Jump to content

ledzep's Photo

ledzep

Member Since 15 Feb 2010
OFFLINE Last Active Today, 4:17 AM

#2162449 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:02 AM

[quote name='atariksi' date='Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:48 AM' timestamp='1291301333' post='2148937']
I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:
(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;
(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;
(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;
(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);
(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;
and other spots requiring timing things.

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.
[/quote]

No, you didn't begin to give all the parameters. I gave them to you, more than once. For a start, you have failed to present who comprised your control and experimental groups of gamers. Multiple gamers is a requirement for any experiment that claims that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for every gamer.

Nobody gives a shit how many times you played anything or what you played it with, don't you understand? If you played a games at least 10 times then all you have is data for yourself. And since we all know you suck at using analog joysticks the data is worthless for substantiating any claims about digital joysticks applying to any gamers other than yourself (and your lipsticked imaginary pal).

I will "consider" the Donkey Kong "experiment" when you release all the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated by them. Until then it's just biased speculation on your part that your results apply to anyone else. I am able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role for you because you suck at playing games with analog joysticks. What has yet to be established is evidence that they play a detrimental role for anyone else. You know how you can begin to establish that? Hmm? You got it, release data that shows how other game players suffered the same problems with your "uncertainty regions" and "long throw play". Aaaaaaw, but that would mean you'd have to do something you are philosophically against doing and that is actually running a comprehensive, unbiased experiment using a control and an experimental group. Aw, man!

[quote]
I have done both. You just keep misreading or not reading the points I have made. And stop with the name calling. You need to be emotionally unbiased to even discuss scientific experiments what to speak of performing them.

[some rubbish deleted]
[/quote]

You have?!? Well hot damn, that's great! So where is it? Where is your evidence that your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true?

[awaiting some rubbish relating to how you don't need to provide links to authoritative sources because you don't want to]

[quote]
No, if you make 100 experiments of F=ma and you release 10 experiments that show F=ma. What difference does it make whether you post data for the other 90. I posted the ones that are popular titles and narrowed the data to where there's high failure rate for analog joysticks; its easier to discuss small sets than to dump megabytes of the hard drive on a discussion forum.
[/quote]

Almost. If I, like you, claimed to have run 100 experiments of F=ma and then only release the parameters and data from 10 of those experiments while refusing to release the parameters and data for the other 90 by hiding behind idiotic claims that logic is an acceptable substitute or that people can infer the results for the other 90 experiments based off of the measly 10 that I grudgingly present then I would be laughed out of whatever scientific institution I had made that claim in. Just like everyone (minus Didntknow16) has been laughing at you ever since you revealed that you don't have the "megabytes" of data for the supposed "hundreds" of experiments you pretend to have run.

[quote]
Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.
[/quote]

Retroactive excuses to distance yourself from your admission of bias don't play here, my redundantly incorrect friend.

So you have established that analog joysticks are inferior? When/where did you do that? I mean, if you'd done that you'd have like, I don't know, evidence to back up this new, unsubstantiated claim, right? Do you? Let's see it.

Dare I say it? Put-up or shut-up time again, haahahaa.

[quote]
Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.
[/quote]

You didn't address the argument. So you are now claiming that you have to resort to math or deductive logic (neither of which you've done effectively) as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range? Haahahaa, you are now stating that all your "hundreds" of experiments that are the core of your "scientific fact" are flawed or inconclusive!! Fantastic, you've just negated yourself and all the hours you've spent taking pictures of TV screens with games displayed on them and pretending that that was "data". What a colossal blunder.

And, for the record, if you want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throws in general you most definitely do not need a logical/mathematical proof, you need to physically measure all the joysticks and the ranges of their travel. Any claim about a physical property must be proven or supported by physical measurements, genius. Only an idiot would attempt to use a logical/mathematical proof to prove a physical property of something that can be physically measured.

How do you prove that DVDs hold more information than CDs? Logic/math? No, you see how much data can be stored on each type, from each manufacturer using each method of disk writing. How do you prove that plasma monitors display a wider color range than LCD monitors? Logic/math? No, you pump the same images into both types, from multiple manufacturers and you physically measure the color ranges of those monitors. How do you prove that analog joysticks have longer throws than digital joysticks? Logic/math? Only if you're retarded. You measure the joystick lengths and travel ranges of every available joystick, analog and digital, that you can get your hands on and rely on manufacturers' specs for the ones you can't get to. "Logic/math" is for people who don't want real data when it's freely available. "Logic/math" is for people who know that the physical data will refute their faulty claims, so better to not even introduce it.

[quote]
You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.
[/quote]

I admit, it's hard to tell when I'm talking to you or you since aprioriksi and Didntknow16 both answer posts in the same way using the same phrases. It's not like I can see when you're dressed like a boy and when you're dressed like a girl, right?

You have every right to corroborate your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments that generated "megabytes" of data (and not those useless jpegs of TV screens) yet you refuse. Why? No mistake, you have disparaged yourself by making excuses for not providing the minimum to prove your claim. What's the minimum? Why, all the parameters for your experiments and all the data those experiments generated, of course.

[more excuses and distractions about "logic" and "emotion" expected]

I don't want more data, I want all the data. I'm not saying your data is useless, I'm saying providing incomplete, out-of-context subsets of your claimed total amount of data is useless. And it is useless for you to hold back the rest of this supposed data. All that does is reinforce the obvious truth that you don't actually have any of those "megabytes" of data.

You are unfit to talk about having run "hundreds" of experiments until you release all the data and all the parameters of your claimed experiments. So far you have fallen so very short.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -
[/quote]
Once again, just making a claim doesn't make it true. Read on:

[quote]
Definition of HYPOCRITE

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
[/quote]
That doesn't apply to anyone.
[/quote]

Oh yes it does. You. You have tried multiple times to present an appearance of virtue. You cry about "personal attacks" as if everyone is using them on you and you have never done the same on this thread (another fault), you try to turn your monumental failures to support your claims of running hundreds of experiments that generated megabytes of data into a virtue by hiding behind "logic" and "math", like those are higher forms of proof instead of simply shutting everyone down by presenting all your data.

[quote]
[quote]
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.
[/quote]

You misunderstood that definition. You are making claims that are unfounded yet demand proof from others. That's hypocracy as it applies to you.
[/quote]

You misunderstand your understanding of the definition. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread, you are guilty of personal attacks on forum members while simultaneously complaining about personal attacks you claim are aimed at you, you guilty of claiming to have followed the scientific method while failing to have run a comprehensive experiment using control and experimental groups as well as communicating your results and you have claimed that your biased opinion about digital joysticks is a scientific fact while failing to have shown where it has been confirmed repeatedly and been accepted as true (that means by most everybody, not just you and your menstruating puppet).

Put-up or shut-up time again. Release all the data and all the parameters from all your experiments or admit by your failure to do so that you are a fraud.


#2157677 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:59 AM


All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to,

I gave you list of games in post #114, 137. That's enough for the conclusion which also happens to be logical and mathematically supported. All parameters are present. My playing of Popeye and DK was given in REC files. I don't need to play the whole game to show the higher failure rate of analog joysticks. Just spots where the uncertainty and long throw a play a big role. If you want to see the experiment repeated live, come over and I'll put it in your face since you can't seem to do it yourself. As I said, I played hundreds of games but whatever data is presented is sufficient to draw the conclusion.


A "list of games" is not all the parameters, so that is definitely far far from "enough" for a conclusion. The only thing "logical" about your position is that it is logical to assume that you will continue to make excuses for failing to reveal how you ran your experiments, who you ran them on, what gear you ran them with, what data was gathered from these "hundreds" of experiments and what the conclusions, if any, were the result. Adding up the number of times you refuse to follow the scientific method does not mathematically support your theory (even though it is a rapidly increasing value). You haven't even looked at that link, have you? No, of course not. If you had you would see what it is you are required to do as someone who claims to have run "hundreds" of experiments. Yet you won't. For shame.

Nobody cares what your playing of Popeye and DK resulted in. Why? Because you insist that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for everybody, not just you. Nobody disputes that you hate analog joysticks and suck at using them. What everybody disputes is that you have proven that almost everybody scores higher when playing video games with digital joysticks as opposed to analog joysticks, something you have claimed more than once yet never supported with a shred of evidence. All we get is samples of games you have played. You do not represent all or even most video game players. You merely represent yourself and your cross-dressing alter-ego.

I want to see you run this lie of an experiment you claim to have run. That means that when I show up you better have -

(1) a control group of video game players and an experimental group of video game players who are participating in a double-blind experiment (meaning they don't know what controllers they're actually using for a specific game and neither do you until you check the controllers afterwards in order to negate your overbearing bias towards one type of controller),
(2) a series of sample joysticks for the gamers to use, some of which are actual digital joysticks, some of which are actual analog joysticks, some of which are digital joysticks with analog joystick guts and some which are analog joysticks with digital joystick guts so that they can be randomly used by the gamers (each with a unique marking so that you can match them to the test runs later),
(3) a large sample of games to be played that include games that are geared towards digital joysticks, games that are geared towards analog joysticks and games that are geared more towards other controller types (trackballs, paddles, etc.) but that can be played with joysticks,
(4) a video camera to record every gaming run by every gamer in either test group,
(5) an accurate way to record the outputs from the various joysticks (not any useless joystick "simulator") that are hooked into the gaming console. This console should be one that can both accept a number of different joysticks and be able to read both types of joysticks natively.

I list this out for you because we all know that you have done nothing like this before. You have made it clear that you only tested yourself, which makes your theory worthless. You have made it clear that you are unaware of or incapable of understanding the scientific method (I put that same link in again in order to give you the opportunity to ignore it twice) which makes your testing methods worthless. So now I have done for you what you cannot do for yourself, which is formulate a comprehensive, unbiased experiment for you to conduct. I expect to see at least 6 people in the control group and another 6 in the experimental group (although more would make for a more convincing test). These people should be of varying video gaming abilities and experience.


Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

You are just choosing random analogies. Dr. Frog did not want to perform the experiment because he was narrow-minded and considered himself a big-shot. You are just name-calling. Once again you fail to understand that logic/math is not a replacement for the experiment. The experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove my point.

"Accepted by many" doesn't have to mean majority. There are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks-- I mentioned some of those big names-- MasterPlay, Amiga Corp., Commodore, Atari, etc. etc. And you see from the polls many people besides the two active arguers accept the same. You are just speculating and acting like Dr. Frog: "I don't know of anyone besides you two who makes such a claim." That's your limited vision.


You chose an analogy that had nothing to do with the debate and I found one that directly applies to you. Which one is random, again?

Where do you get the idea that I'm "just name-calling"? If it's ok for you to reference a story with two frogs in it then I can reference a story that involves a mountain lion and a donkey. Now I wonder why you would think that "jackass" was aimed at you. Psychologically project much?

Yes, the experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove your point. Let us know when you actually accomplish either of those.

You see from your own poll that many people besides the legion of people refuting you accept that analog joysticks are better. Since you are so terrible with English I will mention now that corporations are not "people", so when you claim that "there are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks" and then list gaming/computer companies you sound even more ridiculous than you normally do when you are merely making excuses for why you won't release all the data from your experiments along with all the parameters involved in those experiments. Or are you saying you know individuals named Atari, Amiga Corp., etc.? I suppose you might know someone who insists on being called "Commodore" but why would you want to?

I'm not speculating, I am certain that you will never, ever, back up your claims about having "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments.

P.S. Put-up or shut-up time. Release all the data from your "experiments" along with all the parameters from those experiments or it's colossal fail for you.


#2156525 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:38 PM

You can stop speculating as there's more than two people in this thread who disagree with you what to speak of the world.


Besides you and Didntknow16, who are the others who disagree with him? Because I only see you two.

Nor does majority make you right. Nor does speculating about people's character make your useless speculative argument any stronger.


If majority doesn't make him right then it doesn't make you right, either. So explain why at the start of this demonstration of your bias that you made a point of mentioning how everybody (majority) knows that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks and that lots of other people have run the same experiments (you provide ZERO proof for that, by the way) and they all came to the same conclusion. If majority doesn't make you right then having lots of people supposedly getting the same results that you got is worthless and a waste of time to mention. And you are now stating that the results of your poll will be worthless, too, because if more people vote for digital joysticks that doesn't make you or your poll right, haahahaaha. Way to negate yourself. If you want people to think that the results of your poll matter then you have to agree that majority matters and that makes him right, not you.

Stop speculating. I'm going to let you think about it and calm down before I answer the rest of your gibberish and drivel since they don't even address the points he made.


#2156505 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:18 PM

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.


Why, because you used a greater-than sign? It's that easy? What are the values for "digital joystick" and "analog joystick", then? Here, try these -

aprioriksi + Didntknow16 = same guy

claiming to have "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments < actually providing all the data and all the parameters of those experiments

aprioriksi claims of having "megabytes" of data * number of posts where he refuses to supply all his data and all his experimental parameters = amount of times he reinforces that he is lying

What kind of math is that? Failgebra?

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.


You're not sure? Is it because you're analog and therefore have ZERO control of your existence?


#2156496 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:10 PM

(Since nobody else seemed to notice the major flaw in aprioriksi's "thinking"...)


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.


Wait, so you're saying that the size of your worthless jpeg picture of a computer monitor showing a moment in a video game contributes to your claim of "megabytes" of data?!? Hahaaha, really? That's amazing! Why stop at 640x480x24 bits? You could have really solidified your position by taking your jpeg into Photoshop and upping the resolution! I mean if the image was increased in size to 1280x960x24 bits that would get you 4 times the amount of "data", man, that would be even better! Who could possibly deny your findings then?!?

Everybody. I commend your herculean efforts to simultaneously refuse to admit that you have no data and to prove that you have "megabytes" of it with that idiotic image size comment. Nice touch releasing your "data" in a format that some of us can't read instead of doing the correct thing and converting that data into easy-to-read graphs or tables. You have claimed to have "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments. Prove it.

Shitty try, there, and now you claim again to have "tons more". Do bits in your world have weight? Really? Is this why you keep referencing F=ma? Maybe that's why it's so difficult for you to meet the requirements of the scientific method and release all your data along with the parameters of your experiment, because the bits weigh so much and you can't pour them all down your internet connection without crushing your computer.


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.


Thank you for proving my point. Of course if I (or anybody else) play those games those images will occur during those games. That will happen whether I (or anybody else) is using an analog or digital joystick. Which means your pictures are worthless as data that supports your theory that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Those exact same jpegs also illustrate moments where people playing using analog joysticks have more control than their digital joystick-using counterparts. How can anyone know by just looking at still images? They can't. They need all the data. That means you releasing the parameters of your "experiments" and releasing comparative video and sensor readings of the moment to moment game plays of all the members of your control and experimental groups. You do have control and experimental groups, right? You do have recordings of each game play run for each player using each joystick being tested, right? No self-respecting scientist or educated person claiming to have run experiments would be without that basic data. I can just guess where you wind up in that assessment.


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.


Yes, I am caught in a bubble that contains people who actually back up their statements and actually support their claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments" and having "megabytes" of data. Your three .rec files are raw data only. Your three .rec files are for one game only. You claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks, period. That means it holds true for all game players and for all games. In order for you to prove that to be true you need to release all your imaginary data. All of it. For (at the least) dozens of games of varying controller input requirements played by dozens of game players using different joysticks. Do you actually have any of that or are you just going to attach a 5000x5000x500 bit jpeg of yourself next to a billboard that has the words "megabytes of data" written on it?

You have been continuously asked for all your data. You continuously claim to have all of it, "tons" in fact, yet you continuously restrict your output to three .rec files of one game and a few useless jpegs of computer monitors. What happened, are you using a digital joystick to try to attach all your "megabytes" of data to your posts?


P.S. Remember to attach all your data along with all the parameters of your experiments this time. Or admit by your refusal to do so that you're too dumb to follow simple instructions and too dishonest to follow through with the responsibility of communicating your results that the scientific method which you claim to have followed requires.

Put-up or shut-up time. All the data and all the parameters for your "hundreds" of experiments or colossal fail.


#2151475 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:36 PM


You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual observations. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.

You are speculating that he has infinite levels of control. You can play the guitar and be off at the position on the string by about a millimeter or so and nobody would notice the difference in the music. What bullcrap are you talking about infinite levels of control. I don't think you even understand what I wrote about more levels leads to less probability of control. Some people can't tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed music and there's huge difference in terms of the data. You are taking something subjective (you hearing the same music) and just speculating he has infinite levels of control. And this is a person who has practiced many many years not something like picking up an analog joystick and playing a game. And your example is not even an analog joystick. Getting to strings on a guitar type instrument is more like a touchpad-- you have random access and the strings are digital-- discrete items that it would be hard to mess up. The position on the string you could mess up.


No, I'm not speculating anything. Ask your female personality, she's the one who said that having infinite levels of control actually means ZERO levels of control. Being able to fret an infinite amount of notes on just one string (and he has 4 strings on that bass) means infinite levels of control of the music he's playing. You further demonstrate that you don't know anything about music and that you've never played music or listened to real music played in a live setting because being off by as much as a millimeter on a fretless string instrument (bass, violin, etc.) would definitely be noticed by people who actually have an ear for music (read: not you). But then you also think that piano keys are purely digital controls, haahaahaa. So what if some people can or can't tell the difference between MP3s and uncompressed music, all you're arguing there is that subjective bias is allowable in experiments which of course would explain your idiotic views about digital joysticks being better when multiple people on this thread have demonstrated to you that not only are analog joysticks as good as or better than digital joysticks in terms of control or simply being able to play video games well but also that in general terms analog controls and analog information is superior to their compressed, digital equivalents. Way to go there.


Let me address your address:

"Who cares."

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.

FACT: I have run the experiment, you haven't.
FACT: You are IN FACT mocking and calling names; no pretending; it's here in black and white.
FACT: I care. I have no obligation to reply to a fanatical emotionally biased person who mocks people. I rather deal with serious inquiries. Since you are making misleading remarks and distorting things, I have to keep wasting my time with you.


FACT: You have claimed to run "hundreds" of experiments yet have provided no proof that you've run even a single experiment. Prove you have run the experiment.
FACT: You IN FACT started with the name-calling and mocking so you are the last person involved with this subject who can cry about mocking or name-calling, heavily as you do cry about it.
FACT: You don't care. If you did you would realize that you have an obligation to support your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments and having generated "megabytes" of data by actually releasing all that information into the public eye so that we can evaluate your claims. You'd rather deal with inventing lamer and lamer excuses for not presenting all your data and all the parameters of your experiments. Since you keep making misleading claims about things you supposedly have done and distorting things, we have to keep wasting our time pointing out your myriad faults and screwups.


You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

You are just making things up. The experiment is real.


Prove it. Release all the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. Why do you continuously resist presenting the information?


Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

Already did. You don't need links to others if you have done the experiments yourself. If Newton had to provide links to others, nothing would have been discovered by him as scientific fact. Of course, I am sure others have experienced the same results as I don't know every person on the planet.


You didn't address the argument. Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is. I have provided links to definitions that are accepted as the norm by the scientific community. Do you have an alternative definition that supports your idea that running an experiment to determine whether digital or analog joysticks provide better control really only means playing a lot of video games by yourself? Control groups and experimental groups, Genius, what were yours comprised of? What were the variables you tested? How did you test them? What hardware and software did you use to record the raw data? What methodology did you employ to interpret the data? When will you finally run the experiment you claim to have run?


What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.

You didn't understand the English. I think its time for you to take a nap. I'll continue with this if you realize your mistake here.


You didn't understand the English, that question was also directed specifically at your female alternate personality. I think it's time for you to have another therapy session. I'll continue with this if you realize that aprioriksi and Didntknow16 are two separate personalities and I was talking to your female one.


I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.


You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. It's not a personal attack. You are biased toward analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow analog joysticks because many others are doing it (again your own admission). Your P and -P for many things is illogical. Attacking people's user IDs doesn't follow from any argument anyone presented here nor bringing in people's mothers/grandmothers or whoever you bring in.


You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. Of course you and Didntknow16 have been guilty of multiple personal attacks directed towards multiple people on this thread, people have been pointing out these occurrences continuously. You are biased against analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow digital joysticks because a few of your imaginary friends are doing it (again another of your empty claims that you can't prove). Your P and -P for all your empty claims is illogical, if you've run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data then the logical thing to do is to present all your data and all your findings, otherwise you merely support the majority view that you never ran any experiment in your life and that you have no data to support your theory. You cannot claim to have run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data and then not prove by presenting them to the rest of us.


#2149626 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:28 AM

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.


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.

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.


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.


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! 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.


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.


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 accept the data presented. If yes, then say YES I accept that is valid data. If not, don't ask for anymore.


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.


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. 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.


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.


Until you do that it's nothing but lies.

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.


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.


"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?

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 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.


#2148855 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:14 AM

Sorry, Atariage is giving error on total quotes exceeed. Perhaps, you want to stop with all those italics/misquotes and state your point rather than trying to refute everything although it is already answered.


Perhaps you want to stop stalling and finally release all the parameters of your supposed experiments along with all the data?


And, again, what you wrote is word for word what we've been saying to you about many people preferring analog joysticks and scoring higher when using them.

The difference is I provided to you some of the data so far, logic, mathematics, etc. and you are just all talk that's your mental speculation of what I did.


The difference is I'm not the one who claimed to have run "hundreds of experiments" (Post #58) along with having megabytes of data and then refused to present any of it. That was you. So since you have claimed that you ran experiments and have data from them it's on you to present all that imaginary crap. Since you have claimed that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks you it's on you to show where this has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. You have done neither.

Yes, big difference. You are the only one making idiotic definitive statements and then failing to substantiate them. I would mention Didntknow16 doing the same thing but split personalities are no laughing matter and I don't want to enable yours.


No one is interested in deriving a conclusion from incomplete data when aprioriksi and you have both claimed to be in possession of all the data from your individual experiments. Why make people try to divine the results based off of a few samples of data instead of simply releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiments? Are they really that bad that you don't want anyone to see?

It's not incomplete. If you understand the nature of the data, you can understand that other data will be similar in nature. Newton didn't do F=ma for every possible weight and acceleration.

You wrote: "And, yet again, the same words apply to you and the guy who admits he hates analog joysticks (Post #82) -"

I hate analog joysticks because they provide inferior control. I hate meat because its fat is unhealthy for the arteries. Etc. Etc. As I told you, you can hate things that are based on science not because of bias. The hatred comes after the fact is established not before. You prefer analog joysticks but you haven't performed any controlled experiment nor refuted the facts presented so your the one with the bias. The driving the truck and driving the plane are analogies that you messed up in understanding.


If you understand the English language then you should know that if you claim the "data" you have released up to now is complete then by definition it is impossible that there could be "other data". If a set has all the parts then there cannot be "other parts" to that set somewhere else. What I understand about the nature of your "data" is that you don't have any for the "hundreds of experiments" you imagine you have conducted or you would have presented all of it by now in a triumphant downloading of "megabytes" of data to prove us all wrong. Something is stopping you from doing that. It's the fact that you don't actually have the data.

You hate analog joysticks which makes you biased. Which means that no one believes for a second that you ran a comprehensive, unbiased experiment and therefore everybody wants to see the parameters of these fictional experiments of yours to see what you think a "fair" comparison of digital and analog joysticks would be. And you know this, you know that what you have pretended to have "tested" up to now has in no way been comprehensive or competently tested.


What, exactly, is the control group for your experiment? And where is the experimental group, hmmmm? The scientific method, which you claimed to have followed - learn it, live it, actually follow it.

I am not the one claiming to have conducted experiments and to have generated "megabytes" of data to support the erroneous claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Neither am I the one who claimed that it was a scientific fact yet failed to show that it has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true (damn those mean ol' scientific definitions). That's you and aprioriksi. It's on you to present the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated once you have stated that you actually ran experiments.

See you are already speculating that it's an erroneous claim but you have done absolute NOTHING-- no experiment, no logic, no mathematics, etc. just your flawed opinion. It is repeatedly confirmed. I can go back and do the same experiment again and I'll get the same results. So can others who aren't biased and only prefer one type of joystick.


See you are already trying yet again to change the subject so that you can avoid admitting that you have made claims about scientific facts, running experiments and generating data that are baseless. Otherwise you would stop trying to convince us with pleas to "logic" and "mathematics" and would have instead presented the parameters of your experiments, your control and experimental groups and all the data that these fake experiments of yours included. Every post of yours that doesn't include attached files of your experiment parameters and all the data is another confirmation that you never did any of that crap that you claimed. Way to go.

Wow, so not only have you not run "hundreds of experiments" nor have "megabytes" of data, you're now sinking low enough to state that you could go back and fake doing them again? Amazing, so tell me, how many times in a given 24 hour period could you not-run your experiment on non-existent control and experimental groups and not-generate megabytes of data from those imaginary experiments? I wonder how many terabytes of disk space you'd need to hold none of that data that you haven't generated, must be close to ZERO, huh?


I can't see the experimental data because you and aprioriksi haven't released that data yet. Yes, I'm a fanatic about people actually backing up their claims, I expect people who claim to have run experiments to describe in detail the specifics of those experiments (how they were run, who participated, what gear was used, how the data was generated, etc.) and I expect people who claim to have data that proves their position to present that data for the rest of us to examine. Neither of you have satisfied those requirements.

You are a hypocrite. While claiming to have experimental proof for your side you refuse to allow anyone to examine it.

You got your English all screwed up here. First of all data was posted for you to examine and you didn't. You tried to dismiss the data-- that it doesn't count. And not allowing someone to examine the data doesn't make one a hypocrite. Look up the meaning of that word. You are the real hypocrite. You make claims that are unfounded and yet go around asking for proof from others. If you want people to take your word for it, then don't ask for proof from others (although it was provided to you in many forms).


You've got your personalities all screwed up here. First of all these responses were directed at Didntknow16, not you. Yes yes, your therapist has explained that you and "she" are the same but for the purposes of this thread you insist on being two people so pay attention to who you are supposed to be at the moment. Second of all a tiny bit of the data was posted which, out of context, is completely useless. Nothing less than the megabytes of data you claim (that's you, not you) to have generated will suffice, along with a complete description of the experiments that generated that data and lists of the participants who comprised the control and experimental groups along with the specific games and joysticks they tested with. Ya, I know, your next rebuttal will be a new rewording of why you don't have to follow through on your own claims. Nobody is agreeing with that, unfortunately for you.

As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.


#2148847 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:24 AM



Hahaha, that's exactly what the rest of us have been saying to you and aprioriksi!
...
Yup, word for word. Of course you or he could silence all the critics. You have both claimed to have run experiments and gathered data that proves this digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks idea. Yet neither of you will do the scientifically correct thing and present the parameters of these supposed experiments along with all the data generated. Why?

What parameters do you see missing? There's nothing missing. I ran through hundreds of games and noted points where there's high failure rate of analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks. The analog joysticks are in the picture in post #1. The digital joysticks are the gemini and the Atari 2600 style joystick for which I recorded actual motion parameters for a sample for you. The pictures are some of the samples where there's high failure rate. I have more pictures, but you don't seem to care about those pictures. I also have the joystick recording files but you don't accept joystick simulator generates same data as real joystick. So either you accept the pictures and recordings or you stop asking for more data.


All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to, what you did it with, where and when you did it. You have to describe the control and experimental groups, you have to list the specific games used, the specific joysticks used for each game played by each game player in both groups. You have to present the specs for any hardware and/or software you used to measure or record the data. And, yet again, you have to release all the data. And not just in raw form, you have to organize it into something readable that can be used by you to support your theory. Something along the lines of

"As you can see in this graph, over 70% of the players scored better for each game played when using any of the digital joystick choices over the analog joystick choices. Each player played a total of 10 games (games chosen with a variety of digital and analog joystick requirements and advantages) and each game they played was played 9 times, 3 using digital joysticks, 3 using analog joysticks, and 3 using randomly-chosen joysticks that the players did not know whether they were digital or analog. Their final scores and total gameplay times are listed next to each of their initials."

Have you seriously never run a comprehensive experiment in all the time you've been in school? Never tested different chemicals for heat or acidity or anything like that? Never made measurements of stars in the night sky for an astronomy lab and had to test some law or anything? That is the only excuse for you completely boning this opportunity to present compelling data that would support your cause. All you've actually accomplished is convince everyone except your female personality that you haven't conducted any experiments and that you're just too stubborn to admit it.


Really. Accepted by what "many"? Because all I see is you and aprioriksi.

That's Dr. Frog's philosophy. Once a frog living by the Atlantic Ocean came to visit Dr. Frog who lived in his well all his life.

The Atlantic frog told Dr. Frog, "There's this huge body of water out there much bigger than this well."

Dr. Frog replied: "That's a myth. Nobody has seen such a body of water. Just ask all these frogs that have been happily living in this well all their lives. They never seen any such thing."

The Atlantic frog replied: "But I just came from there. Just follow these directions and you'll get there."

Dr. Frog replied: "You never saw any such body of water. Theoretically, there may exist some wells that have double or quadruple capacity, but an 'ocean' with 'waves' is highly unlikely as something must encompass all that water."

And so on. Majority doesn't matter, but there are other people who have done the experiment and know digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.


Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

Before the puma could say anything to him, Dr. Jackass said: "roller skates provide better traction than clogs. It's a scientific fact, let's see who can refute it."

The puma replied: "A scientific fact? Who says? Did Mr. Owl figure that out or maybe Sammy Squirrel?"

Dr. Jackass replied: "No, it's simple logic."

The puma answered: "Wait, then how can it be a scientific fact if it hasn't been confirmed repeatedly or accepted as tr... oh, I bet you conducted some scientific experiments to test your theory, right?"

Dr. Jackass replied: "You better believe it. Hundreds of experiments. I got all the proof right here."

Now the puma was curious. He asked: "Really? Can I see your results?"

To which Dr. Jackass answered: "I don't need to show you any of my results. You can conduct the experiment yourself."

The puma was confused: "Wait, you said you have all the proof right here, why won't you just let me see it?"

And Dr. Jackass replied: "Because I already showed you everything! See, right here, this is a picture of my shoe closet, and here is another picture showing someone's foot wearing a golf cleat. I have a shoe simulator that you can use, I'll send you a picture of the front page of its instruction manual."

The puma was getting a bit bent by now: "So is that a picture of one of the people who participated in your footwear testing experiment?"

Dr. Jackass answered with: "Maybe. It doesn't matter. You asked for data, there it is! If you can't figure it out I'm not going to bother showing you the rest of my proof."

And so the puma tore Dr. Jackass' guts open with a swipe of his paw.

As for you last, latest lie, if there are other people who have "done the experiment" can you point us to any of them? Maybe one of them has the brains to coherently describe the specifics of the "experiment" he ran and isn't scared to present the data supporting this baseless claim of yours.


#2146585 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on 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.


#2146568 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on 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.


#2144603 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:11 AM


Something's wrong with my computer. I tried to click the "+1" on ledzep's last post about 20 times, but after the first click, the "+" disappeared. :(
edit: his second last post... #469.


Birds of the same feather flock together.


Ya, that's you and aprioriksi alright. I like how you answer rebuttals directed at him. You really help support the theory that you and he are the same person.

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


It's best to present the data you claim to have generated and the parameters of the experiment you claim to have conducted rather than try to convince people that a few misquotes about logic are just as acceptable.

Do us all a favor, when you (or your other personality) responds to this post, remember to attach the files for the parameters of the experiments you supposedly ran and the megabytes of data that you/he/they have collected.


#2144596 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:53 AM


Well, there are flame wars, which I don't think you mean.

What do you call it when someone argues AGAINST everything written if obviously false like claims that infinite control actually provides ZERO control? Who made that claim, by the way?

You are inept at understanding it. I bet you don't even understand the proof of zero control for infinite levels. In fact, you instead of addressing the argument made a claim about not giving you data and kept asking for that to be addressed instead. Sly way to shoving things under the rug.


You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual observations. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.


Didntknow16, I think. Sort of like aprioriksi's opposite example of mistaking piano keys as digital controls, haahaaha.

Let me address your name calling again here which was also refuted:

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

Seems given your high failure rate in addressing the points, you have resorted to personal attacks within your comments in some desperate hope that they will help you out of mistaken imaginary world.


Let me address your address:

"Who cares."

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.


There you go again. Where do you get the idea that after you state that something is a fact that it's up to someone else to do your work for you and look it up? Who taught you how to debate in this lazy manner? You are the one who is supposed to provide links or information to support your point of view, not us.

You are unfit to even understand the experiment what to speak of repeating it. Your views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.


You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is. You must have, oh I don't know, some evidence to support that assertion, right? Remember your failure at the tree? Where I pointed out to you how you are supposed to competently debate a point? Specifically -

( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

So you now claim that what I wrote and linked to is not what the real "scientific method" meaning is. Fantastic, then stop making excuses and actually link to some more authoritative source that supports your version of what "experiment" (you know, claiming to have run an experiment yet failing to reveal how it was run, who was in the control group, who was in the experimental group, what data you gathered, how that data was gathered, etc.) means. Go ahead. See how long you have to search to find something that doesn't sound like this example which you and aprioriksi have both failed to adhere to. I can't wait for you to find an authoritative source for the "real" meaning of what "experiment" means. But I know I'll be waiting a long long long long time because if there's one thing you positively do not do, it's research your theories by citing sources.


I'll try again. You are a terrible debater. How do I know? Is this where I tell you to look it up? No, I will instead support my own position. You have blown all those steps but specifically you've really fallen short on #7 and #8 -

You are the one with self-contradictory views and you blame others for being terrible debaters.


What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.


( 7 ) Present the content accurately. Only use content that is pertinent to your point of view and draw on support from authoritative sources.

( 8 ) Be certain of the validity of all external evidence presented for your arguments. Also, challenges to the validity of evidence should be made only on substantive grounds.

You are giving rules to others who have better understanding then you. Let me give you some rules to follow:

(1) read the thread before you try to refute everything.
(2) don't mock people's user ids/names or any other personal attacks.
(3) be open minded that there's a truth that may or may not agree with your emotional biased views
(4) don't argue against things that you never experienced or don't understand
(5) if you think the debate is important, don't take a vacation without notification or a better excuse


I'm giving basic debating rules to others who don't have an understanding of them. Like you.

(1) I have read the thread. How do you think I find the specific posts that illustrate your individual screw ups?
(2) I mock people who make empty claims about having conducted experiments and having data from them that supports their theories.
(3) I'm much more open-minded than you are, I use and like all kinds of game controllers and use the best one for the task at hand, I don't go out of my way to use only one specific type of controller even when it isn't appropriate for the game being played.
(4) Don't make references to experiments you've never conducted or data you've never collected.
(5) If you think the debate is important, don't disappear for three days to eat popcorn.


Of course you have to provide some external evidence and authoritative sources first, right? You and aprioriksi have come short only of killing your own grandmothers to avoid that.


Oh, first you are demanding things and now you are ASKING something. Desperately trying to find fault. If scientists were like you, there would be no progress. We would still be stuck with theories/experiments from hundreds of years ago.

Regarding your personal attack, as I said in the 5 golden rules for you above, don't do personal attacks. It doesn't help your views which are basically drivel anyway.


If there's one thing I definitely don't need to do, it's "desperately" trying to find fault. You and aprioriksi are wellsrpings of fault, it's as easy as "trying" to find leaves on the ground during Autumn. If scientists were like you, there would not be one experiment ever conducted or any data to support a single hypothesis. If scientists were like you they'd simply say they had run experiments and then avoid proving those claims and they would say they had data and then avoid presenting that data. And when pressed for data they'd present pictures of themselves inside of labs or pictures of components they supposedly used.

I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.


#2144537 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:36 PM

It does matter since he LIKE YOU are repeating your mistaken views that were already answered and refuted and not even addressing those points. You think just by restating the same thing over and over again like a broken record, people are going to accept YOUR erroneous claims. Your first reply is a typical example. It was answered multiple times already and you just emotionally blurted out the same thing again like a troll. Read the thread. Just declaring something erroneous doesn't make it so.


Hahaha, that's exactly what the rest of us have been saying to you and aprioriksi!

It does matter since he LIKE YOU are repeating your mistaken views that were already answered and refuted and not even addressing those points. You think just by restating the same thing over and over again like a broken record, people are going to accept YOUR erroneous claims. Your first reply is a typical example. It was answered multiple times already and you just emotionally blurted out the same thing again like a troll. Read the thread. Just declaring something erroneous doesn't make it so.

Yup, word for word. Of course you or he could silence all the critics. You have both claimed to have run experiments and gathered data that proves this digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks idea. Yet neither of you will do the scientifically correct thing and present the parameters of these supposed experiments along with all the data generated. Why?

It is accepted as true by many and nor is data the only method of refutation given for your erroneous claims. Just because they are not all participating in this thread doesn't mean they don't exist.


Really. Accepted by what "many"? Because all I see is you and aprioriksi. If you mean some site that has done what you cannot and actually run experiments that prove that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks then do us all a favor and provide the link. If you mean you know who these "many" are then tell us, we're dying to know.

And, again, what you wrote is word for word what we've been saying to you about many people preferring analog joysticks and scoring higher when using them.

It is accepted as true by many and nor is data the only method of refutation given for your erroneous claims. Just because they are not all participating in this thread doesn't mean they don't exist.

You really should hire an editor before you cut the knees out of your own position like that.

Screenshots, scores, recordings, explanations, etc. are all data. It's megabytes but you can derive the conclusion from the data given if you can't follow the math/logic.


No one is interested in deriving a conclusion from incomplete data when aprioriksi and you have both claimed to be in possession of all the data from your individual experiments. Why make people try to divine the results based off of a few samples of data instead of simply releasing all the data along with the parameters of your experiments? Are they really that bad that you don't want anyone to see?

If you read the thread, you were DISQUALIFIED for performing the experiment, for not understanding the data, and being biased toward your position. You have to be unbiased to perform the experiment.


Wrong again. If you reread your own words from Post #206 you will see that I am completely qualified to perform the experiment -

"@ledzep: have you ever driven a truck? I guess not so that disqualifies you from performing a controlled experiment with analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks."

Whoops! I have driven a truck so if anyone involved in this thread is qualified it's definitely me, haahahaa.

And, yet again, the same words apply to you and the guy who admits he hates analog joysticks (Post #82) -

You have to be unbiased to perform the experiment.

More mistakes from you. It is a control group. You haven't satisfied the requirements for performing the experiment nor understanding the results. You slip under the rug everything you can't answer and a few days later come and repeat the same thing again.


What, exactly, is the control group for your experiment? And where is the experimental group, hmmmm? The scientific method, which you claimed to have followed - learn it, live it, actually follow it.

I am not the one claiming to have conducted experiments and to have generated "megabytes" of data to support the erroneous claim that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. Neither am I the one who claimed that it was a scientific fact yet failed to show that it has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true (damn those mean ol' scientific definitions). That's you and aprioriksi. It's on you to present the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated once you have stated that you actually ran experiments.

Blind people can't see. You are too trapped emotionally in your fanatical views that you can't see the clear logic nor the experimental data. Again just blurting out things won't help your case. You are hypocrite. While demanding proof from the other side, you make claims that are unfounded and already refuted.


I can't see the experimental data because you and aprioriksi haven't released that data yet. Yes, I'm a fanatic about people actually backing up their claims, I expect people who claim to have run experiments to describe in detail the specifics of those experiments (how they were run, who participated, what gear was used, how the data was generated, etc.) and I expect people who claim to have data that proves their position to present that data for the rest of us to examine. Neither of you have satisfied those requirements.

You are a hypocrite. While claiming to have experimental proof for your side you refuse to allow anyone to examine it.

Don't speak for others. You are speculating. You have NO idea how many people are against your erroneous claims and how many are in your favor. Leave it to the individual to decide whether it's important or not. One thing is obviously clear is that it's important for you to keep repeating your erroneous values to try to dismiss everything written against you. And you got the name wrong many times-- an clear indication that you are not only a blind follower but an emotionally biased one.


This thread is all the data you need to see that I'm right and you're wrong. You and aprioriksi are one side, everyone else who has pointed out the multitude of errors in what you and aprioriksi have claimed are on the other. All you have to do is run the experiment yourself to see that I'm right. I already did but I will follow your lead and claim I have the data while not releasing it to you. Cool, huh?

That's not even the claim. He showed examples where the failures of analog joysticks occurs. And I experienced the same. And there's logic/science behind that. It's actually the analog joystick scores that are anecdotal. F=ma is true regardless whether you happen to come up with some measurements that don't match it. You are grossly in ignorance.


Oh it certainly is the claim. Maybe you should read the whole thread. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming people haven't read all the posts and you get upset by that?

His quote from Post #87 -

"I repeated the experiment and so have many others who have played the same games on A5200/PC/Atari 8-bit using analog joysticks and digital joysticks."

Until he proves that many others have repeated his experiments it is anecdotal. I can just as easily claim that I have run experiments that prove the analog joysticks provide better control and also so have many others and you would have to agree with me because you expect me to agree with aprioriksi based simply on his word. No way am I doing that without the data and hearing from these "many others" who have repeated the experiment. Maybe one of those imaginary supporters can actually describe the parameters of the experiment and present the data generated, huh?

You go play it yourself. They are not random video games. You have to repeat the experiment but are incapable of because you ONLY prefer analog joysticks as you already admitted in this thread.


I got a better idea. You go gather up all the data you claim to have generated and present it here. While you're at it, describe the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and tell us who participated in it, who were in the control and experimental groups, what games were played, what joysticks were used, how the data was generated, etc. You know, the scientific method you claim to understand and follow.

Nobody has control of analog joysticks' states. Wasn't that clear to you with the BASIC program given. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.


I have control of analog joysticks' states. I've run experiments that prove it. Megabytes of data, in fact. Oh, I forget you don't care about facts against you.

Boy, that was really easy to claim! I can see why you two ignore requests for confirmation and proof and instead just keep making empty claims, it's much less work.

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.

The games are coded by others if you ever looked at the screenshots.


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,

He could tell us tomorrow that those screenshots were actually taken by someone he knows who lives in another city while someone else was playing those games with digital joysticks and we couldn't tell if he was telling the truth or not because there is no way to verify any of the parameters using just those screenshots. It is impossible to know the specific circumstances without seeing all the data. Which he will never, ever release.

You are living in a bubble. You can't see data in front of your eyes. There's enough data to completely prove all your replies are rubbish. You also shoved under the rug the fact that you are maintaining a duplicitous position. You are opposing the data and demanding MORE of it. You argue against construction of a joystick making a difference and also in favor of it. How can you live with such a state of mind is beyond me.


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. It is you who is living in a bubble so long as you support his view that he can make claims about having data yet not release it all along with the parameters of his experiments (which, as you obviously haven't figured out by now, is part of "all the data").

I can't see the data until he provides it. He hasn't provided it so guess what can't be seen.

I am not opposing the data, I am opposing your and aprioriksi's assertions that small snippets of the data is sufficient. It isn't, not by a long shot. He only sticks to that because the alternative is admitting he doesn't actually have the data to present. I'm not demanding MORE data, I'm demanding ALL THE DATA. Because that's what is required. All of it.

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.

Figured you would mess that up as well. You really should step back and think about for even asking this. To leave in the middle of a war is cowardly not going to JFK which also I doubt you even did. You are the only one making excuses. More likely you chickened out until you can think of something against the proof presented. If you think this discussion is important, then you wouldn't leave and come back a week later. If you think its not important, then why bother with it now? Maybe you were trying to leave the country. Who cares. Better excuse for you would have been you were sick. Nonetheless the more important point is that you keep repeating things that are already refuted several times.


I keep repeatedly pointing out your repeated mistakes. The JFK reference was a joke, aprioriksi was updating us as to why he might not be answering some posts quickly because he had to go there, like anybody other than you would care. The only thing in this discussion that I think is important is for you and aprioriksi to stop merely stating that you've run experiments and generated data and get to presenting all the data and describing the specifics of these experiments. Only then can you expect anyone else to run the experiments themselves, only then can you hope to have anyone agree with your findings. Until you do that it's nothing but lies.

"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?


#2144469 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:50 PM

Man, the shuttle from JFK takes forever.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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