Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig5!tekig4!brianr
From: brianr@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Rhodefer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Joysticks
Keywords: rugged
Message-ID: <2997@tekig4.TEK.COM>
Date: 5 Jul 88 21:31:44 GMT
References: <890@esunix.UUCP> <9808@g.ms.uky.edu> <339@dcdwest.UUCP>
Reply-To: brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 65

It amazes me how badly the human inputs for computer games are implemented.
The remarks of one recent poster notwithstanding, this is true for commercial
arcade games as much as (or more than) for home games.  The better the game,
at least for the skill&action variety, the more exuberantly its operator(s)
slam its controls around; yet, the controls seem always to involve the human's
frenzied muscles pushing two bits of metal together.  "Pushing"?  Say, rather,
"*Mashing*".  Go to any arcade, and you'll see at least one or two
machines down because their controls have been beaten into junk.

Though the Wico joysticks seem more rugged in construction, if you open one,
you'll see that its handle is essentially one end of a lever whose
other end presses some leaf-spring contacts together.  The only saving
grace is that after the switches close, BOTH leaves flex, and that the
massive plastic chassis limits control motion before the switch leaves
are permanently damaged.  Oveall, I wouldn't expect a Wico controller
to be any less reliable than, say, an open-frame telephone relay.

A company I worked for as a summer student sold a `joyswitch' used as
the controller for the cargo-loading system of 747s, that I consider to
be the ultimate mechanical joystick design.  With 4 independent axes of
motion (right/left, up/down, in/out, and clockwise/counterclockwise),
it's overkill for a game, but its implementation of the basic up/down,
right/left function was brilliant:  the force that actuated the switching
element was decoupled from the force that moved the control handle.

Here's a cutaway view drawing showing one axis of this control
(The sliding yoke is actually cross-shaped).
The key point is that the switching is done by cam action where the
direction of travel of the microswitch feeler is rotated 90 degrees
away from the direction of human-applied force.  The travel of the microswitch
is rigidly defined by the slope & size of the sliding yoke cam surface.
It may have been a bit bulky, but I've never seen its equal (passive
switches only here; no fair using optosensors) for ruggedness.


                          ______
                         /      \
                         \ knob /
                          |    |
                          ~    ~
                          ~    ~
------------   _______    |    |    ______   -----------
|          |  |.......|   |    |   |......|  |         |
| Micro    |  |.......|   |    |   |......|  | Micro   |
| Switch   |  |.......|   |    |   |......|  | Switch  |
|          |  |_______|   |    |   |______|  |         |
---------#-- ____________ |    | ___________ --#--------
         U  / Sliding   | |    | |          \  U
     ------/  Yoke      | |    | |           \--------     
 WMWM|              <-> | |    | |                   |WMWM  <- springs
     -------------------- |    | ---------------------
              ---------   |    |   --------
              |.......|   |    |   |......|
              |.......|   \    /   |......|
              |.......|    \  /    |......|
              |.......|     \/     |......
               ....... \    **    /.... .    ** Ball joint
                .....    --------- .......


If this design isn't patented, it sure ought to be used in commercial games.

Divulgingly,

Brian Rhodefer   ...!tektronix!tekig4!brianr