| Main > Main Forum |
| 49-way vs 4-way vs 8-way in MAME: Differences... |
| << < (15/33) > >> |
| Kremmit:
Jeez, I go away for a day... Damn if I'm gonna go back through this whole thread to dig up all the quotes from stuff I'd like to reply to, but: re: Andy's original question: As I said in This Post, --- Quote ---"Of course, there's the question of whether or not it's worth doing anyway. ... plus the fact that they (edit: analog sticks) feel NOTHING like a regular digital joystick, more like flopping a wet noodle around. Even with the software restriction, the long throw and lack of resistance would probably make 2,4, & 8 way games unplayable on an analog stick." --- End quote --- So, since your stick design will have physical restriction, all you have to overcome is the long throw (could be handled by the physical restriction as well), and the lack of restistance. Current arcade analogs are way too loose for digital joystick games. Fix those problems, and you've got a candidate for electronic restriction. re: 49-way testing & DRStm: Yup, it makes a difference. Play is improved by DRStm. Any stick with resolution greater than the stick the game was originally programmed for should play better with electronic restriction. I still like the feel of physical restriction, but that's because I'm an authenticity nut. Still, I found 4 and 8-way games to play just fine with the DRStm system. re: Custom grid mappings (what you think works, doesn't; and what you think wouldn't, does) I believe that what Randy found was that the mechanics of the 49-way sticks were such that pushing the stick exactly 1/3 of the way left and 1/3 of the way up didn't necessarily register electronically as the diagonal in the first circle of grid squares, and the same for pushing the stick exactly 2/3 of the way. In other words, the electronic grids didn't match up exactly with the position of the stick handle, and this is why his grid mappings aren't divided up exactly the way one would cut them up if they only had a picture of the grid in front of them, and no access to the actual stick for testing. So, since his custom grid mappings were determined by the mechanical properties of the two 49-way sticks, it follows that grid mappings for an electronic restriction system for an analog stick would have no connection to the ones used by the GP-49. (Randy- feel free to correct me if I've botched this part- and thanks for taking the time to get the grids right, for both varieties of the stick. ) re: Intellectual Property theft: Andy asked aboud implementing electronic restriction as part of an ANALOG joystick. Randy has electronic restriction implemented as part of a 49-WAY INTERFACE. One product is a stick, the other is an interface. One product is for 49-way sticks, one product is for analog sticks. The only thing they have in common is the use of electronic restriction. Furthermore, since one product would be implementing electronic restriction on a 256x256 grid, and one would be implementing it on a 7x7 grid, there's no chance that the top-secret grid mappings are being stolen. Unless Randy wants to claim the very concept of electronic restriction is his IP (and I can't imagine he does), then there's no theft of IP possible here. Including an electronic restriction mode that forces the analog stick to work in a "49-way mode". That MIGHT make the GP-49 obsolete (might, might, MIGHT!), but it's definately not a function the GP-49, or any other product I know of currently has, so again, no IP theft. re: copycat products Omni-Stick Prodigy vs. T-Stick+ One switchable with visable mechanism, for instant visual feedback and ease-of use. One switchable with invisible mechanism, for a cleaner appearance. Different products. Omni-Stick Prodigy vs. Euro-Stick Above panel switching vs. underpanel switching. Different products. Keywiz vs. I-Pac2 One PS/2 only, one USB + PS/2. One with constant-on keyboard pass-thru, one with switched pass-thru. 28 inputs, 32 inputs. Etc. Different products. Keywiz Eco vs. I-Pac VE USB vs. PS/2, 32 inputs vs. 28. Etc. Different products. GP-Wiz vs. A-Pac Digital only gamepad encoder vs. Analog capable gamepad encoder. Different products. GP-Wiz49 vs. A-Pac 49-way capable gamepad encoder vs. Analog capable gamepad encoder. Different products. GP-Wiz49 vs. Andy's proposed new analog stick Encoder vs. stick. Different products. Shucks, the meat of all those old threads that've been dug up is largely about why one product or the other is superior to the competing one; hence, they're different, by the manufacturers' own arguements. Nobody's copying anybody. If everybody's making these products, there's gonna be some cross-over, but they've all got their own special niche. Nobody's selling anything that's technically or functionally identical to their competitors' products. (including Dave's products, which I haven't mentioned, since he's not here.) re: Kremmit loves everybody. Randy and Andy (hey, never noticed that before ;D ), I hope neither of you feels like I'm picking on you or taking sides here. I've got two Ultimarc encoders, two Ultimarc sticks, to GGG encoders, one GGG stick, and two Druin's, to boot. My current shopping list includes products from both vendors, as well. I'll use anything that works, and every product I've used from either of you has worked well. re: sitting back and watching the fur fly: Can I get a Pepsi and some popcorn too? No, wait, I want a beer with my popcorn. Two beers. Hell, beers for everybody! |
| RandyT:
--- Quote from: Kremmit on April 14, 2005, 01:28:20 am --- re: Intellectual Property theft: Andy asked aboud implementing electronic restriction as part of an ANALOG joystick. Randy has electronic restriction implemented as part of a 49-WAY INTERFACE. One product is a stick, the other is an interface. One product is for 49-way sticks, one product is for analog sticks. The only thing they have in common is the use of electronic restriction. Furthermore, since one product would be implementing electronic restriction on a 256x256 grid, and one would be implementing it on a 7x7 grid, there's no chance that the top-secret grid mappings are being stolen. Unless Randy wants to claim the very concept of electronic restriction is his IP (and I can't imagine he does), then there's no theft of IP possible here. Including an electronic restriction mode that forces the analog stick to work in a "49-way mode". That MIGHT make the GP-49 obsolete (might, might, MIGHT!), but it's definately not a function the GP-49, or any other product I know of currently has, so again, no IP theft. --- End quote --- The joystick needs an interface for it to operate. Here's where the lawyers would probably see it differently from what you stated: No other product has ever used this methodology to make the joystick "smart" and allow it to transform into another type of joystick at the interface level. It makes no difference whether resolution of the stick is 49 or 49,000. The methodology is the same and the simple fact is, if you originally said it had no value and don't know how it works or why anyone would want it, then it isn't yours. If the same functionality were talked about being implemented as a driver on the computer side in support of this new joystick, then there would be no discussion. But .well...that's why there's a controversy here. RandyT |
| Kremmit:
--- Quote from: Kremmit on April 14, 2005, 01:28:20 am ---Unless Randy wants to claim the very concept of electronic restriction is his IP (and I can't imagine he does), then there's no theft of IP possible here. --- End quote --- So, you do want to claim electronic restriction is your IP? *Kremmit opens another beer* |
| paigeoliver:
--- Quote from: RandyT on April 14, 2005, 02:47:45 am --- --- Quote from: Kremmit on April 14, 2005, 01:28:20 am --- re: Intellectual Property theft: Andy asked aboud implementing electronic restriction as part of an ANALOG joystick. Randy has electronic restriction implemented as part of a 49-WAY INTERFACE. One product is a stick, the other is an interface. One product is for 49-way sticks, one product is for analog sticks. The only thing they have in common is the use of electronic restriction. Furthermore, since one product would be implementing electronic restriction on a 256x256 grid, and one would be implementing it on a 7x7 grid, there's no chance that the top-secret grid mappings are being stolen. Unless Randy wants to claim the very concept of electronic restriction is his IP (and I can't imagine he does), then there's no theft of IP possible here. Including an electronic restriction mode that forces the analog stick to work in a "49-way mode". That MIGHT make the GP-49 obsolete (might, might, MIGHT!), but it's definately not a function the GP-49, or any other product I know of currently has, so again, no IP theft. --- End quote --- The joystick needs an interface for it to operate. Here's where the lawyers would probably see it differently from what you stated: No other product has ever used this methodology to make the joystick "smart" and allow it to transform into another type of joystick at the interface level. It makes no difference whether resolution of the stick is 49 or 49,000. The methodology is the same and the simple fact is, if you originally said it had no value and don't know how it works or why anyone would want it, then it isn't yours. If the same functionality were talked about being implemented as a driver on the computer side in support of this new joystick, then there would be no discussion. But .well...that's why there's a controversy here. RandyT --- End quote --- WRONG, WRONG, WRONG There are dozens and dozens of PC gamepads and playstation gamepads with analog sticks that change to 8-way mode with the press of the button. You did not invent that idea. Sorry, not even close. I have one sitting in my backpack right now that I bought a couple YEARS before people were even talking about 49-way interfaces. SO I guess no other product has EVER done that, except for the hundreds of high end gamepads, flight sticks and industrial joysticks that have done so for years and years. |
| Tiger-Heli:
--- Quote from: Kremmit on April 14, 2005, 01:28:20 am ---Jeez, I go away for a day... --- End quote --- Kremmit, nice summary and good technical info without "fueling the fire". One correction: --- Quote ---Keywiz Eco vs. I-Pac VE USB vs. PS/2, 32 inputs vs. 28. Etc. Different products. --- End quote --- S/b: Keywiz Eco vs. I-Pac VE USB vs. PS/2, 32 inputs vs. 32. Screw terminals vs. Pin header. LED's vs. no LED's. Etc. Different products. Although, price and feature-wise, the I-PAC VE stacks up better (and aligns closer) with the KeyWiz Max 1.5. And I am only adding this post to point out that you got the number of inputs wrong on the I-PAC VE. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |