8 way joysticks with easy diagonals

[idsane]

 I have tried many joysticks for my mame cabinet and would like get some different 8 ways. I just put in a dedicated 4 way (leaf pro) and want two matching 8 ways. I play mostly classic type games and not fighters (robotron, contra, gain ground, goldenaxe, time pilot, double dribble etc). I currently have a happ competition with eswitches and the diagonals are hard to hit. I also have a  happ super which is OK but very loud and not as smooth as the competition. In the past I have tried a ustick 360 (very sloppy and soft even with the hard spring) and a magstick. I was looking at the zippy and the LED wired zippy looking stick (paradise). I have a wood panel and would like to undermount without routing so need a longer shaft. Overall I want something where the diagonals aren't going to be as much of a problem. Is there any other stick you would recommend? Thanks!

[shponglefan]

I've found the Seimitsu LS-32 to be a pretty precise stick.  I don't know if it's diagonals are necessary "easy" to hit, but I know when I want a diagonal, I get it.  I've found it a very good sticks for platformers, shmups and beat-em-ups.

That said, it does have a very short shaft compared to most of other sticks, so you'd need to either top-mount or pick up replacement shafts.

[PL1]

I also have a  happ super which is OK but very loud and not as smooth as the competition.

Have you tried replacing the switches?

Paradise has the "Seimitsu LS-32 / Zippyy(TM) Joystick upgrade Kit" here which also works well in the Happ Super.

You may need to do a little fine tuning on the lever arms to get it exactly right, but I'm very happy with the results on my Supers.


Scott

[jimmer]

I'm quite happy with my zippy longs for Robotron. But I've not tried other sticks or 8way games.

I made my own circular restrictors and tuned them to match the switches which I didn't adjust. For info, they are 6mm thick with diameter 21mm holes.

[rCadeGaming]

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.

[idsane]

Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate it.  Has anyone tired both the 32's and the zippyys and found any difference? Or the paradise LEDs which seem to be another 32 copy. They are listed as being pretty much the same joystick, so I don't want to pay twice as much for nothing, but if they are much better quality I will. I did see those conversion kit switches and I thought I might try that, both for the stick I order and with the supers to see what I like the most. I think the problem with the competition I have is the e-switches. I saw another post complaining about the same thing, AND two of the four switches have broken without a ton of use.

[Gray_Area]

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.

Is that why guys have such trouble?

[ramos8414]

A happ competition with a versa ball 2 works good.

[mgb]

I agree that a square restrictor helps for hitting the diagonals although I prefer the fluidness of a round restrictor.

you can also experiment with octagon restrictors if you try something like a Sanwa JLF.

You also asked if anyone else had opinions on the Zippyys- I installed 2 of them in a customers machine (for 4-way with the plus restrictor shaved to a diamond) but I felt they were sloppy.

[rCadeGaming]

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.

[jimmer]

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.

So you're allowed to ram the stick into the corner of your square restrictor, but we're not allowed to 'ride' our circular restrictors?

[rCadeGaming]

Sorry.  I should say, there's no need to ride the restrictor.  If that's your preference then I guess that's your preference.

In any case, when did I ever say that you have to ram it into the corner on a square restrictor?

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.

What I meant there is that if you're holding a steady direction, you can hold it in the corner to be sure you're found the diagonal.  I didn't mean you literally HIT the restrictor.

Even if you don't actually touch the corner (which you shouldn't if you're transitioning between two cardinal directions), it can be easier to activate a diagonal with a square restrictor because there are appropriately sized areas devoted the diagonals, whereas with a circular restrictor the diagonal engage zones can be smaller than the cardinals.

From slagcoin.com:



You can see on the diagram of the circular restrictor that those numbers could be better equalized if you either increased the total inside diameter of the restrictor or brought the activation points of the microswitches closer together, it's just something to watch out for.

[idsane]

The comps and the supers don't have restrictors in either, correct? Just square and round activators, respectively. I've been trying both with a a lot more games and I still don't like the comp (even on a fighter), so maybe the super mod'ed will end up being my best bet. I still will try some more though, at least the cheap zippy. Haven't played too much with ball vs bat either so it would be nice to have a stick that accepts both to switch back and forth to better discern.

[rCadeGaming]

There's an adapter to put a bat top on a JLF or Seimitsu.

[PL1]

The comps and the supers don't have restrictors in either, correct?

Correct, but GGG does make an aftermarket 4-way restrictor for the Super.




Scott

[Gray_Area]

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.

[mgb]

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.

I agree.
  I was just using my 8-way Sanwa today, it has a round restrictor, heavy spring and cherry switches and I am very satisfied with go it handles.
  My square restricted Sanwa is not nearly as good but it probably hits diagonals better though I'm interested to do a test and really pay attention to which I prefer for diagonals

[jimmer]

Here's a simple 8way test program. You'll have to input your own key values if different from mine.

http://www.codeskulptor.org/#user9_1qAK3kVoR9_7.py

[RandyT]

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.  Square restriction is great for a game like Q*bert, but not optimal for games where a rolling motion can help with game play.  Round restriction will still hit diagonals just fine, but there is nothing to hold you there, or anywhere else for the matter.  The round restriction does limit how deep you can go into the zone, and that can, depending on the factors described above, reduce the size of the zone.  But, it is not a given, and does not necessarily provide an indication as to how easily a diagonal may be achieved.   Octagonal restriction would be a clear winner in the compromise department, contrary to what the diagram would infer.  They allow deeper penetration into the diagonal area, will help guide the stick actuator to the proper location, and cradle it once there.  It also helps with 4-way games, for the same reasons.

RandyT

[rCadeGaming]

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.

It is not absurd or misleading at all.  It shows very accurately what can happen with the different restrictor types, and the nature of a four-microswitch-and-restrictor joystick setup.  It's helpful in understanding what's going on, and especially helpful in making well-designed stick or mod.

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.

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. 

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.

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".)

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.

Folks should be more concerned with how they expect the stick to feel while playing.

Of course they should be concerned with how it feels, but that's not a seperate issue.  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.

[RandyT]

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.

It's misleading specifically because it's not accurately represented.  The answer is given without regard to the equation.  Somehow, I knew I was going to end up drawing pictures before too long...

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.

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.

There is no "relationship" between "engage" and throw.  They are separate.  When discussing the ability to engage, throw is unrelated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jimmer]

I was going to post the same diagrams, but didn't want to get drawn into a discussion on how you are supposed to use your joystick. However I'm not working today so:

My only 8way experience is Robotron where I 'ride the circle' which makes sense because you are often/generally changing your running or firing by 45degress, eg running in curves or alternating firing between N and NE. That's why I set my stick to have equal zones on the periphery of the circle.

I can easily imagine that in other games if your starting point is generally the centre and you want to hit any of 8 directions then other arrangements will feel better.

Although an octagon would be more or less the same as a circle in terms of engagament areas, it gives the benefit of tactile feedback that could over time train you to hit the centre of the diagonal zone.

[kowal]

my 2 cent

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
- joyful inventions. This is detrimental to further users.
He prescribes only commonplace opinions from different user
He stole a lot of things from my site.

Many things are a total absurdity. like this:
4way diagonal on diamond restrictors 7%
on circle 6%
octagonal 6%
4way mode have more % diagonal than 8way?

and yes many generic roud stick have small rage of diagonal but this effect not com from round restrictor, come only from stick design
is still possible to get round stick with 45 degrees diagonal, still possible to get 60 degrees - yes I get this range on P360
is only stick design - nothing more

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
properly square is inscribed in a circle.

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

[jimmer]

Has there ever been a joystick with 8 switches?

[rCadeGaming]

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

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.

It's misleading specifically because it's not accurately represented.

It does not claim to accurately represent any particular stick/restrictor combo.  It represents the relationships between engage, throw, and restictor shape, and it does so very accurately.

Your drawings go one step further and illustrate these relationships over several examples of possible changes.  There's nothing inconsistent between your drawings and his though, and if you read the text below his drawings on the site he describes verbally the cases you've illustrated.

There is no "relationship" between "engage" and throw.  They are separate.

The relationship between engage throw directly determines the proportions of the engage zones.

As engage distance increases, the areas of the cardinal engage zones increase in proportion to the areas of the diagonal engage zones.

As throw distance increases, the areas of the diagonal engage zones increase in proportion to the areas of the cardinal engage zones.

Therefore:
(cardinal engage area)/(diagonal engage area) is directly proportional to (engage distance)/(throw distance)

You basically said this right here:

The image above shows how much impact a change in either restriction size, deadzone size, or both have on the diagonal zones.

restriction size (diameter of circle or width of square) = 2 x throw distance

deadzone size (width of square) = 2 x engage distance

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.

Agreed, and this is not inconsistent with anything I've said.

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.

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.

In practice, activation of a diagonal is achieved by placing the stick anywhere in a diagonal engage zone (one of the red areas in your drawings), not by placing the stick at the exact actuation point.

Look at your drawings.  The ones on the left are exactly the same as the ones on the right, except that the ones on the left have decreased throw distances, causing the diagonal engage areas to be smaller in proportion to the cardinals.

If you are not riding the restrictor, it will be harder to engage a diagonal because there is a smaller area in which you must place the stick to do so.

If you are riding the restrictor, it will be harder to engage a diagonal because there is a smaller portion of the circumference along which you must place the stick to do so.

A larger area is easier to find than a smaller one.  This is true in all cases.

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.

The relationship between engage and throw determines the proportions between the cardinal and diagonal engage zones.

A larger engage zone is easier to find than a smaller one.

Balancing the cardinal and diagonal zones is helpful in making them both equally easy to find.

These are hard and fast rules, true in all cases, and borne out by geometric fact.

[rCadeGaming]

Has there ever been a joystick with 8 switches?

Idk, but unless the restrictor prevented you from depressing two switches at once that would create 16 different directions that could be engaged.  Such a restrictor would be extremely clunky.

Also, either the game would have to be programmed differently to use 8 microswitch inputs instead of 4, or a simple logic circuit would have to be used to make the translation.

[kowal]

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

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.

He has no clue about the geometry is normal nonsense
square cut down the surface, because he does not need them - uses physical docking for diagonals
square cut unnecessary surface - not added

soory end of discussion
see you later

[rCadeGaming]

Kowal, I see what you mean in that the square and the octagon are constrained within the circle in your drawings, as opposed to the circle and the octagon being constrained within the square in the slagcoin drawings.  Your drawings better depict what you would typically find in actual sticks.  In terms of the square and octagon being constrained within the circle, this is exactly the case with the JLF (although according to your measurements of 6mm engage and 8mm throw, the dead zone should be larger in proportion to the engage zones).

In the future I will reference those drawings (and credit you), as they are more useful in that regard.

However, when looking at sticks from all different manufacturers, and especially with mods, it may not always be the case that the three restrictor shapes maintain that relationship.

Saying that the slagcoin author has no clue and it's total nonsense is a bit much.  This is only a guess, but it seems that you're insulting him based on your own conclusions that you've drawn from his drawings alone, and not the explanatory text.  Conclusions that are beyond what he intended.  I think there might be a language barrier, and I don't think you're considering this:

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.

In any case, the relationships I've stated in my previous post remain consistent, regardless of which drawing you're looking at.

[Gray_Area]

If kowal comes in to comment, you can bet it's important - and that he's probably right, and that you's....whoever you is.....is wrong.

[RandyT]

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

I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid you misunderstand my statement.

The ability to engage a diagonal direction has no relationship to the length of throw.  The points of actuation do not move.  If the angle of the approach is the same with two identical sticks, each with a different throw length, diagonal actuation occurs at the same points.   It is 100% based on the build configuration, as you stated above.  We do not disagree on this point.