Guys it’s been 8 months. It was a bad take.

  • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find I never actually look directly at an analogue speedometer, you kinda just know from the angle of the needle what speed you’re doing

    New to driving maybe?

    • CataclysmZA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s probably why digital displays still have analog speedometer options. At a glance it’s easier to tell what’s happening with your speed, rev count, and other levels like fuel.

      But much of that utility is useful for manuals and ICE-powered cars.

      • crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately because of the digital spedometer, the analog one usually suffers.

        My mid-2010s c-class has an analog spedometer which is absolutely useless as it does not have a full needle and the fonts, spacing and colors are made to blend in with the interior instead of being readable.

        All this makes me use the digital one, which is very distracting and usually lagging behind, especially when quickly accelerating.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reading very-fast-changing data is probably the only good argument I’ve seen for the superiority of analog guages in modern cars. A fast changing digital display is impossible to read. But practically speaking, when the data is changing that quickly, typically precision isn’t important.

          If car companies cared (which they clearly don’t) they could make digital displays better, by having a low refresh rate when there is low acceleration (to avoid distracting the driver), increase the refresh rate under heavy acceleration to display more current data, and apply some kind of effect to the fast changing digits to convey a sense of how fast they’re changing even if they’re changing too fast to read. Think of the odometer style altitude readout on old airplanes, where even if you can’t read the number you can tell wtf is up by how fast the numbers are spinning by.

          This isn’t to say that digital guages are better. They’re just different. It’s a personal preference thing.

          But you’re absolutely right that the analog guage has suffered from neglectful design in recent years.

  • dan1101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    An analogue gauge is useful because you can see the rate of change not just the current value.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can design a digital readout to intuitively provide the same. And I think you’re overstating the importance of rate of change in analog guages that you find in commuter cars.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some sort of scale on the side/bottom of the screen would solve that easy enough. It’s only really useful when accelerating into the highway or from a red light, not terribly important.

        • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really, you never really check how fast the needle moves it’s a side effect of checking your speed. A scale by the numbers, or as a circle around the numbers, would have the same affect. You just noticed how fast it’s moving in your periphery as you check your speed.

  • DRUMS_@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My 2019 Jetta has a 100% digital instrument cluster. It’s currently broken…just a black screen. It’s neat how reliable analogue instruments are.

  • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think in this case analogue is actually easier to read. You don’t need to actually read any of the numbers to know how fast you’re driving, you just look at the angle of the needle.

    The human brain is great at things like this, and less good at reading numbers, which is much more learnt.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Easier to read?

    That would imply that an analog speedo is tough to read which is laughably wrong.

    • smolyeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can be? Not that it’s hard to read , but I felt it was harder to determine exact speeds in my last car. Am I going 41 of 40, 35 or 33. It’s not that big of a deal but I don’t really have that problem with digital.

      Analog is occupied by speeds you will never use. 80 to 260 is useless to be and practically a waste of space for consumer cars.

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Am I going 41 of 40

        No speedo out there is accurate enough to distinguish between those two speeds.

  • oranki@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This must be related to people in their 20’s not knowing how to read a traditional clock anymore.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are a whole bunch of problems with this:

      • most of the sensors are digital
      • the guages are getting their signals from the ECU computer, which is a digital signal
      • the guages in your car are not $10000 scientific equipment, they’re not that precise.
      • the design of these analog guages means that most precision would be lost just due to human vision.

      There are good arguments for analog guages in cars, but precision isn’t one.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Didn’t understand the sampling theorem” for $2 please.

      As long as the frequency of the measured signal is <1/2 the sample rate, you can reconstruct the original signal perfectly.

      If you plugged this jaggy-looking graph into a digital to analog converter with perfect analog circuitry, you’d get exactly the sine shown.

      • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think parent is referring to quantization in the amplitude/y-axis (bitdepth), whereas you are referring to quantization in time/x-axis (sampling rate).

          • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes I think you used the terms correctly — it should be referring to the amplitude. “Discrete sampling” or just sampling rate is the preferred way to refer to time, you’re right.

            I was trying to use consistent language in response to the reply claiming you were misunderstanding the sampling theorem. I think that poster was confusing discrete/quantized steps in time with discrete/quantized steps in amplitude.

            Their comment about SNR is certainly true though.

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quantisation is a potential factor but the graph does not show its effects and their comment describes the supposed effects sampling, not quantisation.

          Also, when we come to discussing SNR, you’ll have to consider the SNR of analog systems too.

          • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The graph posted absolutely exhibits both quantization and discrete sampling. The blue trace on the Y-axis shows steps of 1 — that’s quantization.

            • Atemu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I should have been more clear: The negative effects of quantisation. Obviously sampling into discrete values is shown but not the negative consequences that can have.
              A DAC interpreting the blue trace will output something extremely close to the red one. There might be a slight bit of error in it due to the quantisation before but the graph does not show that and it probably couldn’t since it’d be so tiny. A good way to show quantisation noise would be a histogram with a signal in the middle and some quantisation noise around it.

              The DAC would not output the jaggy line. It couldn’t, that’s not a valid analog signal. Painting the steps between the points can be done if your audience knows what that means but can be extremely misleading if it doesn’t. Those lines between the points with 90 degree angles don’t exist in the real world, they’re just interpolated between the points in the visualisation.
              A much better way to represent digital samples in such a chart is the way it’s done in the wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(signal_processing). They’re just discrete points. If you did the same interpolation between the points as a DAC would do (which is not nearest-neighbour interpolation), you’d get the analog trace shown.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The number of people on here who seem to think that an analog instrument cluster is connected directly to the things they’re displaying, rather than connected to the ECU computer. Or that a PWM servo motor is more reliable than a screen. News flash: if you lose power to either, you aren’t able to read it.

    An well designed analog guage is easier to read out the corner of your eye, or at a quick glance. But that really only matters if you’re racing, and even then it’s dubious.

    A poorly designed digital guage can be distracting at night, if they use a screen tech that has poor black levels, or have lots of bright elements on the screen at night. It basically shines a light at your face and interferes with your night vision. But most manufacturers are better than that, these days, it’s not much different than the light that illuminates your analog gauges.

    So really it’s personal preference, and some people like to justify their preference with bullshit so that they can feel superior. YMMV.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember in the late 90s or so a car came out with an all digital instrument cluster. It made the news when they would completely fail, leaving people to not know anything about their speed or anything else about their car.

    A speedometer is more reliable and easy to read. Even so, several cars have them. Some even project your speed in the windshield as part of a heads up display.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re absolutely right that well designed analog guages are glancable. But that only really matters if you’re racing. If the difference between glancing for 0.4 seconds and 0.5 seconds matters, then you’re driving too aggressively for a public road.

      I personally prefer the digital speedo. I find a sense of comfort in the perceived accuracy. I find it easier to read than analog guages on most commuter cars, where the needle is pointed in some random direction for most speed limits, the numbers are small and dense, with lots of markers. With a digital speedo I can glance down to my big ol’ high contrast display and be like “speed starts with a 5, good enough”

      I’m not looking at the speedo to get a trend, I can hear the engine or feel the acceleration in my body for that.

      For other guages: Tachometer: is dying off, but really all you need is a shift light if you’re even driving a manual. Gas: the amount in your tank doesn’t matter, it’s your range that matters, and a digital display for range makes sense because it lets you plan your trip. Oil/coolant temps: hot/normal/cold lights are probably all you need. Even then you really only need to show it when it’s not normal (which is something a digit dash can do). Boost: for daily commuters (where turbos are actually pretty common now) just a light to show if boost is too high. For performance cars, this is pretty much the only time I can see an analog guage really being better, but even then there are other less common but equally effective ways to display this kind of low-precision wide-range information.

      Of course, if you’re talking about style and aesthetics, then both digital and analog have their place, depending on the aesthetic you’re going for.

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like analog gauges. I very much like knobs. I dislike anything digital in a car other than a touch screen. Cars need to be able to be operated at a glance and by feel.

      • Cmot_Dibbler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disagree. I like having the screen for Android auto with music, podcasts, and especially gps. I do hate digital buttons when they aren’t necessary but i like having the big main display.

    • vsg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Touch screen in cars isn’t a good idea, though. They may distract the driver.

  • PoetSII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I much prefer analogue. Angle of the needle is a quick read + I don’t like relying on a digital display for my essential information. Also aesthetics

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The more your car is computerized, the less control you have over it as the end user. The best cars on the road are the ones with no touch screens and no gps tracking bull crap. Analog speedometers and tachometers are just as good as a digital one and can be repaired easily if they fail. Try repairing your newfangled vehicle when over half of its functionality shits the bed because theres an error with the console software.

  • StarkestMadness@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wouldn’t it be constantly fluctuating between speeds one or two numbers apart? Unless your foot is magic or you’re in cruise control, lol. I feel like it could be distracting.

    • Cr4yfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You could make like a circular shape on the screen with numbers correlating to the speed on different angles. Then maybe add some rectangle which points at the current speed and effectively changes the angle when the speed changes.

      Oh wait…