Main > Main Forum

Ultimarc rotary encoder issues

Pages: << < (4/6) > >>

Rip:


--- Quote from: AndyWarne on April 07, 2007, 08:08:03 am ---I can certainly supply a version with longer keypresses for testing. But the maximum keypress rate will decrease of course.
Andy

--- End quote ---
Excellent, I'll shoot you an email with my address.  I'm not sure the maximum keypress will be an issue.  Perhaps you can send a board with a few chips with various key press timings.  I can just swap out the chips and see what works best.  Thanks Andy!  You have A++ support  :applaud:

Kremmit:


--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on April 07, 2007, 07:21:18 am ---blah blah blah

--- End quote ---

Never mind, I don't want to play this game.

MaximRecoil:


--- Quote from: Kremmit on April 08, 2007, 02:28:26 am ---
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on April 07, 2007, 07:21:18 am ---blah blah blah

--- End quote ---

Never mind, I don't want to play this game.

--- End quote ---

Then why did you respond? And what "game" are you referring to? Is it anything like the childish "game" where you change quoted text to "blah blah blah"? (Bravo @ that BTW -- masterfully done)

RandyT:


--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on April 06, 2007, 03:12:29 pm ---Those inconsistencies in policy would probably not be brought up all that often if it were not for all the disciples who preach with fervor the "For Preservation, Not For Gameplay!" gospel. For example:

--- End quote ---

IMHO, the two are not mutually exclusive. 

Consider this:  What good would the preservation of the 1's and O's on a piece of digital media be, if you could not somehow turn them into something viewable?  Preserving only the bit patterns is pointless if it is to have any benefit to human society.  Therefore, one could easily view any device built, or code added that was done to facilitate the behavior of the original mechanical controls as crucial to the games preservation.

RandyT


MaximRecoil:


--- Quote from: RandyT on April 08, 2007, 10:28:51 am ---
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on April 06, 2007, 03:12:29 pm ---Those inconsistencies in policy would probably not be brought up all that often if it were not for all the disciples who preach with fervor the "For Preservation, Not For Gameplay!" gospel. For example:

--- End quote ---

IMHO, the two are not mutually exclusive. 

Consider this:  What good would the preservation of the 1's and O's on a piece of digital media be, if you could not somehow turn them into something viewable?  Preserving only the bit patterns is pointless if it is to have any benefit to human society.  Therefore, one could easily view any device built, or code added that was done to facilitate the behavior of the original mechanical controls as crucial to the games preservation.

RandyT


--- End quote ---

I agree. Another benefit to playability is that it encourages wide circulation. Wide circulation is the best means of preservation for software, even if "preservation" is the farthest thing from the minds of the people downloading the software. When something is unplayable, i.e., unusable to the Average Joe, there is far less incentive to obtain a copy. Generally only "completists" and the such will end up with a copy of it, which hinders preservation. It is better to have forty-eleven thousand copies of a game with playability hacks floating around out there, that can always be polished at a later date, than just a handful of copies, due to most people's lack of interest in obtaining unplayable games -- if preservation is your goal.

The thing is, the people who get on their soapbox with the "For Preservation, Not For Gameplay" message, don't tend to take things like that into consideration, i.e., they do view them as mutually exclusive; and it turns confrontational very quickly.

Pages: << < (4/6) > >>

Go to full version