6 buttons AB/CD/XY and 4 shoulder buttons?

[God Ginrai]

An "arch" has much more exaggerated edges than those curves, so all I could think of when you were talking about an "arch" were large curves

I used the wrong word. *commits seppuku*

*bleeds all over the forum*

Don't worry, I make mistakes like that all the time. ^_^ ;

-God Ginrai

 

[Null]

An "arch" has much more exaggerated edges than those curved, so all I could think of when you were talking about an "arch" were large curves

I used the wrong word.
*commits seppuku*


*bleeds all over the forum*

I'D JUST WASHED THAT :angry:

 

[ShleeDragon]

Keep the same layout for the normal 4 and jam the two extras to the side.

 

[God Ginrai]

That right there is basically the same as the Sega Saturn layout, except all the buttons are the same size, so it's good in my book.

-God Ginrai

 

[ThinkPad]

Keep the same layout for the normal 4 and jam the two extras to the side.

+1

There is only an advantage to have 6 buttons setup on Pyra.

I am looking forward to ED opinion on the "6 button idea".

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

6 face buttons and four shoulder buttons might be overkill, cool as it might be.

 

[Natsu]

6 face buttons and four shoulder buttons might be overkill, cool as it might be.

Nonsense!

 

[God Ginrai]

6 face buttons and four shoulder buttons might be overkill, cool as it might be.

Not really. It gives us the correct choices for accurate emulation controls as well as a healthy selection of buttons for pc games that might use more buttons than a normal gamepad would have.

-God Ginrai

 

[_wb_]

Keep the same layout for the normal 4 and jam the two extras to the side.

I'm not opposed to the above, but I am worried that it takes too much extra space since it needs an additional button width horizontally and half a button height vertically.


What about instead of a grid


1 | Y | 2
---+---+---
A | | B
---+---+---
3 | X | 4



we move the extra buttons slightly outwards (it uses a bit more space like that, but just a bit), either like this:


+-1-+---+-2-+
| | Y | |
+---+---+---+
| A | | B |
+---+---+---+
| | X | |
+-3-+---+-4-+

or like this:


+---+---+---+
1 | Y | 2
+---+---+---+
| A | | B |
+---+---+---+
3 | X | 4
+---+---+---+
That way the extra space needed is limited to one axis (vertical in the former, horizontal in the latter), and you still get somewhat diagonal lines of 3 buttons.

 

[Natsu]

If we are going for 8 buttons, I rather have the grid.

 

[God Ginrai]

Keep the same layout for the normal 4 and jam the two extras to the side.

 I'm not opposed to the above, but I am worried that it takes too much extra space since it needs an additional button width horizontally and half a button height vertically.

What about instead of a grid

1 | Y | 2
---+---+---
A | | B
---+---+---
3 | X | 4
 we move the extra buttons slightly outwards (it uses a bit more space like that, but just a bit), either like this:

+-1-+---+-2-+
| | Y | |
+---+---+---+
| A | | B |
+---+---+---+
| | X | |
+-3-+---+-4-+
or like this:

+---+---+---+
1   | Y |   2
+---+---+---+
| A |   | B |
+---+---+---+
3   | X |   4
+---+---+---+

That way the extra space needed is limited to one axis (vertical in the former, horizontal in the latter), and you still get somewhat diagonal lines of 3 buttons.

None of your suggested setups are on the natural path of the thumb on its rows. Besides, half a button is a negligible amount to increase the height of the device. Not to mention, your first alternative would actually increase the height by more, since it has buttons both half a button above and half a button below the main cross. As for the width of the device, we have already established that increasing the width will not effect pocketability for small amounts, which one or even two button widths certainly fall under. And your second alternative would increase the width by the same amount due to it placing buttons on both edges.

-God Ginrai

 

[Neelix]

I find myself in agreement with God Ginrai regarding the action buttons.   In another thread there was a largely unchallenged concept that there was room  between the nubs for a numeric keypad.  (which I couldn't really picture myself)   Discarding that concept though,  surely if there's enough room for that concept there is enough room for an extra 2 action buttons (making two rows of three) instead...

- Neelix

 

[levi]

The only point of having 6 buttons IMO, as well as a full keyboard and four shoulder buttons IMO is for Capcom and SNK fighters. So IMO they should go in a layout that is useful for that purpose, or we should just stick with 4 buttons and use two of the four shoulder buttons to simulate weak punch/kick. No point having more than 4 on the face if they can't be used like they could on the real systems.

 

[Askarus]

EvilDragon, on 14 Jan 2014 - 9:43 PM, said: Any non-fighting games? I don't play them Found a list of Sega Genesis games that used 6 buttons online, and added some Saturn and N64 games that came to mind: N64

I would say any goon N64 game does.

Banjo Kazooie and Donkay Kong even use them to select weapons.

Super Man 64 (The best game ever ) also uses them to attack

Any non-fighting games? I don't play them

I assume this is a joke because I love fighting games and 6 buttons is nice to have but not a must if it costs too much to add to the Pyra I guess

Unfortunately not.

EvilDragon never plays any fighting games.

 

[_wb_]

None of your suggested setups are on the natural path of the thumb on its rows. Besides, half a button is a negligible amount to increase the height of the device. Not to mention, your first alternative would actually increase the height by more, since it has buttons both half a button above and half a button below the main cross. As for the width of the device, we have already established that increasing the width will not effect pocketability for small amounts, which one or even two button widths certainly fall under. And your second alternative would increase the width by the same amount due to it placing buttons on both edges.
-God Ginrai

My first alternative increases the height by 1 (actually less) and the width by 0, my second alternative increases the height by 0 and the width by 1 (actually less). It's less than 1 because the extra buttons are supposed to be smaller than the main buttons in my proposal. Your layout increases the height by 0 and the width by 1, but it loses the dpad-like arrangement of the 4 main buttons. The layout which does retain the 4 main buttons in their normal position increases the height by 0.5 and the width by 1.

We could also use a 7 button layout which is like my proposal but without the "4" button, since there are reasonable concerns that that one will be pressed accidentally.

 

[God Ginrai]

None of your suggested setups are on the natural path of the thumb on its rows. Besides, half a button is a negligible amount to increase the height of the device. Not to mention, your first alternative would actually increase the height by more, since it has buttons both half a button above and half a button below the main cross. As for the width of the device, we have already established that increasing the width will not effect pocketability for small amounts, which one or even two button widths certainly fall under. And your second alternative would increase the width by the same amount due to it placing buttons on both edges.

-God Ginrai

 My first alternative increases the height by 1 (actually less) and the width by 0, my second alternative increases the height by 0 and the width by 1 (actually less). It's less than 1 because the extra buttons are supposed to be smaller than the main buttons in my proposal. Your layout increases the height by 0 and the width by 1, but it loses the dpad-like arrangement of the 4 main buttons. The layout which does retain the 4 main buttons in their normal position increases the height by 0.5 and the width by 1.

 I didn't realize you were suggesting smaller buttons. Honestly, that makes it an even worse design decision, IMHO. Now you haven't just put them in unnatural places to reach, but they are smaller so you have to be more precise in hitting them.

-God Ginrai

 

[_wb_]

Maybe we should just stick to 4 buttons, because whatever way we add extra buttons, someone is going to say that it is a horrible and unnatural design.

 

[bzar]

If someone can come up with a six-button layout the advocates can agree with that doesn't sacrifice anything we have with pandora's layout, I'm all for it.

EDIT: added bold

 

[God Ginrai]

Maybe we should just stick to 4 buttons, because whatever way we add extra buttons, someone is going to say that it is a horrible and unnatural design.

I don't see how the 6-button layout in the picture ShleeDragon posted is not acceptable. It is a natural design, the design that most every 6-button layout follows. (with the exception of N64 which follows closely but not exactly) And it seems to have plenty of support. We've already determined that increasing the width of the device does not effect pocketability, and increasing the height by half a button is an amount that would be negligible.

-God Ginrai

 

[slaeshjag]

No. Half a button is a lot of height to add. It'll be the difference between pocketable and not pocketable, because the pandora's really on the edge there.