Main > Main Forum
New Product: Ultimarc UltraStik 360 Analog/Digital Mappable Joystick
Minwah:
Just as a non-technical comment...
I received my sticks today, and have only so far had chance to try one in analog mode at work. My opinion so far is very good, it plays fantastic! I have only played analog games so I am not commenting on the mapping and use in digital games, but having been after a balltop (or non-trigger handle really) analog arcade stick for some time this really is perfect for me. Forgetting analog resolutions, the stick is very nice and precise on all the games I've tried so far :)
When I get chance to install them into a control panel I am looking forward to seeing how they perform with digital games (esp. 8-way fighters) and also how the restrictor plates affect things.
leapinlew:
--- Quote from: Minwah on July 13, 2006, 11:11:40 am ---Just as a non-technical comment...
I received my sticks today, and have only so far had chance to try one in analog mode at work. My opinion so far is very good, it plays fantastic! I have only played analog games so I am not commenting on the mapping and use in digital games, but having been after a balltop (or non-trigger handle really) analog arcade stick for some time this really is perfect for me. Forgetting analog resolutions, the stick is very nice and precise on all the games I've tried so far :)
When I get chance to install them into a control panel I am looking forward to seeing how they perform with digital games (esp. 8-way fighters) and also how the restrictor plates affect things.
--- End quote ---
Well definetly let us know. I'm holding on these and may order depending on some reviews.
escher:
--- Quote from: leapinlew on July 13, 2006, 11:16:57 am ---I'm holding on these and may order depending on some reviews.
--- End quote ---
I'm in the exact same boat. :)
RandyT:
--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on July 12, 2006, 03:02:53 pm ---Some games you want it to be impossible to see the divisions you talk about:
--- End quote ---
But an example of one still hasn't surfaced. :)
--- Quote ---Any lightgun game with at least one axis with resolution >= 256 and small targets.
Any positional gun game with the hardware to see better than 256, and small targets.
Take term2 (400x256 screen), for example. With 256x256 joystick, you can almost hit 2 out of every 3 columns (you hit 256 out of 400, which is 2 out of 3.125). You lose more than 1 (1.08) out of every 3 pixels; IOW you can't hit one third of the screen, interlaced with what you can hit. It doesn't really hurt hitting the near targets, but this makes hitting the small, far, already-hard-to-hit targets even harder.
--- End quote ---
That's all very interesting from a strictly technical standpoint, but in reality it is inaccurate. The game you used in your example actually used only 256 positions in each axis with the original controller. It used 8-bit positioning by design. You can add 10 times the resolution to the controller and it still won't make that title play any differently. Other existing games will probably show to be the same.
The problem here is that you are operating under the assumption that it is or will ever be necessary to be able to actually hit a target that is one or even two pixels in size. This just doesn't happen very often, if ever at all in practice, as games are designed to be playable. Neither lightguns nor positional guns have that type of pixel perfect precision (meaning the ability to hit where the gun is aiming,) so if the author of the game intended for tiny 1 or 2 pixel targets to be hit, they use a little trick. They draw a "hit box" around the target that is 5, maybe even 10 pixels square. The net effect of this is that even with very small targets, that 400 pixel screen width is probably more like 395 "free floating" 5x5 pixel target zones horizontally. In other words, there are never any problems with being able to hit only "almost 2 out of every 3 pixels" or even half. You don't divide by the screen resolution, rather the size of the smallest possible target (the "hit box", not the graphic) in a game. The game's control scheme takes care of the rest.
--- Quote ---Other times the possible hardware output may be 256x256, but your game/mame might see less:
When the throw is restricted and the stick's firmware can't adjust ...Then you have less than 256x256. While if you started with 1024x1024, you can restrict it to one sixteenth the area (one quarter movement each direction) and still get true 256x256 at the game.
--- End quote ---
I find it curious that this is viewed as a "good thing". One of the main reasons analog sticks (and other controllers) have extended throws is to facilitate accuracy over that large 256x256 actuation area. We, as humans, have pretty good motor control but there is a limit to how fine a level we can operate, especially in a high-stress environment like a video game. Imagine taking those 65536 possible positions and shrinking them down to 1/16th or even a quarter of the space normally occupied. Would that enhance or actually decrease a persons ability to use the controller? I have my own views on that one, but others can decide for themselves.
--- Quote ---And ATM 1024 (10 bits) is all that's needed for those few games that need > 256.
--- End quote ---
And those games are....?
RandyT
Tiger-Heli:
--- Quote from: RandyT on July 13, 2006, 11:28:49 am ---Neither lightguns nor positional guns have that type of pixel perfect precision (meaning the ability to hit where the gun is aiming,) . . .
--- End quote ---
<lurk off>(Light)gun control means being able to hit where you are aiming.<lurk on> :laugh2:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version