Main > Main Forum
New Product (In Stock/Shipping) - Apache Controls Blackhawk Push/Pull Spinner
1UP:
I was sincere when I said I wished I could tell how good a controller was without buying it. I have so many piles of unused controllers laying around, I don't know what to do with them. Actually, most of them are cool, I just don't have room for enough machines to put them in!
I don't think that you can claim to know everything about optical controllers, and to say that it is impossible to get a desireable amount of control out of a specific resolution encoder may be uninformed. Do you know exactly what optics and electronics are being used? Is it possible to monitor not only the distinct pulses of light in order to determine speed and direction, but also to read the actual brightness of the light received at any moment, so as to extrapolate more precise information about the state of the encoder? I thnk Apache could answer these questions most accurately, but may be reluctant to do so in order to protect trade secrets.
In the end, it really doesn't matter what methods they use, if they actually give good results--I'm sure this will be reflected in their sales numbers. If it has been said that this controller has produced the "best game of Tempest ever" then I would take it to mean that the controller was more responsive/less prone to backspin than previous controls. Unless you assume they are lying, in which case, the review would be meaningless. I'm not sure why you say that Retroblast is "kissing --I'm attempting to get by the auto-censor and should be beaten after I re-read the rules--", otherwise, every review would state that every product is fine and dandy. They always give the pros and cons, and while their opinions may be different than yours, they are entitled to them, and obviously many people find their opinions useful in choosing their controls.
The only way to know for sure is to try the spinner yourself. If you are not currently in the market for a spinner, maybe you should give this one a pass. Otherwise, all you can do is either try it yourself, or wait until enough other people have tried it and posted their reviews, so that you can be assured that not everyone is in Apache's hip pocket.
Xiaou2:
"I don't know what to do with them. " hmm, send them here, Ill take em off your hands ;)
"I don't think that you can claim to know everything about optical controllers"
Never claimed that.
"Do you know exactly what optics and electronics are being used?"
Dont want to drag him into it, but Randy believes he does know what the encoder is.
"but also to read the actual brightness of the light received at any moment"
I believe thats a no. The type of optics you are mentioning would be a laser
reading device.. and that wouldnt need any holes at all.. in fact, holes would
create a problem. The older Infered mice type optics are simular in that
way, and are not very accurate in thier reads for such an application.
Laser is relatively new for mice actually. I believe only Logitec has
used this so far, and its expensive in that mouse. Not sure if
its as expensive in standalone hardware.. and also not sure how
far away from an object the laser can accurately read. Which
in the case of an up/down spinner.. could cause some major
problems for accurate reads when it changes focus..
"impossible to get a desireable amount of control out of a specific resolution encoder "
Not so. If one uses a high res encoder, they can also use electronics and
or software to reduce the resolution for games that do not require it.
However, theres no way to ADD resoliton to a very lo resoltion encoder.
The only thing you can do is multiply the values read.. which results in
choppy 'steps'. Which is not really accurate smooth control.
"less prone to backspin than previous controls"
Is NOT indicative of better control. Backspin is usually caused by an
encoder that is TOO sensative for the game being played.
Or, it can be caused from an encoder that is 'mis-aligned'.. such as
a slight wobble.. or poorly cut teeth. Whereas the optic gets
confused by the readings and reverses the direction.
It might also be caused by the actual optic not being capable of
reading pulses fast enough... thus again, it misses a tooth and
thinks directions have changed.
Anyone with better knowledge of this, feel free to correct me.
I have some experience with backspin problems when I made
my own encoders for my first versions of a dual skateboard bearing
spinner. It used a clear encoder that was laser printed. This was
even before oscars products. The things teeth had to be ecactly
perfect in spacing and direction.. and misalignments of the
position of the optics would cause the reverse. As well as if
the encoder wasnt centered and wobbled.
Too fine a tooth.. same thing. Too wide a tooth spacing can
also cause it. Its a very precise thing.. and was very tricky to
pull off. Eventually I realized that it wasnt a good idea to
use hand printed encoders.. and just find a machined encoder
instead.
"best game of Tempest ever"
Such a claim doesnt mean much.. as there is no real comparison here.
Maybe he just finally got better at that game. Maybe he was having a
stroke of luck. Was that only one game? Or did he play 10 games in
a row?
Did he directly compare 10 games in a row with the Apache.. to 10 games
in a row with the GGG spinner?
Did he alternate between the two spinners to see if he could spot any
control accuracy differences?
As for the rest.. Im also entitled to my opinions. If people dont like
them, they dont have to read them :P :) heheh
I merely pointed out that the Apache would benefit from a higher
res encoder and hardware or software reduction for lower res
games.. as well as the addition of Roller switches for longer lifespan.
I think that people take these comments as threats.. thinking that the
company will cease production because of them. This is not the case.
If anything, a company is cappable and may often make revisions to
a product. (esp if theres demand, and or hard competiton.. In which
case, they would NEED to adjust to keep customers) OR, they will
just keep on going with buisness as usual. A comment isnt going to
stop a company because their feelings are hurt.
And while Im not yet at that point where I NEED the spinners for my
new cabinet.. I am closer to that goal, and have been aquireing more
parts.
I was / am.. considering a purchase for this spinner as well
as the GGG spinner.. But would rather the Appache had higher tooth
count. Else, I can just use the original DOT spinner. The original
however.. is a bit poor with friiction.. and is slow and hard to move.
(due to its monster e-clip design which creates too much friction)
This is why this new spinner is a possible better alternative to the
real thing.
If all else fails, I may choose to build my own from a new design. Only
time will tell.
Timoe:
There should be a word limit on posts. ^ who's gonna read all that nonsense?
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
RandyT:
--- Quote from: 1UP on July 07, 2006, 09:01:10 pm ---Is it possible to monitor not only the distinct pulses of light in order to determine speed and direction, but also to read the actual brightness of the light received at any moment, so as to extrapolate more precise information about the state of the encoder?
--- End quote ---
No. WYSIWYG. As urebel stated, 4x is the maximum and is done in firmware. There is no magic hardware, at least none in the standard quadrature encoder setup (disc with holes in it and 2 sensors), that will accomplish what you are talking about.
Backspin and Tempest in particular;
Tempest, as implemented by MAME, has very low requirements from a spinner. The original used, I believe, a 72 aperture encoder wheel, but appears to have been used at only 1x. In other words, one movement for every hi > low or low > hi transition, but not both. So assuming this is true, a modern spinner would need only 18 (!!!) apertures to be accurate, due to the 4x decoding scheme. Higher resolution spinners than the original just throw way too much data at the game and it gets confused, causing backspin Since no spinner would (or should) have only 18 apertures, an adjustment to lower the sensitivity for that title is almost always in order.
There are other causes for backspin, but this is the situation with Tempest. Other games will behave very differently.
It should also be noted that, as Xiaou2 was saying, just because the original control behaved a certain way with the original hardware, that does not automatically mean the drivers in MAME have been written to behave exactly the same way. If one were to asume that a PC mouse were to be used to play the game, it is entirely possible that too much data would be sent to the game even at the lowest sensitivity levels. This would cause all kinds of problems and make the game unplayable. So the only thing that can be done is to have the driver scale the incoming data accordingly.
Any thoughts on this, Robin?
RandyT
*edit* Incorrect supposition about Tempest as handled by MAME removed
1UP:
Thanks for the clarification Randy. Could you explain briefly how 4 "clicks" are able to be captured with the same 2 sensor setup? It seems it must be looking at something other than distinct on/off pulses if it is able to get 4 times as much info out of a single click.
I guess then, the best test of what level of control a spinner is getting: how far do you have to turn the dial before your "guy" moves one pixel? Does it skip pixels? Do you get backspin at high revs?
Really, nothing else matters, other than, can you get the same level of control with a given spinner as you get on the original game? Or if you don't have the original game to compare with, do you feel that you are fully in control of your postion on the screen at all times? Is the response fast enough (for you), without requiring extreme revolutions on the spinner? This all comes down to experiencing it for yourself, whether the encoder is 72 teeth or 144 or 288, whether the hardware is 1x or 4x. Hopefully we can get some more specific reviews/comparisions. I personally will be happy to report my experiences when I get one of these to try.
I am also interested whether any of the other folks (Randy? Christian?) are still persuing an up/down design. I would definitely like to see an up/down spinner with a smaller footprint, if possible. :) The more options the better.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version