Divya16, on Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:22 PM, said:
ledzep, on Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:50 PM, said:
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
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.