Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[atariksi]

I'm voting analog because it's bound to annoy at least a few of the people who will be posting in this thread.

 

That's one thing I learned and was disciplined in my early days of schooling, not to get annoyed with side allurements when you want to discuss scientific facts.

[jetset]

It's always about the right tool for the right job. Games that require precise control like Frogger or certain platform games a digital stick is the way to go. Centipede? Missile Command? No way do you go digital there.

Really, seems this topic is yet another in a long line of digs at the 5200 controllers. Maybe I'm reading into the OP's post too much but there's an awful lot of those popping up lately. Seems like it's a weak debate.

 

No shot at specifically Atari 5200 controllers. You know very well I'm an Atari 5200 user and have been for a long time-- even built the digital joystick adapter for it. Just getting to the facts; not emotionally involved like some posters have become. You can do digital on Missile Command and Centipede. You can't look at it after the fact-- oh this game supports analog so it depends on the game. Analog introduces uncertainty which could have been avoided in most cases. Uncertainty means less control.

 

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but Centipede and Missile Command were not made analog after the fact. they were made digital, then converted for the likes of the 2600, etc to digital, then back to analog on the 5200, which is what those games were meant to be.

[atariksi]

It's always about the right tool for the right job. Games that require precise control like Frogger or certain platform games a digital stick is the way to go. Centipede? Missile Command? No way do you go digital there.

Really, seems this topic is yet another in a long line of digs at the 5200 controllers. Maybe I'm reading into the OP's post too much but there's an awful lot of those popping up lately. Seems like it's a weak debate.

 

No shot at specifically Atari 5200 controllers. You know very well I'm an Atari 5200 user and have been for a long time-- even built the digital joystick adapter for it. Just getting to the facts; not emotionally involved like some posters have become. You can do digital on Missile Command and Centipede. You can't look at it after the fact-- oh this game supports analog so it depends on the game. Analog introduces uncertainty which could have been avoided in most cases. Uncertainty means less control.

 

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but Centipede and Missile Command were not made analog after the fact. they were made digital, then converted for the likes of the 2600, etc to digital, then back to analog on the 5200, which is what those games were meant to be.

 

They had to be made analog given the 5200 joystick ports. You can't say they were meant for analog since they work perfectly fine with digital controls. What I meant by "after the fact" is the title was originally analog and you assume it REQUIRES an analog joystick. But that's not true as that just happens to be the way it was implemented. Even Pole Position works fine with digital joystick.

[atariksi]

Oh, great - more supremacists and zealots.

 

Don't know who you are talking to, but you are free to vote however you like. I prefer voting according to hard facts and logic. An analog joystick has more levels but that's not important as the control you have over the joystick. What's the big deal if you have infinite values but can hardly use any of them with certainty and introduce all sorts of undefined/erroneous samples and slower switch rates. It's what the user has control over that is more important than what the joystick supports. You can transmit more information using analog circuits, but the world is gone digital and because it's better defined and well defined; i.e., there's MORE CONTROL. How anyone can miss this logic is beyond me. It's all around us.

[RevEng]

With a digital joystick there's always a chance that you accidentally press an angle instead of a true direction, given that our hands aren't designed to move in a perfect circle. It's just too difficult to know exactly where in that circle you are applying pressure, and there's no feedback, so it's too imprecise.

 

That's why the one-button controller is superior to the digital joystick. It's a scientific fact!

[potatohead]

Without a qualifier, "more control" doesn't mean anything, which more or less takes the discussion out of the realm of scientific fact.

 

That said, the case of 5200 analog joysticks not offering "better control", compared to a digital version of them, is perfectly debatable, and the product of that debate would probably be some data everyone can use, and more importantly, quantify and relate to other scenarios. Great discussion to have, and I think I would agree with you on digital being "better" in that scenario. Always found the 5200 controllers difficult myself.

 

Extrapolating that to a more general: "Digital is more control", or more simply, "better" is perfectly useless however, which was the point of my post, and the core reason why others don't, "just see it".

 

If we are to zero in on controller facts (which is a discussion I enjoy very much**), let's actually do that, put some qualifiers on "better" and "more control", and see where it goes?

 

**I enjoy the discussion because people and controls vary widely, and some of that bleeds into professional life to me, kind of closing a loop that is always open for discussion. I'm sure not married to any one control device. Honestly, I enjoy lots of them, and frequently end up balancing out differences.

Edited October 25, 2010 by potatohead

[jetset]

It's always about the right tool for the right job. Games that require precise control like Frogger or certain platform games a digital stick is the way to go. Centipede? Missile Command? No way do you go digital there.

Really, seems this topic is yet another in a long line of digs at the 5200 controllers. Maybe I'm reading into the OP's post too much but there's an awful lot of those popping up lately. Seems like it's a weak debate.

 

No shot at specifically Atari 5200 controllers. You know very well I'm an Atari 5200 user and have been for a long time-- even built the digital joystick adapter for it. Just getting to the facts; not emotionally involved like some posters have become. You can do digital on Missile Command and Centipede. You can't look at it after the fact-- oh this game supports analog so it depends on the game. Analog introduces uncertainty which could have been avoided in most cases. Uncertainty means less control.

 

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but Centipede and Missile Command were not made analog after the fact. they were made digital, then converted for the likes of the 2600, etc to digital, then back to analog on the 5200, which is what those games were meant to be.

 

They had to be made analog given the 5200 joystick ports. You can't say they were meant for analog since they work perfectly fine with digital controls. What I meant by "after the fact" is the title was originally analog and you assume it REQUIRES an analog joystick. But that's not true as that just happens to be the way it was implemented. Even Pole Position works fine with digital joystick.

 

It works fine with a digital joystick, but the debate is what provides better correct? If we went simply by what "works fine" your entire point is, well...pointless. "Works fine" does not = "better"

And all but a few games on the 5200 "work fine" with the analog control. PacMan, Miner 2049er, Kangaroo...they all work just as "fine" with analog as Centipede and Missile Command work "fine" with digital.

[Divya16]

With a digital joystick there's always a chance that you accidentally press an angle instead of a true direction, given that our hands aren't designed to move in a perfect circle. It's just too difficult to know exactly where in that circle you are applying pressure, and there's no feedback, so it's too imprecise.

 

That's why the one-button controller is superior to the digital joystick. It's a scientific fact!

 

Nice joke, but most games just do well with directions and one or two buttons. You have a bad joystick if you if you can't even discern 45 degree increments (or arthritis). There's always feedback but if you can do without feedback that makes that controller superior. I always have to rely on feedback when playing Miner, Pac-man, etc. on Atari 5200 or PC but not on Atari 800. Try some of those levels in Miner with an analog joystick. You always make more mistakes (forced mistakes) on systems with analog joysticks. Even most analog joysticks are used just for directions and fire. The only reason the PCs and some clone-type machines (maybe even Coco) went with analog is because it was a 2 cent circuit to have the software manually sample in data at cost of huge CPU time. Most manufacturers used digital joystick for >99% of games like Vic-20, C64, Atari 800, Atari 2600, Amstrad, Odyssey, Coleco, etc. It was a better gaming interface. PCs weren't that much into gaming market so they didn't bother enhancing their joystick to digital types but stuck with the stinky analog one.

[Divya16]

Classic Atariski argument here where "Better" presented without a qualifier, which is necessary for a rational conclusion, by the way, as it stands right now, no conclusion can be made as the argument is incomplete.

 

If I had to choose one controller, it deffo would be auto-centring, spring loaded, analog stick, with free movement option and two buttons.

 

For FPS, Keyboard Mouse hands down.

 

I would enjoy this discussion much more, if we had a series of qualifiers. Which controller preference for a particular game dynamic is "better", probably would be a worthy read, just sayin'

 

I don't see any missing qualifiers. It's a complete sentence and argument. I do see some gaping holes in your logic (or lack of it).

 

Your logic: That rock is blue. Therefore, all rocks are blue.

 

You are not even showing your case is true (the rock is blue) and claiming it's a "Classic atariski argument". Perhaps, you should have spoken out when those other arguments weren't to your liking and refuted them then. Maybe the machine you like happens to have an inferior analog interface. I suggest English Composition as a start to learn about qualifiers. Digital joysticks provide better control is true blue in my experience.

 

Hey, maybe you're just having an emotional fit so I'll stop here.

[JamesD]

The original poster has clearly made up their mind and will argue against any other opinion so it's pointless to even answer.

[RevEng]

Nice joke, but most games just do well with directions and one or two buttons. You have a bad joystick if you if you can't even discern 45 degree increments (or arthritis).

The irony here being that I have no trouble with fractional movement with an analog joystick.

 

Seems like people who can't master analog controls are projecting their own inadequacies as scientific fact.

[atariksi]

Nice joke, but most games just do well with directions and one or two buttons. You have a bad joystick if you if you can't even discern 45 degree increments (or arthritis).

The irony here being that I have no trouble with fractional movement with an analog joystick.

 

Seems like people who can't master analog controls are projecting their own inadequacies as scientific fact.

 

No, you can't discern analog states either-- there's problems inherently with the values you read. And as far as being able to move exact levels on your joystick-- you are transferring that difficulty over to yourself rather than having a simpler controller. Just like some people adjust for the joystick issues by making adjustments. And as far as having sticks with just buttons, they also exist:

 

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 170554871819

 

And whatever problems *you* have with a digital joystick ALSO exist on analog so the statement (and scientific fact) that Digital joysticks provide better control remains the same. And as for your "joke", it's complete nonsense. If you understand the post prior to yours, you wouldn't have commented. It's like saying, let's switch to analog since our digital transmission can't handle the bandwidth. No, you just use more digital lines. Maybe it's your inadequacies of understanding.

[JamesD]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

[atariksi]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

 

Read the thread (and the title). It's not about what controllers are used by what systems but which provide better control (for humans).

[RevEng]

No, you can't discern analog states either -- there's problems inherently with the values you read.

This is the hilarious part. You seem to think that one needs to be to hit a precise angle for analog controllers to more useful than digital controllers in certain kinds of games.

 

If only there was some kind of feedback mechanism that would show if you were pushing far enough... like maybe if your character would move slower when you pressed less, or your plane would rise slower than full speed.

 

Ah well, too bad there's no such feedback mechanism.

 

So where's the peer reviewed study to support your scientific fact? Which scientists have posited your assertion?

 

Like many others have said. Use the right tool for the right job. Certain games work better for digital controls, and others work better with analog sticks.

Edited October 26, 2010 by RevEng

[BigO]

Is the basic argument in favor of digital joysticks that the state of the controller itself can be better determined by the user because there are only two states (per direction) and that the controller encounters a physical stop when the active state is reached? While I do agree that the absolute state of the controller is much more evident, that argument wouldn't be entirely true. Based on some research I did when building a digital controller, I found that there is a specification (even on rubber dome switches common in gaming joysticks) that indicates how far the user can move the switch beyond the point where electrical contact is made. In other words, the game could respond to the active condition well before the user hits the physical limit on the switch. This physical phenomenon occurs with microswitches, leaf switches and I'd guess most types of mechanical "digital" push button. So, there's not technically a complete correlation between physical stop and electrical contact in a lot of digital controllers.

 

There is a widely available joystick device in which electrical contact is practically synchronous with the physical limit of the switch mechanism. The construction of the Tac-2 affords such a feedback system as I think the OP is referring to. I don't personally care for that feel and would sell you my Tac-2 sticks if you wanted to buy them and I could locate them.

 

Our human joints aren't entirely compatible with the short-throw, hard-stop sort of physical man-machine interface. Typing on a membrane keyboard for more than a second or two would convince most people of that. I haven't done any formal study of ergonomics, but I want to think those who have would generally tend to support this position.

 

While the analog control itself is effectively working on a continuum of positions, it is possible for the user to ascertain the state of the device by how the game is responding. Thus, visual feedback gives the necessary information instead of strictly tactile feedback. I suppose it would have to take the human brain longer to process "is it moving as fast/far as I want" vs. "is it moving", but it seems to work well enough in many situations. There is also the sense of proprioception which allows us to know how far we've moved the input device. There's also in many cases a (slightly progressive) spring in the joystick which provides some additional tactile feedback regarding position.

 

In our analog world, there are many devices that I would not feel as comfortable controlling with a digital joystick. In the case of a piece of computer controlled construction equipment, all or nothing speed when swinging the boom would be pretty scary, not to mention hard on the mechanical systems. An advantage of analog sticks is that you can control the speed at which something happens and you can vary that speed according to conditions at hand. While the computer could handle the "startup ramp" to keep from tearing the machine apart by its own power, I might want to swing the boom slowly throughout its range. Since it's the same humans running the equipment and the games, I think the paradigm applies to video game control.

 

I really, really wouldn't want to drive my car with an all or nothing throttle, steering or brake control. (The analog/digital division gets fuzzy because a true digital encoder or similar device would likely be used to approximate analog control.) I feel the same way about digital controls in a driving game. I've never been in need of one, but I imagine an electric wheelchair is controlled by an analog joystick for similar reasons.

 

The position of an analog joystick can be used by the software to control the rate at which something happens or the physical position can determine the ultimate position to which the controlled object will move. Properly programmed, the rate of change of the input device could be detected and a single controller can control both where the target object is moved to and how fast it moves there. A digital controller doesn't really offer that level of user input. (A form of this is done with mouse acceleration in Windows, etc. so it obviously can apply to certain types of digital devices excluded from this discussion)

 

Of course, you can build into the software a "ramp" that will allow an object to move progressively more rapidly, but that doesn't feel as intuitive to me. And tapping a digital joystick can provide a measure of fine control. Again, I have a harder time using that method.

 

Digital joysticks are simpler to implement, routinely made more compact and must be considerably cheaper to implement than an analog joystick. Those factors alone would tend to favor their use in video games (really, anywhere that they are practical). They've obviously been successfully deployed very widely. From this perspective, I would like digital joysticks better if I were a game manufacturer.

 

Clearly, move-at-a-fixed-rate-in-limited-number-of-directions control methodology is far better served by a digital joystick. Games like Pac-man that only support movement in very narrow, discrete directions and don't require variable speed are ideal candidates for a digital joystick. I agree with those who say that the design of the game dictates which control methodology works best.

 

All in all, if I were pressed to choose one technology over the other, I'd have to go with analog due to its flexibility. I can apply some mechanical stops to an analog joystick and set the software to trigger "all or nothing" at some point in the travel to act like an analog stick. I can imagine a possible way to implement an analog simulation with a conductive rubber dot type of digital joystick (assuming conductivity increases when more pressure is applied), but it'd be tricky if it even worked and would be somewhat limited.

 

 

 

NB: I am well aware that I haven't cited a single source of scientific evidence for any of this. I might be willing to read any scientific evidence presented to refute any of my opinions. However, the question in the poll does start with "Do you prefer..." so I choose to focus on preference and my reasons for said preference.

 

(BTW - did I miss the citation of scientific fact upon which the thread purports to be based? It's a long thread and I tend to miss things a lot.)

Edited October 26, 2010 by BigO

[+Stephen]

I just thought of another (non video-game related) example of where analog control is a necessity. If you've ever done any TIG-welding, you will understand completely why full on vs full off is NOT desirable behaviour. Due to the analog foot control, I can use the same setup to weld metal much thinner than 1/16" to over 1/2" thick. Not possible if I just stomped the pedal all the way to the floor.

 

Now apply that same logic to driving a car, flying a plane, etc. When I take off from a traffic light, it isn't always foot to the floor. Same as when I stop. Why should using a videogame controller be any different?

[JamesD]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

 

Read the thread (and the title). It's not about what controllers are used by what systems but which provide better control (for humans).

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

[BigO]

I just thought of another (non video-game related) example of where analog control is a necessity. If you've ever done any TIG-welding, you will understand completely why full on vs full off is NOT desirable behaviour. Due to the analog foot control, I can use the same setup to weld metal much thinner than 1/16" to over 1/2" thick. Not possible if I just stomped the pedal all the way to the floor.

Definitely a good example showing that we humans aren't limited to "digital" tactile feedback. In this case, our eyes/brains provide rapid feedback to tell the foot to back off or advance the pedal to adjust the power. The absolute position of the pedal is almost meaningless.

 

A lot of the discussion about "analog" controls here fit pretty nicely into the theories of "fuzzy logic" control. Of particular interest would be how fuzzy control mimics how the physical world operates in a continuum and how we humans interact with such a world. Yes, analog is approximate, but we're quite well suited to operate that way.

 

 

[atariksi]

I just thought of another (non video-game related) example of where analog control is a necessity. If you've ever done any TIG-welding, you will understand completely why full on vs full off is NOT desirable behaviour. Due to the analog foot control, I can use the same setup to weld metal much thinner than 1/16" to over 1/2" thick. Not possible if I just stomped the pedal all the way to the floor.

 

Now apply that same logic to driving a car, flying a plane, etc. When I take off from a traffic light, it isn't always foot to the floor. Same as when I stop. Why should using a videogame controller be any different?

 

Nobody is denying there's analogicity in world use. I can site examples of digital like phones, pianos, keyboards, etc. and someone can site examples of steering wheels or gas pedals. But just because they are out there doesn't make them requirements or better. For example, phones are better digital than in analog rotary mode. They even have digital dashboards in some cars now instead of the analog needles. And as I said before, having a big steering wheel and an analog joystick in your hand are not equivalent analog devices either. And what makes you think that all those analog devices are BETTER at control than making digital equivalents on the computer (although they are a minor part of the games). Pole Position works great without having an analog gas pedal. If you are talking about simulating real-world existing events in analog state, then you have a lot more complexity to carry in your joystick which most games will not use. There's a whole slew of buttons missing in flight simulator. Let's add those in to the joystick as well. It's better to leave those simulation type games to specialized controllers. How would the normal games like pac-man, donkey kong, Montezuma's revenge, etc. benefit from making the joystick like a gas pedal or steering wheel? They just make those games have worse play. So you would rather have games like flight simulator be complex to play with a digital joystick and have easy play on all of the others. Rather than have the complexity/uncertainty/vagueness be present in every game. Think about it.

[atariksi]

I just thought of another (non video-game related) example of where analog control is a necessity. If you've ever done any TIG-welding, you will understand completely why full on vs full off is NOT desirable behaviour. Due to the analog foot control, I can use the same setup to weld metal much thinner than 1/16" to over 1/2" thick. Not possible if I just stomped the pedal all the way to the floor.

Definitely a good example showing that we humans aren't limited to "digital" tactile feedback. In this case, our eyes/brains provide rapid feedback to tell the foot to back off or advance the pedal to adjust the power. The absolute position of the pedal is almost meaningless.

 

A lot of the discussion about "analog" controls here fit pretty nicely into the theories of "fuzzy logic" control. Of particular interest would be how fuzzy control mimics how the physical world operates in a continuum and how we humans interact with such a world. Yes, analog is approximate, but we're quite well suited to operate that way.

 

Humans also like simplicity. And it's definitely an advantage to not have to rely on feedback to adjust your joystick during gameplay for majority of the games. Hey, if I jump of the edge in Montezuma's Revenge to a vine, I don't have any option for waiting for feedback nor too many pixels to work with in doing the jump. I need instant response which analog joystick usually screws up. Humans can also work fine with exact states as in a digital joystick so why take the inferior analog approach which is approximate if the digital approach is available.

[atariksi]

No, you can't discern analog states either -- there's problems inherently with the values you read.

This is the hilarious part. You seem to think that one needs to be to hit a precise angle for analog controllers to more useful than digital controllers in certain kinds of games.

You were claiming inadequacy on the user as if you knew your analog joystick states. Even going partially on your analog joystick there's uncertainty as analog joysticks vary in range (as stated before) and what will you gain maybe estimate 1/3 or 1/2 pressed instead of full and introduce the complexity for the rest of the games.

 

If only there was some kind of feedback mechanism that would show if you were pushing far enough... like maybe if your character would move slower when you pressed less, or your plane would rise slower than full speed.

 

Ah well, too bad there's no such feedback mechanism.

As already answered a few times, don't take one example and generalize to all games. You can't rely on feedback for many games to adjust your joystick. If I kept quoting your example like someone else keeps doing, I would end up with a joystick that looks like a flight cockpit.

 

So where's the peer reviewed study to support your scientific fact? Which scientists have posited your assertion?

 

Like many others have said. Use the right tool for the right job. Certain games work better for digital controls, and others work better with analog sticks.

 

If you can't follow the logic or repeat the experiment yourself, just go study the manufacturers notes that employed digital joysticks when the PCs were all analog.

 

Since you at least admit digital controls are better for some games, perhaps you want to consider what makes them better. The more control you have and the less uncertainty, the better for the human's interface to the computer.

 

I would rather have terrible play (50% control) at Flight Simulator and have 100% control on the other games than have inferior (say 70% control) on all the games and make the joystick complicated.

[ApolloBoy]

Humans can also work fine with exact states as in a digital joystick so why take the inferior analog approach which is approximate if the digital approach is available.

Are you suggesting you're not human?

[atariksi]

Humans can also work fine with exact states as in a digital joystick so why take the inferior analog approach which is approximate if the digital approach is available.

Are you suggesting you're not human?

 

Last I looked in the mirror, I haven't switched to the Incredible Hulk yet.

 

P.S.: I am not sure what species the Incredible Hulk falls into.

[RevEng]

You were claiming inadequacy on the user as if you knew your analog joystick states. Even going partially on your analog joystick there's uncertainty as analog joysticks vary in range (as stated before) and what will you gain maybe estimate 1/3 or 1/2 pressed instead of full and introduce the complexity for the rest of the games.

No, I claim that you don't need to know the exact state to play certain games better with an analog stick. There really isn't a hindrance not to know that the stickis pressed up 73%. I just need to know I pressed it up a little more than a second ago.

 

As already answered a few times, don't take one example and generalize to all games. You can't rely on feedback for many games to adjust your joystick. If I kept quoting your example like someone else keeps doing, I would end up with a joystick that looks like a flight cockpit.

The analog joystick doesn't need to perfectly replace the flight controls. It just has to do a better job than a digital joystick, which it does.

 

Since you at least admit digital controls are better for some games, perhaps you want to consider what makes them better. The more control you have and the less uncertainty, the better for the human's interface to the computer.

The difference is, the games that work better with digital controls are the ones that are designed (surprise) to move the player at a constant rate.

 

When the gameplay requires more subtle control variation, analog is better.

 

I would rather have terrible play (50% control) at Flight Simulator and have 100% control on the other games than have inferior (say 70% control) on all the games and make the joystick complicated.

You seem to live in a weird world where you have a choice of only 1 controller.

 

The controller that is superior is the one that matches the game you are playing. I pick the controller to match the game style. It provides 100% control 100% of the time.