Main > Main Forum

TOKN KB16 (Tiger-Heli's Testing Complete)

Pages: << < (16/19) > >>

Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: KevSteele on June 25, 2005, 08:42:30 am ---The more info the better, IMHO.

--- End quote ---
The more accurate info the better.  I would not be surprised if TOKN "supporters" don't pop up saying my info is totally inaccurate and the encoder works flawlessly.  This can only muddy the waters and make the situation worse.  I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

--- Quote ---it would have been a real shame if you had "boycotted" the product because of Mattp's actions.

--- End quote ---
Conditionally I agree.  I got the product for free from you, as did you from Mattp, I presume.  I would feel bad if I had paid for it, (even if I wrote the review), if my purchase was helping to sell the product to others, unless I could get my money-back.  (And I'm waiting to see how that plays out for jjd.)

And while I wouldn't have accepted the encoder to review from Mattp unless there was an understanding that anything I discovered (good or bad) would be fair game to include in my review, I would still feel bad about writing negative findings about a product the developer gave me for free.  I would still do it, but I'd feel bad about it.

Also, a certain level of distance is helpful.  I got the unit second-hand and after you had previously reviewed it and after it had been hashed out on the BYOAC forum.  Had I got it directly, there would have probably been a lot more back-and-forth between Mattp and myself - "Matt, my unit is producing ghosting, are they all supposed to, or did I get a bad sample?" - and that interchange usually turns the review more positive.  In fact, as I said, you can kindof see the pendulum in this thread.  My opinions basically went from:

1)  It really doesn't work, to:
2)  It is actually workable for a 1-player 6-button or 2-player, 2 buttons each panel (as long as you change the default inputs and re-program the unit), to:
3)  Okay, you can make it work, but it's a big hassle to do so and even after that it's more expensive than more capable competing products, so why would you bother.)

KevSteele:

The urge to "soften" a review because of getting a unit for free is an issue I have had to deal with. Some feel my reviews are too soft, but quite often I'm just trying to be fair and point out the good and the bad.

As you yourself know, I have been known to stick to my opinions of a product, even when confronted by the product's creator (or an online rebuttal  ;))

Most of the time, companies don't submit products unless they're confident of a good review (i.e., they know their product works as advertised). That's why this whole situation with Mattp is such a mystery...

Kevin

Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: KevSteele on June 25, 2005, 09:10:01 am ---The urge to "soften" a review because of getting a unit for free is an issue I have had to deal with. Some feel my reviews are too soft, but quite often I'm just trying to be fair and point out the good and the bad.

--- End quote ---
There is that, but it's not always just that the unit is free.  See this page: http://www.mameworld.net/tigerheli/encoder/nocodeload.htm  I hated  this feature of the KeyWiz, asked for a way to disable it, asked for a version without it, and posted a page about why it was a terrible idea, and how it could (should) be disabled.  RandyT (correctly, I now believe) pointed out that it was realistically only a problem in a 4-player setup, and I never bothered to disable it on my KeyWiz, and have never had a problem with it.

My point is that you always have that dynamic - You don't like something, the developer points out why it's a good idea, and then you have to re-evaluate whether you missed something, or you were correct and he is just trying to put a positive spin on your negative comment.

--- Quote ---As you yourself know, I have been known to stick to my opinions of a product, even when confronted by the product's creator (or an online rebuttal  ;))

--- End quote ---
I know, not always a good thing.  j/k  ;)  BTW, I recently reviewed my re-buttal for SirPoonga, and I stand by it as well, although there are some areas in there where I mis-understood what you were talking about.  My point here is that you need to write carefully and re-read what you have written so it can only be interpreted the way you intended (not that I'm 100 fool-proof on that.  Yes, I know they keep coming out with smarter fools 8) ).

For example, I took "Program via attached keyboard" to mean that you thought it was a feature that the software used a keyboard rather than a mouse for programming the unit.  Andy Warne also thought this was a "feature".

In talking to SirP, I realized you were probably referring to an obscure method of programming the encoder without using software.  This would really only be useful on the I-PAC if you were running it under BEOS or Solaris, as otherwise, you would just use the Mac or Linux programming software.  On the KeyWiz, it would be pretty pointless, because unless you had a dual-boot system, custom settings would not be retained anyways, and with a dual boot system, you could program it through software in Windows and then boot into Solaris.

I think the main problem with your KeyWiz review was you didn't take the time to fully evaluate the product and the implications of some of the design decisions.  That's something I struggled with on the KB16.  For example, I know that, on the KB16, you can choose inputs carefully and avoid ghosting on the action keys.  But I didn't want to unwire my CP and wire in the KB16, so I can't really say whether the response time with multiple keypresses is acceptable for arcade gaming or not.  I think it is, but I don't have hard testing to back it up.

--- Quote ---Most of the time, companies don't submit products unless they're confident of a good review (i.e., they know their product works as advertised). That's why this whole situation with Mattp is such a mystery...

--- End quote ---
Agreed.  I never thought about testing my KeyWiz for ghosting, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't see any.

Did Mattp think that if he said it didn't produce ghosting, everyone would take it at face value and not do any real world testing?  Odd and unknown.


KevSteele:


--- Quote from: Tiger-Heli on June 25, 2005, 09:50:10 am ---I think the main problem with your KeyWiz review was you didn't take the time to fully evaluate the product and the implications of some of the design decisions.
--- End quote ---


Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: KevSteele on June 25, 2005, 10:54:35 am ---
--- Quote from: Tiger-Heli on June 25, 2005, 09:50:10 am ---I think the main problem with your KeyWiz review was you didn't take the time to fully evaluate the product and the implications of some of the design decisions.
--- End quote ---

Well, in the end it really boils down to this: compared to the IPAC, Randy's design adds 4 inputs and drops NVRAM, keyboard LEDs, USB, and keyboard passthrough (and no, the switchable input doesn't count, as it's useless IMO). It also has a "hot-swap" ability to change between a user-set key assignment and the MAME set, something you hated but I kinda found to be a nice "trick".

You and Randy feel that the 4 extra inputs are more useful than the NV memory and passthrough. I feel the other way around. At this point it's primarily a difference of opinion, and both encoders are still great for MAME and both work exactly as advertised (unlike the TOKN16, sigh...)

--- End quote ---
Okay, that's basically it.  There are some subleties and some not so subtleties -

KeyWiz has 32 action inputs, I-PAC has 27 b/c of a difference in shift key implementation.  But this is really only a factor for a four player panel.

Steath shifted keys involve two diodes for the KeyWiz, and an RC circuit for the I-PAC.

Shift operates on keypress on the KeyWiz and key release on the I-PAC.  Without a lot of configuration, Shift requires an extra CP button on the KeyWiz, and can be hidden on the I-PAC.

I-PAC software is available for Linux, Windows, and Mac and I-PAC can be custom programmed and used in any OS that recognizes a PS/2 or USB keyboard.  KeyWiz is pretty much limited to Windows, although you can use it with the default codeset in Linux.

I have been told (by Andy Warne) the I-PAC programming software is faster, but have not verified this.  I-PAC supports some macro assignments in programming, KeyWiz does not.   KeyWiz software uses a mouse/trackball, I-PAC requires a keyboard (although I think in NT,2K,XP, there is a "virtual keyboard" you can use.

I'm sure I left something out, since we're way off topic.

--- Quote ---I did soften my Keywiz review a while back and removed the last sentence which did seem like a "cheap shot" upon review.

--- End quote ---
I missed that.  (Not the cheap shot, but that you removed it).  Good decision, IMHO.

Pages: << < (16/19) > >>

Go to full version