You would have to be blind if you think you're right after all the evidence in front of your face. Nobody has pointed out any errors with the experiment. Oh, by the way, you are allowed to refute scientific facts. But it doesn't work by just writing something-- you have to perform the same experiment and show it gives opposite results. For one example, show me that with an analog joystick you can make the same exact wide jumps from one edge to the other in the "pie screen" third platform in Donkey Kong with a lower failure rate than with a digital joystick.
I'd love to see some evidence. All I've seen so far is a few stills of TVs with video games on them, a few random formulas, some pointless analogies from you that confirm you don't know what is and isn't digital in the modern world and a whole lot of excuses
for you not presenting all the parameters
of your fictional experiments along with all the data
those experiments supposedly generated.
I can't "run the experiment myself" until I know, in specific detail, how you
ran the experiment. Which means you need to explain
what hardware and software you used to record the data, what various video games you included in the experiments, how many people were in the control and experimental groups, how many times each game player played each game with each joystick (digital and analog), etc., etc., etc. But for whatever reason you absolutely refuse
to supply those parameters so it is impossible for anyone
to "perform the same experiment" given the total lack of information from your end.
Oh, by the way, you are allowed to prove that you ran experiments. But it doesn't work by just stating
that you ran them -- you have to present the parameters of the experiment along with all the data
. For one example, show me that you ran the experiments that you claim to have run.
You can't just label things as anecdotal without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't performed the experiment and just use analog joysticks, the only thing you can do is say "I don't know" or if you actually understand the logic/mathematics of why analog joystick have inferior control then you can say that my experiment is true blue without performing it. You are just making false claims otherwise.
You can't just label things as proven without proof. Again, you are the hypocrite here. Given you haven't presented any information about the experiment you claim to have conducted or all the data generated by it the only thing you can do is say "I haven't run any experiment" or if you actually understand the scientific method
then you can actually conduct and then present a thorough experiment and data that actually supports your opinion about digital joysticks. You are just making false claims otherwise.
I see you never read the thread or pretending as if these things weren't done. You want me to dump you more recordings of those failure points in the games because you are inept at seeing the logic behind it? And stop juggling the word parameter. I clearly stated which joysticks are being used and the screenshots I showed are some of the games that were played. Nobody has time to play every game ever made just like no one ever tried to prove F=ma by trying every possible mass, acceleration, force to see if they match. If you can't understand the data presented, you have a problem.
I see you have never conducted an experiment in your life or are pretending that stating that you ran experiments is the same thing as actually performing experiments. I want you to present all
the parameters of your experiments along with all
the data generated by those supposed experiments. And quick misunderstanding the word 'parameter
' (See, when you can easily find definitions on the internet that means you're probably on the right track and as I schooled your female personality on this subject, authoritative sources
bolster your argument.), I clearly stated what that entails and what you, as the liar who boasted of performing "hundreds of experiments", is responsible for presenting. Nobody has the time to listen to you try every excuse ever invented for not backing up your claims of having run "hundreds of experiments" and having "megabytes of data" like how you keep invoking F=ma as if Newton had been as stupid as you have been and claimed that he'd run hundreds of experiments but then refused to present any of the parameters for his experiments along with all the data from those experiments. If you can't understand the scientific method
, you have a problem.
See all you do is try to say the samething back without understanding that what I wrote is FACTUALLY true and what you wrote is just your MENTAL SPECULATION. You come to my home and I'll run the BASIC program and I'll see how many states you get right.
See all you do is try to use the same excuses without understanding that what you claim is just your MENTAL SPECULATION until you actually present proof that you ran "hundreds of experiments" and you also present all the data so that others can judge for themselves if you have conducted a fair, unbiased experiment. What I just wrote about you is FACTUALLY true, too.
I have answered this 5 times already. I didn't ask for every state. I only asked for states which will cause change in direction from center. Go back and read it. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But getting to any state is just as improbably as any other state. Do you know at which point the analog joystick will cause the pac-man to go left? I hope you understand by now that thresholds are being used. Don't blame the programmers. You are the one who needs help.
What was clear about the BASIC program that aprioriksi presented is that he doesn't know how to program for an analog joystick as a controller for a game that only requires signals for cardinal positions (Pac-Man type games). You know, the only thing a digital joystick can output. There is no reason for him to care about any values other than the cardinal positions so his BASIC program should filter for that. Someone else on this thread provided that very programming logic and aprioriksi ignored it as have you.
You have been rebutted at least 5 times already. Your program checks for every state. Yet if you want to use an analog joystick for a game that is geared towards a digital joysticks (cardinal directions only) it's a waste of time to check for anything other than what the outputs of the cardinal directions on an analog joystick would be. You purposely try to distort things to make people think something else. But knowing "a priori" any state is just as improbable as any other state given that you don't take into account the various fractions of a second that comprise the chain of events that starts at the player moving the joystick to the joystick sending a signal to the computer register receiving the output from the joystick to the program checking the register to the program acting on the new information to the program updating the game graphics and, if necessary, score and position to the TV monitor displaying the change. There is no way for you to prove that you or anybody else can distinguish between those various states in that one scenario. Of course, you could conduct an experiment to... who am I kidding, we all know that's the last thing on Earth you'll ever do, right? No wait, let me guess, you've run that experiment "hundreds" of times, too! Hahaahaa!
I hope you understand now that state changes are not singular nor instantaneous. Don't blame the speed of light or electrical resistance. You are the one who needs help.
Ha ha! Now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. (1) they were but that is irrelevant, (2) duh, of course they represent gameplay of people doing the experiment, (3) they represent gameplay for all three-- analog joysticks, digital joysticks, and keyboard, (4) as I said, I can repeat it anytime and I'll get similar results. It's related to the fact that analog joysticks have uncertainty while digital joysticks don't. That uncertainty also relates to switching time being inferior on analog joysticks as well.
That simplistic bit of BASIC code was his, not some gaming company's. I looked at the screenshots. Wow, very pretty. They represent nothing besides the probability that aprioriksi has copies of those pictures. Those screenshots, by themselves, fail to prove -
( 1 ) that they were taken on his TV and/or at his place,
( 2 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were part of his experiment,
( 3 ) that they represent gameplay of people who were using analog joysticks,
( 4 ) that they were taken during the data gathering portion of his experiment,
Ha ha HA! Now you're really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel. (1) Prove it
, (2) duh, prove it
, (3) prove it
, (4) as I said, prove it
. It's related to the fact that all you've done is claimed
to have conducted "hundreds of experiments", you have yet to prove
that you have run even a single experiment.
The longer you make excuses and avoid providing proof (description/parameters of your experiment + all
the data) the more certain everyone is that you never ran an experiment in your life, much less hundreds of experiments testing joysticks.
I can play those anytime, anywhere, and any place. They will yield similar failures for analog joysticks. Other unbiased people will also get same results. I don't know about you since you only prefer analog joysticks.
More empty claims.Prove it
. Play those anytime, anywhere, and any place, detail the parameters of your tests
and release all the data generated
from the tests. Other unbiased people will finally admit that you actually ran an experiment that produced data. I don't know about you since you haven't run any actual experiments yet.
First things first. Do you accept the data presented. If yes, then say YES I accept that is valid data. If not, don't ask for anymore.
Aprioriksi has already stated that he doesn't feel the need to release the "megabytes" of data because he doesn't think I'll understand it. That means he actually has all the data and that he won't allow others to look it over. He doesn't get to decide what amount of "enough data" he needs to provide. In order to prove his claim that he ran experiments and that he generated "megabytes" of data from them he has to release all of it. Not some, not half, not "enough", but all of it. He has up to now refused to do that.
First things first. Do you actually have all the data
you have lied about generating? If yes, then say YES and release all the data
along with the parameters of the experiments
that generated that data. If not, don't make bullshit claims about having run "hundreds of experiments", having "megabytes of data" and claiming that "many others" have also run these experiments.
Nope, people who prefer analog joysticks thinking they have better control are living in the bubble. People who don't see data in front of them are living in a bubble.
Nope, people who make false claims about having conducted experiments that produced megabytes of data and then refuse to provide the parameters of those experiments along with all the data generated are living in a bubble. That's you and your lipsticked split personality, Bubble Boy. People who don't release data in front of them are liars.
And what constitutes ALL? You can generate terabytes of data if you keep playing the game. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data is what it is and then the rest would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, I would have to post it on some server to avoid clogging up AtariAge.
What? You're that dumb? All
constitutes ALL. You can release terabytes of data if you actually generated terabytes of data. As I said, better to understand why the small amount of data that you have grudgingly presented out of context of the whole is worthless and then the totality of your fuckups would be a breeze to understand. Perhaps, you would have to stop making suggestions about your fictional data and actually present
your fictional data in order to convince anyone that you ever conducted an experiment in the first place.
There you go again. P and -P. All that crap about presenting data and now you want to argue against the data. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
I argue against equating arrow keys with joysticks and equating joystick simulators with actual joysticks. I argue against substituting inadequate replacements for the actual, easily-acquired joysticks that aprioriksi initially claimed he had included in his experiments.
There you go again. Excuse and excuse. All that crap about pretending that you have megabytes of data and now you want to argue that you don't know what "all" means. You really have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
Stop the rubbish. This is the first time you mentioned "it was a joke". Everyone is free to interpret it as he/she likes. My going to JFK was real and no joke. And I was ACTUALLY stuck in traffic there. I have witnesses since I went to pick up people there.
Stop the excuses. Who cares where you were going or where you got stuck in traffic. Get to the point and present the parameters of your experiments and release all the data generated by them.
It doesn't really matter what you label things. Only the facts count. The fact remains digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Once you are out of your P and -P, we'll talk about the experiment or the logic some more.
Until you do that it's nothing but lies.
It doesn't really matter what excuses you try. Only the facts count. The fact remains that you claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks (it isn't
a scientific fact), you claim to have conducted experiments to test this opinion of yours (you haven't
conducted any experiments) and you claim to have megabytes of data from these experiments (you have no data
to present). Once you actually conduct some experiments and present the specifics of how you ran them, who you ran them on, what you ran them with and
include all the data from those experiments we'll talk about your idiotic theory and whether your data supports it or not some more.
You are COMPLETELY wrong. I gave you the four catagories remember-- (1) logic/math, (2) experimental data, (3) mental speculation, (4) blind following the blind. I said, I proved it using (1) and (2). That means the experimental data is there as well as the logic/math. The logic/math is superior. Don't try to create a dichotomy of one or the other. Don't misquote others. So far you are only proving you are in catagory number (4) and using mental speculation to try to support your blind following.
"I've run experiments and have data that proves I'm right."
"Oh really? Then tell us about the experiments and show us the data that proves your position."
"I don't have to, logic is good enough. It's so obvious."
Which equals you never conducted any experiments and you never generated any data. Why make false claims like that?
I am COMPLETELY right. We refuted your four categories remember. If "the experimental data is there" then release all of it
. Your excuses for failing to do so are inferior. Don't try to substitute an excuse for actual proof. Don't misunderstand basic scientific principles. So far you are only proving you have no concept of what an experiment is, no clue of how to conduct one and no proof of having run any experiments yourself and using mental speculation to try to convince people you've done something you clearly have not.