I played FPS games inverted for years, yet one day I suddenly decided to switch to normal (the logic was that I could aim the mousepointer at icons on my desktop faster than I could aim at enemies in games), and within two days of practice, my aim had improved dramatically from my inverted days. Inverted sucks

People who play inverted have chosen a way of life which is an abomination unto god.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^ForgedReality:
I don't get it.

Default in most games is push up (on mouse or analog stick) to look up. There's an inverted option where you pull down to look up. Contrary to what the video says, this is actually the correct way and anyone who plays the other is wrong and probably immoral.


I see. Well with a mouse, up SHOULD be up, and down SHOULD be down. For anything with a stick, I always use back for up and forward for down. How anyone can do the opposite just astounds me. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially considering ALL flight sticks in EVERY real-life aircraft EVER CONSTRUCTED uses the same control scheme.
Also, I can't recall the last game I played that came with a default setting of pushing up (forward) on a stick to equal up. It's always been forward for down for every game I can remember.
Flight sims always (faik) follow RL™ stick control (they're "sims"), but most FPS default to non-inverted, which, as ChaosEngine already addressed, is clearly wrong. Study after study has shown that those who play inverted have larger brains, more money, and pwn.

Tell that to Apple (Mac OS X Lion) or any modern touchscreen device.

If you hold on the page and move up, your view goes down.

>> ^ForgedReality:


I see. Well with a mouse, up SHOULD be up, and down SHOULD be down. For anything with a stick, I always use back for up and forward for down. How anyone can do the opposite just astounds me. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially considering ALL flight sticks in EVERY real-life aircraft EVER CONSTRUCTED uses the same control scheme.
Also, I can't recall the last game I played that came with a default setting of pushing up (forward) on a stick to equal up. It's always been forward for down for every game I can remember.

It is true, but it is not just semantics.

Once the ball leaves the hand it will experience constant acceleration (ignoring drag). With just constant acceleration, the accelerometer can't tell us when the ball will reach apogee. Velocity and displacement are not being measured, so whether the ball is moving up or down won't register.

With only an accelerometer to work with, the only practical to way to predict when the ball will be at its highest point is to use the initial upward acceleration and a little bit of math.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^messenger:
Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.


Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.

>> ^messenger:

Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.



Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ForgedReality:
I don't get it.

Default in most games is push up (on mouse or analog stick) to look up. There's an inverted option where you pull down to look up. Contrary to what the video says, this is actually the correct way and anyone who plays the other is wrong and probably immoral.



I see. Well with a mouse, up SHOULD be up, and down SHOULD be down. For anything with a stick, I always use back for up and forward for down. How anyone can do the opposite just astounds me. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, especially considering ALL flight sticks in EVERY real-life aircraft EVER CONSTRUCTED uses the same control scheme.

Also, I can't recall the last game I played that came with a default setting of pushing up (forward) on a stick to equal up. It's always been forward for down for every game I can remember.

Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.

>> ^blackoreb:

Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.

In most games you can toggle an option to have your your flight controls inverted from normal joystick/keyboard directions. This is to make it match real life where you pull back to go up. But, since back is usually down, it screws up what most people are used to doing. When they switched pilots, the new guy tried to pull up but ended up doing a noise dive because of the reversed controls. Cue tragic music.

Inverted is just weird, like writing with your left hand.

>> ^ForgedReality:

I don't get it.


Default in most games is push up (on mouse or analog stick) to look up. There's an inverted option where you pull down to look up. Contrary to what the video says, this is actually the correct way and anyone who plays the other is wrong and probably immoral.

Your video, Inverted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Zifnab.