Jump to content
IGNORED

Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks


atariksi

Digital Joysticks vs. Analog Joysticks  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you prefer Digital Joystick or Analog

    • I prefer Atari 2600 style Digital Joysticks
    • I prefer Analog Joysticks (Wico/A5200/Gravis PC/etc.)
    • I prefer arrow keys and CTRL key

  • Please sign in to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The same goes for analog controllers. If you can't adapt to Pac-Man with analog controllers that's YOUR fault. Just as you need a bit of conditioning to play for long periods of time with digital sticks on games meant for analog control like Centipede and Missile Command, analog sticks take some practice.

I didn't address your point about conditioning. You don't need long periods of conditioning to play with digital joysticks. You can get used to the game over time but the joystick usage is simple with digital joysticks. For analog, you are conditioning yourself to take into account errors related to thresholds which user shouldn't be responsible for and not a good thing about a controller. It's not our fault that pac-man has major issues with an analog joystick but not with a digital joystick. Why should I screw up my timing and make up for flaws with the analog joystick just to do better at that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your looking at it after you get to the extremes or near center. If you read post #420, you would have noticed that there's values in between which do not exist for digital joysticks. You are assuming time to switch from center to a direction is zero which is false.

No such assumption.

 

I have the understanding that a digital stick also has a non-zero switch time due to the throw distance. Apparently you don't.

 

I know digital sticks also take time, but it doesn't produce the in-between values nor are its states unstable. And if you want to equate the time, you hardly have any certainty for in-between states which was the main reason for your analog joystick to begin with. For longer throw, analog joystick loses in uncertainty and time to switch. For short throw, you have hardly any use for inbetween-states and there's still samples you get that aren't at center nor at extremes and you have to deal with them. And these aren't consistent either amongst all analog joysticks.

The throw distance isn't consistent amongst all digital joysticks either. How terrible!

 

There is a lot of use for inbetween-states in a short-throw analog. Even if you're extremely feeble and can only manage one in-between state, being able to move at less than full speed is an extra degree of control.

 

The in-between samples are the advantage of a short-throw analog stick over a digital stick. Even as I start the throw distance my game character begins to respond with an analog. Sadly, with a digital joystick you need wait for the full throw to complete before the character responds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know digital sticks also take time, but it doesn't produce the in-between values nor are its states unstable. And if you want to equate the time, you hardly have any certainty for in-between states which was the main reason for your analog joystick to begin with. For longer throw, analog joystick loses in uncertainty and time to switch. For short throw, you have hardly any use for inbetween-states and there's still samples you get that aren't at center nor at extremes and you have to deal with them. And these aren't consistent either amongst all analog joysticks.

The throw distance isn't consistent amongst all digital joysticks either. How terrible!

 

There is a lot of use for inbetween-states in a short-throw analog. Even if you're extremely feeble and can only manage one in-between state, being able to move at less than full speed is an extra degree of control.

 

The in-between samples are the advantage of a short-throw analog stick over a digital stick. Even as I start the throw distance my game character begins to respond with an analog. Sadly, with a digital joystick you need wait for the full throw to complete before the character responds.

Yes, but such cases of notable lag is simply poor joystick design: you could have both analog an digital sticks and pads with overly large dead areas in the center (ie a loose area of no contact -many heavily worn analog and digital joysticks have that problem, more so with analog at times -not just true analog using pots of course, but controllers using fully digital mechanisms as wel like the notorious N64 controller thumbstick wear -some 3rd party controllers are analog, Nintendo used muse like mechano-optical wheels though that has nothign to do with the spring wear issues) You have some rather poorly designed digital (9-state) sticks like on the Odyssey with far too long throw to be useful and an odd notched rim on top of that. (a plain octagonal rim is useful but that star pattern only makes the stick stick more)

 

So that's a poor example of the advantages, the in-between states (ie proper in-between states, not rounding error or drift) are useful for precise variable control necessary in many genres (some 2D many 3D and pseudo 3D). Anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't played those sorts of games nearly enough. ;)

 

Again I agree that a highly accurate short throw centering analog (or pseudo analog) thumbstick can be a good compromise for many things and the vectrex is the earliest example of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But by a blind test, I mean the people playing the game wouldn't know which was the 5200 version and which was the A8 version, a closed box set-up where they can't see the system being used.

When people play the HSC with various controllers for the A5200-- some being digital, they are trying their best to get the highest score and if you study some of those cases, you would already have the results for your proposed test.

No, no controllers for the 5200 are digital other than the keypads. You can have adapters for VCS joysticks or 8-way sticks, but they're all still analog. ;)

 

That's exactly what I was describing, a simple resistor set up to act as an 8-way analog controller with only 9 practical states like a digital joystick, but needing different software to poll that properly just like a pot based analog controller. I was speaking in the context of what Atariksi already explained made such analog controllers problematic just like digtial controllers on the ST due to the slower polling speeds from the serial interface. (with the 8-way analog option you still have some uncertainty and drift, but any decent software will have the ranges set so broadly that that won't ever be noticeable by the user and it will only be possible to go in 8 directions max)

 

You seem to have missed my point on this earlier when I mentioned you can have analog sticks that function (from the user's PoV) exactly like 8-way digital sticks while you can have digital controllers that (from the user's POV) function like wide range pot based analog controls. (ie a rotary or slider switch mechanism, or mechano-optical mechanism for a serial digital output like the N64's "analog stick" uses -you can't tell if it's analog or digital until you look inside and some 3rd party controllers are analog while Nintendo's use the mouse-like optical mechanism with digtial pulses generated by a photo diode -the console sees it all as the same thing as it's all converted to digital serial data along with the buttons all sent through a single data wire into the console -with 2 other wires for 5V and gnd)

 

They added more states to digital controllers as well with buttons if you know about those sega 6-button controllers. Missile command works better with digital joystick than analog joystick. Not bringing paddles, trackballs, mice, etc. into this picture for clarity purposes. That's wrong that an analog joystick is like a mouse/trackball. A digital joystick can be used to move around the screen with just as much accuracy as the mouse/trackball. And mouse/trackball use same pins as digital joystick I think and no uncertainty of analogicity.

Buttons are insufficient by themselves and only of limited utility in the lack of an analog stick. It's no solution at all for the games that need that precise variable control to work well, let alone games hat need lots of buttons and several variable high-precision axes. (ie 2 analog sticks 2 analog triggers -neither necessarily truly analog- plus 6 buttons and an 8-way directional pad is a common set-up for current consoles -the PS2 actually had all the buttons pressure sensitive for variable control albeit with lack of "feel" but effectively all the face buttons and shoulder buttons -and I think the d-pad- had high precision control available on top of the 2 analog sticks -assuming they actually are real analog and not the other mechanisms used as well)

 

Old ball mice and track balls can use mechanical or mechano-opitcal mechanisms of various types ranging from analog to various digital set-ups with one of the most common being the same mechanism used in the N64's "analog" stick with a perpherated wheel rotated in front of a beam of light shining on a photodiode to generate pulses of various rates. The various mechanisms have the same end result of variable 2-axis control just like an analog joystick or pseudo-analog joystick using other mechanisms.

 

And while not exactly the same, a good self centering, short throw analog joystick/thumbstick is a good deal better than an 8-way stick for games like missile command though probably not as good as a mouse or track ball. (again note that the 5200 did that all wrong let alone using a somewhat longer throw poorly centering stick, it should control much like an 8-way stick but with 360 degree control and 2 axis vectors for speed rather than simple on/off fixed speed: when the stick is centered the cursor should stop where it stands and then move again when the stick if pushed and move as long as the stick is held until it hits the edge of the screen: with faster or slower movement depending on how hard you push it)

 

For all those 3D games, the so-called "speed" factor is in addition to requiring the 9-state or 5-state directions and the latter suffer from inexactness for the analog joysticks. And the so-called "speed" myth has been implemented with digital joysticks AND the "speed" itself suffers from inexactness unless you rely on feedback for analog joysticks.

It is exact, you only get 256 states per axis with common 8-bit ADC set-ups or other variable control ranges using digital/optical mechanisms, but in all cases the variable control is necessary far beyond what simple 4 switch controls can offer for practical use.

Even with the analog drift in cases of actually using resistance based pots, it's not much different on the users end than a wide range digitial control scheme as the precision is higher than average motor skills can detect easily and different games implement different useful ranges in any case (wouldn't matter if it's analog or digital), you depend on the simple fact of variable control to push softer or harder in the desired direction, it's as simple as that.

 

If you can't understand that there's no point in arguing this further.

 

Pole Position example I mentioned also uses speed using digital joystick.

How so? And how many states of speed? (for modern games at a bare minimum you'd want at least 16 states per axis and thus 256 unique states possible for total motion, but in man cases you want more than that, and then you have many cases where you need at least 4 axes and often 6, so that's a minimum of 16.78 million states possible even using low 4-bit precision per axis and that's not counting use of buttons which would push closer to a billion states)

Edited by kool kitty89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your looking at it after you get to the extremes or near center. If you read post #420, you would have noticed that there's values in between which do not exist for digital joysticks. You are assuming time to switch from center to a direction is zero which is false.

No such assumption.

 

I have the understanding that a digital stick also has a non-zero switch time due to the throw distance. Apparently you don't.

 

I know digital sticks also take time, but it doesn't produce the in-between values nor are its states unstable. And if you want to equate the time, you hardly have any certainty for in-between states which was the main reason for your analog joystick to begin with. For longer throw, analog joystick loses in uncertainty and time to switch. For short throw, you have hardly any use for inbetween-states and there's still samples you get that aren't at center nor at extremes and you have to deal with them. And these aren't consistent either amongst all analog joysticks.

The throw distance isn't consistent amongst all digital joysticks either. How terrible!

Whatever it is, it's much worse for analog joysticks. Some have to be moved inches to get from center to an extreme. But you can prove logically/mathematically that digital joysticks will always win in switching time. Let A be set of all analog joysticks, let D be set of all digital joysticks. If i is distance traveled by joystick from center to extreme then in order for it to qualify as an analog joystick, it must be able to discern at least some in-between distance like i/2 as you state:

 

"There is a lot of use for inbetween-states in a short-throw analog. Even if you're extremely feeble and can only manage one in-between state, being able to move at less than full speed is an extra degree of control."

 

Since digital joysticks don't use in-between states (by definition), then it follows that there exists a digital joystick (member of D) whose throw distance is i/2 at the extremes since its clearly distinguishable by the user. You can apply above recursively letting i=i/2. Thus, digital joysticks have faster switching times than analog joysticks.

 

That's not even taking into account unstability of those states in the analog joystick.

 

The in-between samples are the advantage of a short-throw analog stick over a digital stick. Even as I start the throw distance my game character begins to respond with an analog. Sadly, with a digital joystick you need wait for the full throw to complete before the character responds.

 

No, you always have to wait longer for analog joystick as proven above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean as ARGUED above? Right?

 

(sure you do, it's just hard to admit --almost painful, it seems)

 

Whether or not that is the case, depends on the code in play, not the controller. Poorly written code, with either controller is going to render a less than optimal control experience.

 

Many game states are updated on a frame by frame basis, meaning, if the control intent is recorded during the frame, the time to action isn't changed by the control method used.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atariksi, you'd never need to go the full throw with analog to reach an input. A game could be programmed (and should be assuming any decent analog stick) to use the near center values as well, though for 4-way and 8-way games you'd probably want to program a bit more selective range in that to avoid conflicts (ie more neutral area), but those are the sorts of games you'd always have an advantage with plain digital (or analog) switch based controllers anyway unless you had a logn throw digital controller (ie wide range of motion with no contact until pushed to the very edge). -Again, IMO simple pseudo-digital (8-way resistor based) joysticks should have been standard or at least common accessories for the 5200, but not even 3rd parties offered them commonly. (no good for games actually using the analog nature, but preferable for others -and usable though weaker for analog games using speed based analog control rather than paddle like position tracking)

That's of course disregarding analog vs digtial polling schemes in hardware, let alone efficient vs poor software routines. (after the fact, resistor DAC was still an option regardless and cheaper than pots too if you want to go for the drop PIA to save cost argument)

 

In the context of an analog controller forced to do 4-way control (for the sake of argument) the obvious way to arrange that is to have 4 sets of ranges for the active movement positions and everything else set to neutral. (the trick is to set the ideal ranges to allow quick response but without getting the regions too close together and thus easily conflicting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atariksi, you'd never need to go the full throw with analog to reach an input. A game could be programmed (and should be assuming any decent analog stick) to use the near center values as well, though for 4-way and 8-way games you'd probably want to program a bit more selective range in that to avoid conflicts (ie more neutral area), but those are the sorts of games you'd always have an advantage with plain digital (or analog) switch based controllers anyway unless you had a logn throw digital controller (ie wide range of motion with no contact until pushed to the very edge). -Again, IMO simple pseudo-digital (8-way resistor based) joysticks should have been standard or at least common accessories for the 5200, but not even 3rd parties offered them commonly. (no good for games actually using the analog nature, but preferable for others -and usable though weaker for analog games using speed based analog control rather than paddle like position tracking)

That's of course disregarding analog vs digtial polling schemes in hardware, let alone efficient vs poor software routines. (after the fact, resistor DAC was still an option regardless and cheaper than pots too if you want to go for the drop PIA to save cost argument)

 

In the context of an analog controller forced to do 4-way control (for the sake of argument) the obvious way to arrange that is to have 4 sets of ranges for the active movement positions and everything else set to neutral. (the trick is to set the ideal ranges to allow quick response but without getting the regions too close together and thus easily conflicting)

 

I don't know why you keep saying bad software for Atari 5200. You have to rely on thresholds as the analog joysticks aren't giving you a fixed 0..228 range nor a fixed value at center. Same for other analog joysticks. I'll continue once I understand what you are talking about here as I think you are mistakenly claiming you can get exact states on the analog joysticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get exact states, as far as the game is concerned, by using code to filter the range of values produced by the controller.

 

The values are arranged in a 2D plane, which can be divided into regions, each region associated with one of the otherwise binary states. When the controller is moved, values in the region simply present that state to the rest of the code, which operates NO DIFFERENTLY than it would, if programmed for a digital input device.

 

There is a scaling issue, where the amount of movement required to reach the state will vary on a fair number of things, but then again, on the digital device, that same scaling learning is required to determine action to state mechanics. ie: How much effort does it take to reach the state, and what's the timing of that effort? Those questions are the same questions with both controllers, just different answers.

 

Very few games I know of, update more than once per frame. So then, it's a scan for the pot value, run through the code to determine region, then the rest of the game sees binary, up, down, right, left, etc...

 

There is some variability in the analog device in that the amount of movement to trigger a given binary state will not always be the same, however, that variability in terms of time will simply get rounded to the nearest video frame rate, as that's when the game state will update, prior to the machine rendering the display result of the new game state logic result.

 

In other words, the assumption that a single value will be fetched and acted on in a discrete, atomic way, is a flawed assumption. That's probably unrealistic, given the range and variability of the values. A range check, and some software latches to deal with changes that might happen (jitter), will render the number of states required by the game logic, which operates ABOVE the code used to handle the input from the user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get exact states, as far as the game is concerned, by using code to filter the range of values produced by the controller.

 

The values are arranged in a 2D plane, which can be divided into regions, each region associated with one of the otherwise binary states. When the controller is moved, values in the region simply present that state to the rest of the code, which operates NO DIFFERENTLY than it would, if programmed for a digital input device.

Well, we're interested in user getting to exact states not what code gets after filtering. User is in control and he has to know when he is at what state. Thresholds are also producing regions maybe not circular ones.

 

A digital joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 produces different results than an analog joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 although game is only using 9 states and everything is being passed in as analog and converted to digital by the machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

 

We are interested in the product of the input + the code. That is what determines the overall control available to the user in the game, or other UI based task. At the read the controller level, analog isn't precise. At the "decide what the user meant to do" level, that's not at issue.

 

That's most of the conflict in the discussion. A small amount of code handles the analog input nicely, and again, in nearly all cases, actions are rounded to a frame anyway.

 

And they produce different results for YOU. That's not universally true, particularly given the many kinds of controller designs there are. That's the qualifier bit you neglected throughout this thread, getting your ass handed to you nicely, I might add.

 

For me personally, I know the state the thing is in. Doesn't matter whether it's analog or digital. Haptic feedback (user gets feedback from one's own body) tells a person where they are, and that awareness allows them to compute what needs to happen next.

 

For YOU personally, it appears to operate differently.

 

And there's the dilemma right there. Refuted, BTW. Easily refuted, and it will stay refuted, because you failed to add a qualifier to your statements.

 

Because of that, you have a losing position period, leaving this exercise as one of education and entertainment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You get exact states, as far as the game is concerned, by using code to filter the range of values produced by the controller.

 

The values are arranged in a 2D plane, which can be divided into regions, each region associated with one of the otherwise binary states. When the controller is moved, values in the region simply present that state to the rest of the code, which operates NO DIFFERENTLY than it would, if programmed for a digital input device.

Well, we're interested in user getting to exact states not what code gets after filtering. User is in control and he has to know when he is at what state. Thresholds are also producing regions maybe not circular ones.

 

A digital joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 produces different results than an analog joystick hooked up to an Atari 5200 although game is only using 9 states and everything is being passed in as analog and converted to digital by the machine.

Edited by potatohead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

 

We are interested in the product of the input + the code. That is what determines the overall control available to the user in the game, or other UI based task. At the read the controller level, analog isn't precise. At the "decide what the user meant to do" level, that's not at issue.

You are assuming you can do it in code and approach same behavior as digital, but it doesn't really work. You are fighting a losing battle. Digital joysticks runs circles around analog joysticks as I stated previously. As an example, trace down in detail jumping off the escalator in Donkey Kong form the edge to another edge. Or timing jumps over multiple barrels. That's one example where not knowing the exact states backfires. Software deals with things differently-- not even the same thresholds.

 

 

Because of that, you have a losing position period, leaving this exercise as one of education and entertainment.

 

It's a losing position for analog joystick that you have to hope somehow your software can make up for its flaws which I don't see possible.

 

You mean as ARGUED above? Right?

 

(sure you do, it's just hard to admit --almost painful, it seems)

 

Why do you want to force people to admit things that are obviously wrong? Digital joysticks always have superior switching since you can minimize the distance as much as possible unlike for analog. In the ultimate case, you can make the throw distance ZERO so that just the pressing to move in a direction moves the joystick (like a trackpoint on a mouse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me fix that for you:

 

IN YOUR OPINION, I'm fighting a losing battle.

 

Well, given I've written that code before, and had it behave as stated here, I think I'll pass on your opinion.

 

The key words here are: "which I don't see possible"

 

That's not really my problem, nor that of anyone else here, is it? You asked who could refute it. Got refuted sixteen ways to Sunday, and then some.

 

Your failure to come to some acceptance on that isn't material. See how that works?

 

Those things you mentioned in Donkey Kong? I can do them all day long on a analog stick. Hell, half the games I ever played were on analog sticks, some better than others clearly, but analog all the same. The code between that stick, and the game is what makes the difference, along with the design of the controller. Non-centering ones suck, IMHO. No argument there. However, if they do center, I find them equal to digital on most game experiences programmed in a digital way, and where the game experience isn't digital, vastly superior.

 

See, I qualified my stuff. You didn't, insisting on some blanket metric of superiority where none exists!

 

And you might flip that around some, declaring your buddy potatohead crazy, or something like that, but... that won't do anything at all to change the fact that you didn't qualify your statements, rendering them moot the moment you wrote them, and it won't change my experience either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you want to force people to admit things that are obviously wrong? Digital joysticks always have superior switching since you can minimize the distance as much as possible unlike for analog. In the ultimate case, you can make the throw distance ZERO so that just the pressing to move in a direction moves the joystick (like a trackpoint on a mouse).

Hahahahahahaha... [wipes tear]

 

A trackpoint is a short-throw analog, specifically a strain-guage. Notice how more pressure moves the mouse faster?

 

Amazing how useful all those inbetween states are with such a short throw. And I agree, it really is the ultimate case! Much more control than a digital stick could ever provide.

Edited by RevEng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you want to force people to admit things that are obviously wrong? Digital joysticks always have superior switching since you can minimize the distance as much as possible unlike for analog. In the ultimate case, you can make the throw distance ZERO so that just the pressing to move in a direction moves the joystick (like a trackpoint on a mouse).

Hahahahahahaha... [wipes tear]

 

A trackpoint is a short-throw analog, specifically a strain-guage. Notice how more pressure moves the mouse faster?

 

Amazing how useful all those inbetween states are with such a short throw!

 

I see how you misread things and selectively quote things. I said it's *like* a trackpoint mouse; no pressure sensitivity for analogicity needed as it's only 1/0 state. We're talking about throw distance in case you forgot. Your original point by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me fix that for you:

 

IN YOUR OPINION, I'm fighting a losing battle.

 

Well, given I've written that code before, and had it behave as stated here, I think I'll pass on your opinion.

 

The key words here are: "which I don't see possible"

I didn't program those games that's why I wrote that. I played various donkey kongs (did some compare along with Miner 2049er and some other games). I did a thread on that here a few months ago. And the timing is off using analog joysticks. In fact, impossible to consistently repeat those moves like the jump I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see how you misread things and selectively quote things. I said it's *like* a trackpoint mouse; no pressure sensitivity for analogicity needed as it's only 1/0 state. We're talking about throw distance in case you forgot. Your original point by the way.

Sure! If you could somehow engineer a digital joystick to be as responsive as an analog strain gauge, then you would have a digital control as superior as... er... an analog strain gauge!

 

I think the best way would be to have software limit the values to certain ranges! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see how you misread things and selectively quote things. I said it's *like* a trackpoint mouse; no pressure sensitivity for analogicity needed as it's only 1/0 state. We're talking about throw distance in case you forgot. Your original point by the way.

Sure! If you could somehow engineer a digital joystick to be as responsive as an analog strain gauge, then you would have a digital control as superior as... er... an analog strain gauge!

 

I think the best way would be to have software limit the values to certain ranges! :thumbsup:

 

I don't think you understand the point. We are comparing analog joystick and digital joystick throw. The idea of moving the stick can be reduced on the digital joystick to zero but not on the analog joystick.

 

If you want to compare trackpoints vs. mice, I would pick a mouse as it's hard to tell how much pressure you are putting on it and how much time to spend on it. Sorry to break up your tears. Oh, even the trackpoint relies on feedback-- you don't know its state at all except center when you don't touch it. This is off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand the point. We are comparing analog joystick and digital joystick throw. The idea of moving the stick can be reduced on the digital joystick to zero but not on the analog joystick.

Except the controller you cited as having zero throw is an analog joystick with a short throw. That's what a trackpoint is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, the shuttle from JFK takes forever.

 

Given the time you spent there, I hope you noticed that they rely on feedback for their controls and do not know the state of their controls AND their controls aren't the same as an analog joystick in construction.

 

They absolutely do know the state of their controls. Go ahead, ask a pilot how he manages to fly a plane with those yokes that offer him ZERO control. Try not to stare too open-mouthed when he explains it to you.

 

The above is also quite clear. It wasn't an insult that you keep throwing at me but a fact.

 

True, it's a fact that you made the statement

 

"Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks. It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it."

 

but have not proven that it's a scientific fact. The only way to do that is to either cite sources that support it or present all the data from comprehensive experiments that support that claim. You've done neither. You've made a lot of excuses and you've released data for one game played three times by one person. That's not "all the data". Try again.

 

If everyone else on this forum has cut apart my "vague" statements, then why are you bothering replying to things written a week ago. You refuted your own statement. Also, if the statement is vague, you can't refute it since you need more information. You statement is an example of drivel (no insult here). My rebuttals are all clear, logical and similar and mostly repetitive since you can't understand them.

 

Why am I bothering? Because it's fun to see how many ways you will avoid supporting your claims. This thread shouldn't have gone longer than about 15 posts if you'd simply presented the parameters of your "experiments" along with all the data gathered for these imaginary experiments. Others might claim that you did the experiment wrong but then it would be up to them to either tell you how to do it right or to do it right themselves and show how it matters. But since you haven't supported your claims and simply invoke "logic" to get around your lack of evidence I like to see how many excuses you can come up with for failing to do the one thing that would end this thread right now. I look forward to your latest excuses and claims that you already refuted this and already proved that with logic and it's so OBVIOUS. None of that is proof.

 

You absolutely can refute a vague statement. You refute it by pointing out that it's too vague to apply to anything specific and the originator of that vague, useless statement must be more specific in order to make his claim stick.

 

I am speaking about a joystick simulator so obviously it counts as a game controller. So the signals the A8 sees at the DB9 connector are from an external source not from its own keyboard. You see faults because you don't understand. You can't find fault with things you don't understand. You are incapable of refuting things that you don't understand. Thus, my statement that were getting emotional was not unfounded.

 

A joystick simulator obviously does not count as a game controller, it counts only as a simulator. I see faults because you spray them all over the place. Thus your claim that I'm getting emotional is merely projection. I'll email you a tissue.

 

Unfortunately for you, you are still wrong (completely). If you simulate a physical joystick, you end up with a real joystick. I already refuted your extra combinations theory since a superset of the signals can simulate the subset.

 

No, I'm right (completely). You claimed to have "perfectly simulated" a real joystick using arrow keys. That is categorically false. A simulator must be as close as possible to the thing it is simulating. Arrow keys aren't joystick buttons or switches, they don't act the same way unless the joystick is built out of keyboard parts. Arrow keys can be pressed in combinations that a joystick cannot duplicate. And software emulation of a physical device in no way is a replacement for the physical device.

 

The above contradiction of P and NOT P stands and you just added another one to your list. If you are refuting that the joystick simulator cannot produce the same signals as a real joystick then you can't ask for data. Don't be duplicitous. It's one or the other. Stick to a position. I already described what the joystick simulator does and also were allowing you to use it. Once again, it can remap any input device to signals for the DB9 joystick port of A8 (also other machines but that's irrelevant here). You can take an analog joystick's input and map it to DB9 signals for digital joystick. You can take a digital joystick's input and map it to DB9 signals for digital joystick. You can take CTRL/ARROW/Spacebar keys and map them to DB9 signals for A8 joystick. Etc. Etc.

 

Aw, another excuse to try to get people to agree that you don't have to release all the data to support your claim so you can get out of admitting you don't actually have "megabytes" of data? Fault again.

 

Of course I can ask for data from your joystick simulator even though it cannot produce the same signals as a real joystick. It's the only way to demonstrate to you that you gathered a bunch of worthless data. But of course you won't allow that to happen so you will avoid presenting that data at all costs. As you are doing right now.

 

You are wrong. I never said I was discussing analog controllers in general with digital controllers in general. In the beginning of this thread, I wrote that construction make a big difference. If I wanted to get to say 100 states out of a steering wheel, the probability is much higher to get at the right state than it is with an analog joystick. That example of steering wheel/paddles is in the first post.

 

Who cares what you said you were discussing, by including a non-joystick in your poll (arrow keys) you opened the discussion to controllers other than digital and analog joysticks. You allowed the discussion to widen beyond your precious digital and analog joysticks with that mistake. Another fault.

 

You were arguing against using arrow keys/ctrl keys above and more than a week ago. The lever and higher force helps with a stick so construction matters here as well. But the same signals as a digital joystick can be generated as both essentially would hit on the similar buttons-- may get harder to do in the long run or in situations requiring fast switching with diagonals.

 

I was arguing against arrow keys because they're not joysticks and you are the one crying about people (like me) including non-joystick controllers in this discussion. You should have followed your own advice and not mentioned arrow keys in your poll. Too late now. Another fault.

 

The arrow keys are separately listed in the poll. I am sticking to my position that construction makes a difference. I don't see any reason to list paddles as those comprise a small percentage of games and don't allow mapping of the main directions which the other 3 items do. If I play Hero, Pac-man, Mr. Robot, Miner 2049er, Donkey Kong, etc. I only have choice from those 3 in the poll. And so on for majority of the games. I put paddles in a specialized controller catagory like a flight throttle controller or foot pedal.

 

You can stick to whatever you like, doesn't change the fact that you included a non-joystick game controller (arrow keys) in this discussion by allowing them as a 3rd choice in the poll that is included in this discussion. You cannot break your own rule and then not allow others to as well. Arrow keys are legal in a discussion about digital vs. analog joysticks? Then so are paddles. Aww, man!

 

I already addressed it. If the hardware construction is changed, then it's operating as either one or the other. If it's software based emulation of the digital joystick, then it has same flaws as an analog joystick.

 

What do you mean "if"? You mean you don't know?!? Then how can you claim to have addressed it? It can be set to operate as either a digital or an analog joystick. The same construction, the same joystick throw, the same speed and accuracy. The only way for you to know whether it kills your theory or not is to test it against your other joysticks and present the results. And we all know how willing you are to follow the scientific method, right? No one is going to hold his breath waiting for that data from you, either.

 

Nope, I played the hundreds of games with the 3 types of controllers listed in my poll so data applies to all three. And the logic presented in this thread also applies to all 3.

 

Prove it. Present the parameters of these experiments that generated the data that applies to all three types of controllers. And, obviously, present all the megabytes of data along with the parameters. Money is on you making a new excuse for why you don't have to release anything.

 

It's obvious that you own a computer. Why don't you do us all a big, fat favor and learn to use it correctly to prove your point about digital joysticks? Here is a good example on how to present data in manner that is easy for anyone to read and also to see what your data shows. Has a lot of tips that might be of use to you. I dare you to follow it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, someone who claims to have run a controlled experiment and collected data for that experiment is required to present the details of the experiment along with the data gathered.

I pictures I posted and explained is also DATA. I could have put it in hex. The REC files are also data. I can present more of the same but you haven't made up your mind whether you want to argue against the data genearted by the joystick simulator or want more of it. If latter, then you first need to understand the REC files and images given.

 

It is not on anyone to understand the data, it is on you to present all the data after you claim to have run experiments that have generated data that proves your position. Just because most people might not understand the data that a particle physics experiment generated, that does not absolve the scientist of the responsibility of releasing the parameters of his experiment along with all the data that that experiment generated. Otherwise no one will take him seriously. Sound familiar?

 

Since you have claimed to have run experiments that prove that people playing video games score higher using digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks and you have claimed that you have "megabytes" of data from those experiments you are now required to present all that data along with the specifics of the experiment itself. Or else do not make the claim that you ran the experiments and generated the data. It seems straightforward but you have bricked that completely.

 

Pictures of screen grabs might be considered data if it was accompanied by all the rest of the data that you generated. But releasing a few examples is definitely not the same as releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiment. Not by a long shot.

 

"You can't learn calculus if nobody will provide you the information that describes what calculus is and how it works." See? That compares much more favorably to you and how you want people to duplicate your experiment and come up with the same data when you refuse to give comprehensive details of your experiment and also refuse to release all the data.

 

No, my analogy is correct as stated: "You cannot learn calculus if you don't understand algebra." One is a prerequisite for the other.

 

Uh, no, your analogy doesn't apply if you are the one saying that you have the information that could allow people to understand algebra but you refuse to let anybody see it. You are the one saying you have the data from experiments that prove that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks yet you won't release all that data to demonstrate it. It would be like if you were the algebra teacher allowing students to see only 5 pages from the algebra book yet still expecting the students to learn algebra. What kind of crappy teacher would you be in that case?

 

Show. Us. The. Data. Let the public look it over and determine if the data proves your point. Let the public see the parameters of your experiment in order to duplicate it and confirm your claim. Or do what you've been doing up to now and convincing people that you never ran any experiment at all and that you have no data beyond some screen grabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand the point. We are comparing analog joystick and digital joystick throw. The idea of moving the stick can be reduced on the digital joystick to zero but not on the analog joystick.

Except the controller you cited as having zero throw is an analog joystick with a short throw. That's what a trackpoint is.

 

You forgot to read the context and the word "like". I am speaking all digital. The amount of pressure doesn't matter nor do you need to spend time sampling it-- either its being touched in a certain direction or it isn't. And those digital joysticks that have very rigid sticks that hardly move resemble that.

 

If you want to compare such a thing with the analog trackpoint, that's a separate matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared. :(

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared. :(

edit: his second last post... #469.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together.

It's better to give good arguments or proof rather than play party politics.

I'm just admiring his post. I'm biased for sure, but regardless, I do find ledzep's (and koolkitty's, and potatohead's - maybe others I've forgotten, too) posts to be generally very well thought out, and I agree with many of their posts. They say it better than I can, so I give them a "+1" on occasion. This time, I thought it worthwhile to "post" the "+1", that's all. He was definitely on a roll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know!!

Well, 5-11 admitted not reading the thread. At least you should since you are the one trying to refute things around here. Stop the trolling. You walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of a war. Coward.

 

Interesting. So what would you make of the coward who posted on Tuesday, Nov 9th at 3:01PM (Post #321) -

 

You are talking about some theoretical joysticks. Even in that case, the digital one would read more consistently at those positions than analog ones which vary in their ranges, extremes, and don't even read consistent value at the center. Same answer to Stephen as to you-- why bother increasing the uncertainty/error for a new feature at the cost of 100% control for all games. At least you agree that the Atari 2600 style joysticks are 100% deterministic compared to the analog joysticks.

 

And you are being inconsistent stating digital images are superior to analog. Maybe some analog recordings aren't recording everything. But a real flower in the real world has better resolution/colors than a digitized one. In a digitized image, you can slow things down to edit them by zooming in but you can't do that with an analog joystick to get to an exact state.

 

Look at what she wrote. She walked away WITHOUT notice in the middle of this supposed war and didn't respond until Friday, Nov 12th at 2:16PM (Post #356) -

 

Let me enjoy my popcorn so leave me out of your imaginary world. You know Einstein may have said:

 

"Joysticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

 

with a completely nonsensical statement about what Einstein may have said. Einstein may also have said:

 

"Analog joysticks provide better control than digital joysticks."

 

Three days?!? Without so much as a note? Tsk tsk. And she didn't contribute anything meaningful until Friday, Nov 12th at 11:52PM (Post #360). I mean, what a jerk, right? She just goes AWOL like that? I wonder what her commanding officer thinks about that. In the middle of a war, I mean, seriously, you must be so upset with her, haahahaa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...