24 replies to this topic

[Davefevs]

Within CF, when applying textures, will be have the functionality to define how we want the ball to react when hitting it and playing from it?

For example, ball hitting Rough 1, might have less roll than a ball hitting Rough 2. Similarly, playing a ball from Rough 1 might be harder to hit full distance than Rough 2.

[Kablammo11]

...and also, should we choose to import seamless textures not included in the CF-Package, or add non-CF textures just a few yards away from the playing surface (and therefore "in play", a poorly hit golf ball might land on them) will we get to define their collision values?

[Davefevs]

I'm sure when I was looking at some trees in Unity (sad I know) I saw some attributes / data fields for collision properties.... So hoping do!

[TheLighterDark]

I would like to see different textures for certain types (rough 1, rough 2, sand 1, sand 3, etc.), but I'm not sure how I feel about defining their values. I would want them each to play consistent so that for every single user-made course I would not have to relearn how to play from new textures. 

[Davefevs]

Yes, that is a good point. In real life, pros would go and practice on the course to get a feel for each surface.

I just generally roll up IRL and Links and learn as hit each shot.

[Dazmaniac]

I would like to see different textures for certain types (rough 1, rough 2, sand 1, sand 3, etc.), but I'm not sure how I feel about defining their values. I would want them each to play consistent so that for every single user-made course I would not have to relearn how to play from new textures. 

 

I think this will be the intention, especially with the textures that PP will make available with the Course Forge. Hopefully there will be several stock varieties of each, so that designers can decide to use Fairway 2, First Cut 3, Rough 3, Deep Rough 5 for example. Then as you say TLD, if you arrive at another course and the stock texture settings are being used at least you know how they behave.

 

What type of 'freedom' designers will have to create their own texture settings I guess we won't know until we get to have some hands on experience with Course Forge. Whether we end up with courses coming with user defined settings that we will only get to know the nuances of by practising in it, we don't really know.

 

[Mav78]

I just hope it is made pretty simple. CPG was a  nightmare for this, friction settings it would take ages to get it right

[Mike Jones]

I don't see much value in opening up all the variables of physics properties in CourseForge. We plan on having several Physics defaults and then of course you will be able to define how they play with options inside of PerfectGolf for example if you are playing a Links course and it's hard and fast. 

Other course architect programs in the past have opened up physics properties and it's like a pandora's box which causes way more problems than it's worth IMO.

[Davefevs]

@mike

So does that mean we use stock textures etc in CF, but when we use PG we ave the scope to set for example, rough length, green speed, green hardness etc?

[Mike Jones]

Not textures 'per se' as they are customisable but ground types yes. You will have the usual options in game for ground hardness, green speed etc.

[CurryHoward]

What will the firmest settings in PerfectGolf be like? I've always thought that firm and fast in Links was just not quite F&F enough for a true links-type course.

[bortimus]

A quick test of the fairway bounce and roll distance in Links when tested at "The Complex" practice facility (totally flat fairway with no wind, hitting driver off the tee. 12/6 impact)

 

Firm(challenging)= 26-27 yds 

Moderate(challenging)= 18-19 yds

Firm= 14 yds

Soft(challenging)= 12-13 yds

Moderate= 12 yds

Soft= 11-12 yds

 

Anyone's thoughts on how these numbers compare to various PGA tour course setups, links courses, and muni's?

[CurryHoward]

Well, I guess it had been awhile...just played a round on Lez Marwicks Margaret's Bay with frim(ch) and it was a lot better than I remembered. But I digress. As long as ere are enough options in courseforge/perfectgolf to provide that flexibility...

[Mike Jones]

Thx Bortimus, there are so many variables in real golf such as wind, grass length/type, slopes etc that any PGA tour related average would probably be meaningless.

 

The Links ground values give us a good starting point but Links' ball flight doesn't stack up to real world golf, hopefully ours will be much closer. We're currently testing ground physics under multiple scenarios.

[bortimus]

Murifield's fairways are looking crazy firm and fast!  Hope ya'll are taking notes!!!!  

[IanD]

I don't see much value in opening up all the variables of physics properties in CourseForge. We plan on having several Physics defaults and then of course you will be able to define how they play with options inside of PerfectGolf for example if you are playing a Links course and it's hard and fast. 

Other course architect programs in the past have opened up physics properties and it's like a pandora's box which causes way more problems than it's worth IMO.

 

This is interesting Mike..

 

Like this thread, I touched upon it in another thread regarding Fuzzy Ball Physics, however I hope the difference between these suggestions are clearly apparent.

 

Whilst you mentioned you don't see alot of value in opening up the physical properties within the Course Forge, I think there is an element where some may feel this is a direction we can move towards. Unless you detail the physics within the PerfectGolf, I feel we're all a little unsure of what is possible, or perhaps what more can be achieved.

 

For example, and possibly, a minority involvement, may seek to play variations of winter and summer courses. Simply defining them by the current terminology of hard/fast vs soft/slow or hard/slow may not cut it when looking further into the course properties. Every course would have numerous variations of possible textures, granted, but even the main 3 or 4, (green/fairway/light rough/rough) could vary in any given position within a course.

 

I'm not seeking major variations however.. and it isn't simply seasonal course variations. If we all design real courses, those we know, then we also know some greens are firmer than others. Elevated greens are likely to be more firmer than those surrounded by water. Would they play the same in terms of ball physics..? This is where I hope PG and CF can aim to become better than other golf games which cannot distinguish anything but a Perfect Course. There is no such thing.... even back 9's don't play the same as front 9's..

 

We've not touched any weather changes, and if rain is an element of inclusion regarding weather conditions, then we know the conditions can change from hard/slow to soft/slow during the round. However, we don't expect the course physics to completely dampen any roll nor would we want to see unrealistic rolls in those conditions. What I would like to see added, is an ability to impact upon the physics of the ball, by a percentage (as described in the other thread)

[Acrilix]

While it may seem like a good idea to add subtle differences to individual textures, it will just encourage complaints from all but the most sim-headed of golfers, and be beyond most casual course designers abilities to implement correctly. The whole idea of Course Forge is to create a simple course creator for anyone to use. The idea of user course textures on Links has, for the most part been a failure, with only a handful of designers willing to take on the challenge in all the years that it has been available. Any calculations for the ball lie should, IMO, be taken by the game engine and not imposed on the designer, who usually has enough on his/her plate!! 

[IanD]

Tricky...

 

I'm not suggesting the Designer doesn't have enough to do.. and provided they stay within the parameters of the defaults, I don't think they would have any more to do than what they will need to. However, enabling an option for a specific texture to interact differently within the ball physics, isn't a game breaker or wrecker. I'm all for having options.. if they choose not be used, then so be it, but I've outlined instances where they could be introduced above.

 

As for the whole idea of the Course Forge being a simple tool for anyone to use, are we perhaps being a little SimGolf here..? Should it be that simple..maybe..should it allow those willing to delve deeper and spend more time, expanding the boundaries of what maybe possible..certainly. Would we be here today if Mike Jones had not released those courses with all the mapping textures he chose..? If some want simple, then I think those courses will be enjoyed exactly as that... I'm not seeking those personally.

 

Q - the idea of user created textures on Links has been for the most part, a failure..? Explain..?

[Acrilix]

Q - the idea of user created textures on Links has been for the most part, a failure..? Explain..?

 

In the sense that I have already explained. The only designers to have implemented custom green speeds that I know of are myself, Highfade and Andrew Jones. No one else has bothered. Even when these custom set courses have been used on the Tour I play on, the user conditions have not been used anyway. One of Andrew Jones' Augusta versions had a texture that propelled the ball like a canon, Highfade's early Nautilus Bay attempt received so much bad press that a members edition was released with default textures. In fact, I cannot remember anyone with any resounding positive feedback towards any of these attempts. My own Margaret's Bay custom conditions went without a single comment. Courses that don't have custom settings embedded, play incorrectly if custom conditions are selected in the game. Do I need to go on?   

[IanD]

Appreciate the response and explanation.

 

I wasn't aware of this feature within the Links scenario.. as I likely walked away prior to that happening. I recall at some point speaking privately with someone about having this as an option within Links. It may have been Andrew or ReHit, unsure.. but I wanted to create a course with a winter visual, snow and all. However, the fairways would not replicate the conditions of the visuals. Swopping bunker texture properties for rough/or using cart paths for firm fairways wasn't the way to go...  but being able to adjust the properties better would have worked.

 

I'm not suggesting what you attempted within Links wasn't right, but it sounds like only the greens are what you adjusted?

 

You also feel you needed positive feedback to have gained appreciative results?

 

To a degree, and again I don't know the exact circumstances, we rarely gain good data from positives. It's often found negatives receive far more than positives, so I wouldn't necessarily take the results of what you achieved and think 'that wasn't worth it'. Also, it sounds like you're talking about only the green speeds too, whereas I'd like to see every texture become pliable to an extent we can create anything.

 

What it sounds like you guys did, is awesome. You pushed forward a game that had limits. You then set new limits, and granted, in that scenario it may not have received the positive accolades you felt it warranted, but it may have brought us exactly here. It may not be extensively used, if the guys here at PP have got this right. However, knowing what you know from Links... if that was just around the corner, would you have opted to not have adjustable green speeds or said, yes please?