5-11under

December 22, 2010

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

Just pretend I've written between all of your quotes... this is much easier...

The individual still matters. Regarding my response, you messed up in understanding^TM. My son will score higher with the analog joystick than with the digital joystick. You will score the opposite way, it looks like. How does your equation account for this?

The same analogy was shown regarding Phil Collins and the stage hands, with the drum playing and stage making. Obviously Phil didn't attempt to make a stage, but the assumption, which most people would be okay with in this example, is that the stage hands would be able to build the stage better than Phil could. You then have both people performing both tasks. What is missing?

Four or five sample does not disprove my claim. It proves it for the 4 or 5 of you under the given circumstances. You could probably make some generalizations here, but that does not equal a proof.

Regarding arguing most points, once again, you messed up in understanding^TM... what have you learned in this thread?

December 22, 2010

Hi all,

The good news is that I should have an Intellivision or two in my possession on Saturday (thanks to coleconut). I've got some other things to do before diving in, but I'm looking forward to doing some testing. This may take some time, but I'm hopeful for some good results. I'll keep you posted.

Thanks,

5-11under

Did this died? I was thinking about modding my Inty III. Looks like beeslife.com is the only one selling them right now.

It's not quite dead, but it's only alive in my mind at this point. I have too many ColecoVision (sorry) projects on the go at the moment. So the short answer is I likely won't be starting this for another year... and then, who knows?

December 22, 2010

When I create a new thread at AtariAge, it's for one of these general reasons: Buying, selling, requesting information/knowledge, sharing information/knowledge/humour/projects. In each case, there is a very specific purpose behind the thread.

SkiAtari, what is the purpose of this thread that you've created. What is your intended goal?

December 22, 2010

Link to a multicart which might be helpful: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rdemming/Atari/MultiCart2600/index.htm

December 22, 2010

Keep in mind the pin-out. If it's an EEPROM, the pinout may be different than an EPROM or PROM. Check the data sheets to be sure.

And yes, if you manually (or otherwise) control the state of the upper addresses that aren't used by the Atari, you can make a multi-cart.

edit: This should work for all 2K and 4K games. If it's a 2K game, it's probably easiest to double it up to make 4K.

December 22, 2010

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick. Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

December 22, 2010

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score.

Go back to the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. Be consistent and say the samething about that. And your second sentence doesn't follow at all. I guess it's already answered earlier. You can only prove things experimentally for yourself. But there's NO WAY you can prove it's ONLY valid for the person performing the test. In fact, the opposite follows. If I perform the experiment that shows digital joysticks provide better control then I have NO REASON to think it won't work for others as the skills don't play a role. Just to PROVE my point using a simpler example: play Pac-man with paddles and then play with a digital joystick. Use all the skills you want, you will get inferior results with the paddles. And given the inferior control, only conclusion you can draw is that others will also experience similar failure. To say otherwise is just mental speculation (drivel).

Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

People have gaming skills and people have ability to use controllers. Lets not mix the two. The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal. Medication analogy doesn't apply at all.

Just repeating the same points (as this was refuted earlier) without taking the facts into account won't help you.

Sorry, I'm not going to find the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. I've no time for that. If I haven't stated my points on that, then others have, more eloquently.

Only points that were refuted. Newton conducted the experiment and he can say it's good for others based on his tests just like I can. But YOU CAN NEVER SHOW that it's only good for me since to do that you would have to go and try it for every person in existence. So your remark is just speculation (drivel).

To flip the coin, there's no way you can prove it's valid for others performing the test. It's your "experiment", and you should be the one to prove it's valid for others. Write up that report, and lay it bare, for all to see.

It's not flip the coin. To say something so specific from an experiment like "only you" implies knowledge of all other people in existence. I hope that's clear now.

I'll play Pac-Man with paddles when you play WaveRace 64 with a digital (i.e. 9 states) joystick. Deal? I had an Etch-A-Sketch when I was a kid, so I'm guessing I might actual do okay with the paddles.

Did you even notice the point being made-- that the CONTROLLER makes a difference that doesn't depend on the skill of how you play the game. You are stretching your imagination if you think you can do as good in pac-man with a paddle as with a digital joystick. You need to try it out and not speculation like you do most of the time. It's obvious for people who have used paddles and joysticks. It's easy to try if you can't think it out-- just hook up two paddles to Atari 5200 version of pac-man.

"The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal", eh? Then what are we doing here, ~40 pages later?

You don't need much skills or training to use a digital or analog joystick. I see you missed this easy point as well. Learning to master games is a longer time training event whereas using joysticks being discussed isn't.

First of all, write the experiment/study report. This is so passionate for you, it should be an enjoyable experience.

Regarding the "experiment" and the individual performing the experiment. I've said my points; you've said yours, and I have no new information to add. I will underline this, though: Just remember that the individual is a key variable in the "experiment", that cannot be ignored. I hope that's clear now.

I actually think I could do quite well with the paddles. By the way, thanks for letting us discuss paddles again, because paddles are awesome. I like the idea of separating the X from the Y, as far as control goes. Paddles provide better control than digital joysticks. I will provide more arguments as needed and later.

December 22, 2010

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score.

Go back to the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. Be consistent and say the samething about that. And your second sentence doesn't follow at all. I guess it's already answered earlier. You can only prove things experimentally for yourself. But there's NO WAY you can prove it's ONLY valid for the person performing the test. In fact, the opposite follows. If I perform the experiment that shows digital joysticks provide better control then I have NO REASON to think it won't work for others as the skills don't play a role. Just to PROVE my point using a simpler example: play Pac-man with paddles and then play with a digital joystick. Use all the skills you want, you will get inferior results with the paddles. And given the inferior control, only conclusion you can draw is that others will also experience similar failure. To say otherwise is just mental speculation (drivel).

Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

People have gaming skills and people have ability to use controllers. Lets not mix the two. The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal. Medication analogy doesn't apply at all.

Just repeating the same points (as this was refuted earlier) without taking the facts into account won't help you.

Sorry, I'm not going to find the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. I've no time for that. If I haven't stated my points on that, then others have, more eloquently.

To flip the coin, there's no way you can prove it's valid for others performing the test. It's your "experiment", and you should be the one to prove it's valid for others. Write up that report, and lay it bare, for all to see.

I'll play Pac-Man with paddles when you play WaveRace 64 with a digital (i.e. 9 states) joystick. Deal? :ponder: :twisted: :roll: :rolling: I had an Etch-A-Sketch when I was a kid, so I'm guessing I might actual do okay with the paddles.

"The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal", eh? Then what are we doing here, ~40 pages later?

December 21, 2010

I'm definitely interested in this. I'm not an expert in CV history, but will help out as best I can in other areas.

December 21, 2010

Medication tests aren't the samething since you are interested in what effects it has on various patients. In this case you are interested in what effects the two types of JOYSTICKS have on various games. As long as you know how to use both joysticks (which isn't a big deal), that's all that matters. If I play pac-man with both joysticks 100 times, then the skill level I apply for the game is the same-- only the controllers would make the difference. In fact, I can play better now than I did a few years but that still doesn't affect the relationship. The experiment activity is S(Pac-man)*A + S(Pac-man)*D. I guess you can use a scaling factor A and D since the specifics of the function S(g) can encompass everything else. It's an expression of logic in mathematical terms.

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score. Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

December 21, 2010

When's Gulkave going to be ready?

It's ready now, but it's not actually available yet. I'm waiting for the Pitfall II Arcade and Track & Field carts to arrive.

According to the lady at the Post Office, Pixelboy should have the "bare" carts tomorrow (although in theory it could be a day later). He'll need to clean the dust off a few of them, put the labels on, and carry on from there.

December 21, 2010

Looks like this thread has taken a sharp turn. Anyway...

I have a suggestion on the project, to help ensure accuracy and completeness... when the project is very near completion, start accepting paid pre-orders. Anyone who pre-orders would be able to download the whole package (or the parts they're familiar with) immediately, and would be able to review areas that they might be experts in. Then we could send you our corrections/additions/suggestions for your review. Then hopefully the physical product would be as close to complete as possible, with less required updates.

I'm hoping the package will include "newer" information such as hardware and homebrews.

Retroillucid, does this project take the place of the book you were thinking of making?

This sounds like a great project. Count me in for a copy!

edit: I know this is a tough question, but what's the current status, and when will I see mine in the mail?

December 21, 2010

Yeah its the same as a ZX81

But - in NTSC. And with USA power-supply.

Our ZX81 was NTSC and Canadian, although later was rebranded and sold by Timex, I think... .

December 20, 2010

I'd say start with demos. Make a background. Add some foreground items. Get stuff moving on the screen, both programmed in and controlled by you.

Gravity might not be too difficult once you've got some control over your "player" or other objects.

December 20, 2010

Post 1000?

edit: yep, 1000 posts here, each one better than the next. Time to call "Coles Notes", to see if they can work their magic.

December 18, 2010

I thought I would give two thumbs up for 5-11under's kit. I recently purchased the video upgrade PCB and it brings new life to my CV on today's newer TV's. Definitely recommend picking one up if you decide to mod your CV for component output. 5-11under was very helpful throughout the entire purchase and installation.

I'm glad you got it working and all put together.

December 18, 2010

Hey Potatohead,

I agree with you fully in your last post, #978. I, too, am working on some technical projects. I've got a Prop, too, but haven't worked with it yet (it was meant for a project, but that fell through). I'll probably start by building the propalyzer. Tomorrow is my family's Christmas get-together. I'm bringing the ColecoVision, with a multicart, component to VGA adapter, and an LCD monitor (nice as compact/light). I'm looking forward to seeing them play my games and of course some of the classics; it should be lots of fun.

Yes, I'm back, at least for a bit... I reserve the right to be inconsistent, change my mind, etc.

Have fun.

December 17, 2010

Is the memory chip/battery combo socketed, or would it need to be un-soldered from the board?

Can I buy a replacement label now so I don't have to search for one in 20-years?

It's soldered in.

December 17, 2010

So how different are these carts from standard Coleco carts? The battery backup must be interesting to implement.

Here's a pic of the "old" LotD PCB and one for the "new" LotD PCB

You can obviously notice that these are really different from each other

So the battery is in the housing on the new carts? Or do the new carts use a new type of battery? The new cart insides look like they'll fill the cart! That's amazing.

Thanks for sharing J-F!

Doesn't happen to recharge off the 5V from the cart slot somehow does it?

I'll let 5-11under anwser that one

The battery inside the RAM (memory) chip is a lithium cell, and should last about 15-20 years. It doesn't get recharged from the cart slot. However, when the game is on, the battery isn't in use. Conceivably, you could keep the game on, and not drain the battery. Practically, though, the battery will drain itself over that 15-20 years whether the game is on or off. That's what batteries do. Fortunately lithium cells are very good at holding their charge over long periods of time. Also, with the battery integrated into the chip, there's not much you can do (or not much I could have done during assembly) to cut the battery life short. The bad news is that if the chip/battery needs replacing in 15 years, it's a $6 to $12 replacement instead of $0.50 to $2 if the battery was separate. Of course whether the battery is separate or inside the RAM chip, you'd have to take out the screws underneath the label to open the case. Maybe when Retroillucid is teaching his oldest child to drive a car, he'll start selling replacement labels. This was the best option for price, and still have the battery included as it was originally planned. The WaferCart project (http://www.colecovision.dk/coll-cv-wafercart.htm) will use different technology in its game-save data (although I'm still trying to troubleshoot that... ).

December 17, 2010

All right, I'm officially bailing out of this thread. I can think of at least a half dozen issues I can raise about AtariSki's reasoning and analysis skills, and his decidedly unimpressive "scientific research" and methods of "experimentation," but pointing them out seems to be an exercise in futility. I've got better things to do.

I agree. It's only entertaining for so long. Now, it's just futile and a waste of time.

I hope everyone will just stop feeding this troll. Here and elsewhere. Then he will go away and stop wasting our time.

Adios.

Agreed.

Ciao

December 17, 2010

SkiAtari,

I don't think I said that tapping doesn't work great. It does. So does moving an analog joystick to certain position.

You're pretty much always relying on feedback, regardless of what joystick you're using... unless you close your eyes (and ears).

A priori has several meanings. Who uses these phrases, anyway? It can mean to know something without needing to experiment. That's what I was guessing. It can also be an argument without a logical basis. This must be what you mean.

And, finally, to answer your question, yes I indeed have used a digital joystick. There's one case closed, at least.

December 16, 2010

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

After doing a bit of research (checking one web site ), it looks like Pole Position takes advantage of the analog controller, to allow better control of your vehicle. If this is true, it's even better. Now you can perform shallow turns to get between vehicles and the side of the road, rather than jerkingly pulsing the joystick between full left or right and straight. Yes, you'll have to adjust the "steering" position if you're not going straight when you want to, but that's life - try something, observe results, try something else. After some training, we can usually skip a few steps in the process, because we have a good idea of where the first "try" should be. Feedback is very natural. It's not too different when using a digital joystick - the timing usually just ends up being more important. Take a corner/turn/bend in Pole Position for example. Analog: find the appropriate position that will turn you the rate you're looking for. Adjust as required. Digital: find the appropriate timing of pulses in one direction. Adjust as required. Both work. Both are valid in games. What's easier, more preferable, more enjoyable, or closer to reality, is a question each of us can answer on our own.

Perhaps, you should have done the research before you starting debating the issue. The analog joystick is NOT giving you better control. It relies on feedback. It's like saying a poor man is also rich because he currently happens to be living with a rich man (i.e., he can rely on feedback). Say something about the analog joystick itself. That's what I was speaking about which you didn't even address. And it's not jerkingly left or right with digital either. If you want to rely on feedback, you can do the same thing with a digital joystick and currently you can tap the joystick to go a few degrees rather than all the way. You need to do some more research. Feedback may be natural for some games but it's inferior to knowing the state of the joystick a priori. If that isn't obvious to you, it's no sense in proceeding any further. They both work but the analog joystick has uncertainty and longer throw and thus you do not have 100% control like the digital joystick gives.

Tapping/jerking, it's all the same. That sounds really bad.

Sure, maybe you can know exactly the status of the joystick with digital, but you still need to determine the tapping time - how long to keep it in position, and how long between taps. How do you do this? With feedback, that's how. You look at the screen, and react accordingly, to make your car go around the bend. Not turning sharp enough, as viewed on the screen: hold the tap longer, and/or with less time between taps. Turning too sharp, as viewed on the screen: don't tap as long, and/or have more time between taps. You're relying on feedback from the screen, as you should. Very similar case, as I've described above, with analog - instead of fine-tuning the timing the taps, you just need to fine-tune the position of the joystick.

I think it's unnatural to speak of "100% control", as if an analog joystick gives you 0% or some other percentage, like 50% control. It's a CONTROLler. It controls. Also, what's up with this a priori business, and research, all together. Pick one or the other, not both. Do you think it's a priori, or is experimentation required?

Anyway, the point is, your digital joystick also relies on feedback, and your example of Pole Position fits quite nicely.

December 16, 2010

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

You are mixing up two different things here. Feedback of what's happening in the game and trying to calibrate your joystick dynamically by looking at what your car did when you moved the analog joystick. That's why it's crippled. For digital joystick, you know there's no calibration involved and you are only concentrating on what's happening in the game. No wonder people score higher with digital joystick even in a game that uses analogicity. And, NO you can't just go back and forth to extremes and assume it's the same as digital since the motion starts as soon as you move slightly AND you can't even assume you are moving straight when you let go since that little bit of off-center throws off the straight path. All vague and inexact. And don't forget that you also have the higher throw which is required to allow for those in-between slower steering.

After doing a bit of research (checking one web site ), it looks like Pole Position takes advantage of the analog controller, to allow better control of your vehicle. If this is true, it's even better. Now you can perform shallow turns to get between vehicles and the side of the road, rather than jerkingly pulsing the joystick between full left or right and straight. Yes, you'll have to adjust the "steering" position if you're not going straight when you want to, but that's life - try something, observe results, try something else. After some training, we can usually skip a few steps in the process, because we have a good idea of where the first "try" should be. Feedback is very natural. It's not too different when using a digital joystick - the timing usually just ends up being more important. Take a corner/turn/bend in Pole Position for example. Analog: find the appropriate position that will turn you the rate you're looking for. Adjust as required. Digital: find the appropriate timing of pulses in one direction. Adjust as required. Both work. Both are valid in games. What's easier, more preferable, more enjoyable, or closer to reality, is a question each of us can answer on our own.

December 16, 2010

I was playing a bit of "Track and Field" last night (on the ColecoVision!), using a digital arcade joystick. I actually found the throw range of the stick to be too wide in this case. This may be an extreme case, because usually you have time to just slam the joystick one way or the other for regular games. However, in this case, I needed to quickly move one way and then the other, multiple times. I found it was best to just move the joystick left/right partially, to barely (hopefully) make switch contact, rather than all the way and being sure of switch contact. The left/right buttons I found were too slow (for me). The point is that all joysticks are different from each other, and have their own strengths AND weaknesses depending on the application.

BTW, I love all the names people come up with for SkiAtari. Good fun.

Peace out,

not-quite-6'-under

You do have a variety of joysticks but for any given analog joystick, there is a digital joystick that will have shorter throw given you have to allow for in-between states that are distinguishable. Just played Pole Position on Atari 5200 and there's NO WAY to tell how much the car turned by moving the analog joystick. It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller. Proves how crippled the analog stick is.

I'm assuming that Pole Position takes the analog input and breaks down the controller data into three options, left, right, and neither. If this is the case, just slam the stick one way or another to get the result you want. You can probably just move about halfway one way or the other, too, to get the desired result, if you like. No need to fine tune the position in this case.

I love your quote, "It's completely uncertain unless you keep looking at the screen to see what you did with your controller". I would highly recommend that you continue to look at the screen when playing Pole Position. Otherwise the Position of your car will likely be right in front of one of those Poles holding up the signs.

December 16, 2010

Divya, it's true... the results of your "experiment" will only be valid for:

1. You

AND

2. The specific joystick(s) you select

AND

3. Likely the specific game(s) you select

Change one condition, and the results could change. F=ma this isn't.

Have a different person, under the exact same conditions play a game... get different results.

Exactly time the drop of a feather under the exact same conditions... get the same results.

I'd actually call it a "study" or something else (depending on what meaning you attach to these words), because under the same conditions, others would get different results.

It just proves your only support is you.

Sample size = 1

Hi Atariksi,

I've heard it from others, and now I fully agree...

It's time to show the data...

I think you should publish a report, in a single document, outlining your experiment(s), with all pertinent specific details, with all of the data (within the document, not in some format many of us have never seen), with results/conclusions, and definitions of terms used (one that pops into mind is the word "control"). After that, you might be taken more seriously, or at least people will understand your "argument", to be able to better determine whether they agree with you or not. This will help you, I think.

Exactly, to make a valid scientific study you'd need hundreds of random samples (test subjects) as well as many, many examples of different digital and analog joysticks/gamepads AND games with an even selection of digital and analog specific intended controls as well as some others that might be more of a gray area.

You wrote "exactly" but he didn't say anything about hundreds of test subjects. Perhaps, you want to revise that. I know scientist(s) who study bee behaviour and they don't need hundreds of scientists-- just one sometimes two or three. Maybe you meant number of games not test subjects. The experiment can be repeated by others but for one scientist to perform the experiment or two doesn't make the experiment invalid.

No, it just makes the results of the experiment invalid outside of the original scope. The point is that a successful experiment should be able to be repeatable, by another scientist for example, and get the same results. "Your" experiment is not repeatable in the same way.

-6under

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Store

Posts posted by 5-11under