Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Barnacle boy]

 

So how about you explain how Atariksi's so-called 'logical expression' and factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the example I presented above. Which is the better joystick?

 

You are mixing "having learned to use joysticks" with "being used to both joysticks". Okay, you don't have to read the manual but you still need to experience both joysticks. Theoretical vs. practical. I know for a fact that I can easily adapt to various digital and analog joysticks with no effect on how I play the game. And that's true for the friends that come over and do the same. Maybe you are getting too emotional and letting it affect you which would disqualify you from experimenting but not your general case. So you can't generalize that the logic is flawed or skill factor is not factorable from your case.

 

I appreciate that you've made a somewhat more honest attempt at answering my question than Papa Atariksi's obvious smokescreen, however there is a something you should realise about your reply:

 

The suppositions you have presented above in an attempt to disqualify my example can all be directed at Atariksi's single subject "experiment".

 

Perhaps he is not sufficiently "used to" all the joysticks in his test. Perhaps he is "getting too emotional" and letting it affect him when conducting his test.

 

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to question the validity of my example (which involved using two subjects and two different types of joystick in literally hundreds of gaming sessions) on such grounds, you must also question the validity of a single subject claiming his personal experience constitutes a "proof" applicable to the wider population.

 

All the quirks of the individual -- his level of experience with different sticks, his preferences, his bias, even his physiology (eg big hands vs small hands) -- will have an effect on his experience and level of success with different sticks.

 

 

That is precisely why it is foolhardy to make claims such as this:

 

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.

Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated).

 

 

In the words of the great poet, Sega Rally guy: GAME OVER, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!

[atarian63]

 

So how about you explain how Atariksi's so-called 'logical expression' and factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the example I presented above. Which is the better joystick?

 

You are mixing "having learned to use joysticks" with "being used to both joysticks". Okay, you don't have to read the manual but you still need to experience both joysticks. Theoretical vs. practical. I know for a fact that I can easily adapt to various digital and analog joysticks with no effect on how I play the game. And that's true for the friends that come over and do the same. Maybe you are getting too emotional and letting it affect you which would disqualify you from experimenting but not your general case. So you can't generalize that the logic is flawed or skill factor is not factorable from your case.

 

I appreciate that you've made a somewhat more honest attempt at answering my question than Papa Atariksi's obvious smokescreen, however there is a something you should realise about your reply:

 

The suppositions you have presented above in an attempt to disqualify my example can all be directed at Atariksi's single subject "experiment".

 

Perhaps he is not sufficiently "used to" all the joysticks in his test. Perhaps he is "getting too emotional" and letting it affect him when conducting his test.

 

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to question the validity of my example (which involved using two subjects and two different types of joystick in literally hundreds of gaming sessions) on such grounds, you must also question the validity of a single subject claiming his personal experience constitutes a "proof" applicable to the wider population.

 

All the quirks of the individual -- his level of experience with different sticks, his preferences, his bias, even his physiology (eg big hands vs small hands) -- will have an effect on his experience and level of success with different sticks.

 

 

That is precisely why it is foolhardy to make claims such as this:

 

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.

Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated).

 

 

In the words of the great poet, Sega Rally guy: GAME OVER, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!

what an emotional Barnical bonehead.. Trolling still and always.

[Barnacle boy]

Atarian63, pictured yesterday:

 

[+Stephen]

what an emotional Barnical bonehead.. Trolling still and always.

How is presenting facts in a logical rational manner (as opposed to cheer-leading for atariksi) considered trolling?

[atariksi]

what an emotional Barnical bonehead.. Trolling still and always.

How is presenting facts in a logical rational manner (as opposed to cheer-leading for atariksi) considered trolling?

 

Look at his emotional outburst and bias and you will also be able to distinguish between facts and pretension.

[atariksi]

 

So how about you explain how Atariksi's so-called 'logical expression' and factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the example I presented above. Which is the better joystick?

 

You are mixing "having learned to use joysticks" with "being used to both joysticks". Okay, you don't have to read the manual but you still need to experience both joysticks. Theoretical vs. practical. I know for a fact that I can easily adapt to various digital and analog joysticks with no effect on how I play the game. And that's true for the friends that come over and do the same. Maybe you are getting too emotional and letting it affect you which would disqualify you from experimenting but not your general case. So you can't generalize that the logic is flawed or skill factor is not factorable from your case.

 

I appreciate that you've made a somewhat more honest attempt at answering my question than Papa Atariksi's obvious smokescreen, however there is a something you should realise about your reply:

 

The suppositions you have presented above in an attempt to disqualify my example can all be directed at Atariksi's single subject "experiment".

 

Perhaps he is not sufficiently "used to" all the joysticks in his test. Perhaps he is "getting too emotional" and letting it affect him when conducting his test.

 

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to question the validity of my example (which involved using two subjects and two different types of joystick in literally hundreds of gaming sessions) on such grounds, you must also question the validity of a single subject claiming his personal experience constitutes a "proof" applicable to the wider population.

 

All the quirks of the individual -- his level of experience with different sticks, his preferences, his bias, even his physiology (eg big hands vs small hands) -- will have an effect on his experience and level of success with different sticks.

 

 

That is precisely why it is foolhardy to make claims such as this:

 

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.

Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated).

 

 

In the words of the great poet, Sega Rally guy: GAME OVER, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!

what an emotional Barnical bonehead.. Trolling still and always.

 

Good catch. It's the reason I avoid him or replying to him. You can't inquire and already draw the conclusion beforehand. He already is assuming logic is flawed while pretending to inquire and putting words in bold isn't helping his cause. It PROVES his emotionally biased state whereas on the other hand, my experiment did involve multiple digital joysticks and analog joysticks with scores being similar for each type. And nor does some person being emotional disprove the equation that is perfectly doable for the unbiased. His game was over before it started. He can go bark all he wants. Until he can get similar scores for digital joysticks, he cannot perform the experiment. The main reason being there are logical and mathematical reasons behind why there is a high failure rate for analog joysticks not some mumble jumple hodge hodge biased emotional outburst or inexperience as in his case. Case dismissed.

[atariksi]

Hmm - kind of like how you subjectively like digital better. Extra cart space has nothing to do with enhancing Star Raiders. It is an 8kB game. Is this just another one of your ridiculous arguments or an attempt at diversion? What enhances Star Raiders on the 5200 is the analog control. End of story.

The convenient placement of the keypad is also nice. (so long as the kypad is in good working order)

 

You are dreaming. The keypad is membrane type and low quality compared to a Wico substitute or even an Atari 2600 touchpad. And it's better to have them separate as the main part used for most games is the stick and the two buttons and Start. You carry all those keypads around without any reason for most games. If you have seen the Wico stick, you know that they only have two buttons and the stick.

 

If the Atari 5200 had the "better" analog joysticks, Atari 800/XL/XE or XEGS consoles wouldn't have surpassed it. The joysticks are inferior in control. Only people have played tons of games on both can clearly tell the difference and those who have the intelligence to reason logically and mathematically. It's not for the emotionally unscientific people.

[potatohead]

We are back to it all being about 5200 analog controls again?

 

Good grief! You could just say that, rather than declare all analog devices inferior for all purposes. Your denial of your own bias is stunning.

 

Refuted, BTW.

 

Are you in the mood now to discuss the programs submitted to this thread?

[Cebus Capucinis]

[bmcnett]

After some thought, I'm convinced that the truth is some combination of the following three:

 

1. atariksi is sincere; he actually has such strong convictions about commercially irrelevant technical trivia that he is also effectively unemployable. Imagine being his boss and asking him to implement analog control.

 

2. atariksi is a valuable engineer who doesn't actually believe what he says here. He just comes here to troll old people who don't know/care about trolling him back IRL.

 

3. atariksi has a kind of "don't ask don't tell" policy about the strange beliefs. ask him about the moon landings sometime!

[potatohead]

I quite frankly have never seen anything like it.

[Barnacle boy]

@ Atariksi: Seriously? That's your reply?

 

Let's be clear here, I have presented a simple example, which I'm going to post yet again so you can't try to misrepresent it:

 

Explain this then Atariksi:

 

I used to own an Amiga with two Konix speedking sticks. My mate also owned an Amiga, but he had two Quickshot sticks.

 

My Speedking and his Quickshot were both digital, though they were quite different in terms of construction and design.

 

During our many games of Speedball 2,we observed the following:

 

1) When he would come over to my place and play against me using the Speedking, I would usually beat him while he whined and moaned about the controller. (Note: In these instances we were both using Speedkings.)

2) When I would go to his place and play against him using the Quickshot, he would usually beat me, and I would moan about the controller. (Note: In these instances we were both using Quickshots.)

 

3) When either of us brought our preferred controller with us, our wins and losses over multiple games were fairly evenly matched. (Note: In these instances I was using a Speedking, he was using a Quickshot.)

 

 

He knew how to use the Speedking. I knew how to use the Quickshot. Neither of us needed an instruction manual. So how does your so-called 'logical expression', your factoring out of skill, and your resulting conclusion account for the outcomes we experienced?

 

If we apply Atariksi 'logic', then as I applied the 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Speedking, the Speedking is therefore scientifically proven to be the better joystick.

 

Yet as my mate applied his 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Quickshot, the Quickshot is therefore scientifically proven to be the better stick, according to Atariksi 'logic'.

 

The two conclusions are incompatible. Thus your logic is faulty. QED.

 

Now don't get me wrong; I don't think this is an earth-shattering insight. It's merely a simple real-world example that demonstrates that different people can perform differently with different sticks (shocking, I know!). It also neatly demonstrates the invalidity of these claims made by you:

 

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.

Once the skill level gets factored out, the number of subjects can be one (as already stated).

 

 

I've now asked you multiple times to explain how your claims about 'factoring out skill level' and only needing a single person as the subject can be supportable given the example I have provided, and this is your response:

 

Good catch. It's the reason I avoid him or replying to him. You can't inquire and already draw the conclusion beforehand. He already is assuming logic is flawed while pretending to inquire and putting words in bold isn't helping his cause. It PROVES his emotionally biased state whereas on the other hand, my experiment did involve multiple digital joysticks and analog joysticks with scores being similar for each type. And nor does some person being emotional disprove the equation that is perfectly doable for the unbiased. His game was over before it started. He can go bark all he wants. Until he can get similar scores for digital joysticks, he cannot perform the experiment. The main reason being there are logical and mathematical reasons behind why there is a high failure rate for analog joysticks not some mumble jumple hodge hodge biased emotional outburst or inexperience as in his case. Case dismissed.

 

Uh oh. What a load of drivel. What's this business you're trying to slip in now: "Until he can get similar scores for digital joysticks, he cannot perform the experiment." What experiment? I'm not trying to perform an experiment. I've simply shown you an example, based on my own past experience, that demonstrates the falsity of the claims made by you as posted above. Why is it now important to have "scores being similar for each type"? What do you mean, and how is it relevant?

 

If I said "Until Atariksi can get similar scores with analog and digital joysticks, he cannot perform his experiment", would you be like, "Oh okay, sure. I accept that arbitrary condition"?

 

No, the point remains. I did better with the Speedking than with the Quickshot. My buddy did better with the Quickshot than with the Speedking. Therefore, if we take my buddy's case and apply Atariksi logic, the Quickshot is proven to be the better stick. Yet if we take my case and apply Atariksi logic, the Speedking is proven to be the better stick. Contradictory conclusions = faulty logic.

 

Sorry, but you can't wriggle out of that.

 

For the record, however, there wasn't a great deal of difference between my actual scores with the Quickshot and the Speedking. It's just that in our highly competitive Speedball 2 sessions, my performance with the Quickshot suffered just enough to consistently give my opponent the edge. The same was true for my buddy, except it was the Speedking that brought his win rate down. So I'm afraid that particular red herring you're trying to slip in there is nothing but a big ol dead end.

 

So... how about you drop all the evasive waffle, and man up and explain as clearly as possible (even in point form if necessary) how your claims about 'factoring out the skill level' and only needing one subject to establish proof can be applied to my example. Or do I have to just keep bringing it up again and again and again?

 

*Cue protracted silence from Atariksi, followed some pages later by a post that further muddies the water without addressing my question head on.*

Edited December 29, 2010 by Barnacle boy

[+Stephen]

what an emotional Barnical bonehead.. Trolling still and always.

How is presenting facts in a logical rational manner (as opposed to cheer-leading for atariksi) considered trolling?

 

Look at his emotional outburst and bias and you will also be able to distinguish between facts and pretension.

Welcome back. I'm glad to see you still won't answer any of our legitimate questions that would show you were wrong.

[+Stephen]

After some thought, I'm convinced that the truth is some combination of the following three:

 

1. atariksi is sincere; he actually has such strong convictions about commercially irrelevant technical trivia that he is also effectively unemployable. Imagine being his boss and asking him to implement analog control.

 

2. atariksi is a valuable engineer who doesn't actually believe what he says here. He just comes here to troll old people who don't know/care about trolling him back IRL.

 

3. atariksi has a kind of "don't ask don't tell" policy about the strange beliefs. ask him about the moon landings sometime!

Maybe we need to spend a few hundred hours listening to the horse shit he presents on his website, proclaiming that "LORD KRSNA'S SIDE IS ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!" Atariksi must be correct - (his) god is on his side, therefore he will always be victorious.

 

Please dear god don't tell me this assclown thinks the moon landings were faked? Not that it would surprise me, it just saddens me as a human being to think there are people out there so far removed from reality.

[atariksi]

After some thought, I'm convinced that the truth is some combination of the following three:

 

1. atariksi is sincere; he actually has such strong convictions about commercially irrelevant technical trivia that he is also effectively unemployable. Imagine being his boss and asking him to implement analog control.

 

2. atariksi is a valuable engineer who doesn't actually believe what he says here. He just comes here to troll old people who don't know/care about trolling him back IRL.

 

3. atariksi has a kind of "don't ask don't tell" policy about the strange beliefs. ask him about the moon landings sometime!

 

Rather than make declarations that are just your speculations, why not prove one of them; maybe then you can approach to be in my catagory-- proving things by experiment or logic. There's no trolling in any of my messages. What's so irrelevant about digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks-- it's a fact. Analog joysticks suffer from inexactness (just try reading them), will have to have longer throws than digital joysticks (since you need some inbetween states), usually have slower sampling rates, etc. These are facts that you can understand from their specs if you are too lazy to measure for yourself.

 

Trolling is what you just did-- try to go off-topic and introduce other things that I may have talked about in the past in order to try to discredit my facts or start some sort of name-calling fest.

[+Stephen]

Rather than make declarations that are just your speculations, why not prove one of them; maybe then you can approach to be in my catagory-- proving things by experiment or logic. There's no trolling in any of my messages. What's so irrelevant about digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks-- it's a fact. Analog joysticks suffer from inexactness (just try reading them), will have to have longer throws than digital joysticks (since you need some inbetween states), usually have slower sampling rates, etc. These are facts that you can understand from their specs if you are too lazy to measure for yourself.

 

Trolling is what you just did-- try to go off-topic and introduce other things that I may have talked about in the past in order to try to discredit my facts or start some sort of name-calling fest.

Two mistakes in bold (by me).

 

#1 - Digital sticks will give inexact control (this is the 1000th time this has been mentioned) if trying to reach the mid-point or otherwise in ANY game designed for analog control. Racing games, Breakout, Flight Sims, etc.

 

#2 - Not all analog sticks have to have longer throw. How many times do you need to have this repeated to you? The pressure sensitive (analog) "nubs" on laptops have damn near ZERO throw. Find me a digital joystick with less throw than this please.

[JamesD]

Rather than make declarations that are just your speculations, why not prove one of them; maybe then you can approach to be in my catagory-- proving things by experiment or logic.

Arrogance

 

There's no trolling in any of my messages.

Denial

 

What's so irrelevant about digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks-- it's a fact.

Refuted

 

Analog joysticks suffer from inexactness (just try reading them), will have to have longer throws than digital joysticks (since you need some inbetween states), usually have slower sampling rates, etc. These are facts that you can understand from their specs if you are too lazy to measure for yourself.

All addressed and refuted

 

Trolling is what you just did-- try to go off-topic and introduce other things that I may have talked about in the past in order to try to discredit my facts or start some sort of name-calling fest.

You messed up in understanding... I think that would actually be classified as mental speculations.

[potatohead]

Is there any other kind of speculation, besides mental?

 

I'm asking, because I related this morbid conversation to a co-worker, who laughed and that was her first response.

[atariksi]

After some thought, I'm convinced that the truth is some combination of the following three:

 

1. atariksi is sincere; he actually has such strong convictions about commercially irrelevant technical trivia that he is also effectively unemployable. Imagine being his boss and asking him to implement analog control.

 

2. atariksi is a valuable engineer who doesn't actually believe what he says here. He just comes here to troll old people who don't know/care about trolling him back IRL.

 

3. atariksi has a kind of "don't ask don't tell" policy about the strange beliefs. ask him about the moon landings sometime!

Maybe we need to spend a few hundred hours listening to the horse shit he presents on his website, proclaiming that "LORD KRSNA'S SIDE IS ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!" Atariksi must be correct - (his) god is on his side, therefore he will always be victorious.

Well, there's a similar concept that real scientists follow in that if you side with logic and mathematics, you can't go wrong. So it's just one step up from that.

 

Please dear god don't tell me this assclown thinks the moon landings were faked? Not that it would surprise me, it just saddens me as a human being to think there are people out there so far removed from reality.

 

Well, I already gave you that analogy earlier that there's more evidence that moon is made of yellow cheese and that nobody has been to the moon than there is that analog joysticks provide superior control.

 

Case for yellow cheese moon: You can take pictures of it when it's in full yellowed condition and compare with yellow cheese on earth; there's some evidence that they look similar.

Case for no earthling has been to the moon: hardly anyone has repeated the experiment; you just have to take their word for it. And many movies have been made of the moon so hard to say if the video that exists is a movie or real.

[atariksi]

Rather than make declarations that are just your speculations, why not prove one of them; maybe then you can approach to be in my catagory-- proving things by experiment or logic. There's no trolling in any of my messages. What's so irrelevant about digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks-- it's a fact. Analog joysticks suffer from inexactness (just try reading them), will have to have longer throws than digital joysticks (since you need some inbetween states), usually have slower sampling rates, etc. These are facts that you can understand from their specs if you are too lazy to measure for yourself.

 

Trolling is what you just did-- try to go off-topic and introduce other things that I may have talked about in the past in order to try to discredit my facts or start some sort of name-calling fest.

Two mistakes in bold (by me).

 

#1 - Digital sticks will give inexact control (this is the 1000th time this has been mentioned) if trying to reach the mid-point or otherwise in ANY game designed for analog control. Racing games, Breakout, Flight Sims, etc.

Highly implementation dependent. I have played Breakout with digital joystick and you can go to any point on the x-axis. Similarly with Pole Position-- you can go all the way left or partially left with a tap. In fact, the opposite is true since in the analog case you can't tell if you are at the center and you can be drifting by a degree or so and end up having to make adjustments by relying on feedback. Similarly for other states.

 

#2 - Not all analog sticks have to have longer throw. How many times do you need to have this repeated to you? The pressure sensitive (analog) "nubs" on laptops have damn near ZERO throw. Find me a digital joystick with less throw than this please.

 

Sticking with the joysticks in the experiment, that would be false-- they all have to have longer throws. If you switch topics to pressure-based throws, they provide worse control than distance-based throws. Laptop trackpoints are highly dependent on feedback; try to play breakout with a trackpoint and then a mouse and you'll see the difference as to which provides better control.

[+poobah]

Case for no earthling has been to the moon: hardly anyone has repeated the experiment; you just have to take their word for it. And many movies have been made of the moon so hard to say if the video that exists is a movie or real.

 

Though, more people have been to the moon than were in atariksi's experiment.

[+poobah]

If you write a sufficiently detailed test plan, I will be more than happy to objectively repeat your test.

As I wrote earlier, I played the games using the same machine (Atari 800) with analog and digital joysticks. The pictures are given in post #1. The results were consistently better for digital joysticks even when I tried with a few other people. I suppose I could write up a formal paper.

Please be very specific as to hardware & software configuration, test setup, how and what to measure, etc.

I pledge to conduct your test in good faith and accurately report the results, along with my own observations and commentary.

 

A week later... no test plan.

 

 

You assert that analog joysticks are inferior per their spec and logic. NO ONE else agrees with you, you haven't proven that assertion, so you may NOT use it in your proof.

Those items were listed in post #951. They are obvious and proveable for those that don't see them as obvious. And once again you generalize to "NO ONE else agrees with you." There are MANY people that agree with me.

They are not obvious or proven. If they were, this thread wouldn't exist. Please name one person in this thread (other than your shill) that agrees with your observations, and provide evidence.

 

1 Week later... never addressed.

 

If i put 1 purple jellybean in a bag, and randomly choose 1 from the bag, I cannot conclude that all jellybeans are purple. My experiment has to have a large enough sample size to eliminate other biases (ie, my jellybean bag should contain a representative sample of all jellybeans).

Once again like 5-11, an invalid analogy. If I throw a ball from the roof 100 times and it takes around same time, I can conclude that other humans who do throw the ball from the same roof will get similar times.

No you can not. In fact, you can't be sure that the 101th time, the ball won't go up instead of down. (That's a common observation made in most physics classes, please dont waste everyone's time disputing it)

What specifically is invalid in the analogy with the jelly beans?

 

1 week... no reply

 

Believe me, the specification, schematic, etc. from manufacturer is more important than the experiment you perform to determine it. Ever heard of reverse-engineering? That's an experimental method and they screw up something usually. Just look at the x86 clones, some chips had bad instructions or missing instructions because they didn't know the exact engineering diagram and were trying to determine experimentally. Logic/Math > experimental methods.

If I am trying to determine the exact value in a specific instance, I must measure. You can't use logic for that. Use logic to tell me the temperature outside my house, or how many cans of Pepsi Max are in my fridge.

 

How many cans in the fridge???

 

 

Is "ignore things that don't support the position" on the list of responses?

[+Stephen]

Two mistakes in bold (by me).

 

#1 - Digital sticks will give inexact control (this is the 1000th time this has been mentioned) if trying to reach the mid-point or otherwise in ANY game designed for analog control. Racing games, Breakout, Flight Sims, etc.

Highly implementation dependent. I have played Breakout with digital joystick and you can go to any point on the x-axis. Similarly with Pole Position-- you can go all the way left or partially left with a tap. In fact, the opposite is true since in the analog case you can't tell if you are at the center and you can be drifting by a degree or so and end up having to make adjustments by relying on feedback. Similarly for other states.

There is no way you can play the standard unmodified game of breakout and hold the paddle precisely in any position with a digital joystick. Playing a modified version of the game DESIGNED to be used with digital does not count. And why always referring back to Pole Position? Can you try testing some games designed in this century. Try something like Gran Turismo 5 or Forza 3. Do your little experiment and compare analog vs digital. Then come back to me.

 

#2 - Not all analog sticks have to have longer throw. How many times do you need to have this repeated to you? The pressure sensitive (analog) "nubs" on laptops have damn near ZERO throw. Find me a digital joystick with less throw than this please.

 

Sticking with the joysticks in the experiment, that would be false-- they all have to have longer throws. If you switch topics to pressure-based throws, they provide worse control than distance-based throws. Laptop trackpoints are highly dependent on feedback; try to play breakout with a trackpoint and then a mouse and you'll see the difference as to which provides better control.

I never said the laptop nubs offered better control. I merely refuted (quite properly I might add) your blanket statement that ALL analog sticks have longer throw than digital sticks. Remember, a million pieces of evidence don't prove a theory. One piece of false evidence does disprove it. That's a scientific fact.

[+Stephen]

Well, there's a similar concept that real scientists follow in that if you side with logic and mathematics, you can't go wrong. So it's just one step up from that.

Don't try to come across as a real scientist. You are at best a piss poor attempt at a philosopher.

[RevEng]

Sticking with the joysticks in the experiment, that would be false-- they all have to have longer throws. If you switch topics to pressure-based throws,

I thought your topic was titled "Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks", not "Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog throw-based Joysticks".

 

I'm glad you're finally admitting that your first post is in dire need of qualifiers, like we've been saying all along.

 

Laptop trackpoints are highly dependent on feedback; try to play breakout with a trackpoint and then a mouse and you'll see the difference as to which provides better control.

Why are you comparing it to a mouse? I thought we were discussing digital joysticks vs analog joysticks?

 

In post #480 I related how I played Kaboom in stella with both a CX40 joystick and a trackpoint. While both weren't anywhere near as good as paddles, the trackpoint was clearly superior to the digital joystick.

 

Your scientific fact is refuted.