I also have a happ super which is OK but very loud and not as smooth as the competition.
Circular restrictors can often provide smaller engage zones for diagonals than the cardinal directions. If you want easy-to-hit diagonals, you should be using a square restrictor. There's never any question if you're hitting it or not.
You shouldn't be "riding the restrictor" anyway, but I can't stand the octagonal JLF restrictor, it's really clunky, and well... restrictive. It's hard not to ride it because the diagonal engage zones are way too small.
Circular restrictors can often provide smaller engage zones for diagonals than the cardinal directions. If you want easy-to-hit diagonals, you should be using a square restrictor. There's never any question if you're hitting it or not.
The comps and the supers don't have restrictors in either, correct?
I think I prefer round restrictors. Square feel clunky. Octagonal is okay. I love to ride the restrictor - and I'm rewarded with vehement vocalizations - like yesterday morning for a good three hours.
From slagcoin.com:
Don't pay much attention to the diagrams on that site. They are misleading. Showing percentages of the total area, borders on the absurd in the context of deciding on which type to use.
The ability to actuate a switch has little to do with the type of restriction, with the obvious exception of the 4-way. Switch actuation is a product of the type of switch used, the proximity of the actuating member of the switch to the actuator part on the shaft, and the size/shape of the actuator part on the shaft. Two identical joysticks, one with a square restrictor, and one with round, will actuate a diagonal at precisely the same points in the throw of the stick.
The diagrams shown, are really only of value when using the case of having the stick in the most extreme position (i.e. "riding the restrictor".)
Folks should be more concerned with how they expect the stick to feel while playing.
It would only be misleading if you claimed that those are the exact values that are created in a specific stick. That claim is not made anywhere.
Yes, this is as all true, but it only applies to the engage distance. You're not giving proper credit to the importance of the throw distance and its relationship with the engage distance.
Actually, it is of great value when you are not at the most extreme position. If there is only a small area in which a diagonal can be engaged, it is much harder to find that area.
These aren't theoretical constructs that we consider solely for the sake of argument, it's simple geometry that dictates some of the aspects of how it feels, whether it's understood or not.
The image above shows how much impact a change in either restriction size, deadzone size, or both have on the diagonal zones. It's rather dramatic, which is why one cannot look at a single case and draw such conclusions. In fact, it's probably safer to assume that a stick properly made to use a round restrictor will have a different build than one where someone took a stick originally designed for square restriction and threw on a round restrictor. The diagram you posted seems to use this likely incorrect assumption.true
There is no "relationship" between "engage" and throw. They are separate. When discussing the ability to engage, throw is unrelated.no true
These measurements on this page (slagcoin) are often cited on SRK and youtube.
but all is incorrect
He did not measure this. All is fabricated on the basis observation JLW and JLF
It's misleading specifically because it's not accurately represented.
There is no "relationship" between "engage" and throw. They are separate.
The image above shows how much impact a change in either restriction size, deadzone size, or both have on the diagonal zones.
In fact, it's probably safer to assume that a stick properly made to use a round restrictor will have a different build than one where someone took a stick originally designed for square restriction and threw on a round restrictor.
QuoteActually, it is of great value when you are not at the most extreme position. If there is only a small area in which a diagonal can be engaged, it is much harder to find that area.
While this may look to be the case, based on the diagrams you posted, it isn't often this way in actual practice. Geometry dictates that with a stick where the switches are simple and without levers (not nearly always the case) the shaft must move further to actuate two at the same time. However, regardless of how far the shaft is able to move, the actuation occurs in exactly the same place. If you don't ride the restrictor while playing, the ability to find the diagonal will be exactly the same. If you were able to proceed outward from where restriction occurs, the zone will become larger, but this would necessarily change the shape of the restriction. Ergo, ease of actuation has nothing to do with restriction shape, unless you are riding the restrictor. It's much more beneficial to examine the actual build of the joystick to evaluate for this trait than to focus on the restrictor.
I understand it very well. But I can imagine many folks who don't understand the dynamics of myriad actuator and switch configurations, seeing those diagrams and thinking it's a hard and fast rule. It is definitely not.
Has there ever been a joystick with 8 switches?
He has no clue about the geometry is normal nonsenseThese measurements on this page (slagcoin) are often cited on SRK and youtube.
but all is incorrect
He did not measure this. All is fabricated on the basis observation JLW and JLF
He probably did not have the means to take precise measurements, they way you've done on your methodology page, but he hasn't claimed to.
In the section about restrictors, he is only describing the relationships among engage, throw, and restrictor shape, and it is all borne out as fact by geometry. Kowal, I greatly respect you for your work, but I think you've also jumped to the conclusion that he is trying to say that all restrictors of the shapes shown measure out to the percentages shown. He does not make this claim. They don't represent any specific stick. They're just an example of what can happen, and in the text below he even describes how changes to the throw and engage in actual designs will change these areas.
I think you've also jumped to the conclusion that he is trying to say that all restrictors of the shapes shown measure out to the percentages shown. He does not make this claim. They don't represent any specific stick. They're just an example of what can happen, and in the text below he even describes how changes to the throw and engage in actual designs will change these areas.
...It does not claim to accurately represent any particular stick/restrictor combo.
Quote from:There is no "relationship" between "engage" and throw. They are separate. When discussing the ability to engage, throw is unrelated.no true...
This is not the rule, but correctly is 2:1 if stick have correct design on this proportion you get good diagonal on circle