You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So Right now the deadzones for control are set up by clamping values within the deadzone to zero. This causing the values to jump up to their original value right after the deadzone causing loss of sensitivity.
So Id recommend implementing the radial normalized deadzone or use the square normalized deadzone from the robot math class see blow.
From the math class imported from I think the 2019(Robotmath.deadzone(value,deadzone, ignorethisval) robot provides a method to create a square normalized deadzone vs the radial example explained in the article. (you would use this over the radial one in the example if you wanted different deadzones for both x and y without needing to compute an elliptical deadzone)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
So Right now the deadzones for control are set up by clamping values within the deadzone to zero. This causing the values to jump up to their original value right after the deadzone causing loss of sensitivity.
Here is an article describing the issue. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/disciplines/doing-thumbstick-dead-zones-right
So Id recommend implementing the radial normalized deadzone or use the square normalized deadzone from the robot math class see blow.
From the math class imported from I think the 2019(Robotmath.deadzone(value,deadzone, ignorethisval) robot provides a method to create a square normalized deadzone vs the radial example explained in the article. (you would use this over the radial one in the example if you wanted different deadzones for both x and y without needing to compute an elliptical deadzone)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: