68 replies to this topic

[Kablammo11]

Appreciate your explanative reply...

 

I think I've some intrepidation regarding this, and relating to some luck issues within another game I play. I've also gone off in a another direction that I've found better defined in this thread. Naturally, I wouldn't want to see the two combined create futher complications, nor would I like to see too much use of the 'luck' factor. It's a little like playing the course for the first time during that day, and then again being the last golfer to play it at the end of the day. The conditions haven't changed... but your ball meets differences that may not be there previously, and won't be again..  how can we introduce it, without affecting gameplay and not simply making it a visual thing..?

 

Like any Golf Sim.. it assumes when you choose a course to play, you're playing it under the exact same conditions you may have chosen previously.

 

This is why perhaps, the variation should not simply remain within the PerfectGolf program, but also/or, be a variable within the CourseForge too.

 

I read your post in the other ball reactions thread, IanD. (As a prospective course designer myself, I'd rather had the game simulate altering playing conditions than having to spend hours imagining them myself, btw). And I think (not: advocate, just musing out loudly) that fuzziness might be implemented into the course conditions as well. Fast fairways, for example, could be defined within a narrow window of possible speeds instead of a single, fixed value. Slow greens could have a randomly chosen slowness within a narrow spectrum... and so on. Perhaps these spectra could even be reset from hole to hole, to add yet another source of uncertainty - and perhaps this could be enough to break the curse of perfect maths that would otherwise dominate the game.

There are many algorhythms defining a golf shot in PerfectGolf, I'm sure: Power, wind, spin, physics, textures, speed settings and so on...  As long as just one of them allows for small fluctuations or oscillations or permutations instead of operating with predefined, fixed values, this would spice up the game considerably without depriving it of any challenge or rewards.

[Brucey Mc]

Double post, thanks Apple!

[Brucey Mc]

Having played mainly in the mornings most of my life I definitely feel you can tell the difference in the course from say teeing off at eight and teeing off at lunchtime. Stuff like morning dew, damp bunkers and even the air is heavier first thing. Come lunchtime these have all dried out making the afternoon course generally running faster. I also would find that the wind may switch direction and also would often get up in the afternoon.

I also the fuzziness from the previous nights beer would just about be gone by the end of the round too!

Staying anywhere nice in Ayr Ian? My hometown, it's looking a little unloved in places.

Bruce

[IanD]

Great replies..!

 

Firstly, Bruce.. I stayed just outside Ayr, in Coylton. It was a nice break for a few days thanks, and only really visited several places I had time for. I did park in Turnberry and wander for 15mins or so to just 'take in' the surroundings. As for Ayr, it looks grand, and I agree with your unloved comments, but like everywhere these days, the qualities can be improved. It didn't detract from being what i expected, with the sea front, Green and Monuments there. Enjoyed the visit.

 

As for my comment "It's a little like playing the course for the first time during that day, and then again being the last golfer to play it at the end of the day. The conditions haven't changed..", I think, Daz, you answered it perfectly in your reply. You changed the conditions. What I'm trying to outline, is in continuation of Kablammo's suggestion regarding the fuzzy physics. How can it be there, without knowing it is there?

 

I play another game, as a bad example, regarding a turn based soccer sim. My player has numerous attributes and on a given turn, regarding my choice of action, a random number decides whether I execute that action badly, below my expectations, expectedly, above expectations or outstandingly. What I honestly do not wish to see here, is that type of 'luck' added. That type of luck still requires my decision to have been chosen and the best choice from those available. It ensures I'm unlikely to be able to repeat what someone else of equal values can do. Granted, it succeeds... but is it right and is it the best way of introducing randomness?

 

What I do like, is the improvement Kablammo goes further in suggesting, regarding the conditions varying the outcome, rather than the game (I know it's the game, but it's influenced by the conditions part).

 

This can then become a continuation regarding the properties introduced by the designer, regarding variations on the textures and how they interact with the ball physics. Wow.. that was a mouthful... (no additives please lol).

 

So.. in a way of trying to make this easy and understandable (which it isn't lol), we can either ;

 

i) Allow changes in the ball physics (not recommended)

ii) Allow variations in the conditions

iii) Allow variations in the texture settings

 

Or a combination of those above.

 

Would we not like to see a course where you know the Xth hole is decidely tricky.. almost a legendary signature hole, where the green or fairways are 'not quite' as those others in the back/front 9. It scares the hell out of you.. because you know.. deep down, there's a little bit of luck (I said it..!) needed to get par here.

[Dazmaniac]

As for my comment "It's a little like playing the course for the first time during that day, and then again being the last golfer to play it at the end of the day. The conditions haven't changed..", I think, Daz, you answered it perfectly in your reply. You changed the conditions. What I'm trying to outline, is in continuation of Kablammo's suggestion regarding the fuzzy physics. How can it be there, without knowing it is there?

 

Not quite sure how I have changed the conditions? The conditions have changed themselves due to the weather conditions for that day. I have had nothing to do with making the course drier and a little firmer. All I have done is chosen to play at a certain time. This doesn't allow me to set the conditions, they are defined by the weather on the day.

 

I cannot guarantee that when my approach shot lands, it is going to pitch and stop within a few feet or get a firm bounce and run on 5 yards. This is how I see the 'fuzzy physics' working, but only to minute degrees of change, nothing overly exaggerated. I want be able to play the same shot but have the possibility of there being two different outcomes, like there would be in real life. Not play the same shot and have it replicate exactly the other one.

 

As a better example of what I'm getting at:-

 

A few weeks back we had a Texas Scramble and on one of our par 5's the team's chosen 2nd shot had come up about 10 yds short of the green, so we are all playing the shot from the same place. First player played a chip and run with PW, first bounce when it hit the green checked up slightly and the bounce threw it a few inches off to the left. Second player played a very similar shot with a PW, when this one pitched first bounce, this one didn't check but released straighter then the first shot and ran on about a yard further. Two very similar shots with different outcomes (though not wildly different).

 

As PC golf games have courses where there are no imperfections on greens and fairways, you are always guaranteed a perfect bounce. This can lead to the 'chart makers' being able to calculate exactly how ball are going to react, which is sometime why we see some folks playing click shooting -20 under and better each round. I would like to see the game (in whatever way we may decide) eliminate the 'perfect bounce' and add a little more realism to proceedings.

 

[Kablammo11]

@Ian: I completely agree that the (hypothetical) element of luck should never be introduced through the player's performance - that would indeed fly into the face of fair and equitable gaming. Whether it is brought to bear on the final outcome of a shot by the ball physics or slight variations of the terrain conditions doesn't really matter to me. 

I still am in favour of ball physics, since an odd bounce and any kind of quirky ball behaviour may - and will - occur under all conditions at all times of day and no matter how tricky a hole is. I might even go and implant extra-bouncy sprinkler heads in the landing areas of the drives on my designs, just to help us all getting that deliciously irritating WTF-moment every now and then.

And since Daz just posted something while I wrote this, and I happen to utterly agree, we do seem to be emitting on the same frequency on this issue, I will like his post...

[JoeF]

"There is no way in heaven or hell that you can fire any golf shot IRL and pin the substance of your shot down to a perfect point in the far distance, before the ball stops."

True, with the exception of the late Canadian golfing legend Moe Normon. During one early morning round his playing partner challenged him to see who could get the best grouping of tee shots. Norman hit 3 balls off the tee. When they reached the balls, Moe's three were lying in the centre of the fairway....touching each other.

I saw him at a demonstration he gave at a local course in the early '90's. He had the groundskeeper lay a 2 litre pop bottle (about 12" long) at the 250 yard mark on the driving range. He then proceeded to hit it with his tee shot.... three times in a row.

[IanD]

Daz, I don't think I'm explaining myself clearly enough, for you to understand we're not missing each other..  but you changed my statement. When I said it's like playing at the start and end of the day, I meant - the conditions haven't changed. I didn't mean... change the conditions. What you introduced, was varying conditions through the day.. drying out from a dewy start etc. What I meant, was how can we introduce something better than luck without affecting gameplay.

 

I'll try and go further, because I may have simply thought it, and not written it too clearly or distracted myself with other comments lol..

 

I (me) don't want my perfectly struck shot to not go in the hole, if it is on line and the exact distance to the hole, due to a bad luck bounce. If someone else repeats my exact swing and aim and their's goes in, and mine doesn't.. then what did I do wrong?

 

It's a strong statement, and almost unlikely to be able to be tested to that extreme. It's hopefully the one that will make it clearer for what I'm trying to suggest, as an alternative to the luck addition (or at least toning it down to work with something else).

 

Kablammo..  you sure introduced something here lol...

 

In all of this discussion, the one thing that continually surfaces, isn't the game or the golfer... but it's how we've talked about the ball interacting with the.....? With the Course, of course. So.. why wouldn't we allow variations in how the ball physics interact with the actual textures, introduced by the Designer?

 

I'd have no issue with my ball deviating through a texture that shows perhaps patchy grass... sprinkler heads, divots, even a gallery footprint...  at least it's visible (not from the tee perhaps), and it's responsible for the movement. I don't want something too tricked up however... but that defeats what I'm seeking in terms of enabling us the options, rather than not having any. I think I've said all I need on this, time for others to have their say and stop repeating myself..

[Kablammo11]

I (me) don't want my perfectly struck shot to not go in the hole, if it is on line and the exact distance to the hole, due to a bad luck bounce. If someone else repeats my exact swing and aim and their's goes in, and mine doesn't.. then what did I do wrong?

If it came to that, you did nothing wrong. It's just the Gods of Golf (they hate me, too), crapping on your cabeza. Bad luck bounces, exactly: They just happen. They must happen! And yes, there I said it, I want to simulate the evil, mischievous workings of the Gods of Golf. I want invisible powers to tug at your virutal golf ball while it moves, laughing at your puny hopes and incomplete efforts whilst sitting in judgement over your score card. Mwah-ha-haaa... 

As are you, I'm done reapeating myself over and over again. I respect your views and do not insist on mine being more valuable or relevant, so I shan't press this matter any further. Between the handful of us conducting this debate we certainly have offered the Devs enough valuable input to figure out for themselves if they want to act on this or not. This poor dead horse has been flogged for too long already, so now let's let the nag rot in peace, lean back and wait a few months or years to find out what kind of butterflies they will conjure up for us. Or not.

[Andrew]

So little bit of info on the physics.  When we released the orignial physics demo we were using a technique called ray casting which basically sends a laser beam from the bottom of the ball downwards to say tell me what the information is on the terrain below me so when it hits the terrain it knows what physics should be applied to the ball.  This is all well and good but the issue is that it is not always the bottom of the ball that impacts.  Think of a ball colliding with the edge of a cup, while the bottom of the ball may be over the hole the side of the ball may be in contact with the lip.  This will also explain why tree collisions were all off.  A tree trunk  is made up of a very thin 1px cylinder and so a collision would only be detected when the bottom of the ball was detected as being over the edge of the trunk a totally unrealistic scenario.  

We have now been adding a technique called sphere casting to our physics engine that looks at all the areas of the ball and what specific terrain or texture they may be in contact with so a ball hitting a rock will get the right information to create the correct result.  We are hoping to wrap up this section of our physics engine very soon.  

Once implemented we will be able to handle vegetation collisions as well as flag stick collisions and hole collisions properly.  We have also completed work around hole planting, and version 1.1 of Course Forge is now almost complete.

Next Up:  Non online multiplayer, teams and methods of play, and then finishing up the different cameras and recorded rounds and shot replays.  Shot replays has been an interesting discussion for us since because we are using a real time physics engine hitting the same shot twice will not have the same results so just recording the launch conditions is not sufficient, we have to find a way to record the actual ball position throughout the flight and then replay that.

Anyway, mini update for ya.. A 

[IanD]

Thanks Andrew, I enjoyed the read and explanative regarding the sphere casting.

[Dazmaniac]

I (me) don't want my perfectly struck shot to not go in the hole, if it is on line and the exact distance to the hole, due to a bad luck bounce. If someone else repeats my exact swing and aim and their's goes in, and mine doesn't.. then what did I do wrong?

 

IMO, that is golf all summed up, especially as far as real life goes.

 

How many times have you hit the same shot as your playing partner only to see the bounce you get being different to the one he gets. Once you have hit the ball from the clubface, you are at the mercy of the elements and terra firma, despite the fact you may have applied a draw or a fade. There is always that element of luck when your ball lands as to how it will bounce and roll, no matter how perfectly you may have struck the shot.

 

Its only like both players playing shot, both hit the pin, one ball rebounds and drops a foot from the hole, the other one drops in the hole. No-one has done anything wrong, just that one of the players has had a mighty big slice of luck.

 

Why should a PC version of a golf game not try and replicate this?

[Davefevs]

Looks like good progress is being made AJ.......KUTGW

[Kablammo11]

Yes, thank you Andrew. From your answer, though, I get tte impression that you don't "get" the gist of this topic. No matter if you ray or sphere cast, the question is if some preset values for ball physics, say, for dampness, should stay fixed at 100% throughout a shot(or a round) or if they should be allowed to randomly fluctuate between 98% and 102% to introduce a small element of chance.

[IanD]

Daz...

 

No... no it shouldn't..

[Kablammo11]

? The Fast Show?

(And yes, it should)

[Acrilix]

If it's trying to be a simulation then it should. If it is just another golf game then it doesn't matter.

[IanD]

lol... yes, the right honourable Geoffrey Norman..

[Andrew]

Yes, thank you Andrew. From your answer, though, I get tte impression that you don't "get" the gist of this topic. No matter if you ray or sphere cast, the question is if some preset values for ball physics, say, for dampness, should stay fixed at 100% throughout a shot(or a round) or if they should be allowed to randomly fluctuate between 98% and 102% to introduce a small element of chance.

Oh I get the topic under discussion.. In fact we were discussing it today as it relates to the online multiplayer.  For example because our physics is real time then when a player plays a shot on his machine and sends the launch conditions to another machine that player will not see the same shot.  So that process does not work.  Instead we will be using a server app to determine the result of a shot and then that shot will get sent to the other players in the game.  There are lots of other good reasons for doing it this way which I will go into in another post, but basically the same shot hit multiple times will yield different results.  Right now that will primarily be because the wind conditions will always be variable unless you are playing with no wind but the concept allows us to bring into effect other elements as we move forward.

[spikel]

Great to hear Andrew and I see how that relates to the issue with replays too. Thank you for being so active on the forums and giving us golf sim addicts some insight!