I want to start sharing my game controller (4 joysticks)

[7heo]

30 minutes ago, tikker said:

No, it has six degrees of freedom, not six axes.

Three gyroscope axis, three accelerometer axis. I count six.

 

30 minutes ago, tikker said:

For example, your elbow has 1 degree of freedom

Two, actually : Flexion/Extension and Pronation/Supination.

 

30 minutes ago, tikker said:

Not true degrees of freedom aren't poorly defined at all.

As formally defined by Wikipedia: "In various scientific fields, the word freedom is used to describe the limits to which physical movement or other physical processes are possible. This relates to the philosophical concept to the extent that people may be considered to have as much freedom as they are physically able to exercise. The number of independent variables or parameters for a system is described as its number of degrees of freedom.". If you find that clear and unambiguous, good for you. I don't. According to this, you can define "degrees of freedom" according to much more than just the 3 dimensions of our space.

So, you colloquially all happen to use the same definition for it, because the "Six degrees of freedom (6DoF)" has become a buzzword in the Gaming culture. But I wasn't aware of that since I do not deal with controllers often. Using the formal definition, it wasn't clear. (side note: the 42.69 was meant as a joke. I thought this was obvious, given the choice of numbers. )

[tsmspace]

30 minutes ago, tikker said:

I mean it would be a bit bad if you were not convinced of your own product, so it's good you are convinced yourself. I'm still not sure what you are on about exactly though. What would the two extra sticks control exactly? For normal 6 DoF flight I stand by my point that a flight stick is more intuitive as it naturally encompasses all of them. The situation where I could see a reason for more sticks to exist would be one where you need direct control over each DoF like, I don't know, flying up vertically while barrel rolling. Those would be rather niche situations though.

This is in contradiction with itself. You cannot provide a wrong input and get an accurate result. The more error in input you allow, the less accurate the control over output you will have.

This is just a reason in favour of controllers, which nobody is argueing.

Which is what you seem to be aiming for though?

The controllers we have now are the result of many iterations to arrive at a good product. In your further point about flight sticks being too complex to appeal to the mass market you already foreshadow a big problem for a 4-stick controller: it's complicated and niche compared to what we have now, so it will most likely never dominate the market. It will be a niche product for the situation it potentially handles well.

It's not a lack of funding or lack of proper controllers I'd say. Most flight sims just aren't the most exciting games for the general market and get old quickly no matter the context.

No, it has six degrees of freedom, not six axes. You have 3 axes along which you can do translation + rotation, resulting in 2 degrees of freedom on each axis.

Not true degrees of freedom aren't poorly defined at all. They tell you how a system can move and aren't fractional in physical context. Ranges of motions are complementary to degrees of freedom as they provide constraints. For example, your elbow has 1 degree of freedom: you can open and close it by rotating along the joint's axis, nothing more. It's range of motion is 180 degree (fully extended) to let's say 30 degrees (fully contracted). Your shoulder joint has 3 degrees of freedom, rotation around x, y and z, with some range of motion associated with how flexible you are.

"Controlling" something doesn't magically introduce degrees of freedom. All of that control is governed by a handful of operations: a translation along x, y, z and a rotation about x, y ,z. For example, a certain diagonal movement is just translation along a certain combination of the three axes.

so to skip the rest ,,, yes. I do mean each axis of control on a stick,,, so straight up. 

 

watch the 'controls walkthrough" video,, I literally spend 5 minutes pushing one button at a time. 

[tsmspace]

23 minutes ago, 7heo said:

Three gyroscope axis, three accelerometer axis. I count six.

 

Two, actually : Flexion/Extension and Pronation/Supination.

 

As formally defined by Wikipedia: "In various scientific fields, the word freedom is used to describe the limits to which physical movement or other physical processes are possible. This relates to the philosophical concept to the extent that people may be considered to have as much freedom as they are physically able to exercise. The number of independent variables or parameters for a system is described as its number of degrees of freedom.". If you find that clear and unambiguous, good for you. I don't. According to this, you can define "degrees of freedom" according to much more than just the 3 dimensions of our space.

So, you colloquially all happen to use the same definition for it, because the "Six degrees of freedom (6DoF)" has become a buzzword in the Gaming culture. But I wasn't aware of that since I do not deal with controllers often. Using the formal definition, it wasn't clear.

it's true,, "degrees of freedom" is a term that can be used for overlapping concepts. So,, you can say a car has 4 degrees of freedom, or you can say it has six, but only four axis of control, or you could say it has more, because the wheels are spinning, they are tilting, they are pivoting, they have shocks, etc.,,, 

 

but for gaming in "space vehicles" 6dof generally means you can go specifically along any of the 3 axis of translation, and any of all 3 axis of rotation. So, an airplane can only go forward, and then it can rotate on 3 axis,,, you don't have 6dof. But, if you have a spaceship, and can go from rest straight up, straight left, etc.,,, you do have 6dof. in this case, 6dof is just a buzzword popularized by the descent game series.

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic moved to Hobby Electronics =-

[tsmspace]

36 minutes ago, tikker said:

I mean it would be a bit bad if you were not convinced of your own product, so it's good you are convinced yourself. I'm still not sure what you are on about exactly though. What would the two extra sticks control exactly? For normal 6 DoF flight I stand by my point that a flight stick is more intuitive as it naturally encompasses all of them. The situation where I could see a reason for more sticks to exist would be one where you need direct control over each DoF like, I don't know, flying up vertically while barrel rolling. Those would be rather niche situations though.

This is in contradiction with itself. You cannot provide a wrong input and get an accurate result. The more error in input you allow, the less accurate the control over output you will have.

This is just a reason in favour of controllers, which nobody is argueing.

Which is what you seem to be aiming for though?

The controllers we have now are the result of many iterations to arrive at a good product. In your further point about flight sticks being too complex to appeal to the mass market you already foreshadow a big problem for a 4-stick controller: it's complicated and niche compared to what we have now, so it will most likely never dominate the market. It will be a niche product for the situation it potentially handles well.

It's not a lack of funding or lack of proper controllers I'd say. Most flight sims just aren't the most exciting games for the general market and get old quickly no matter the context.

No, it has six degrees of freedom, not six axes. You have 3 axes along which you can do translation + rotation, resulting in 2 degrees of freedom on each axis.

Not true degrees of freedom aren't poorly defined at all. They tell you how a system can move and aren't fractional in physical context. Ranges of motions are complementary to degrees of freedom as they provide constraints. For example, your elbow has 1 degree of freedom: you can open and close it by rotating along the joint's axis, nothing more. It's range of motion is 180 degree (fully extended) to let's say 30 degrees (fully contracted). Your shoulder joint has 3 degrees of freedom, rotation around x, y and z, with some range of motion associated with how flexible you are.

"Controlling" something doesn't magically introduce degrees of freedom. All of that control is governed by a handful of operations: a translation along x, y, z and a rotation about x, y ,z. For example, a certain diagonal movement is just translation along a certain combination of the three axes.

actaully I'm going to argue that no,,, sitting in my room is not actually me sitting in an airplane. In an airplane, you are mounted to a seat and your control are hardmounted around you. This allows you to take g's, vibration, shock, etc. But,, in a bedroom, the winning tools for "best and most capable experience" are a little plastic controller, or alternatively a keyboard and mouse. 

 

so I'm actually NOT aiming for "sitting in an airplane", I'm arguing for analog axis of control for all possible control axis I encounter in games, while holding a little plastic controller staring at a screen. 

[tikker]

9 hours ago, 7heo said:

Three gyroscope axis, three accelerometer axis. I count six

Not sure what you mean, but I think you mean "gyroscope axis" as rotation and "accelerometer axis" as translation? In which case it's still incorrect, because rotation isn't axis. You rotate about an axis. A gyroscope still only has three axes, namely the same x, y and z.

9 hours ago, 7heo said:

Two, actually : Flexion/Extension and Pronation/Supination.

That's only because we have the Radius and Ulna though. If those are counted as elbow then yes, but if you treat the elbow like say the knee then no you can only flex.

9 hours ago, 7heo said:

As formally defined by Wikipedia: "In various scientific fields, the word freedom is used to describe the limits to which physical movement or other physical processes are possible. This relates to the philosophical concept to the extent that people may be considered to have as much freedom as they are physically able to exercise. The number of independent variables or parameters for a system is described as its number of degrees of freedom.". If you find that clear and unambiguous, good for you. I don't. According to this, you can define "degrees of freedom" according to much more than just the 3 dimensions of our space.

So, you colloquially all happen to use the same definition for it, because the "Six degrees of freedom (6DoF)" has become a buzzword in the Gaming culture. But I wasn't aware of that since I do not deal with controllers often. Using the formal definition, it wasn't clear. (side note: the 42.69 was meant as a joke. I thought this was obvious, given the choice of numbers. )

Your last quoted sentence is what matters here: the number of independent variables. if you the follow the correct link to the relevant page about mechanics (which is what you are dealing with in flight etc.):

Quote

In physics, the degrees of freedom (DOF) of a mechanical system is the number of independent parameters that define its configuration or state.
<snip>
The position and orientation of a rigid body in space is defined by three components of translation and three components of rotation, which means that it has six degrees of freedom.

Not ill defined. (Six) degrees of freedom is not a buzzword at all. Maybe gaming has treated it as a buzzword, but if you move in our space you literally have 6 DoF: 3 translations + 3 rotations. You can get into more gory details by considering for a human, two elbows to be two degrees of freedom for example, but that's one level deeper and each of our joints and body parts are still limited to those six.

 

 

8 hours ago, tsmspace said:

ut for gaming in "space vehicles" 6dof generally means you can go specifically along any of the 3 axis of translation, and any of all 3 axis of rotation. So, an airplane can only go forward, and then it can rotate on 3 axis,,, you don't have 6dof. But, if you have a spaceship, and can go from rest straight up, straight left, etc.,,, you do have 6dof. in this case, 6dof is just a buzzword popularized by the descent game series.

Airplanes have 6 as you need x, y, z and the respective rotations to characterise its position and rotation. Whether you control each degree directly (i.e. what you are after) is a different story. Cars, for example, have only 4: translation on x and y through steering, a little bit of z through suspension and rotation around z from steering (yes they have 6 again if you allow for e.g. a rhino to flip your car over, but that's not normal operation :P).

8 hours ago, tsmspace said:

so to skip the rest ,,, yes. I do mean each axis of control on a stick,,, so straight up. 

 

watch the 'controls walkthrough" video,, I literally spend 5 minutes pushing one button at a time. 

I did watch a bit of one of the videos, and it's cool to see a working prototype. I guess you went for sticks to keep some generality? As for controlling just one axis a trigger or unidirectional stick would seem better to me given that "normal" sticks are for 360 degree input?

8 hours ago, tsmspace said:

actaully I'm going to argue that no,,, sitting in my room is not actually me sitting in an airplane. In an airplane, you are mounted to a seat and your control are hardmounted around you. This allows you to take g's, vibration, shock, etc. But,, in a bedroom, the winning tools for "best and most capable experience" are a little plastic controller, or alternatively a keyboard and mouse. 

A controller being a winning tool I could maybe see in a general case for most 3rd person, adventure or casual games, but they are by no means the "best and most capable" experience. It depends on what experience you are after, but I consider the best experience the one that gets closest to the actual thing or the most responsive. For flying planes that means throttle and stick, for shooters keyboard+mouse obliterates any controller in existence or conception for me.

[RandleMcmurphy]

On 5/30/2021 at 12:28 AM, tsmspace said:

This is an 8 axis game controller prototype. The use case is for space games, particularly games with 3d inertial physics. 

 

Hey, nice progress so far, I'm digging the beard, its nappy and very cool.

 

you have taken an idea and turned it into a concept, this is something not many people have the patience for, so for that *thumbs up*. this forum is also full of... not so nice folks, so over looking previous comments.... I think this is a really cool idea. Darpa or nasa would really get a kick out of using both the index fingers and the thumbs interdependently.

 

Asking random nerds, on a form, to build a controller I fear is a waste. I would start by documenting what you have, both electrically and mechanically. +1 if your schematic is awesome.

 

Then head over to hackaday and post an open source project log. I feel a few renegade engineers might take interest, and maybe even lend a hand.

 

Also, on a personal note, you look nuts, like ya do, but you present yourself very well. Normal people don't like that, it shatters there plastic ideas and skewed world views. Stay weird, and don't give up, the world needs more free thinkers.

 

I'm serious about the documentation, deriving electrical connections from a picture is hard and often impossible.

 

p.s. I might have been the guy that helped you 6 or so months ago, I'm glad its working.

[tsmspace]

Here are some videos demonstrating my invention, the 4 joystick game controller. 

 

Yes,, I know you can't really invent something like that, it's just you put more on, but anyway it's an arduino project and you can't buy one, so I'm attention grabbing with the word invention. I am the inventor and all you other slim shady's are just imitating. 

 

anyway, you can find a link to the project page in the video description. You can build one from there if you like, or I can make one for you. If you are super cool, I can even send it to you free. If not, you probably don't want one anyway. If you want to pay for shipping, then you should probably just build your own. If you want to buy it from me I only accept 80 billions. If like, two people want one I can make that many. If like, more than that wants one, I can't really make that many anyways. If you think someone else should make a mainstream version WELL THANK YOU I MEAN WHAT'S TAKING SO LONG WHY DON'T THESE PEOPLE GET IT. they're like, "why don't you start a company to sell them". I'm like, "why don't I start a country to take over your country and kick your ass for saying stupid stuff towards me". "Maybe I can outcompete sony in the game controller market" . "hey, maybe I'll win a patent against those kind of bank accounts" . 

 

no . I need the finger shirt that says "i'm with stupid". anyway, they're all the way sick. It's the best game controller ever invented by anyone anywhere. Also I'm the best player of it that's ever existed. 

 

https://youtu.be/YBmAJESDOEA
  https://youtu.be/Ssb_RZ4CBQg

[tsmspace]

 

edit::::: 

here's another video 

edit 2:::: shooting game for it 

 

[Bombastinator]

2 on the top and two on the bottom.  Is it the location of the sticks or that there are more of them or both?

[tsmspace]

24 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

2 on the top and two on the bottom.  Is it the location of the sticks or that there are more of them or both?

Right so it is firstly that there are more of them, and secondly that I feel the location is intuitive, and thirdly I am also showcasing my specific configuration of WHICH sticks control which inputs. 

 

Also,, it is my invention. That means that no one really knows about it but me, so it's also that it does exist at all. Basically this kind of newtonian physics game is not popular, we can argue about a few games like Elite Dangerous, but I will argue that game does not really count, because it doesn't check all the boxes. It remains an "airplanes in space" game and focuses on making the most of not having all of the controls. It is true that with rockets, you only need to gimbal the engines and go forward, but all docking would use 6 axis thrust, so while some gameplay can be optimal with a mouse and a go button, the game is never correct and never goes in the right direction for proficiency development of 6axis. (there ARE games that do, but they are niche, cult, or otherwise underground style of popularity, and not mainstream, and that means that many of the features that I personally feel are essential to be represented in the gameplay by some game or another are still not adequately represented. basically, I have some game outlines in mind and they do not exist.). 

 

You can build one with arduino, I do have a project page. 

 

and of course the other aspect of the share is that I feel that the game style of realistic thrust physics games WOULD be fun, if people did have an intuitive control interface. They would be very popular, instead of unmaintained, unfinished, and lacking of features. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, tsmspace said:

Right so it is firstly that there are more of them, and secondly that I feel the location is intuitive, and thirdly I am also showcasing my specific configuration of WHICH sticks control which inputs. 

 

Also,, it is my invention. That means that no one really knows about it but me, so it's also that it does exist at all. Basically this kind of newtonian physics game is not popular, we can argue about a few games like Elite Dangerous, but I will argue that game does not really count, because it doesn't check all the boxes. It remains an "airplanes in space" game and focuses on making the most of not having all of the controls. It is true that with rockets, you only need to gimbal the engines and go forward, but all docking would use 6 axis thrust, so while some gameplay can be optimal with a mouse and a go button, the game is never correct and never goes in the right direction for proficiency development of 6axis. (there ARE games that do, but they are niche, cult, or otherwise underground style of popularity, and not mainstream, and that means that many of the features that I personally feel are essential to be represented in the gameplay by some game or another are still not adequately represented. basically, I have some game outlines in mind and they do not exist.). 

 

You can build one with arduino, I do have a project page. 

 

and of course the other aspect of the share is that I feel that the game style of realistic thrust physics games WOULD be fun, if people did have an intuitive control interface. They would be very popular, instead of unmaintained, unfinished, and lacking of features. 

The only two space games I’ve played in the last ten years is no man’s sky and breathedge which I doubt qualifiy.  The which wasn’t clear to me but might be to the right person.  For it to be widely salable it would have to be good for other things as well, otherwise it’s a bit like a race wheel or a HOTAS.  Good for specific things but very niche.  One thing that may be useful is under water games where there are multiple axis of movement as well.

[tsmspace]

58 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The only two space games I’ve played in the last ten years is no man’s sky and breathedge which I doubt qualifiy.  The which wasn’t clear to me but might be to the right person.  For it to be widely salable it would have to be good for other things as well, otherwise it’s a bit like a race wheel or a HOTAS.  Good for specific things but very niche.  One thing that may be useful is under water games where there are multiple axis of movement as well.

admittedly it's a bit niche,, except it wouldn't really be in the way for controllers to have two more joysticks. Triggers already have sensitivity so they could just be triggers a lot. It would still be a useful controller for everything else. 

[tsmspace]

I'm sitting on a revolution. 

 

today, there are no popular games for realistic thrust physics space navigation. There are attempts and failures, and some indie hits, but the closest thing remains star wars airplanes in space. 

 

IMO this is not because newtonian physics is hard, it's because controller design is alien to game producers. I remember when 2 joysticks on playstation was enough for parents to not buy it for their kids, because no one can learn two joysticks anyway. (this is a real thing that was commonplace). It literally took some people years to get a two joystick controller, some of them having to wait for xbox to release. Yes, WASD existed throughout, but Descent was only popular by certain limited standards,, compared to a game like Fortnite, Descent never was popular. However, gaming pc's were already a very limited audience so among these few it was known but still only played by some. This is because 8 buttons with 4 fingers is not intuitive, and takes too much practice to be fully fluent.  

 

The space mouse is new, but I think it will be too hard for games, particularly console games, because you will need to be overly delicate to have precise control. There will be players of it, but mainstream it will not become. (people will stick to fortnite). 

 

This is why I think I understand something, so anyway here is my four joystick controller. 

 

<YT Video removed>

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[Arika]

Maybe you should tone down the superiority complex if you want people to take your creation seriously. 

[SansVarnic]

Your YT video was removed, it crosses the line of self-promotion to your channel. If you wish to share your video in forum you may upload it without the YT.

[Blue4130]

8 hours ago, tsmspace said:

I'm sitting on a revolution. 

 

today, there are no popular games for realistic thrust physics space navigation. There are attempts and failures, and some indie hits, but the closest thing remains star wars airplanes in space. 

 

IMO this is not because newtonian physics is hard, it's because controller design is alien to game producers. I remember when 2 joysticks on playstation was enough for parents to not buy it for their kids, because no one can learn two joysticks anyway. (this is a real thing that was commonplace). It literally took some people years to get a two joystick controller, some of them having to wait for xbox to release. Yes, WASD existed throughout, but Descent was only popular by certain limited standards,, compared to a game like Fortnite, Descent never was popular. However, gaming pc's were already a very limited audience so among these few it was known but still only played by some. This is because 8 buttons with 4 fingers is not intuitive, and takes too much practice to be fully fluent.  

 

The space mouse is new, but I think it will be too hard for games, particularly console games, because you will need to be overly delicate to have precise control. There will be players of it, but mainstream it will not become. (people will stick to fortnite). 

 

This is why I think I understand something, so anyway here is my four joystick controller. 

 

<YT Video removed>

 

Uhh you know that twin joystick games came out in 1984 (possibly earlier?)

[IPD]

Um, Descent fan here.  Overload is the heir apparent.  And KB/M works just fine.