about the gamepad screen

#31mcsmellingtonPosted 4/2/2013 11:36:18 PM
elheber posted...
mcsmellington posted...
I've got a Note 2 and the screen/stylus combo feels far more accurate than it does on the Wii U Gamepad.

These guys seem to agree:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-samsung-galaxy-note-2-review

That said, I'm sure it would've added to the overall cost of the device, so it's swings and roundabouts really.

Edit: lol just noticed a near identical post to mine. That'll teach me for not reading the full topic before posting.

How odd: Not only did you fail to miss the post that sounded exactly like yours, but also the one right after in which it was completely disproved. Stylus control on capacitive screens are so inaccurate that the Galaxy Note uses another stylus technology entirely.

If I were a mean person, I'd laugh right now at your ignorance. But I just feel bad how you admitted "that'll teach me for not reading the full topic before posting," and straight up making the same mistake again within the same post.

Look, if you're trying to prove that capacitive is more precise with a stylus than resistive, DO NOT use a device that doesn't even use capacitive technology for stylus control as an example.


My mistake friend, that'll also teach me for using Wikipedia as a source! It said its a capacitive screen there, and it says the same thing on GSM Arena and several reviews I've just taken a look at, but it doesn't mention it on Samsungs website so I suppose take that with a pinch of salt.

I should have been more specific, I know the Note 2 uses the digitised Wacom stylus to improve accuracy, which is why I said itd probably have driven the price of the Gamepad up.

Can you explain what kind of screen the Note 2 has if not a capacitive one then? I genuinely am curious. :)
---
GT: McPoo
PSN/NNID: McSmellington
#32elheberPosted 4/3/2013 1:22:16 AM(edited)
The Galaxy Note line uses two technologies for touch/stylus input: a capacitive touchpad layer for touch input and an active digitizer (electromagnetic resistance, like Wacom tablets) for stylus input.

Active digitizers can't do touch recognition with anything but the stylus, and capacitive touchpads are superb with touch recognition but terrible with stylus control. Together, they cover each other's weaknesses. All except the cost, that is, as both are relatively expensive technologies.

The reason tablets and phones need capacitive touchscreens is because it simply fits better for them. Capacitive touchscreens have the advantages of having very responsive touch control and multi-touch recognition, which is important for a device without any physical buttons. They are less prone to dust, scratches, damage, and are more glare resistant, all necessary for a device that spends most of its time inside of pockets and outside in the sun. These advantages are not as important to a home game console controller.

EDIT: Also, I apologize for being harsh in my previous response. I misjudged you. You seem to be a very rational person, and I'd just lumped you together with other people from this thread.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#33mcsmellingtonPosted 4/3/2013 1:39:53 AM
No worries :)

So overall, does that mean it's still less accurate than resistive?

One of the main issues I have with the Gamepad screen so far, it's that there's been no need for the accuracy everyone says is only available to resistive screens. I know this is down to developers, but so far is only been used for like maps, menu control and a few more unique ways that use the Gamepads other features. Some of those would be better with a capacitive screen surely?

I assume that in the years to come, developers will think of better uses for the screen, but I really can't think of many that will benefit from a higher level of accuracy. But then I'm not a developer :p
---
GT: McPoo
PSN/NNID: McSmellington
#34Rev0luti0nN0wPosted 4/3/2013 1:44:08 AM
They probably got that screen for really cheap, since resistive screens aren't used much anymore, and it's easily the best resistive I've ever used. You can scroll pretty decently like a capacitive.

Any other screen would've had less accuracy and costed tons more.
#35elheberPosted 4/3/2013 2:18:42 AM
Capacitive is less precise than resistive, active digitizer is more precise than resisitve (though it may require calibration). Moreover, an active digitizer has off-contact recognition, so it can tell where the stylus is hovering over. It also allows for buttons on the stylus itself and has a wider range of pressure sensitivity. But resistive can do touch recognition, which an active digitizer cannot.

I don't own any retail games that require the stylus yet either, but the importance of accuracy is easily seen with Miiverse already. Maybe Scribblenauts Unlimited. It shouldn't be too long before certain games come out requiring the absolute precision of a stylus. After all, it's already true for the 3DS. Pikmin 3 in GamePad mode, perhaps. Some future RTS, DOTA, dungeon crawlers, or SimCity-style games. Hell, I'd love a new Mario Paint.

The games now might not yet need the high degree of precision that the resistive screen provides, but they also don't need the high degree of responsiveness that capacitive screens provide either. And they will continue to not need it; not with actual buttons to fill that role. Resistive tech provides the primary benefits of the two expensive technologies in the Galaxy Note, at a fraction of the cost of either (let alone both).

It's like buying one Galaxy Note 2 to fill the role of both a Samsung Galaxy S4 and a Wacom Cintiq.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
| 3DS: Ulysses | PSN: Riot_Guy |
#36krizz07Posted 4/3/2013 7:29:02 AM
Starwars4J posted...
ORANGE666 posted...
Still spouting this crap? Accuracy doesn't matter anymore, Capacitive tech has greatly advanced since 2007. Maybe you should read some recent articles..? Or buy a new phone?

I can use the stylus on my Galaxy Note 2 with pin point accuracy. In fact, its tip is thinner than the stylus on my 3DS. It's more accurate than the screen on the 3ds.


Still in denial? And LMAO at accuracy doesn't matter. I'm surprised no one on the Vita boards said that before. And no, it's less accurate (though accuracy doesn't matter, right? hahaha). Capacitive screens are inherently less accurate than any resistive screen. They're phone screens, and nothing more.

But hey, given that all the Vita gets these days are phone games it's no surprise you'd expect capacitive screens to be the norm ;)



let me tell you why capacitive is more suited to a controller with a screen:
1. because it would be more convenient to use your finger since your hands are already on the controller.
2. multitouch.
3. more sensitive.

and please don't say that vita has phone games nowadays, that only means you don't own one and you are ignorant.

i own a vita and i prefer it from the resistive touchscreen of my 3DS. resistive may be more accurate, but you have to admit that majority of the time people use fingers nowadays so it won't even matter.

although in nintendo's defence, they make really good resistive screens. so sensitivity is not a very big issue. if there's any any complaint, it's just that there is no multitouch.
#37CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 4/3/2013 5:24:49 PM
krizz07 posted...
Starwars4J posted...
ORANGE666 posted...
Still spouting this crap? Accuracy doesn't matter anymore, Capacitive tech has greatly advanced since 2007. Maybe you should read some recent articles..? Or buy a new phone?

I can use the stylus on my Galaxy Note 2 with pin point accuracy. In fact, its tip is thinner than the stylus on my 3DS. It's more accurate than the screen on the 3ds.


Still in denial? And LMAO at accuracy doesn't matter. I'm surprised no one on the Vita boards said that before. And no, it's less accurate (though accuracy doesn't matter, right? hahaha). Capacitive screens are inherently less accurate than any resistive screen. They're phone screens, and nothing more.

But hey, given that all the Vita gets these days are phone games it's no surprise you'd expect capacitive screens to be the norm ;)



let me tell you why capacitive is more suited to a controller with a screen:
1. because it would be more convenient to use your finger since your hands are already on the controller.
2. multitouch.
3. more sensitive.

and please don't say that vita has phone games nowadays, that only means you don't own one and you are ignorant.

i own a vita and i prefer it from the resistive touchscreen of my 3DS. resistive may be more accurate, but you have to admit that majority of the time people use fingers nowadays so it won't even matter.

although in nintendo's defence, they make really good resistive screens. so sensitivity is not a very big issue. if there's any any complaint, it's just that there is no multitouch.



1.
You can use your finger w/ both.

2.
It really doesn't need multitouch first of all. You've got plenty of other inputs to choose from, how many worthwhile games would end up using it?
Also, resistive screens can be multitouch as well. Not sure of cost comparison.

3.
I DISAGREE here, very strongly. The sensitivity of capacitive screens is not well suited for gaming IMO.
I mean, imagine having a controller w/ buttons, but all the buttons are so sensitive that you cannot touch them w/o registering an input. You wouldn't even be able to hold the controller, and forget about having your finger neutrally resting on them.

The current gamepad sensitivity is very good. it requires very very little pressure, but enough where you can easily rest your hand or stylus neutrally on the screen w/o registering inputs.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#38AndoMikePosted 4/3/2013 5:40:03 PM
icarus231 posted...
Buretsu posted...
Gotta love some of the people on this board. They'll complain about how the Gamepad adds to the cost of the system, then turn around and complain about how Nintendo didn't make the Gamepad even more expensive with a super-fancy screen.


Glad to see i wasnt the only one thinking this.

---
NNID: AndoMike
PSN: AndoMike
#39GdboyratedloudPosted 4/3/2013 6:07:19 PM
trenken posted...
Drumguy posted...
IloveElite posted...
Theres always a chance of dead pixels.

The problem with the controller screen is that its a very cheaply made resistive one.

Resistive screens are rather poor even at the best of times. :(


What's cheaply made about it?


He's absolutely right, its garbage. Go use an iphone or ipad, then go use the gamepad. Entirely different feel, respond, every aspect of a touchscreen is better on the iphone/pad.

But those screens are expensive to make, and Nintendo is cheap so they build things as cheap as they possibly can and cut every single possible corner. Old CPU, crappy touchscreen, interface runs like crap, graphical output on the same level as the PS3, which is 6 years old. Maybe 7 years?


old cpu BEEN dubunked. take your bellyaching elsewhere. You sound angry
---
frank ocean ‏@frank_ocean
if the ps4 is finna drop- then i don't wanna hear any bs about consoles being a dead format and mobile takin over
#40krizz07Posted 4/3/2013 6:09:57 PM
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
krizz07 posted...
Starwars4J posted...
ORANGE666 posted...
Still spouting this crap? Accuracy doesn't matter anymore, Capacitive tech has greatly advanced since 2007. Maybe you should read some recent articles..? Or buy a new phone?

I can use the stylus on my Galaxy Note 2 with pin point accuracy. In fact, its tip is thinner than the stylus on my 3DS. It's more accurate than the screen on the 3ds.


Still in denial? And LMAO at accuracy doesn't matter. I'm surprised no one on the Vita boards said that before. And no, it's less accurate (though accuracy doesn't matter, right? hahaha). Capacitive screens are inherently less accurate than any resistive screen. They're phone screens, and nothing more.

But hey, given that all the Vita gets these days are phone games it's no surprise you'd expect capacitive screens to be the norm ;)



let me tell you why capacitive is more suited to a controller with a screen:
1. because it would be more convenient to use your finger since your hands are already on the controller.
2. multitouch.
3. more sensitive.

and please don't say that vita has phone games nowadays, that only means you don't own one and you are ignorant.

i own a vita and i prefer it from the resistive touchscreen of my 3DS. resistive may be more accurate, but you have to admit that majority of the time people use fingers nowadays so it won't even matter.

although in nintendo's defence, they make really good resistive screens. so sensitivity is not a very big issue. if there's any any complaint, it's just that there is no multitouch.



1.
You can use your finger w/ both.

2.
It really doesn't need multitouch first of all. You've got plenty of other inputs to choose from, how many worthwhile games would end up using it?
Also, resistive screens can be multitouch as well. Not sure of cost comparison.

3.
I DISAGREE here, very strongly. The sensitivity of capacitive screens is not well suited for gaming IMO.
I mean, imagine having a controller w/ buttons, but all the buttons are so sensitive that you cannot touch them w/o registering an input. You wouldn't even be able to hold the controller, and forget about having your finger neutrally resting on them.

The current gamepad sensitivity is very good. it requires very very little pressure, but enough where you can easily rest your hand or stylus neutrally on the screen w/o registering inputs.


1. exactly my point, so pin point accuracy is not necessary with games. it's not like they will make teeny tiny buttons anyway.

2. lots of uses: extra buttons, cool puzzles, swipe motion controls, and lots of other creative additions. i saw a multitouch resistive tech demo before but it was just being developed. it may cost a lot if placed on consoles just as you suspected.

3. your hands/stylus are not supposed to rest on the screen even with resistive screens :/ and just compare the swiping sensitivity of both, you'll be frustrated on how sucky resistive is. and YES,sensitivity is VERY important in gaming. sorry but i don't know why you said it's not.