role of a leader although you have no qualifications-- a tyrant mentality. Not a personal attack. Once again you distort things to suit your needs of framing innocent people. Oh, by the way ALTERNATIVE is NOT synonymous with substitute. Another distortion.

 

Hopefully, people are smart enough to know that your replies are trash.

Well, we are all smart enough to know that you and atarksi are the same person. Does that count?

[JamesD]

You'll notice he/she/it left out the part of my post mentioning string theory which is nothing but mathematical proofs... and even the people that have come up with the math aren't sure if it's true.

Edited December 21, 2010 by JamesD

[atariksi]

Aww crap, I can't resist....

 

I don't care about your crap. If you understood even the simplest form of controlled experiment, you wouldn't keep coming back here with your crap. No, you don't need multiple scientists to do a controlled experiment. You DON'T know what a controlled experiment is. So stop advising others on what you have no knowledge about. You are a mental speculator that just keeps coming back and regurgitating his drivel over and over again.

As someone who designs and executes experiments for a living, I humbly suggest that it is you, atariksi, who does not understand what a controlled experiment entails. Can we see your test plan, hmmmmmm?

Just for your information as I don't think some of these other people can understand this simple point:

 

If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves. Newton performed the control experiment himself-- didn't depend on other people doing the samething for him to do the control experiment. The target is to determine which joystick provides better control not how various people fare at various games.

 

You are the idiot. If you can prove mathematically, you don't need to waste your time with experimenting. If I can prove that if 2(X*X) = 50 then X must be 5 or -5 then the experiment can only prove the SAME result. Experiments can only show a subset of what's proven mathematically or logically. Mathematics and logic apply for all time and in all cases.

Only if X is a real scalar.

Engineers often 'prove' stuff in MATLAB, only to have it fail miserably in the real world.

Would you care to use math/logic to tell me how big my monitor is, or how many keys on my keyboard?

Using deductive logic, you go to the spec or schematic rather than do experimental measurements. Mathematical proofs are always deductive so they cannot be disproven experimentally. Once you prove the formula for the solution to a quadratic equations, it's always going to be true.

 

You are mentally retarded.

Well, there's a well thought out, rational argument.

 

You took it out of context. He was calling me retarded earlier so it's right back at him since I refuted his point.

 

Nope, all I said was I ran hundreds of experiments. The data that was submitted was for the most popular games that most people here are familiar with. It's sufficient to show my point.

No, it is not.

 

It sure is. The total number of experiments is aribtrary as long as you have sufficient number to show the original hypothesis-- namely that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks and with no data coming showing the opposite.

[kool kitty89]

Then why bring up the 5200 controller? It's among the exception for bad analog controllers... regardless of it being standard, like the Intellivision or Colecovision for digital control (the PS1 pad is somewhat in that category as well though some don't mind it that much -then again, some don't mind the CV controller either).

 

I used the Gravis, Gemini, and Atari 2600 style joysticks in the experiments. You can use anyone as long as they are not comparing apples and oranges. No reason to pick a worse case digital joystick and best case analog joystick.

... WHICH Gravis analog stick? You need to compare more than a few controllers... you'd need to compare many controllers from different platforms (gamepads and joysticks -with various configurations, throw length, etc -most thumbsticks have less than 1/2" of throw) and a lot of different games on many different platforms (consoles and computers) with different control schemes...

 

 

 

 

If you chose an extremely simple, primitive game for a comparison, you'll also find that 1 button could be "superior" to a controller with a few (or many) buttons as you'd ignore games that absolutely require many button inputs. (or key inputs, but using a gamepad/joystick with many built-in buttons can often be preferable by far -games using a mouse favor keyboard a bit more, but gamepad/joystick is great to have with many buttons -joy to key is great for converting old keyboard specific games to comprehensive joysticks/gamepads).

Hell, there's games that choke with as many as 7/8 buttons (have to rely on combos), like the console ports of Wing Commander.

 

I've got several games where I max out the 12 buttons (plus 4 analog axes and 8 direction hat) on my Logitech Wingman pro joystick and STILL have to supplement some functions with the keyboard (obviously the most-used stuff is on the stick).

Edited December 21, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

Post 1000?

 

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

Can you feel the anger rising in each successive atariksi post? For someone who accuses others of being emotional and dishing out personal attacks in every one of his posts, he sure does quite a bit of the same.

 

Last post had "idiot", "retard", "I don't care about your crap", his favorite "straw man argument". Sadly, the "chewbacca defense" was not called out. I miss that one.

 

Talk about biased envious snakes,

 

You really need a break.

 

Digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks is the topic. If you can't stick to it, then don't bother commenting.

Wow - sounds like you are really upset. I am really hurt that you think I am a snake. I am crying as I type this.

 

Thanks for making me see how shitty analog sticks are. I'll quit using them when playing my 360. I'll stick to PacMan and Donkey Kong on my 30 year old A8.

 

Hell - I am also disconnecting the accelerator pedal, clutch, brake, and steering wheel on my car and installing digital switches so I control my car better. Can't wait to see how much control I have been missing all these years

 

I can deal with various people on the level they are at-- some are not worth replying to. In that post, your behaviour was like an envious snake. That's the fact. You actually should have accused Ledzep of the personal attacks first and then discussed whether my rebuttal constitutes any. But you didn't do that. I am as cool as ever. If someone argues with me that the moon is made of yellow cheese, it doesn't upset me but the false accusations were more of the concern there.

 

Regarding your modern analog joysticks, although they are somewhat different from the ones in post #1-- you are missing control. You have NO IDEA what state your joystick is in and you are relying on feedback to help your determine the state of your crippled joystick. They purposely made those games for their analog joysticks. Had they made digital joysticks for those games perhaps with multiple buttons or whatever, you would have better control than analog joysticks. I suggest your review those 5 points I mentioned regarding faults with analog joysticks and some or most would apply to modern analog joysticks as well.

 

Regarding other analog controllers, I am only going to discuss digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks as I don't want to digress to other things again.

[+Stephen]

Talk about biased envious snakes,

 

I can deal with various people on the level they are at-- some are not worth replying to. In that post, your behaviour was like an envious snake. That's the fact. You actually should have accused Ledzep of the personal attacks first and then discussed whether my rebuttal constitutes any. But you didn't do that. I am as cool as ever. If someone argues with me that the moon is made of yellow cheese, it doesn't upset me but the false accusations were more of the concern there.

 

Regarding your modern analog joysticks, although they are somewhat different from the ones in post #1-- you are missing control. You have NO IDEA what state your joystick is in and you are relying on feedback to help your determine the state of your crippled joystick. They purposely made those games for their analog joysticks. Had they made digital joysticks for those games perhaps with multiple buttons or whatever, you would have better control than analog joysticks. I suggest your review those 5 points I mentioned regarding faults with analog joysticks and some or most would apply to modern analog joysticks as well.

 

Regarding other analog controllers, I am only going to discuss digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks as I don't want to digress to other things again.

If you think I am envious of an arrogant split personality (half female at that) internet troll, you are more delusional than for thinking that people buy your scientific fact bullshit. I make a damn good living coding at a global company, so I am not at all threatened by your pompous ass. You want to compare IQ results or college transcripts and GPAs, go for it. I'll gladly post mine since you feel you have something to prove.

 

Why don't you want to discuss anything else? Tired of losing the debates to people who are smarter than you? You seem to suffer from "little man" syndrome. Wonder exactly what is missing that you are compensating for?