Logitech Dual Action vs. Attack 3

I’d like to know what other people have to say about providing a choice between getting 2 Logitech Dual Action Gamepads instead of getting 2 Logitech Attack 3 Joysticks (for rookie teams).
Dual Action
12 buttons
8 Direction D-pad
2 self centering 2-axis Joysticks
More common used in most video game systems.

Attack 3
11 Buttons
1 self centering 2-axis Joystick
1 1-axis non self centering switch
Less Common used in aeronautics and aeronautic games.

I voted for the conventional joysticks simply because I think they translate to sponsors, parents, and faculty (read: Adults) better. Modern video games, for better or worse, have negative connotations in most adults’ minds; the joysticks give more of an aeronautical and conventional feel to the controls.

I would say providing a choice to your drive team prior to the end of the build season would be the most logical choice. However, We went with two attack joysticks and a dual action controller(for the manipulator) and That has worked well in the past(for us). This year more than ever I really wanted to try and have a driver station that utilized just two dual action controllers(or PS3 controllers), since video games are played much in the same way, it would be a transparent transition for the drive team to go from their past/current gaming experience to driving and manipulating objects with the robot( as long as the buttons are assigned in a logical, and dare I say, video game-esk mannor).
With the two joysticks on the controller, there are so many different option for configuring the drive schema, as well as giving the driver the ability to be more precise(micro-thumb movments are way more pricise then clumbsy wrist movements that have to cover a longer distance to translate the same amount of registered movement). Just my .02, but I know that I will be playing arround with this in the off season, trying to see which methods work the best and are seamless enough so that almost anyone can just pick it up and controll the robot with ease(hopefully).

while I concur with this opinion, I also think that the auronautical aspect of the controllers(think pulling back is up, pushing in is down) can be confusing to some who dont have past experiece in flight simulators or playing videogames like Xplane. As far as sponsers are concerned, I suppose you would have to look at who your sponsers are and determine if the physical control system you design is inside their expectations. I feel that if the control system is built in a mannar that still connotates education and innovation, you can still utilize the gamepads. It would appear that most of the innovation for controller systems are going to be on the software side of things now, changing and manipulating the GUI of the classmate to give realtime information back to the drivers in cool and innovative ways. thoughts?

Our team has had experience with both (and several other controllers as well). Using any sort of flight stick is going to provide more accurate control of a robot in most situations. Simply put, when you only have your thumbs and a small stick to move, getting fine movements out of it is very difficult. On the other hand, a big flight stick is a lot easier to get fine adjustments out of.

That being said, this year we’re using both - two attack 3’s and one dual action. The attack 3’s are for driving, the dual action provides access to the other mechanisms.

Both controllers cost about the same.
And they’re both made by Logitech so i dont think that there will be a problem with sponsors