Post by: slingshot on April 05, 2005, 06:10:21 AM
Here is the meat of the article, but the beginning explains more technical stuff- THis is AWESOME!
The idea would be to have the revolution controllers feature gyroscopic sensors that will act in a similar way as the experiment above. For example, if you have driven a car you know that when you turn the steering wheel it pushes in the opposite direction you want to turn because it wants to keep its original position. This same idea would be how the gyro sensors in the controllers would operate. Up until now, simulation in games have only been done through visuals, with the assistance of sound. As you play a racing game, you know you are making a turn because the image on screen shows your car turning. If it is a drastic turn, sound helps convey the idea because the tires might screech. Adding gyroscopes to the controllers would make the biggest impact though. Not only would you see and hear your car turning, but the sensors on the controller would make you feel the car turning, much like in real life. Of course, driving simulators would not be the only ones affected by the gyroscopes. Imagine a Zelda game; you will actually feel that you swing your sword horizontally because the the sensors would reply by stimulating your hands in one direction or the other. Firing a beam of energy in a Metroid game would make you feel as if you are pushed back due to the reaction of the shot. Adding this element to controllers would not only allow for precise control, but also allow for a life-like way to interact with your games. You no longer push or press buttons and move sticks in order to perform an action, that action will feel natural and help you progress through the game
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 05, 2005, 06:42:18 AM
I can't wait until E3 when Nintendo has to break a whole lot of hearts because all the rumors are physically impossible to reconcile.
And then there'll be a whole lot of bitching about Nintendo's disappointment and I'll have to hand out a whole lot of cookies.
Post by: mantidor on April 05, 2005, 07:30:28 AM
Post by: nickmitch on April 05, 2005, 01:27:15 PM
Post by: pudu on April 05, 2005, 01:47:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Whee, more rumors.
I can't wait until E3 when Nintendo has to break a whole lot of hearts because all the rumors are physically impossible to reconcile.
And then there'll be a whole lot of bitching about Nintendo's disappointment and I'll have to hand out a whole lot of cookies.
I agree. There are tons of rumors about Revolution. It's hardly anyone's fault though, it's just the nature of the internet. Well...I guess I'm partially wrong, Nintendo has something to do with it. Choosing the codename to be Revolution is perhaps the dumbest thing they could have done. Who at Nintendo thought that choosing the codename Revolution and then not giving any details supporting their claim for months would help? Sure it's helping hype it because of speculation and rumors but is this what they want? The are setting themselves up for failure. I don't think that this repetition of the word Revolution is going to convince anyone of its greatness before they experience it (*cough* Halo 2 *cough*) so they will blindly agree it's awsome because their isn't anything to base it off of.
Here's an example that comes to mind: One of my all-time favorite movies is the Matrix (1). With all of the hype the sequals had going for them while they were in production and the huge amount of fans of the original, people were expecting nothing but greatness. When the next movie in the trilogy came out it was widely slammed as being uninspired, yada yada yada. Unfortunately I even got affected by this general illwill and it affected how much I enjoyed watching it. When it comes down to it though, if the movie had been seen without the knowledge of what it was SUPPOSED to be it would been deemed simply an average movie that was pretty good (what it should have been reckognised as), but by hyping it it was basically screwed before it was even released.
Has Nintendo screwed themselves over? I guess we'll just have to wait for E3 as everyone's saying. Thing is, don't get your hopes up too high, just take whatever Nintendo comes up with for what it is and let it sink in before you get angry many of the outlandish rumors and whatnot aren't true.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 05, 2005, 06:20:43 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 05, 2005, 06:28:26 PM
I want you to know that you are completely and utterly depraved. Is nothing sacred? I thought your "mature" Mario sketches were kind of pushing the limits, but that suggestion right there is truly the product of a sick, twisted mind. Go seek counseling.
"It'd be the most hilarious thing if nintendo made a controller that was all the rumors put together."
You mean, a gyroscopic supertouchscreen split into two halves and capable of giving feeling sensations?
Come on now. Consider the female anatomy and think about why that wouldn't work. The human race as we know it would die out.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 05, 2005, 06:51:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Mario Lever Puller."
I want you to know that you are completely and utterly depraved. Is nothing sacred? I thought your "mature" Mario sketches were kind of pushing the limits, but that suggestion right there is truly the product of a sick, twisted mind. Go seek counseling.
"It'd be the most hilarious thing if nintendo made a controller that was all the rumors put together."
You mean, a gyroscopic supertouchscreen split into two halves and capable of giving feeling sensations?
Come on now. Consider the female anatomy and think about why that wouldn't work. The human race as we know it would die out.
I was just thinking they would use a gimmick like use the revolutionary technology to have us pull the levers in games by tilting the controller. How is that depraved? I was just thinking worst case scenario joke.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on April 05, 2005, 07:12:35 PM
As for everyone not applying the features of the DS for anything trully worth your while, give it time. As has been discussed in other forums, the DS was rushed to take thunder away from the PSP. We won't really see the true potential of the DS till sometime this yr. As a result of the REV's release being much more planned out and focused, I'm sure we'll see their games take advantage of their features moreso than the launch games of the DS had.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 05, 2005, 07:34:58 PM
Don't worry, I know you didn't meant it that way, I was just poking fun.
Your secret's safe with me.
"As for everyone not applying the features of the DS for anything trully worth your while, give it time. As has been discussed in other forums, the DS was rushed to take thunder away from the PSP. We won't really see the true potential of the DS till sometime this yr."
Or right now, if you're in Japan. I hear Kirby's quite a game.
Post by: slingshot on April 06, 2005, 04:42:33 AM
market more towards some people that DON"T like Shooters- or that think shooters are the definition of games.
There is a huge market out there for younger girls ages 8-12 that don't play games as much as boys in that age group.
I think the DS could tap that market very slyly. Interactive touchscreen shopping and dressup games- this virtual pup game
they have. Basically all the toys that you see for girls now- turned into a video game with the touch screen interaction
would boom in the vacuum of the market. Personally- I think the focus of DS is outside the hardcore gamer circle- but if
they cann include them with great "questy" RPG style games- they will have a wicked hit on their hands.
I also go back to the "virtual stock market" game idea for business folks- how about a "game" that is meant for the
house-wife, or professional mom, which is not a game, rather it is an interactive calander and scheduler with everything
from a grocery list to a datebook, calander, telphone directory, checking account organizer...
These are the ideas that Nintendo could pursue that may be boring and pointless to us gamers- but could reap money
for Nintendo- More profits= better products. Just think- Mom buys Nintendo DS because of the commercial she saw on
Home and Garden channel about how there are Garden Planning games where she can plant, organize and grow her
flowers- Kids are happy because they get DS too- maybe households would get 2 or 3 DS because kids, mom and dad
want it.
[box] X <------- nintendo is here.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 06, 2005, 05:10:38 AM
And if Nintendo did only one demo it wouldn't take from the Gamecube, DS, and Gameboy Advance games they are showing. What it would do is ensure people are over there at the Nintendo booth trying these games.
You know Microsoft is going to be demoing there new system and probably have a playable Demo. Sony will be showing hyped up movies of Monsters INC. graphics running real time gameplay...Nintendo has to show more than a concept to get the attention needed.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 06, 2005, 05:18:58 AM
Post by: wandering on April 06, 2005, 07:29:13 AM
I think revolution will demo really well. I genuinly think they have something really cool on their hands that when people pick it up and play it, they'll say, 'wow, that's amazing-this controller is amzing! this mario game is amazing!'. They won't think it's just a gimmick. I just hope Nintendo realizes that they need more than that...because that's what the N64 had. Everybody was blown away when they played Mario 64, but... at the end of the day, sony redesigned their controller, had more games, and won.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 06, 2005, 08:40:31 AM
I think a demo is a must. If you let people touch and play with something, they will remember it more. They will want to experience it again. They will begin to dream about how great games will be with it.
If it is just a concept shown, then it will be too abstract to fully grasp and that dreaming, and desire won't be as strong...and could easily be swayed back to the PS3 or Xenon.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 06, 2005, 08:45:16 AM
If Nintendo had a CD techonology instead of Cartridge then Nintendo would have probably held off Sony's advancements.
Sony only succeed because of third party development.
Revolution won't be the same. Revolution could just demo a Mario game right now, and video some other stuff. Then Nintendo can focus most of its show on the New Zelda, and the New DS games which will be going online.
Post by: zakkiel on April 06, 2005, 08:53:40 AM
And the launch lineup on the Cube was pitiful, IMO, and it's worse on the DS. That's probably the single biggest thing Nintendo needs to wrap its mind around: the number and variety of games is the biggest factor in how well the system sells.
Post by: BigJim on April 06, 2005, 09:13:09 AM
The Revolution will be like the Zelda of last year. The system and games are a year and a half away. Even if they had playable demos in rough forms, they could very well not even be the same games by the time they launched. It's way too early. Heck, anybody remember the Zelda and Wave Race videos? They were nothing like the final products.
The GameCube was demo'ed at SpaceWorld 2000 and made an effective impact with the 100 Mario demonstration, videos, screenshots, and prototype hardware on display. That is all that's necessary to create buzz.
Nintendo still needs to focus on the here and now, too. It's not important that Nintendo offer playable Rev games right now. Their focus will be on hyping Zelda and DS games. The Revolution will shine at next E3.
If Nintendo chooses to hold back Revolution's big secret, it wouldn't really matter anyway. As soon as 3rd parties get a hold of the hardware, which will likely be shortly after E3, everybody's going to know because it will get leaked. Nintendo's only hope of copy prevention is to get a patent pending for it, unless MS and Sony don't care about it.
Post by: wandering on April 06, 2005, 10:30:31 AM
What they do need is to reaveal the basic control scheme, and show someone (or a video of someone) playing games on the revolution using that new control scheme. Also, they need to reveal that the graphics will actually be good and comparible to PS2/Xbox, reveal that the console will not in fact be purple, and maybe reveal the identity of a single big launch game (I'm thinking Mario or Metroid).
And, if it plays well, and if Revolution is genuinly different than the other two consoles, and not gimmicky but actually revolutionary- it will take the spotlight right off the competition. It will make the headlines - on mainstream newspapers as well as videogame publications. And when CNN reports that 'NINTENDO REVEALS GAMES WILL BE CONTROLLED WITH MOTION IN NEXT-GENERATION CONSOLE' And, as a smaller headline, they report 'Sony and Microsoft unveil next consoles - greater graphics capabilty impresses gamers', we Nintendo fans will laugh and cheer.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 06, 2005, 01:37:38 PM
I don't think they even need to show the graphics, though they could if they wanted to. A Metriod demo would be sweet. If all is as I planned....then Metriod would be the all-star product to show. "LOOK NINTENDO SHOWED THAT YOU CAN CONTROL METRIOD MAN"S ARM!" Something like that wouldn't fade from people's minds and also let Nintendo not have to show any other software till next year (though they may want to, to supress the Xbox 2 launch....but they got Zelda for that
).They at least....AT LEAST have to show what the hell this uber product is. Having nothing to show for at the biggest E3 yet, would be a disastrous, and I can't make that more of point.
Post by: slingshot on April 06, 2005, 05:17:32 PM
Micro will go "OH NO'!
Sony will see and flee!
------------------Something crazy will be unleashed-
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 06, 2005, 06:25:47 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 06, 2005, 06:55:44 PM
The demo that needs to be shown doesn't have to be an actual game. It just has to prove the concept and direction is good. The demo could be as simple as controlling a gamecube game with the new controller...or tech demos like the DS had.
However, if they don't show a demo, then graphics are a must. They are going to have to show the world that the concept comes with equal graphics to that of Xenon and PS3.
Those CNN reports could also easily be saying this:
"Despite Nintendo's revelation that games of the future will be controlled by motion, Sony and Microsoft scored huge crowds of fans eager to play the next generation systems."
Don'tHate742: You are right this is the biggest E3 ever. Microsoft is probably going to let the entire cat out of the bag. Release Date, Specs, Games, and it will let people play something like a Halo 3 demo. Just wait. Sony knows this, and will come out with info for the PS3 as well. Pontentially demos.
Nintendo needs to do the same. They just can't sit on this hype of something revolutionary for another year. It's stupid. Right among these messageboards someone has got the concept for the Revolution written out. I feel we have a pretty good idea. Its not going to be a big surprise annoucement. So they need that extra something special (like a demo) to prove the point.
Post by: zakkiel on April 06, 2005, 08:24:01 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on April 06, 2005, 08:48:52 PM
If they release November of 06 regardless of when Sony releases after the NextBox they need to have at least three minutes of video displaying graphics and games in development (Zelda and Metroid and new franchises), the Revolution's present casing and controller as well as demo on stage for us the next Super Mario Bros. and maybe a sword fighting game like Soul Calibur or shooter using the new controller. Official specs would be nice too. A portable GameCube (GBE) would boost interest. If they wait until next fall for the Revolution launch then at this year's E3 they need to show some killer DS and GameCube software surprises. Where are the games on GameCube? Revolution is going to be backwards compatible so should the Cube not be getting the most third party support at E3?
If Nintendo launches fall of 05 against the NextBox then they have to show everything including publicly playable Revolution demos.
Nintendo has no competition in going after nongamers, and nongamers won't know anything about what happens at E3 so Nintendo needs to focus on hardcore gamers at E3. Nintendog$#!+ is not going to convince anyone paying attention to E3 to buy a DS.
Post by: Slew on April 07, 2005, 03:11:35 AM
Quote
Slingshot, I just reread your original post, and I have to pont out a problem. There's no restoring force in gyroscopes. They resist being reoriented, but after you've moved them they stay put. It's not like a steering wheel or joystick where you constantly have a force pushing it back to zero. Gyroscopes just resist being moved, they don't care what way they end up pointing. So you won't get "force feedback." just a sort of resistance when you try and turn.
I'm pretty sure Gyroscopes could move the controller around.
There used to be a science centre in the city that I went to a few times, they had a suitcase with gyroscopes in it. It was able to lift itself at an angle while you held the handle with a fair amount of force.
So FPS's could jerk the controller back upon firing, or if you were using the tilt sensitivity to turn, it could force the controller against the way you were tilting it.
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 07, 2005, 04:36:49 AM
I personally think they should just take that out, specially with Gyroscopes. Let us gamers only have to worry about how t move the controller without worrying about forcefeed back to fight.
Post by: zakkiel on April 07, 2005, 06:37:35 AM
Yes, the suitcase could lift itself as long as you were applying a force. Stop applying the force, the suitcase stops. Same with the controller. You can get forces out only by putting forces in. If you just have the controller static in space, you can't ever us the gyroscopes to generate a force.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 07, 2005, 11:25:34 AM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 07, 2005, 12:43:28 PM
Post by: slingshot on April 07, 2005, 04:48:18 PM
improvement- very intuitive. If they could be used in another way- that would be great- thinking about a fishing game
that actually pulls at the controller, instead of vibrating unrealistically?
-But what happens when the gyroscope changes direction? Wouldn't you feel it jerk the controller in a direction?
(either equal to or oposite to the direction change?) I think so, but I am no expert.
Sure, if the gyro is kept in a perpetual motion that is constant- and in 1 direction you would not notice a change unless you
try to move it- but what if the gyro kept changing direction- then you may notice a change----- hmmm....
Either way- it adds to the experience- especially when shooting or driving- or fighting. Pretty cool things on the horizon.
I don't care what people think- if your holding something that is spinning in 1 direction, and it suddenly stops and changes
direction, you will feel that change. And if it only requires a simple electrical current (aplied through the controller) to cause
that change- then it is possible. After all, it works with the rumble feature- what is really so different?
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 07, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
Yes, which is why if you put a controller on the ground and let it rumble, it doesn't move. Also, human beings are stationary at all times until they're pushed. And if you're trapped inside a cardboard box, there's no way to tip it over from the inside.
Reaction forces don't cancel out the effects of a force.
"Yes, the suitcase could lift itself as long as you were applying a force. Stop applying the force, the suitcase stops. Same with the controller. You can get forces out only by putting forces in. If you just have the controller static in space, you can't ever us the gyroscopes to generate a force. "
Just by holding the controller, you're applying a force. It's not hanging in space by itself.
All that said, I have no idea if gyroscopes could do what they're implying... it's been a long, long time since I studied mechanics. I'm sure I could figure it out if I thought about it.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on April 07, 2005, 08:16:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Yes, which is why if you put a controller on the ground and let it rumble, it doesn't move. Also, human beings are stationary at all times until they're pushed. And if you're trapped inside a cardboard box, there's no way to tip it over from the inside.
I'm sure that Psycho Mantis would disagree with you.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 07, 2005, 08:19:53 PM
Post by: Slew on April 07, 2005, 08:51:18 PM
Quote
I don't care what people think- if your holding something that is spinning in 1 direction, and it suddenly stops and changes
direction, you will feel that change. And if it only requires a simple electrical current (aplied through the controller) to cause
that change- then it is possible. After all, it works with the rumble feature- what is really so different?
I concur. Anything that vibrates is plain and simple proof that 'internal' forces can move an object.
Gyroscopes are just more advanced.
Might be expensive, but then again, Gyration's wireless gyro-mouse/keyboard suite is only US$99.
A controller using similar gyro technology could stay at a decent price I'm sure.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 07, 2005, 09:16:40 PM
I don't see how anybody can think I'm being serious when I say "Also, human beings are stationary at all times until they're pushed."
That's a big tipoff right there, hmmm?
Post by: ThirdMarioBro on April 07, 2005, 10:16:09 PM
Post by: Slew on April 08, 2005, 12:47:48 AM
Heh, yeah I'm stupid.
I wasn't paying close enough attention to what you said.
And now let us never speak of this again.
*Edit*
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 08, 2005, 08:22:17 AM
An electric force could definitely make Force-Feedback possible....I don't know what's up with all the nay sayers.
Post by: nickmitch on April 08, 2005, 01:39:25 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 08, 2005, 01:54:48 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 08, 2005, 04:00:48 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 08, 2005, 04:47:09 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on April 08, 2005, 10:58:54 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 08, 2005, 11:27:01 PM
Yes, actually. Unless you're planning on having the cord be retractable somehow, which would make either the console or the controller that much bigger, then the cords would just get in the way.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 09, 2005, 04:29:25 AM
Post by: slingshot on April 09, 2005, 04:43:49 AM
pushing a button, and it only takes up a space the size of a mini disc in diameter, but about 1 inch thick- and I reapeat,
the cord on my iron is more than twice as thick as the cord on a game controller. I would love to have a wireless option,
with a retractable cord. Right now, When I am done playing I have to either wrap my cord around my controller, and put
it next to or behind the console. Or just try to stuff it all behind the TV. As a whole, that is FAR FAR messier, and takes up
MORE space than the cord would if it were retracted into the console. We arn't talking aobut a 2 foot size difference to have
the cords retract- and Just have 2 retracable cord plugs, any extras can be stored elsewhere- it would still make a difference,
rather than having 3 or 4 cords all over.
Go for it Nintendo.
Post by: Dasmos on April 09, 2005, 04:50:08 AM
You have an iron..........
Post by: The Omen on April 09, 2005, 05:44:52 AM
Quote
Look- My fricken iron has a retractable cord that is bulkier than the cord on a controller, and just as long. It retracts by
pushing a button, and it only takes up a space the size of a mini disc in diameter, but about 1 inch thick- and I reapeat,
the cord on my iron is more than twice as thick as the cord on a game controller. I would love to have a wireless option,
with a retractable cord. Right now, When I am done playing I have to either wrap my cord around my controller, and put
it next to or behind the console. Or just try to stuff it all behind the TV. As a whole, that is FAR FAR messier, and takes up
MORE space than the cord would if it were retracted into the console. We arn't talking aobut a 2 foot size difference to have
the cords retract- and Just have 2 retracable cord plugs, any extras can be stored elsewhere- it would still make a difference,
rather than having 3 or 4 cords all over.
Go for it Nintendo.
Then you and I are in agreement.
I mean, really, how difficult would it be ?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 09, 2005, 11:07:27 AM
Post by: wandering on April 09, 2005, 02:19:02 PM
Nintnedo spent a lot of time in their patent (link, for those who haven't seen it) discussing an apparently unique way they've discovered for making a retractable cord fit inside a controller, without making the controller too big or too expensive.
But I don't care how they do it....it'd be annoying not being able to play during charges. Especially considering the controller will probably have a much lower battery life than Wavebird and, knowing Nintendo, probably won't have an easily replacable battery.
Post by: nickmitch on April 09, 2005, 07:21:44 PM
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on April 09, 2005, 10:50:23 PM
Post by: slingshot on April 10, 2005, 05:21:21 AM
of the console? I would be pretty easy to grab it if it is sticking out. Is that really going to bug you? I think it is bette to
have it protrude slightly than to have it sucked into the console- where you would have to come up with a mechanical
means to get it out- (ie, pushing a button to partially eject the plug) K>I>S>S. You know the old anagram. The more
mechanics the easier it breaks. I'm sure Nintendo would have a reason to choose the controller over the console to house
the retracted cord- but I don't see the logic in putting it in the controller when you can keep it out of the way in the console-
you would notice the extra bulk more in a small controller than in a larger console. Especially when the console just sits
there and does nothing- but you have to hold the controller. Unless it is integral to the funcionality of the device- it should
be confined to the console (.)
Post by: zakkiel on April 10, 2005, 03:13:40 PM
Human beings move by pushing the planet in the opposite direction. You just don't notice because obviously the planet is so big. If it was just you and a rubber ball in space, you could notie that you could only change velocities by pushing the rubber ball. Paladin, dear, the reaction force actually does cancel out the net force. This is actually codified in what we call Newton's third law, which states clearly and explicitly that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of a cardboard box, you use friction to tip it. The friction applies a torque to the earth exactly equal and opposite to the torque you apply to the box. If you stick the box on some frictionless surface, or in a vacuum, you won't be able to tip it from the inside.
A vibrating object uses systemns colliding with each other inside the object to produce the effect. You get the vibration because of the time delay between collisions. Foir an example, consider a person inside a box in space. He's up against one wall with a big ball which he bounces off the far wall. When he first throws the ball, the box starts moving in the opposite direction of the ball, keeping total change in momentum zero. When the ball bounces off the far end, the box starts moving in the other direction, still keeping total momentum zero. You get motion in the box, all right, but the only way you can get it to move anywhere is by throwing the ball through the box. Otherwise, the box will just move back and forth over a distance qual to no more than twice its length measured in the direction the ball is thrown. Now, if you stick the box on earth with friction you can play games that will get the box to keep jerking in one direction, but only by pushing the earth in the opposite direction.
At this point, I should perhaps mention that I am a physics major currently studying quantum mechanics. Basic Fourier transforms with no temporal dependence at this point, but I did in fact acquire some small understanding of elementary Newtonian physics from the courses I had to take to get here, so I know what I'm talking about. Paladin, I suggest you reserve your sarcasm for when YOU know what you're talking about or at least have made a token effort to find out.
Now, gyroscopes. When you apply a torque, which is a force on the exterior of a body that causes it to rotate (I'm being real careful now so there can be no misunderstanding) to a gyroscope's axis, you can get an opposing torque (or force, depending on how you want to look at it for the purposes of the original problem) from the gyroscope provided its spinning fast enough. This allows you to set up weird static systems like briefcases floating by one handle. However, this torque is ONLY in response to the exterior torque, and applies exactly so that it produces a force equal to the weight of the object. It depends entirely on where you place your hand. If you apply an electrical force to create a torque inside the gyroscope, the gyroscope will apply an equal and opposite force to whatever you have inside the controller generating the force - probably an electromagnet. The forces will cancel inside the controller and you will never feel them on the outside (unless they become so strong that they rip the controller apart, which might injure your hand as the components fly apart with a total momentum exactly equal to zero, if you count the earth.)
In conclusion: there are no forcefields, and gyroscopes are not magic devices that produce them. It's a nice thought that, like faster-than-light travel, happens to be impossible. Naysayer that I am, I live in reality and do not expect Nintendo to break the laws of physics.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 10, 2005, 04:45:55 PM
I'm sorry, zakkiel, dear, isn't friction one of the effects of the original force? And didn't you say pushing a ball in space would make you move? Why, however could that be, if forces produced no effects because reactions cancelled them all out? Of course the net force is cancelled out, I never said otherwise... read it again, I said "Reaction forces don't cancel out the effects of a force", and by effect I mean the english sense of the word. If forces never produced effects, nothing would ever happen.
Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there.
In the future, honey, if you're going to be condescending, please make sure there's a point of contention first.
Post by: Miyamoto Osaki on April 10, 2005, 04:47:57 PM
all i hope is that Nintendo is acting and not thinking.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 10, 2005, 05:39:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Thank you! I knew my grade 12 physics was correct. I'm taking it for the second time now (for the hell of it). You're in quantum mechanics? That's crazy stuff, entanglement in particular.
Post by: zakkiel on April 11, 2005, 10:43:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Paladin, dear, the reaction force actually does cancel out the net force. This is actually codified in what we call Newton's third law, which states clearly and explicitly that every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
I'm sorry, zakkiel, dear, isn't friction one of the effects of the original force? And didn't you say pushing a ball in space would make you move? Why, however could that be, if forces produced no effects because reactions cancelled them all out? Of course the net force is cancelled out, I never said otherwise... read it again, I said "Reaction forces don't cancel out the effects of a force", and by effect I mean the english sense of the word. If forces never produced effects, nothing would ever happen.
Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there.
In the future, honey, if you're going to be condescending, please make sure there's a point of contention first.
QuoteJudging from what you said, you actually didn't mean "effect" in the common English sense of the word, because no one has been arguing that there are no effects due to internal forces in the common English sense of the word. You meant it specifically as a physical translation, which is what the whole argument was about, and now you're equivocating. No good.
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"I think what he's trying to say is that the only way something could change movement (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller. Any internal forces result in the equal/opposite reaction force, equalling a net force of zero."
Yes, which is why if you put a controller on the ground and let it rumble, it doesn't move. Also, human beings are stationary at all times until they're pushed. And if you're trapped inside a cardboard box, there's no way to tip it over from the inside.
Friction is the effect of the force of gravity on the box as a system and the electromagnetic forces between the electrons of the box and the floor. And pushing the ball makes you move because it applies a force to an object external to you (the ball) which applies a force to you in turn. Internal forces can cause systems to dilate and contract, changing their position relative to external forces and thereby causing the system to move: when you push the ball, the internal electromagnetic forces of your muscles cause you to expand as a system, bringing your hand farther into the electromagnetic field of the ball, which changes the external forces. Similarly, the controller could have a telescoping rod that it sticks out to push off of things. Not exactly relevant to the topic.
Post by: KnowsNothing on April 11, 2005, 10:49:54 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 11, 2005, 01:45:03 PM
I wonder why I quoted Guitar Smasher instead of directly quoting you, his source.
Guitar Smasher:
"the only way something could change movement (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."
So tell me, dear, can or can not movement be one of the effects of a force, whether internal or external? No, don't get up... no need to answer, I'll spare you the effort by quoting you. I insist.
You:
"When he first throws the ball, the box starts moving"
"Otherwise, the box will just move back and forth over a distance qual to no more than twice its length measured in the direction the ball is thrown."
"Internal forces can cause systems to dilate and contract, changing their position relative to external forces and thereby causing the system to move"
Uh oh... looks like you disagreed with Guitar Smasher and hence agreed with my argument not once but thrice. That ranks up there in the master list of idiotic faux pas... agreeing with what you're arguing against.
Let me fix the problem you should have helped me fix:
"the only way something could change total momentum (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."
You could have shared in my sarcasm instead of launching a misguided tirade. We could have been smug together and likewise chuckled at another's minor follies. But I guess I was just equivocating, because if I wasn't that means your whole condescending argument-cum-lecture against me was wasted, and we can't have that.
I guess this wouldn't be a good time to say I studied basic Fourier Transforms three semesters ago. zakkiel, honey, I'm so sorry... I hope I didn't hurt you.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 11, 2005, 03:10:18 PM
don't changes in work/energy with considerations with the moment of inertia and/or inertia in general of whatever body you're talking about better explain things?
I mean, how "definitely" external must these forces be? Electricity goes thru controller cord, electricity powers an internal motor with some sort of imbalance which rotates, this internal rotation shifts the center of mass, then the controller as a whole moves a bit to follow(?, is it that simple?) its center of mass accordingly -- yay Rumble Pack! You [the controller] were hanging statically but then the game decided to shake you up so you twitched a little bit thus went from zero to some velocity which means you went from zero to some momentum! Yay for indirect thingies!
I don't know where I'm going with this! Civil engineering senior, AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY@@!!!~!1
Post by: zakkiel on April 11, 2005, 03:10:34 PM
"Uh oh... looks like you disagreed with Guitar Smasher and hence agreed with my argument not once but thrice. That ranks up there in the master list of idiotic faux pas... agreeing with what you're arguing against.
Let me fix the problem you should have helped me fix:
"the only way something could change total momentum (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."
You could have shared in my sarcasm instead of launching a misguided tirade. We could have been smug together and likewise chuckled at another's minor follies. But I guess I was just equivocating, because if I wasn't that means your whole condescending argument-cum-lecture against me was wasted, and we can't have that."
No, no... as I said, I thought on it and realized that you simply weren't paying attention. See, we were all having this argument about force-feedback, and you were off having an argument about the capacity of an internal force to have any effect on anything. Since I usually assume that a post appearing in the midst of the argument attacking someone actually has some relevance to the argument, I misconstrued your position. I apologize. In the future, I will make no such assumptions about your posts. And I freely admit that the element of my tirade directed against you was wasted, since in fact you were talking to yourself.
I am however pleased to see you have made some effort to find out a little about elementary mechanics. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. Guitar smasher is correct. You simply fail to understand system boundaries. The controller is moved by the vibrator only insofar as the vibrator is a different system. If you count the controller as including the vibrating element inside, then the controller does not move, only the case does, which is a part of the controller system. If you don't count the vibrator as part of the controller, then the force between the vibrator and the controller is an external force. The condition Guitar-smasher outlined always holds.
I think you have just committed an idiot faux-pas of an even greater magnetude than the one you describe. Wouldn't you agree?
"I guess this wouldn't be a good time to say I studied basic Fourier Transforms three semesters ago. zakkiel, honey, I'm so sorry... I hope I didn't hurt you. "
"With whate'er gall thou sett'st thyself to write, / Thy inoffensive satires never bite." And I have a thick skin anyway, so never fear.
"Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there." What beautiful incongruity. He knows Fourier transforms but nothing about gyroscopes (your use of the word "theory" kind of gave that one away). But since you've advanced so far, I'm curious: what sorts of functions that may be Fourier transformed?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 11, 2005, 03:32:11 PM
I'm assuming the vibrator/motor is structurally a part of the whole system, with the motor causing movement of the whole body by changing the position of the center of mass, not necessarily pushing or pulling anything. What I thought was that the electrical force which drives the motor was the only force applicable and there wasn't much more we should be concerned with.
Post by: zakkiel on April 11, 2005, 03:49:47 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 11, 2005, 05:10:31 PM
Enough about vibrators.
The fact that my controller will rumble itself off the table during a MGS: Twin Snakes cutscene amuses me to no end.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 11, 2005, 05:40:10 PM
"then the controller does not move, only the case does"
I think you're being obtuse on purpose here. I doubt anybody in this thread but you failed to understand that by controller I meant its case... that being, of course, the whole topic under discussion. Unless of course my implicit assumption was wrong and GS's whole point was to argue that "Force feedback gyros may or may not be possible but the controller itself doesn't move, just the case," which would mean all three of us are just being anal about different points and this whole thing has devolved into a miscommunication. Take your pick.
What's the point of your whole system boundaries argument anyway? Not only is it painfully obvious, but it doesn't negate the possibility of the case moving in any way. It seems you just harped on that as a red herring to distract me with.
"I am however pleased to see you have made some effort to find out a little about elementary mechanics. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. Guitar smasher is correct. You simply fail to understand system boundaries. The controller is moved by the vibrator only insofar as the vibrator is a different system. If you count the controller as including the vibrating element inside, then the controller does not move, only the case does, which is a part of the controller system. If you don't count the vibrator as part of the controller, then the force between the vibrator and the controller is an external force. The condition Guitar-smasher outlined always holds."
I considered that for a second, but if that was really his argument, if the whole thing was rooted entirely in physical terms, then it had absolutely no point... so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that by "external" he meant outside the controller, as in, "the only thing that can make the case move (force feedback) is something outside the controller (not inside... i.e. not the gyroscopes)." I can see now that may have been a mistake and he may in fact have meant absolutely nothing, which means that none of us had a single point to make aside from yours that gyroscopes had no restoring force.
Oh well.
"What beautiful incongruity. He knows Fourier transforms but nothing about gyroscopes (your use of the word "theory" kind of gave that one away). But since you've advanced so far, I'm curious: what sorts of functions that may be Fourier transformed?"
Weird but true... I've never actually studied anything about gyroscopes till now, but I've taken Fourier and Laplace transforms, which is why I said "I'm sure I could figure it out if I thought about it."
I think it's cute that you doubt my claims... I never doubted yours. To answer your question, if I remember correctly, pretty much any function (continuous or discrete) can be FT'd provided it either has finite energy or satisfies the Dirichlet conditions. It's commonly used for analyzing signals in the frequency instead of time domain. Did you have to study signals to get into quantum mechanics? Where are you studying now, by the way?
Even if this whole mess had absolutely no point, I enjoyed our bantering.
Post by: slingshot on April 12, 2005, 04:52:19 AM
long time from now. THe problem with physics and science, is that it is blind- science believes that we know all that there
is to know about itself- and everything else is impossible- until a new discovery is made- then it is possible.
The world, round, Poppycock! -Oh, so it is....
The sun is the center of the universe?~ how obsurd- whats this, theres proof?
Flying? Proposterous! --would you look at that- he's flying!
Force fields- Nevery, impossible..... ?
Faster than light? No way------- ?
If we can warp space time- and create a gravitational safe haven- we can traverse black holes, go faster than light, and
create force fields. It will happen- maybe not for thousands of years- 10,000 years? but it will happen. It just takes
creativity and ingenuity.
PS- gyroscopes don't create motion in a direction, they do resist it though- so a stearing game would seem logical that
when you try to turn the wheel in the oposite direction, you would feel resistance. And what if the gyro had a heavy
side that COULD cause the controller to be "thrown" off balance to create motion in a direction. You could always turn
it off if you didn't like it- just like rumble.
-----I am not a physics major. I never took physics, but I am no village idiot either.
Post by: zakkiel on April 12, 2005, 09:02:02 AM
Guitar-smasher made a statement which is physically accurate. You misinterpreted his statement to mean that internal forces never have external effects, or that internal forces can never cause external forces, and I, assuming you had correctly interpreted his statement, thereby misinterpreted yours to mean that systems could move without external forces.
His point was the same as mine, or rather a clarification of the physical principle behind my point: you can't use a gyroscope to create a restoring force the way slingshot originally suggested, and there are no "force-feedback" gyroscopes. You have to have some interaction with an outside body to get acceleration.
The condition on Fourier transforms of functions is simply that the function have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities. Everything else is fair game.
We don't really do signals theory for quantum mechanics except insofar as qm IS signals theory. For example, a Gaussian pulse is the ideal efficient signal (if you don't have packet loss) for the same reason that makes it the minimum uncertainty state of a particle: the Gaussian transform coefficient C(k) is very narrow. In signals, this means that you can use narrow bands to transmit sharp pulses; in qm, this means that you can get a well-defined position x with relatively low momentum k.
Fourier transforms also tell you about moving systems. Different wave frequencies of particles travel at different velocities, so you need to express the particle's wave function as the sum of sines and cosines of differing frequencies in order to figure out what its wave function will look like down the road as it gets all smeared out.
What on earth is your major that you went through Fourier without ever hitting mechanics? I didn't think pure math people bothered, and electrical engineering requires mechanics same as everything else.
Slingshot, no scientist currently believes there's nothing more to discover. A force-field would violate the symmetry of orientation (otherwise expressed as Newton's third law and conservation of momentum) which is probably the physical principle we are MOST confident of. Nonetheless, it could happen. We just have absolutely no reason to think it will.
Warping space in the way you describe has been considered, but as near as we can tell it would take more energy than currently exists in the universe. We might discover a cheap solution. But again, there's no reason to think we will except that we really WANT to be able to go faster than light. Being cool is not a good reason to believe it.
A gyroscope would let you feel when you turned the wheel by resisting you, true; but it wouldn't give you any sense of how far you'd turned the wheel or when the wheel was at 0, the way a steering wheel does in a car. So it wouldn't really simulate the feeling of a steering wheel or give you that tactile knowledge of when the wheel is around 0 and you're moving straight ahead, which is the most useful thing about a steering wheel, joystick, etc.
A "heavy side" of the gyroscope would simply turn it into a rumble feature - it would pull in one direction and then the other, very quickly.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 12, 2005, 11:24:25 AM
No, actually, you misinterpreted my misinterpretation.
I assumed that by "external" he meant "spatially outside the case". But if you're right and that's what both you and he meant by "external"... then what's the point of what either of you said? Force feedback has nothing to do with the whole controller, it just has to do with the case. You haven't disproved anything. The case can move and give force feedback even if the entire controller doesn't. You will always have your hands as an outside body for the controller to interact with.Aha! I think I've pinpointed the confusion now: I count rumble as a form of force feedback because I remember its being touted as such in its early days and I guess because I adopted the general/CS idea of feedback. Given that definition, you agree with me:
"A "heavy side" of the gyroscope would simply turn it into a rumble feature - it would pull in one direction and then the other, very quickly."
So we're both right and this was all a big misunderstanding... I have no idea what GS meant anymore though.
"The condition on Fourier transforms of functions is simply that the function have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities. Everything else is fair game."
No, actually... that's just one of the Dirichlet conditions. The other three are that each discontinuity has to be finite, that the function has to be absolutely integrable, and that the function has a finite number of minima and maxima within any finite interval. But that stuff is rarely ever violated in practice, so you're practically right.
"What on earth is your major that you went through Fourier without ever hitting mechanics?"
Of course I went through mechanics... what makes you think I didn't? I'm in electrical engineering and CS, we just never went through gyroscopes so I'm not even sure what it consists of mechanically. Maybe I studied it under another name, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in any of my mechanics classes was the word "gyroscope" ever mentioned.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on April 12, 2005, 12:34:40 PM
I (think) I was explaining why you couldn't use gyroscopes to actually 'move' the controller. Like if you pull it left, the gyros create a counter force pulling right. I never even had rumble in mind. It seems to me we haven't been thinking of the same idea for several posts. I think I'm pretty much done with this.
Post by: slingshot on April 13, 2005, 05:14:59 AM
Going faster than light would be useful if you want to get somewhere really fast, say, to the other side of the galaxy.
I read somewhere that we have discovered actual matter that moves at 99.9999...% the speed of light. I know- it
doesn't violate any rules- but it does make us wonder about perhaps why we cannot see anything moving faster than light-
perhaps it is possible, but something happens to the matter at that point which makes it invisible. I don't have any
answers, but anything seems possible in this universe- perhaps the matter us unable to exist in our 3rd dimention if it
passes the light speed barrier, and it shifts into a 4th dimention until it slows down. Who knows really.
the only reason I am intrigued by the idea of force fields, is because I am amazed by invisible forces- particularely
magnetics. Gravity I can envision, by the curvature of space theory, and the friction-free environment allows 'things' to
stay in orbit (like a penny rolling around those spiral funnels until they drop down the center of the hole - due to friction)
But I am amazed by magnetics- electro mags... Just holding 2 magnets that want to repel eachother, and trying to
push them together- feeling that invisible force between them is amazing. If magnetics can repel just about anything
that is magnetic- or attract it- what other forces are out there that can do the same?
I realize the amount of energy required is insane compared with what we can do- but someday we will be using
matter-antimatter reacters instead of nuclear- and that will change much in the way we view feasible energy requirements.
I also think that there is something on the otherside of black holes- I've no idea what- maybe it is like a drain in a bathtub-
and a meatgrinder at the same times- Things get sucked in and pulverized, and pop out somewhere else to start a new
galaxy in some unseen place- other dimention, other universe, other galaxy? who knows. If you could protect yourself
from the crush of the gravitational forece by bending it around yourself, you ( no easy task ) I wonder what you would see?
Post by: MrMojoRising on April 13, 2005, 07:51:08 AM
Post by: zakkiel on April 13, 2005, 01:10:07 PM
"The other three are that each discontinuity has to be finite,"
Not quite. It has to have a finite number of discontinuities in a defined interval, which is what it means to have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities.
"that the function has a finite number of minima and maxima within any finite interval." I'd be fascinated to see how you can get an infinite number of extrema without violating the first condition.
"that the function has to be absolutely integrable"
Again, how do you violate this without violating the first principle?
And the fourth principle is simply the definition of a function. So as I see it, you still only have the one.
"Of course I went through mechanics... what makes you think I didn't? I'm in electrical engineering and CS, we just never went through gyroscopes so I'm not even sure what it consists of mechanically. Maybe I studied it under another name, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in any of my mechanics classes was the word "gyroscope" ever mentioned. " A gyroscope is any body rotating rapidly about its center of mass. Which is why I'm so stunned that you never ran into it.
"Going faster than light would be useful if you want to get somewhere really fast, say, to the other side of the galaxy.
I read somewhere that we have discovered actual matter that moves at 99.9999...% the speed of light. I know- it
doesn't violate any rules- but it does make us wonder about perhaps why we cannot see anything moving faster than light-
perhaps it is possible, but something happens to the matter at that point which makes it invisible. " Becauser it would require infinite energy. The speed of light isn't a hard barrier that you can get arbitrarily close to; as you approach it, your mass increases without bounds, so the energy it takes to push you closer to that limit keeps going up.
"But I am amazed by magnetics- electro mags... Just holding 2 magnets that want to repel eachother, and trying to
push them together- feeling that invisible force between them is amazing. If magnetics can repel just about anything
that is magnetic- or attract it- what other forces are out there that can do the same?" Depends on how you count, but two for most purposes. The weak nuclear force holds nuclei together, the strong nuclear force binds quarks together. They have been unified with electromagnetism, however, so technbically that force you feel between the two magnets is the only force in existance besides gravity, and gravity may get unified as well.
Mr.Mojo, why DID you read all of this?
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 13, 2005, 11:14:38 PM
zakkiel, at this point it's your word against my textbook's (that I have in front of me right now). I know which I trust. Seriously, look up Dirichlet conditions... they're an established part of any serious study of transforms, I'm completely shocked you haven't heard of them. Ask your teacher about them, or look here or here (look under Fourier Integrals) or here (the conditions are similar for series as well).
"Not quite. It has to have a finite number of discontinuities in a defined interval, which is what it means to have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities."
I said the other three. Countably infinite number is the first one. The ones I mentioned are three more that guarantee the convergence of the Fourier series to the actual function.
As for how the second two would be violated without the first, that's some advanced calculus stuff. My teacher gave examples but I don't remember them. This was, after all, three semesters ago. But let me try and think up a couple that may or may not work. At this point, I'm just making up stuff, but it feels intuitive.
1. Infinite discontinuities is not the same as infinite number of discontinuities. To see this, think of a function that has a single infinite jump, ie a vertical asymptote. That's an infinite discontinuity, but it's just one, so the number is finite.
2. Infinite minima and maxima... think of a sinuisoid that's infinitely compressed. There are no discontinuities.
3. Think of the 1/x function, which if I remember right isnt's absolutely integrable because it doesn't die down fast enough. No discontinuities.
"A gyroscope is any body rotating rapidly about its center of mass. Which is why I'm so stunned that you never ran into it."
Oh. Yeah, I have some recollection of rotating bodies, but I never knew they were gyroscopes and I don't remember the calculations and observations involved.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on April 14, 2005, 10:52:52 AM
MOJO! for his I wish I were high while reading this comment.
Post by: zakkiel on April 14, 2005, 02:27:11 PM
"3. Think of the 1/x function, which if I remember right isnt's absolutely integrable because it doesn't die down fast enough. No discontinuities." Ah, the integral of the original function converges (I thought you just meant integrable). You can use Fourier transforms on non-converging functions just fine (y=x^2, for example), you just can't do the whole thing. So yes, I missed this condition.
"2. Infinite minima and maxima... think of a sinuisoid that's infinitely compressed. There are no discontinuities." I think not. As the number of extrema approaches infinity, so does the slope between them. An infinite slope is a discontinuity. An infinitely compressed sine wave has an infinite number of discontinuities. I just don't see how you could get around that.
"1. Infinite discontinuities is not the same as infinite number of discontinuities. To see this, think of a function that has a single infinite jump, ie a vertical asymptote. That's an infinite discontinuity, but it's just one, so the number is finite." Which is where you got it wrong. Vertical asymptotes are perfectly manageable in Fourier transforms. The particle-in-a-rigid-box approximation relies on this.
"I said the other three. Countably infinite number is the first one. The ones I mentioned are three more that guarantee the convergence of the Fourier series to the actual function." When you said the first time that there couldn't be infinite discontinuities, I looked it up just to be sure. You had it wrong, or there's a misprint in your textbook, or something. Your own links bear this out.
Post by: Robotor on April 14, 2005, 05:29:04 PM
Can the controller not wiggle in the oppisite direction you turn it? The direction being determined by some sort of gyro. I've lost track of what you guys are arguing about, I think it started as that but now I just don't know. I suggest all parties give a simple recap of what they have said, for my sake.
Post by: PaLaDiN on April 14, 2005, 05:47:28 PM
Like I said, I'm not sure about my examples, but I definitely know that extrema have to be limited. It's both in my textbook and in the links. But that example still makes sense to me... for every two points in the sine wave that you infinitely compressed, there is another point between them that you also infinitely compressed and thus is still in between them. Therefore there is no discontinuity if you think about it. I may be wrong here though, I'm just relying on intuition.
"Your own links bear this out."
Check them again, a couple mention a finite number of finite discontinuities. Although on second thought I'm not sure if the discontinuities have to be finite or they're just repeating the "countably finite" definition, so you may be right there.
"What does any of this actually mean?
Can the controller not wiggle in the oppisite direction you turn it? The direction being determined by some sort of gyro. I've lost track of what you guys are arguing about, I think it started as that but now I just don't know. I suggest all parties give a simple recap of what they have said, for my sake."
Ok, here's a recap:
Rumble is possible with gyroscopes, but force feedback proper, in the sense that when you turn the gyroscope you feel a continual opposing force, is not.
The rest as far as I can make out is just a bunch of pseudointellectual pretentious bantering because the topic has no more reason to exist so we're picking apart each other's posts. What can I say, it's fun.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Post by: Miyamoto Osaki on April 14, 2005, 05:58:21 PM
Quote
I wish I was high while I read all of this.
Me too
Post by: zakkiel on April 14, 2005, 06:20:13 PM
Post by: wushupants on April 14, 2005, 08:27:08 PM
