Talk:Nintendo 64 controller

Stub
Does this really still qualify as a stub? --Thaddius 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Go through the appropriate channels and have it un-stubbed, I say. — Mütze 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Was it really necessary to change it to honor, ex-nintendo employee? Then say 'less of that, more fact'? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm not going to change it back for the sake of preventing a spelling war, but you should consider the fact that the States is not the center of the world. --Thaddius 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? He just meant that the phrasing did not carry the formal tone of an encyclopedia, and wasn't exactly neutral. It had nothing to do with spelling. In fact, the word was removed completely. Dancter 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. My mistake I guess. I jusmped to conclusions based on the comments. I thought he was changing it to honor, not removing it. In my defense the history description says 'honor' as the first word. I just assumed he was starting a spelling war. It was acctually a good idea removing the 'the honour goes to' things. Again, my bad. Sorry for being a jerk. --192.139.231.5 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (thaddius, too lazy to sign in)
 * No offense taken, next time if you've got a question about an edit, feel free to ask me about it on my talk page. I'll be happy to discuss any and all disagreements that might pop up concerning edits or edit content. Cheers! Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Control Stick Not Analog!!
hey guys just a heads up that the nintendo 64's controller analog was never refered to as an analog it was always stated to be a control stick and i think that it should be changed.


 * And what exactly makes it "not analog"? It was most definitely stated to be analog. Nintendo Power had introduced me to the idea of an "analog stick", using the word "analog". - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a digital sampling of an analog value. Ergo, the "analog stick". A digital joystick differs in that it has four values (left, right, up, and down) that are all either ON or OFF. An analog stick only has two values: +/- X and +/- Y. In analog computers, the value of the stick could be measured in an analog fashion using tricks like variable resistance that fed back into the logic circuits. In digital computers, the value must be digitally sampled to produce a discrete value capable of being run through the digital logic circuits.
 * Basically, you're confusing the sampling method with the range provided by the device. Hope this helps! Jbanes 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the poster clarified in PM to me that what he(?) meant was that the analog stick wasn't called the analog stick by Nintendo (something that seems somewhat doubtful to me; although "control stick" was probably the official name, it probably wasn't the only one). I'm not sure why that's supposed to be important... - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, you're confusing the sampling method with the range provided by the device. Hope this helps! Jbanes 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the poster clarified in PM to me that what he(?) meant was that the analog stick wasn't called the analog stick by Nintendo (something that seems somewhat doubtful to me; although "control stick" was probably the official name, it probably wasn't the only one). I'm not sure why that's supposed to be important... - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the poster clarified in PM to me that what he(?) meant was that the analog stick wasn't called the analog stick by Nintendo (something that seems somewhat doubtful to me; although "control stick" was probably the official name, it probably wasn't the only one). I'm not sure why that's supposed to be important... - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that all the official Nintendo development literature of the time refereed to it as a "Control Stick". I also recall getting my hands on the Saturn stick before the Sony. Are we positive the claim that Sony came first is correct as I suspect its wrong.(81.159.128.94 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Isn't every modern console "analogue" control stick technically digital? Also, the Saturn controller was bundled with 'Nights' - you might want to check the release dates etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.165.154 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction to be made. The N64 stick is entirely digital - there are several fixed positions on its axes that correspond to values. A good analogy for this would a gear/cog; if you look at a gear, there are fixed positions around the outside that correspond to "teeth" (the digital positions in this analogy). True analog sticks do not work this way - they are digital readings of analog values. The stick has technically as many different positions as there are atoms in the stick mechanism, like a wheel - you can choose any arbitrary point along a wheel and read where it is in relation to any other position; the precision is only determined by the software or the hardware used to read it. To put it another way in the N64 stick, lets say you have a range from 0 to 10, with the possible values of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. In a true analog stick, you have as much precision as your software allows, so if you want to to read with the precision of 3 decimal places, you can. On an analog stick you can have 4.365. On an N64 type stick, that would correspond to 4; nothing more, nothing less. Off the top of my head, I don't know the actual values an N64 can have, but I do know that PS1/PS2 sticks have 8-bit precision (256 possible values per axis) while PS3 controllers have 10-bit precision (1024 possible values per axis), while using essentially the same physical mechanism*.
 * * I say essentially because the PS1 has looser sticks than the PS2 and the PS3s are somewhere in between. This has no effect on the actual reading of the values and the sticks themselves can be transplanted into the other controllers and still work to the same precision; it only effects the users ability to position the stick in a given place.


 *  Alphathon TM ( talk ) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who did the previous edits (except for one revert), but I do think this whole thing about "analog" vs. "digital" needs to be revisited. To my knowledge, the only video games with TRUE analog sticks are Tennis for Two and SOME variants of PONG.  I'm sure there are a couple of others.  As you have stated, in almost every case the analog value is then fed into an ADC for discretization.  However, your description is incorrect in saying this is dependent upon software.  The conversion of the analog thumbstick position to digital is most assuredly a hardware issue.  The closest software can come to this is choosing to further discretize the values the hardware give them.
 * In a Dualshock, for example, the information flow is analog movement -> potentiometer -> 8-bit (?) ADC and is digital from there. Analog information is NOT sent to the console.  It sends digital information to the console.
 * In the N64 thumbstick, the information flow is analog movement -> photosensor -> 1-bit ADC and is digital from there. Analog information is NOT sent to the console.  It sends digital information to the console.
 * Yes, the dualshock does offer more precision than the N64 controller, but there is no real material difference. The only difference is that the N64 uses a different approach to discretize the analog information (stick position).
 * It's also kind of inconsistent to call it a "digital control stick" in the header and then describe it as an analog control stick everywhere else in the article.
 * I think a big part of the issue here is that 1UP.com article. That article is written by a journalist.  You wouldn't cite a journalist for technical information on the Mean Value Theorem or the Fourier Transform.  Why would you cite him here?
 * I'm not saying you HAVE to call it an analog stick. As I wrote before, I can only think of a few examples of truly analog control in video games.  But trying to insist on this distinction of "digital" vs. "analog" in this case is pretty pretty misleading.
 * --L1m3water (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly I think the best way to do it is to lose the distinction all together in almost all cases and simply call it the "control stick"; most of the time its "analog-ness" is fairly irrelevant anyway. When speaking about specific tech, there is a distinction to be made though. Technically speaking (as in speaking about the tech, although semantics comes into it as well to point), all movement is analogue, so any stick, even a purely digital stick (like you get in arcade sticks etc, which use buttons for the directions) has analogue movement. The difference is when it is digital signal. In a potentiometer-based stick, the movement corresponds to an analogue voltage, which is then digitised to be sent to the console. With the N64 stick, there is never an analogue signal that is digitised; it is always a digital signal. By your logic ALL input devices are analogue since they feature analogue movement.


 * To put it another way, an approximate equivalent to the N64 stick would be a cross consisting of 20 buttons in each of the four directions, with each button corresponding to a 5% movement in its respective direction. Pressing a button would be equivalent, from a tech standpoint, to moving the stick 5% in a direction. The microcontroller or whatever that was picking up the signal would see it as an on/off of that direction. With a pot. based stick, the microcontroller or whatever would receive an analogue signal and then digitise it for use by the console. The distinction here is not the precision, but the electronics involved; one involves a digitiser/ADT, the other doesn't. Thinking about it now you've said it has made me realise it has to be hardware (not software), since it would have to digitised for software to understand it. That's fairly moot though, since that is not where the distinction lies - it only really matters when comparing to systems based entirely around analogue electronics and I'm not even sure PONG fits into that category.


 * Anyway, the real issue here is the difference between what the general public sees as analog control (variable levels of control) and the technical distinction (all digital or some analogue electronics). Both are technically accurate, since the "variable levels of control" equates to "this movement on the stick is an analogue for the on-screen movement". Anyway, for this reason, we should probably avoid calling it a "digital stick" or "analog stick" at all, since it is technically both (control is definitely analogue), and simply refer to whichever bit we are talking about as digital or analogue (if at all). So, for example, the section "Analog stick" becomes "Control stick". Honestly, pretty much all that is listed in there other than the last sentence should be removed (already covered in the analog stick article and mostly seems to be "Nintendo invented it"-type non-NPOV/personal opinion) and the second sentence of the note can be moved in to explain the mechanism (since no note will be needed if it isn't called digital or analog).


 * Hope that wasn't TL;DR, but whatever.  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, only SOME implementation of PONG (or maybe just some pong clones) actually used something that could truly and unequivocally be called "analog control" that is never discretized. I do not believe this is even a particularly common way to implement the game, I'm just pretty sure it was accomplished that way in certain implementations.
 * And you are correct that the N64 control stick could be considered analogous to having, say, 32 buttons for up-down and 32 buttons for left-right. That 32 number is just made up, since I'm not going to take apart my N64 controller to check.  I'd be willing to bet the number of discrete levels in each dimension is a power of two, though.  Anyway, the point is, though, that the exact same analogy holds for potentiometer-based analog controllers.  After passing through the ADC, it is still equivalent to having, say, 32 buttons in each dimension.  Other "analog" controllers may use an 8-bit ADC, but the N64 method uses thresholding with is, by definition, a 1-bit ADC.  You say there is no analog signal, but that is not the case.  The photocell used in the controller receives an analog signal that feeds the 1-bit ADC.
 * I really think that a lot of the trouble over this is that 1up.com article. The author, a journalist, made a point of distinguishing the N64 controller and calling it "digital," but made it pretty clear that he did not understand about things like ADCs or discretization.
 * To try to make my position clear again, I am not trying to argue that the N64 controller should be called analog from a technical standpoint. Rather, I am arguing that virtually no video game controller is truly analog.  They're all eventually digital, just with varying levels of discretization.  But the terms "analog" and "digital" as used in video games don't really mean the same thing as they do in the technical sense.  A controller is called digital is it obviously has a low number of discrete states to the player.  A controller is called analog if it offers a much higher degree of control and the player cannot easily distinguish the different the individual discrete values.  At least, that is my understanding of the use of the terms, and I think you said something similar in your post.  The term "analog" is used all over the rest of wikipedia to describe other controllers, and the Nintendo 64 controller is generally lumped into those articles (E.G.  Analog Stick).  To draw a distinction here in this case is inconsistent and can be a bit misleading.  I know for a fact that its distinction in this article has caused at least one dumb argument (other than this one).
 * I agree that the Analog stick section should needs severe editing, or possible removal, with the important parts bumped up to the "Design" section or something. Cheers.
 * --L1m3water (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems about right to me, except for two points:
 * "…the N64 method uses thresholding [which] is, by definition, a 1-bit ADC. You say there is no analog signal, but that is not the case.  The photocell used in the controller receives an analog signal that feeds the 1-bit ADC.". As I understand it this is false, but I may be wrong. As I am understanding it, when the photocell is illuminated, it creates a voltage (lets say 5v, although it probably isn't). This is "1". When it isn't, it doesn't, so is at "0". No ADC, just a 0/1 input from the get-go. The same effect could also be achieved by replacing the holes with electrical contacts and replacing the LED + photocell with brushes (similar to an electric motor). There is no ADC involved, it is an on/off system already. You have to remember that a digital signal is electrically the same as an analogue one, but is always kept either high (1) or low (0). In this system there is never an analogue signal, which is what a ADC acts on - changing real-life movement into a digital signal is not an ADC unless it is captured electrically in an analogue fashion. An ADC only ever acts on an analogue electrical signal. Of course I may be missing something about the circuitry, but that's just how I see it.
 * "Anyway, the point is, though, that the exact same analogy holds for potentiometer-based analog controllers." This is only the case after it has passed through the ADC, which does not apply to the N64 stick, which was my point. Basically, the signal for the N64 is always digital (assuming my above understanding is accurate), but the pot-based one is a digitised analogue signal. Obviously the stepping applies somewhere since it is a digital computer that it is being used with - that's not the point; it's about when that happens.


 * Anyway, working it into the design section seems fine to me. Other than the guff about it being "the first" etc, I don't think there's any reason for it to really have its own section (maybe a subsection within design would be appropriate).
 *  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the two points of contention:
 * 1)  No, that's not quite how it works.  In the N64 controller, they use an led and photodiode pair for each axis, along with a resistor.  As you say, when there is a direct, unbroken stream of light between the two, there is current through the diode and a measurable voltage drop across the resistor.  When the light is broken, the voltage is lower, but not gone.  During the transition periods, when the beam is only partially blocked, the voltage across the resistor is somewhere in the middle.  Now, every binary digital signal, in practice, has a transition period between the two binary states.  The distinction here, though, is that you can physically, by moving the thumbstick back and forth, cause this voltage to quiver as an analog signal-- not digital one.  Of course, if you look at the controller from the console's perspective, none of this matters, but that's never really been up for argument.  I only bring it up because you seem concerned about the period where a potentiometer-based analog stick generates an analog signal.  It is only after thresholding is performed that the signal really becomes digital.


 * 1)  Just as we can pull an analog signal off of a potentiometer-based thumbstick, so we can with Nintendo's optical thumbstick.  This is fundamentally different than the button-press illustration used earlier.  These will not be the same signal -- the N64's will be a lot noisier, and will only cover a small range of motion before completing a cycle, but it is certainly there.

However, as I said before, I don't think the existence of an analog electrical signal somewhere within the controller is really what folks refer to when they talk about an analog controller. That certainly doesn't seem to be the usage in the rest of Wikipedia. "Digital" versus "analog" was probably never the best way to distinguish between control pads and higher-precision thumb-sticks, but it's now what we're stuck with. It's still better than the term "digital quality" which I used to hear on advertisements all the time. Anyway, I'm willing to discuss this further. I do lean very strongly towards at least removing the term "digital" in the description of the thumbstick. I won't change anything for at least a day, though. --L1m3water (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, so it's just a lack of understanding on my part then. Fair enough. I'll look through it and draft up a new version on my userspace, probably later today or tomorrow.  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why my contribution keeps getting deleted. It doesn't have anything stating whether the N64 is the first or better controller, just more clarity of what the N64 stick actually does. Analog Potentiometers have resistance values that can change with age. Sensor wheels will not change in value, the reason for my post concerning the accuracy in the digital readout. I also point out that even though the sensor wheel diodes are basically a digital signal, the stick is used as analog in a sense of the GAMEPLAY, the walk to run analogy.

My contribution in question:

'''The N64 Analog stick does not use analog potentiometers. It uses light emitting sensor diodes and sensor wheels which give a more accurate direct digital read. The sensor wheels give direct correlation compared to potentiometers. However gameplay function itself is true analog, the more the stick is pushed the faster a game character would walk to run.'''

My post is to the point, simply stating of what the controller is. So what is wrong with this contribution?

--CRTGAMER (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is unsourced and very unclear. No indication is made that that is the reason why it is "more accurate" - you just say it is better. Regardless though, we are working out how to fix up the section so it would probably end up getting ditched/completely re-written anyway. Basically it's a case of WP:BRD.


 * To be more specific, I'll break it down:
 * "The N64 Analog stick does not use analog potentiometers." Fine, although a bit of a short sentence.
 * "It uses light emitting sensor diodes and sensor wheels…" Fine, but not brilliantly worded.
 * "… which give a more accurate direct digital read." This is where the problem starts. There is no reason given for why it is more accurate, it is just a bald (and unsourced) assertion.
 * "The sensor wheels give direct correlation compared to potentiometers." This doesn't make sense - what is it supposed to mean?
 * "However gameplay function itself is true analog, the more the stick is pushed the faster a game character would walk to run." This is OK, but calling it "true analog" is misleading, since it has two meanings. It is clarified, but not all that well.


 * Basically, point 3 is misleading and non-specific, while 4 doesn't make sense (I know what the thing is doing and I don't understand it, so I'll bet someone with no knowledge would be even more stumped). Other than that, it's mainly just wording issues (and it probably is with 4, but since I don't know what it means, I can't tell). As I said, we're revamping it anyway, so we might as well all work together on this.


 *  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay expanded my contribution.

Please feel free to edit it to make sense to you. I'll do the same, the point is to spread knowledge and not censor each other's contributions. I think the analog information should stay, a clarification what analog actually means in relation to the N64 stick. A Digital read with Analog Gameplay.

So for an update:

'''The N64 Analog stick does not use analog potentiometers. It uses light emitting diodes and photo detectors controlled by sensor wheels. The sensor wheels are plastic hubs which produce a shutter effect allowing for an accurate direct digital read. The sensor wheels give direct correlation to the stick position compared to potentiometers which can change resistance values over time. However gameplay function of the stick itself is not on or off digital, but analog in a sense, the more the stick is pushed the faster a game character would walk to run.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRTGAMER (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

--CRTGAMER (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better - it makes sense now [[file:face-smile.svg|22px]]. I'd probably reword it a bit and some citations would be nice, but that can wait since it's going to be reordered etc. anyway. A note as well though: censorship was not the intention of the reversions. The previous version was reverted because it was misleading and unclear, and the info was on the page already (in the note at the bottom). If it hadn't already been in the note (which was added the day before yours I think) I would have cut out the confusing, seemingly nonsensical part and just reworded the rest, but as it was already there I though it better to keep it concise rather than confusing people (especially as it was going to be reworked anyway). Hope you stick around and help get this properly worked out.  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 21:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll check back once in a while. love contributing.

--CRTGAMER (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Held like pistol?
"Finally, it could be held entirely by the left or right hand by the center grip, allowing it to be held like a pistol for FPS style games."

The above quote is for an orientation I've never heard of. Can someone cite and example from a game that only used one hand? --Thaddius 14:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fact-tagged the segment for now. Just64helpin 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Controller Design
I noticed the different descriptions on how to hold the controller. In (I think) the instruction manual that came with the N64, it claims 3 different positions; 1) Left hand - D-Pad, Right hand - C-buttons "Home Position". 2) Left hand - analogue stick, Right hand - C-buttons "Right Position". 3) Left hand - D-pad, Right hand - Analogue stick "Left Position". I would be willing to add this but at present am busy and to be honest, inexperienced with wikipedia. Eternalnoob 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Left Position
Were there any games that required the player to hold the L-button and D-pad in the left and and the Control Stick and Z button in the right? I know that Nintendo laid it out as an option, but none of the games I played ever required me to hold it like that. --Bando26 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of was the Digglet(sp.) minigame in Pokemon stadium Eternalnoob (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Protocol
Perhaps the article could have more about to-USB converters instructions, ebay, and wiring left to right (ground,signal, 3.3V) not sure how the signal is send. (According to first link 'in sequence', ~microseconds per bit)88.159.74.176 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In general terms, I see no issue with adding some info on the communication protocol, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a technical manual, so its addition would have to be carefully constructed. As for controller-to-USB adapters, I don't think they can really be talked about in depth (notability has to be taken into account); a passing mention is probably fine (along the lines of "As with many console controllers, the N64 controller has been adapted to work on PCs", depending on the context.  Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ferrite core

 * European controllers have a special Ferrite core about 4 centimeters from the connector plug, to prevent the user from being shocked by the power being supplied to it by the system if the wires become exposed. It also acts as cable tensioner.[1]

Ferrite cores act as passive low-pass filters and would not prevent shock. Proper grounding is used to prevent shock, not ferrite cores, and the low voltages used for a controller are not capable of causing a shock. I'm no expert on N64 or its controller hardware (that's why I'm reading this article) but this part of the article me as a questionable statement with a poor source. It seems more likely that the ferrite bead was added to comply with European EMI/RFI regulations. --Weevil (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This stood out to me as well. There's no risk of shock, and I don't see how a ferrite bead is useful as a “cable tensioner” (there will probably be a strain relief inside the controller, if that is what is meant by a cable tensioner). If this is indeed how it is described in the source, then the source should stick to its expertise :).


 * I could adapt the sentence to European controllers have a ferrite bead about 4 centimeters from the connector plug but it seems like a random uninteresting fact then. So I just deleted the sentence. Digital Brains (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Time line here is backwards
"However, with the prevalence of analog sticks, the aforementioned D-pad limitation was no longer an issue. Though the Nintendo 64 wasn't the first console to use a joystick (Atari systems were first), it did popularize the idea. Its release followed Sega's analog Mission Stick for Sega Saturn (which launched on September 29, 1995)[1] as well as Sony's Analog Joystick"

The PS Analog joystick page says: "Announced to the public in August 1995,[2] the Analog Joystick was released to the public in Japan in early April 1996" which came out before the N64 and was announced before the N64's was even shown to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techni (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're not accidentally reading "its release followed" as "its release was followed by"?
 * What it said before your edit:
 * * Atari, Sega Saturn Mission Stick, Sony's Analog Stick were first
 * * Nintendo 64 came then
 * * Sony's Dual Analog, Sony's Dual Shock and Sega's 3D control pad followed that
 * What it says after your edit:
 * * Atari, Sony's Analog Stick, Sega Saturn Mission Stick, Sony's Dual Analog, Sony's Dual Shock, Sega's 3D control pad were first
 * * Nintendo 64 came then
 * I don't think that's right, and you've also moved Sega's 3D control pad in front of the N64. The flow of the sentences is odd now, so that at the least ought to be corrected. Digital Brains (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've reverted the edit, since the way it was worded did give a false impression of the chronology. I could probably do with a bit of a copyedit, but at least the way it was (and now is again) is accurate.  Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So a while ago User:67.139.40.166 reverted Alphathon's revert without comment. I'm commenting on the user's talk page. Digital Brains (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it back again. Since we're back on the subject, how about we take this opportunity actually discuss the aforementioned copyedit? Here's how it is at the moment:


 * However, with the prevalence of analog sticks, the aforementioned D-pad limitation was no longer an issue. Though the Nintendo 64 wasn't the first console to use a joystick (Atari systems were first), it did popularize the idea. Its release followed Sega's analog Mission Stick for Sega Saturn (which launched on September 29, 1995)[ref] as well as Sony's Analog Joystick and was followed during the fifth generation by Sony's Dual Analog and DualShock controllers for the PlayStation system as well as Sega's 3D control pad for their Saturn system.


 * The N64 Analog stick does not use analog potentiometers. It uses light emitting diodes and photo detectors controlled by sensor wheels. The sensor wheels are plastic hubs which produce a shutter effect allowing for an accurate direct digital read. The sensor wheels give direct correlation to the stick position, as opposed to potentiometers, which can change resistance values over time.


 * I propose this in its place (bold = new additions/changes, strikethrough = removed sections):


 * However, with the prevalence of analog sticks, the aforementioned D-pad limitation was no longer an issue following the introduction of analog sticks. Although the Nintendo 64 wasn't the first console to use either an analog joystick or a thumbstick (Atari systems were first), it did popularize the idea. Its release was preceded by both Sega's analog Mission Stick for the Sega Saturn (which launched on September 29, 1995)[ref] and Sony's Analog Joystick for the PlayStation. It was soon followed during the fifth generation by Sony's Dual Analog and DualShock controllers for the PlayStation system and Sega's 3D control pad for the ir Saturn system .


 * Unlike other contemporary analog sticks, as well as all those that followed in subsequent generations, the N64 Analog stick does not use potentiometers, instead using LEDs and light sensors in conjunction with sensor wheels to track the stick's position. The sensor wheels, are plastic hubs which feature several slits around their edge, produce a shutter effect allowing the system to track the stick's position. This system has the advantage that the sensor wheels are not prone to change over time, unlike potentiometers, whose can change resistance values are prone to shift over time.


 *  Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 16:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your revision is terrible- it takes the set of paragraphs, turns them into horrible runons, removes information about the sensor wheel construction, and in general just makes it irritating to read. This is not an improvement! 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops! I falsely trusted the notification to tell me the page had changed, and completely missed this “discussion” when I reworded the paragraph to be more explicit. I did not mean to barge in like that, I just thought that the wording I chose in my edit would be more explicit about the order of things and thus end this whole mess. And, please, let's stay civil. By that I also refer to the edit summary. Digital Brains (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Digital Brains: Don't worry about it.

@67.139.40.166: Bear in mind that my version is merely a proposal, and by no means a final proposal either. With regard to run-ons, the only sentence that I could possibly agree with that wasn't one in the original version is the first sentence of the second paragraph, which admittedly could do with more work. In fact, I removed at least one run on*. As for the "construction of the wheels" what have I removed? That they're plastic? If so that can easily be added back in to my version if you think its necessary. Oh, and if it makes it irritating to read, please explain why - unless you do I can't really fix the issue (either in this case specifically or if it is a general problem with my writing style).

* I changed: " ", which is one incredibly long sentence, to " "

Also, if you have any suggestions, please feel free to suggest them, but bear in mind that they must be chronologically accurate (Sega Mission Stick & Sony Analog Stick before, Dual Analog, DualShock & 3D pad after).

 Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Long quotes
You say these long quotes "speak for itself", but in that case, why even have prose in the article at all? Why isn't every single sentence a direct quote from the source, so each can be 100% precise? You yourself know the answer: because Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes (we're not Wikiquote). It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which summarizes other sources. I see no reason why we shouldn't be putting this information in our own words. In fact, excessive long quotes present a copyright issue. As this essay states: "Don't use quotations as a substitute for exposition". Opencooper (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)