Jump to content

Photo

Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks


1719 replies to this topic

Poll: Digital Joysticks vs. Analog Joysticks (73 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you prefer Digital Joystick or Analog

  1. I prefer Atari 2600 style Digital Joysticks (38 votes [52.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 52.05%

  2. I prefer Analog Joysticks (Wico/A5200/Gravis PC/etc.) (31 votes [42.47%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.47%

  3. I prefer arrow keys and CTRL key (4 votes [5.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.48%

Vote

#526 Divya16 OFFLINE  

Divya16

    Dragonstomper

  • 992 posts

Posted Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:10 AM

...its the inferiority complex I'm pointing to in that entry, and I'm not trying to be unkind or glib. Its just the only explanation that makes sense to me at this point.

I'm done with the game. I had fun with everyone examining the broken logic and the desperate attempts at patchwork, but now it's getting a bit creepy.


Didn't think you would sink that low. First you used illogical statements to try to show that analog joysticks are faster at switching and when that got disproven in post #454, you used my analogy to try to switch positions to pressure-based devices and slip pressure under the rug and compare apples and oranges. Then when that didn't work out, you now resort to "call a dog a bad name and hang him" philosophy above. You're the one with the desperate attempts to try to support your fallacious views. So much so that you took my analogy out of context and were shedding tears. If that was so dear to you, perhaps you should have come up with it in the first place and not argued the other joysticks. And there's a world of difference between proving things and just calling things "broken logic" or people names. How about voo-doo? Maybe he or you used voo-doo to cast spells on people. Yeah, I'm not being unkind by doing that-- just ignoring the facts and giving them a blind eye and making unfounded declarations (blind following the blind). Voo-doo would be a lot more creepier don't you think. And I'm being unbiased by saying you or he could be doing it.

Maybe it's time to reverse engines and see things from a more rational perspective since joysticks and stones will break my bones... If it's broken logic, show it or prove it to be. Even a 7-year old child can be taught to call things names.

Back to the topic, still catching up reading since last visit but guitars and similar instruments are more accurate than paddles. You can distinguish a lot more states on a paddle and then you add in the ability to instantly go to certain positions without having to go through the intermediary stages. And we all know paddles are more accurate than analog joysticks.

#527 potatohead OFFLINE  

potatohead

    River Patroller

  • 4,173 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:28 PM

Voodoo? Spells?

Laters. I'm outta here.

#528 poobah OFFLINE  

poobah

    Stargunner

  • 1,528 posts
  • Location:Beavercreek, Ohio

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:11 AM

PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...

#529 atariksi OFFLINE  

atariksi

    Quadrunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 5,337 posts

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:44 PM


PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...


Gameport can be sampled at 10 microseconds/Kohm. For a 100K POT, that's 100*10 microseconds = 1 millisecond to sample the directions. Atari is actually 2 scanlines in fast pot scan mode or 7.8Khz and considered to be inaccurate compared to a frame-based scan. Both are slower than a LDA 54016 and susceptible to more error as user moves around than an instant read.

#530 poobah OFFLINE  

poobah

    Stargunner

  • 1,528 posts
  • Location:Beavercreek, Ohio

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:46 PM



PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...


Gameport can be sampled at 10 microseconds/Kohm. For a 100K POT, that's 100*10 microseconds = 1 millisecond to sample the directions. Atari is actually 2 scanlines in fast pot scan mode or 7.8Khz and considered to be inaccurate compared to a frame-based scan. Both are slower than a LDA 54016 and susceptible to more error as user moves around than an instant read.

What does Atari have to do with PC gameports? (answer is "nothing"),

You're making some serious assumptions about what hardware is connected to 201h.
The point was that not all gameports are 558 based, in which case, they could be faster than 15.7 kHz

Almost didn't bother posting, because you'll either deny it, or add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right.

#531 kool kitty89 OFFLINE  

kool kitty89

    River Patroller

  • 2,394 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:29 PM

Yes, that is odd.

Perhaps it was seen as counter productive then. The state of controller acumen was not anywhere near where it is today. Maybe it was that, and the life of the machine and the state of change going on at the time that just left that niche unexploited.

I'm still thinking some VCS analog action needs to happen. With all the nice improvements in overall code efficiency we know now, plus hardware like the Harmony, maybe it's time for that?

The only real bummer is having to either get somebody to tool up with modded controllers, or roll your own to play.

Beyond that, it would be good to see, IMHO.

It would have at least made sense as an optional controller, especially before they could get a proper analog stick out as the engineers apparently had intended in the first place (ie a nice self centering compact pot module as with the 1983/1984 prototype revised controllers rather than the hacked paddle pot configuration used in the original controllers -especially with the flimsy boots used on early models). However that wouldn't solve the actual reliability problems with fire buttons and keys wearing out too quickly (be it contacts wearing out or actual broken traces in the flex circuits -usually the former), plus the buttons themselves were configured less the optimally. (the 7800 did that right compared to the poorly placed Intellivision, ColecoVision, and fairly poorly placed 5200 controllers, but the 7800 got the joystick wrong instead -had they used the 5200 form factor with a nice 4-switch stick and stiff boot with similarly sized and placed 7800 buttons it would have been nearly perfect prior to a gamepad being introduced -2 buttons is still too few for some things though and if they hadn't used that odd mechanism for the 7800, 3 fire buttons could easily have been employed using both pot lines -or given the total lack of paddle use on the 7800, they could have had it set up as plain digital inputs swapped onto the analog pins when in 7800 mode using the extra RIOT lines for buttons)

And yes, I agree the Atari 8-bit and VCS merited analog joysticks as standard peripherals offered by Atari. Not a ton of games that would have benefitted but a few (if programmed properly) and it would have been an interesting option for developers. (like some games already did, they could have had optional use of standard joysticks, trackball, or paddles for that matter, not to mention the possibility of added buttons when using the analog lines for the joystick -ie 5 digital I/O lines left over; among other things it could have meant a proper 3 button version of Missile command -which I believe the did later release using keys on the A8)


Anyway, there's also the context that Atari supposedly dropped PIA as a cost cutting measure and that being a significant reason for switching to analog joysticks, but if that was the primary factor they easily could have kept simple 9-state controls using analog switches rather than digital (resistors and bare contacts rather than pots) and you'd have those same exact (ie limited) states for the user's end.
Or they could even have added a bit of internal circuitry to handle the digital to analog conversion for standard VCS type sticks. (though that sort of defeats the purpose of removing PIA... but so does switching to analog joystick with the mode complex internals and keypad -granted with some corner cutting there as well, but that led to reliability problems later on and a plain digital joystick would have had plenty of areas for corner cutting too, not to mention the 5200's overall design hardly screams low-cost... it seems like a mess of cut corners and other areas where cost could have been better optimized and yet they didn't bother: the massive case, the oversized cartridges, the expansion port, 4 joystick ports when the 1200XL was dropping to 2 and barely any A8 games had supported more than 2 player simultaneous using joysticks, etc, etc)

In any case all analog controls disappeared from the home console game industry (and most home computers other than PC) from the mid 1980s onward and analog triggers and thunmbsticks/joysticks/wheels (flight stick on the Saturn, 3DO, and PSX, Wheel on the Saturn and PSX and I think 3DO as well) didn't become popular on consoles until the mid 90s (joysticks and wheels appearing ~1993-1995 while thumbsticks didn't become common until 1996 with the Saturn 3D controller, N64, and PSX Dual Analog/Dual Shock) which makes sense given the rise of 3D genres. (and some games forced to the PSX or Saturn gamepads really were asking for the precision of analog control, granted some already supported the driving or flight stick -actually I think the 3D controller, flight stick, and wheel on the Saturn could be used fairly interchangeably with the exception of the wheel's lack of a y axis and 3D controllers added triggers: also interesting is that the Saturn 3D pad uses magnetic position sensing rather than resistance based analog -and Nintendo used mouse-like mechano-optical control on the N64 while some 3rd parties used potentiometers -all encoded to serial I/O except the Saturn which used 7-bit parallel or serial depending on the case)

#532 potatohead OFFLINE  

potatohead

    River Patroller

  • 4,173 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:19 PM

Oh, I just can't resist this. Forgot it earlier.

So, the instant read is the holy grail, right? Subject to the least error, and the max control, right?

How come the Atari computers included provisions for latching those supposedly perfect digital inputs then? Could it be error in sampling, LOL??

Edit: And you gotta love super fast sampling, that could miss the input, so more sampling is needed to make double darn sure, then all that precision and effort gets rounded down to the nearest frame!

@kool_kitty: It would have for sure. One notable thing about the VCS was controllers. A analog device would have made sense because a lot of games were movement ones, with rather simple game worlds, and basic physics. In this space, analog can add a lot of "feel" and challenge to what is a ordinary contest with linear, or hold for speed type input schemes.

Missed opportunity, in both cases, IMHO.

Edited by potatohead, Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:34 PM.


#533 atariksi OFFLINE  

atariksi

    Quadrunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 5,337 posts

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:28 PM




PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...


Gameport can be sampled at 10 microseconds/Kohm. For a 100K POT, that's 100*10 microseconds = 1 millisecond to sample the directions. Atari is actually 2 scanlines in fast pot scan mode or 7.8Khz and considered to be inaccurate compared to a frame-based scan. Both are slower than a LDA 54016 and susceptible to more error as user moves around than an instant read.

What does Atari have to do with PC gameports? (answer is "nothing"),

You're making some serious assumptions about what hardware is connected to 201h.
The point was that not all gameports are 558 based, in which case, they could be faster than 15.7 kHz

Almost didn't bother posting, because you'll either deny it, or add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right.


I never said Atari is related with PC gameports. I was talking about the rate of the two different implementations of analog joysticks in post #523.

I am going by the standard gameport spec for programming. I never said gameports had to be 558 based. There are exceptions including the one I showed a picture of using just the digital lines (the 4 buttons) and a pull-up resistor on one of the POT lines. When we speak of PC gameport, we are referring to the 15-pin connector and it's standard analog joysticks interfaced to it as per spec. Any custom configuration would have to be explicitly stated otherwise and wouldn't be your general case.

Here's my original words from post #523:

>>And as to updating more than once per frame, you can even do that with POKEY's pots anyway with the fast pot scan >>mode. (I think it's 15.7 kHz, so once per scanline/hblank period rather than once per frame/vblank)

>I never argued frame rates, but once you can remove the regions of uncertainty, you will see that sampling with one LDA 54016 or similar is MUCH BETTER than taking 1 ms or a frame to sample in a data. You can really screw up samples waiting around for an entire frame. PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz. Atari 5200 can but adds overhead to the software so nobody does it and it still would be more subject to error than LDA 54016. One good thing is that Atari/Commodore/Sega/etc. stuck with digital joysticks and Atari 5200 seemed like some experiment with analog joysticks as they went back to digital (I guess they learned from their mistakes). And analog interface produces errors as well. Just try digitizing a still frame many times and see how many times you get the same data.

It's not my main point but digital joysticks do win in sampling rate as well. Even flash-based ADCs don't produce exact values in video digitizing the same frame so what to speak of the slower gameports.

#534 potatohead OFFLINE  

potatohead

    River Patroller

  • 4,173 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:35 PM

Refuted, because none of that shit matters, when the states get parsed in code, and the action gets rounded to a frame.

#535 ledzep OFFLINE  

ledzep

    Dragonstomper

  • 604 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:54 AM



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.

You only expose your ignorance by claiming ZERO control. I don't remember much of my calculus, but I can understand the logic that if you employ more and more states in your game/application, the less control you have over those states if using an analog joystick. This also applies to trackpoint (in case RevEng is throwing out throw).


You can't read (or worse, don't understand). I never claimed ZERO control, you did. You said that analog devices with infinite levels of control actually have ZERO control. The flight yoke is an analog control device. Figure it out.

Not only do you not remember much of your calculus, you also don't remember which persona you're supposed to be using. I was answering points written by aprioriksi, not you. Look in the mirror, if you're wearing makeup and a dress then you're Didntknow16, not aprioriksi. Ask your therapist to hypnotize you and get aprioiksi out here, I want to hear his excuses and his clumsy arguments, not yours.


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.

Go back and read your own definition of scientific fact that you cited and you will notice that the truth is not final. So it's better to prove logically/mathematically since then the truth will be final. As far as data goes, it does confirm digital joystick provide better control. When Newton was trying prove F=ma, there was no rule that he has to perform at least 1,743 thousand experiments. So what if you get data for 10 experiments or 100. The principle behind is true for all games that employ digital and analog joysticks.


Wrong again (another fault). Once aprioriksi stated that it was a scientific fact it was on him to prove that it was considered a scientific fact. That simply means that he has to show that the observation has been confirmed repeatedly (he has not) and that it is accepted as true (he has not). He made the claim, now he has to back it up. He won't because he can't.

If Newton had been stupid enough to claim that he had run experiments proving that F=ma and had generated data from those experiments and then started making excuses as for why he wasn't going to present the data and the parameters of his experiments then he would have been laughed out of the scientific community. Since he didn't do anything so stupid as that there was no issue. But aprioriksi (and you) have been that stupid.


...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 got both experimental data and logic/mathematics. You understood neither. You never even opened those files as far as I know. You never even understood the ZERO control as you have proven above.


It's simple logic: How do you expect me to understand something that isn't true? It is a false statement to say that analog controls that provide infinite levels of control actually provide ZERO control. Thus, not only do I not understand that obvious false belief of yours, I don't have to, either.


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.

No you can't refute the vague statement but have to ask for clarification before you refute it. Regardless, you refuted it with something other than what you wrote above. And your point was vague and now you conveniently want to add useless to it. It was vague ONLY to you. It was clear to me. I am reading samething you read. You purposely try to find fault by misreading, mocking, and misinterpreting whereas I read with an unbiased mind.

Try refuting this:

Digital joysticks surpassed analog joysticks.


Point me to an authoritative source that confirms that fantasy of yours. If you can't, it's refuted. I would ask for experimental data from you be we all know you don't have any so your only move is citing someone who has experimental data. Hint: that ain't aprioriksi.

Saying that digital joysticks surpassed (past tense) analog joysticks means that you are stating that it is a known fact and that it already happened. Great, cite the authoritative source (not your worthless personal opinion on the matter) that supports that claim.


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.

You definitely are emotional. More of a fanboy of analog joysticks regardless of their obvious flaws of inexactness, uncertainty, and slower switch times. You would refute F=ma if Newton handed you the data if you were born thinking and following BLINDLY that F=m*pi*a/v(t).


You're so emotional you can't even keep your split personalities straight so I would refrain from claiming that others are emotional until you manage to lock down who you want to be when you're responding to forum posts.

You know Einstein may have said:

"How about you stop making excuses and release the data you claim to have generated from the experiments you claim to have conducted?"


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.

Let the world decide this for you as you are GROSSLY mistaken. A digital joystick is essentially switches much like a keyboard. In fact modern digital controllers with only buttons are not called keyboards. Only the lever helps with the force/diagonals which doesn't affect the resultant signals if you are used to using both. I am.


Let the world explain to you that "is essentially switches much like a keyboard" is not the equal of "is identical to". I know that a digital joystick is essentially switches much like a keyboard, that's why I said arrow keys cannot "perfectly simulate" a real digital joystick as your confused male personality claimed. Only the lever prevents the joystick from outputting signals such as left and right simultaneously or all directions at once as can be easily accomplished by arrow keys. Another fault.


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 the one making excuses here because you didn't want to admit that you contradicted yourself. If you already know the data is worthless then just say that for the data presented and don't ask for anymore. That way the entire body of people following this thread know that you aren't a duplicitous two-timer.


I know that incomplete data is worthless. So long as you/he/they release only snippets of the supposed data it proves nothing. So long as you/he/they make excuses as to why you won't release all the data along with the parameters of the experiments everyone knows that it is all fiction. Nothing less than presenting all the data will suffice. So release it already.

What are you afraid of?


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 are really not understanding nor trying. The poll and experiment can be WHATEVER you want it to be. If I experiment with trackball and a paddle, I have no requirement to include other controllers. You need some help with how experiments work. Hardly any games exist that will allow you to use paddles, digital joystick, analog joystick, and keyboard. There's a major overlap on the 3 items in the poll. How you can't understand that it beyond me. You need some help. The only reason you want to bring paddles into it is because YOU LOST. You need help of paddles since they offer better accuracy and precision than your flawed analog controllers. Live with it. It's the truth. You were mislead.


It is you who is not understanding nor trying. Once aprioriksi includes arrow keys in the poll he allows the discussion about digital joysticks and analog joysticks to widen to include "same as" controls. Arrow keys are the "same as" digital joysticks? Then paddles are the "same as" analog joysticks. You need some help with how experiments work so that when you actually conduct your first ever experiment in your whole life that you don't completely screw it up.

Haven't you or our other personality ever been in a chemistry lab class or an astronomy lab class? Don't you know how to lay out the parameters of an experiment (what you will test, how you will test it and measure the results, how many example runs you will try, what you will test against, etc.) and how to gather data? You do? Then prove it. Release the parameters of your imaginary experiments along with all the data.

You don't know how to perform an experiment is YOUR fault. And it's not "another" regardless since you already repeated it a few times already. You are again GROSSLY mistaken here. I can experiment with just arrow keys and analog joystick if I wanted to. Who is to say no?


See that? I was talking to aprioriksi and you think I was talking to you, haahahaa. Who cares what you can and can't experiment with? It doesn't matter until you claim you have run experiments with arrow keys and analog joysticks and whatever else. Then you have to prove it. How do you prove that you ran experiments? With faulty logic? No. With anecdotal tales of how you played a bunch of games and scored better with digital joysticks? No. With backhanded insults designed to change the subject away from demands for proof? No. You have to present the parameters of your experiments along with all the data that those experiments generated. And be a good little Jr. Scientist and organize the data in a readable form so that people don't just stare at a bunch of raw numbers. That's what real scientists do so if you want to play Scientist it's not enough to have the lab coat and the beakers and the computer, you have to actually run real, controlled experiments that follow the scientific method.

You also don't know logic. If you give an answer taking all possibilities into account, it means YOU DO KNOW. Duh. The answer is generic not only for you analog joystick but for all. Take this example:

If it's morning, take the kids to school (private or public).
If it's evening, take the kids to park.
If it's afternoon, take the kids out from school.
If it's night, put the kids to bed.

Oh, no, I used the word "if" that means I don't know anything about my kids.


What does that have to do with aprioriksi (that's you, not you) not knowing how the ultrastik functions and just coming up with guesses in order to try to excuse the fact that this wonderful joystick destroys his pet theory?

Do your kids know if you are currently aprioriksi or Didntknow16? Because that isn't cool to subject kids to, man (woman).


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.

First make up your mind and stop with the double standards.

You are not fooling anyone repeating your mistaken views. Analog joysticks are flawed. Nobody would be going digital if analog was providing superior control. Only reason they still use some analog controllers is because digital equivalents have never been built.


First make up your mind and figure out whether you want to be aprioriksi or Didntknow16 and stop with the double personalities.

You are not fooling anyone repeating your weak excuses for not releasing the parameters of your experiments along with all the data. Digital joysticks provide less control.

As for you latest erroneous, unsupported statement, can you prove that?

"Only reason they still use some analog controllers is because digital equivalents have never been built."

There are digital versions of DJ turntables that allow DJs to mix MP3s, yet many of them prefer using vinyl records. There are digital versions of guitar amps that allow guitar players to mimic most analog guitar amps, yet many of them prefer using the tube originals. I can't wait for you to cite the authoritative source that backs up this latest, flawed claim of yours.

#536 ledzep OFFLINE  

ledzep

    Dragonstomper

  • 604 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:17 AM


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?

You know what sounds familiar is that you aren't accepting even the data that has been presented. I wouldn't want to present any data to you given your biased emotional duplicitous behavior. If you think data is worthless, prove it for the data given and you don't need to ask for any more. You will have a harder job proving data is worthless if you had megabytes of it. He made your job easier.


You know what sounds familiar is you giving another excuse for not presenting your supposed data. You wouldn't want to present any data to anybody because you don't have any of it. You have lied about conducting experiments and you have lied about having data from those experiments. It is obvious to everybody. Yet you still act like you've proven something.

I think incomplete data is worthless because it is out of context of the whole experiment. Release it all or admit you don't have what you claim to have and stop with your triplicitous antics.


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.

It's so obvious those pictures are valid data. Let me help you out. For Miner 2049er example, you will have higher failure rate if you keep making those jumps in Miner 2049er with analog joystick when compared with digital joystick. That's data. The exact numbers don't matter if you want to prove digital joystick provides better control than analog joysticks. If the claim was digital joysticks provide 23.7% better control than analog joysticks then you can ask for megabytes of data to come to that figure. But we just want to prove: digital joystick control > analog joystick control.


It's so obvious that those pictures are merely pictures of TV screens with one moment of a video game displayed on them and it is impossible to know if they were taken during your/his/their experiment or simply Photoshopped in from some other source. Let me help you out.


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?

No, by pinpointing the places where there's higher failure rate for analog joysticks, you reduce the data down and make it simpler. So algebra is a prerequisite for calculus would be correct. If you were given the entire megabytes of the data, you wouldn't even know what to look for.


Prove it. Release the megabytes of data and watch me fail to know what to look for. Otherwise it's another empty claim.


Show. Us. The. Data.

You don't see the data. I do.
You don't see the data. I do.
you don't see the data. I do.
You don't see the data. I do.

What a difference experience makes of having played those games compared to someone just blindly speculating his brains out.


Absolutely true, I don't see the data because you haven't released it, thank you for confirming that you're the only one who has access to your data. All you and your other persona do is present excuses and claim you don't have to do the only thing that you are required to do after claiming to have megabytes of data from conducted experiments.

What a difference knowing how science works makes of being able refute split personalities who make false claims of possessing data from imaginary experiments compared to someone just blindly using sciency phrases like "logic" and "a priori".

P.S. Remember to attach the files from you fantasy experiments and their imaginary data this time.

#537 poobah OFFLINE  

poobah

    Stargunner

  • 1,528 posts
  • Location:Beavercreek, Ohio

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:16 AM





PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...


Gameport can be sampled at 10 microseconds/Kohm. For a 100K POT, that's 100*10 microseconds = 1 millisecond to sample the directions. Atari is actually 2 scanlines in fast pot scan mode or 7.8Khz and considered to be inaccurate compared to a frame-based scan. Both are slower than a LDA 54016 and susceptible to more error as user moves around than an instant read.

What does Atari have to do with PC gameports? (answer is "nothing"),

You're making some serious assumptions about what hardware is connected to 201h.
The point was that not all gameports are 558 based, in which case, they could be faster than 15.7 kHz

Almost didn't bother posting, because you'll either deny it, or add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right.


I never said Atari is related with PC gameports. I was talking about the rate of the two different implementations of analog joysticks in post #523.

I am going by the standard gameport spec for programming. I never said gameports had to be 558 based. There are exceptions including the one I showed a picture of using just the digital lines (the 4 buttons) and a pull-up resistor on one of the POT lines. When we speak of PC gameport, we are referring to the 15-pin connector and it's standard analog joysticks interfaced to it as per spec. Any custom configuration would have to be explicitly stated otherwise and wouldn't be your general case.

Here's my original words from post #523:

>>And as to updating more than once per frame, you can even do that with POKEY's pots anyway with the fast pot scan >>mode. (I think it's 15.7 kHz, so once per scanline/hblank period rather than once per frame/vblank)

>I never argued frame rates, but once you can remove the regions of uncertainty, you will see that sampling with one LDA 54016 or similar is MUCH BETTER than taking 1 ms or a frame to sample in a data. You can really screw up samples waiting around for an entire frame. PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz. Atari 5200 can but adds overhead to the software so nobody does it and it still would be more subject to error than LDA 54016. One good thing is that Atari/Commodore/Sega/etc. stuck with digital joysticks and Atari 5200 seemed like some experiment with analog joysticks as they went back to digital (I guess they learned from their mistakes). And analog interface produces errors as well. Just try digitizing a still frame many times and see how many times you get the same data.

It's not my main point but digital joysticks do win in sampling rate as well. Even flash-based ADCs don't produce exact values in video digitizing the same frame so what to speak of the slower gameports.

I see you went with "add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right."

Let us review, you stated: "PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz." That is patently false. I don't care what else you were talking about or why, it is irrelevant.

You made a statement you knew was false in order to try and be right about something else, I called you on it, and now you are scrambling, something we've all seen you do a hundred times in this thread.

How about just ONCE you say something like "You know, you were right, I was wrong. Modern gameports don't have this limitation."

It is called humility, perhaps there's a lesson about it on one of the CDs you sell.

#538 atariksi OFFLINE  

atariksi

    Quadrunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 5,337 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:58 AM






PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz.

If you say so, it must be true... after all, EVERY PC gameport EVER made surely was made with a '558...


Gameport can be sampled at 10 microseconds/Kohm. For a 100K POT, that's 100*10 microseconds = 1 millisecond to sample the directions. Atari is actually 2 scanlines in fast pot scan mode or 7.8Khz and considered to be inaccurate compared to a frame-based scan. Both are slower than a LDA 54016 and susceptible to more error as user moves around than an instant read.

What does Atari have to do with PC gameports? (answer is "nothing"),

You're making some serious assumptions about what hardware is connected to 201h.
The point was that not all gameports are 558 based, in which case, they could be faster than 15.7 kHz

Almost didn't bother posting, because you'll either deny it, or add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right.


I never said Atari is related with PC gameports. I was talking about the rate of the two different implementations of analog joysticks in post #523.

I am going by the standard gameport spec for programming. I never said gameports had to be 558 based. There are exceptions including the one I showed a picture of using just the digital lines (the 4 buttons) and a pull-up resistor on one of the POT lines. When we speak of PC gameport, we are referring to the 15-pin connector and it's standard analog joysticks interfaced to it as per spec. Any custom configuration would have to be explicitly stated otherwise and wouldn't be your general case.

Here's my original words from post #523:

>>And as to updating more than once per frame, you can even do that with POKEY's pots anyway with the fast pot scan >>mode. (I think it's 15.7 kHz, so once per scanline/hblank period rather than once per frame/vblank)

>I never argued frame rates, but once you can remove the regions of uncertainty, you will see that sampling with one LDA 54016 or similar is MUCH BETTER than taking 1 ms or a frame to sample in a data. You can really screw up samples waiting around for an entire frame. PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz. Atari 5200 can but adds overhead to the software so nobody does it and it still would be more subject to error than LDA 54016. One good thing is that Atari/Commodore/Sega/etc. stuck with digital joysticks and Atari 5200 seemed like some experiment with analog joysticks as they went back to digital (I guess they learned from their mistakes). And analog interface produces errors as well. Just try digitizing a still frame many times and see how many times you get the same data.

It's not my main point but digital joysticks do win in sampling rate as well. Even flash-based ADCs don't produce exact values in video digitizing the same frame so what to speak of the slower gameports.

I see you went with "add some conditions that weren't in your original statement in some pathetic attempt to be right."

Let us review, you stated: "PC gameports can't do 15.7Khz." That is patently false. I don't care what else you were talking about or why, it is irrelevant.

If you selectively quote just that statement, it's subject to interpretation. But this thread relies on a context like all text does. You didn't even quote the entire passage. And NO, everything else is MORE relevant. If you read the passage where I stated that, I clearly stated: "I NEVER ARGUED FRAMERATES..." which should make it clear that it's not my main point. Regardless, hooking up a USB-based analog joystick is just your misinterpretation of PC gameport. I don't even call USB a gameport. We have been talking about PC gameports if you studied the context. From post #1, it's clear the analog joysticks are hooked up to an Atari or PC gameport. Even if you hooked up those to USB with some adapter, you would still have the same flawed samples. If I had said, PC joysticks can't do 15.7Khz, that would be false. Oh, the comparison is with LDA 54016 (about 2 microseconds) not with 15.7Khz.

You made a statement you knew was false in order to try and be right about something else, I called you on it, and now you are scrambling, something we've all seen you do a hundred times in this thread.

No scrambling. On the contrary, it's you who are scrambling to try to misinterpret a clear statement which is not even my main point.

How about just ONCE you say something like "You know, you were right, I was wrong. Modern gameports don't have this limitation."

Why don't you just say what interface and joysticks you are talking about rather than imposing an invalid interpretation of PC Gameport?

It is called humility, perhaps there's a lesson about it on one of the CDs you sell.


Yeah, if you had some humility, you would see that my argument is the following:

(1) Analog joysticks have regions of uncertainty (for humans interfacing)
(2) Analog joysticks have slower switch times (for humans interfacing)

There are other minor points that have less to do with the human and more to do with the analog interface-- namely the sampling rate, the stability of each sample itself, detrimental effect of implementing speed on an analog joystick, etc. Everything adds up but the top two reasons are summed up for you above.

#539 atariksi OFFLINE  

atariksi

    Quadrunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 5,337 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:18 AM

You can't read (or worse, don't understand). I never claimed ZERO control, you did.

We both did. And it's mathematically and logically true. If you can't understand, that's your disqualification. Since you can't understand that mathematical truth, you have no reason to be arguing against it. This basically knocks out most of what you wrote in this post.

...If Newton had been stupid enough to claim that he had run experiments proving that F=ma and had generated data from those experiments and then started making excuses as for why he wasn't going to present the data and the parameters of his experiments then he would have been laughed out of the scientific community. Since he didn't do anything so stupid as that there was no issue. But aprioriksi (and you) have been that stupid.


The amount of name-calling you resort to given that you don't even understand the logic/mathematics proves your lack of intellect. Data has been presented but you never looked at it. More is attached in this message. But conclusion can be drawn from data already presented. Now take your duplicitous stand and argue that I won't accept data.

[rubbish speculation/name-calling/false accusations deleted]

What are you afraid of?

Consider it all of the data.

See that? I was talking to aprioriksi and you think I was talking to you, haahahaa. Who cares what you can and can't experiment with?

You are not PMAILING I hope you understand that much. Everyone who reads is free to reply. So go take your crappy illogical emotional fanatacism elsewhere. Anyone who agrees with me or even partially agree with me can reply. I am not replying to just you either. In fact, it's a complete waste of time to reply to you. I reply so that others don't get mislead by your blind illogical statements.

Do your kids know if you are currently aprioriksi or Didntknow16? Because that isn't cool to subject kids to, man (woman).

You are really in need of help if you think using the word "if" means a person doesn't know. How many BASIC programs have you written that use the word IF and take into account all possibilities. That means you do know if you can write such a program. QED.

There are digital versions of DJ turntables that allow DJs to mix MP3s, yet many of them prefer using vinyl records. There are digital versions of guitar amps that allow guitar players to mimic most analog guitar amps, yet many of them prefer using the tube originals. I can't wait for you to cite the authoritative source that backs up this latest, flawed claim of yours.


You forgot the subject. It's which provides more control. Digital always provides more control. You have a flawed blind belief that analog joysticks provide better control. We have a solid factual statement. It makes a difference.

I see you replied twice so I'll post more data in next post.

#540 atariksi OFFLINE  

atariksi

    Quadrunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 5,337 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:31 AM

You know what sounds familiar is you giving another excuse for not presenting your supposed data. You wouldn't want to present any data to anybody because you don't have any of it.

It's in front of your face. And it's megabytes of it. You don't need anymore to draw the conclusion which was also established logically/mathematically. One image is 640*480*24 bits is 900K and I gave you several images where there is high failure rate. That's megabytes of data. I have tons more but it's unnecessary to draw the conclusion.

It's so obvious that those pictures are merely pictures of TV screens with one moment of a video game displayed on them and it is impossible to know if they were taken during your/his/their experiment or simply Photoshopped in from some other source.

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. You can play those games yourself and see those images will occur during those games. The REC files are recordings of the motion.

Absolutely true, I don't see the data because you haven't released it,...All you and your other persona do is present excuses and claim you don't have to do the only thing that you are required to do after claiming to have megabytes of data from conducted experiments.

P.S. Remember to attach the files from you fantasy experiments and their imaginary data this time.

You are caught in a bubble. The files are attached like they were before. They are sufficient to expose the flaws of analog joysticks. The REC files are for all three-- keyboard, digital joystick, and analog joystick. Motion parameters are for the screenshot given.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Donkey.JPG

Attached Files



#541 kool kitty89 OFFLINE  

kool kitty89

    River Patroller

  • 2,394 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:54 PM

Oh, I just can't resist this. Forgot it earlier.

So, the instant read is the holy grail, right? Subject to the least error, and the max control, right?

How come the Atari computers included provisions for latching those supposedly perfect digital inputs then? Could it be error in sampling, LOL??

Plus in the case of the VCS you have most of that time monopolized by the display anyway (maybe a tiny amount in hblank -I don't have a detailed understanding of VCS programming though). However, the higher sampling rates for digital inputs could be rather useful for reading serial I/O or similar with software. (like a mechano-optical mouse/trackball mechanism with pulses per frame determining the rate of movement for 4 directional axes -again, Nintendo actually used that mechanism for their "analog" joystick) But the more often you poll, the more CPU overhead you add and there's a practical limit to sampling anyway. (even for cases where you'd want a pulse set-up like that, 15 kHz would be ok for the most part) I'm not sure how the A8/5200/VCS trackballs work internally and there's several routes they could have taken. (the poorest would be plain directional sampling with 4-switch digital input which would be the same as a joystick and really defeat the purpose of using a trackball, then there's the mechano-opitical pulse based system, and another method would be using analog input either using a set-up to have higher resistance with slower rotation rates or simply a gear/friction driven system to rotate 2 pots with enough give to allow reasonably free rotation when you bottom out at the max range on an axis -so as not to damage the mechanism)


@kool_kitty: It would have for sure. One notable thing about the VCS was controllers. A analog device would have made sense because a lot of games were movement ones, with rather simple game worlds, and basic physics. In this space, analog can add a lot of "feel" and challenge to what is a ordinary contest with linear, or hold for speed type input schemes.

Missed opportunity, in both cases, IMHO.

And more than that there's the missed opportunity of a plain 8-way digital stick adding 1 or 2 more buttons via the analog lines. (for VCS or A8)

#542 Divya16 OFFLINE  

Divya16

    Dragonstomper

  • 992 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:34 PM


No you can't refute the vague statement but have to ask for clarification before you refute it. Regardless, you refuted it with something other than what you wrote above. And your point was vague and now you conveniently want to add useless to it. It was vague ONLY to you. It was clear to me. I am reading samething you read. You purposely try to find fault by misreading, mocking, and misinterpreting whereas I read with an unbiased mind.

Try refuting this:

Digital joysticks surpassed analog joysticks.


Point me to an authoritative source that confirms that fantasy of yours. If you can't, it's refuted.

The statement is vague; you have no idea what area digital joysticks have surpassed analog joysticks. And citing an authoritative source isn't the only way to prove/disprove things. Nor is anything by default refuted. It's in limbo unless someone proves it or disproves it. I may be talking about sales, cost, control, miniaturization, etc. The fact that you claim something as vague after jumping all over it means you are emotionally biased and further evidence of that is that you can't control your name-calling in almost every post you have written in this thread.

Let the world explain to you that "is essentially switches much like a keyboard" is not the equal of "is identical to". I know that a digital joystick is essentially switches much like a keyboard, that's why I said arrow keys cannot "perfectly simulate" a real digital joystick as your confused male personality claimed. Only the lever prevents the joystick from outputting signals such as left and right simultaneously or all directions at once as can be easily accomplished by arrow keys. Another fault.

So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button. Go study what a black box is. You don't know what a simulator is. Nor do you need a simulator to prove the flaws of the analog joysticks. In both cases you are mistaken.

There's no way you are going to draw a conclusion that an analog joystick with its inexactness and inherent flaws is going to allow better control than something that's exact and 100% in giving you the states that you expect.

#543 Cebus Capucinis OFFLINE  

Cebus Capucinis

    Not-so-secretly Trolling

  • 8,013 posts
  • Wiseass Extraordinaire
  • Location:Ellensburg, WA

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 PM

Posted Image

#544 Stephen OFFLINE  

Stephen

    River Patroller

  • 4,593 posts
  • A8 Gear Head
  • Location:Akron, Ohio

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:17 PM

There's no way you are going to draw a conclusion that an analog joystick with its inexactness and inherent flaws is going to allow better control than something that's exact and 100% in giving you the states that you expect.

And there is no way you are going to force everyone on this forum to share your opinion that a digital stick which only has two states gives better control than one with dozens, hundreds, or nearly infinite which an analog stick will.

Feel free to keep trying, it's great for your post count.

#545 ApolloBoy OFFLINE  

ApolloBoy

    Quadrunner

  • 5,306 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:36 PM

So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.

#546 Divya16 OFFLINE  

Divya16

    Dragonstomper

  • 992 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:38 PM


There's no way you are going to draw a conclusion that an analog joystick with its inexactness and inherent flaws is going to allow better control than something that's exact and 100% in giving you the states that you expect.

And there is no way you are going to force everyone on this forum to share your opinion that a digital stick which only has two states gives better control than one with dozens, hundreds, or nearly infinite which an analog stick will.

Feel free to keep trying, it's great for your post count.


You are wrong. But you are free to have an opinion that is wrong. So many do. Many people smoke although they know the consequences. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Infinite levels with control over zero. Then you reduce it a few so you can approximate you are in some state. What a joke. Approximation is better than exactness? Maybe in your imaginary world.

I would rather extract music digitally from a CD than digitize it in through a sound digitizer. Oops, I forgot you prefer using tapes since they provide more levels which in some convulated way means more control for you.

#547 Divya16 OFFLINE  

Divya16

    Dragonstomper

  • 992 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:40 PM


So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.


Wrong, it does. As far as a computer goes, it can't tell the difference. And that's the point. The computer game can't tell the difference.

#548 ApolloBoy OFFLINE  

ApolloBoy

    Quadrunner

  • 5,306 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:48 PM



So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.


Wrong, it does. As far as a computer goes, it can't tell the difference. And that's the point. The computer game can't tell the difference.

We're not talking about the computer, we're talking about the actual disk drive. That's what you brought up, isn't it? A real disk drive doesn't function the same as a virtual one since the real disk drive has all sorts of mechanical components that could fail at any moment, and it might load disks at a slightly different rate than the virtual one.

#549 Divya16 OFFLINE  

Divya16

    Dragonstomper

  • 992 posts

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:51 PM




So then it follows that you think a disk simulator doesn't produce same results as a real disk drive because it's missing real disks or the close button.

*facepalms hard*

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.


Wrong, it does. As far as a computer goes, it can't tell the difference. And that's the point. The computer game can't tell the difference.

We're not talking about the computer, we're talking about the actual disk drive. That's what you brought up, isn't it? A real disk drive doesn't function the same as a virtual one since the real disk drive has all sorts of mechanical components that could fail at any moment, and it might load disks at a slightly different rate than the virtual one.


So you don't even know what we're talking about yet you are ready to put it in big letters that it doesn't produce the same results. Perhaps, you are better off reading what that was all about first. You are just picking something out of context and claiming it's wrong. Well, sorry I can't help you to read the thread.

#550 Stephen OFFLINE  

Stephen

    River Patroller

  • 4,593 posts
  • A8 Gear Head
  • Location:Akron, Ohio

Posted Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:53 PM

You are wrong. But you are free to have an opinion that is wrong. So many do. Many people smoke although they know the consequences. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Infinite levels with control over zero. Then you reduce it a few so you can approximate you are in some state. What a joke. Approximation is better than exactness? Maybe in your imaginary world.

I would rather extract music digitally from a CD than digitize it in through a sound digitizer. Oops, I forgot you prefer using tapes since they provide more levels which in some convulated way means more control for you.

Is your definition of wrong "not in agreement with you"? I forgot - let me bow down to your all knowing arrogance. My most sincere and humble apologies know-it-all.

P.S.
I don't prefer tapes, but vinyl sounds better than CD. Take that scientific fact and sit on it.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users