88 replies to this topic

[Richard]

Just going outside to bang my head on a brick wall! ;-)

 

I'll join you.

 

[Dazmaniac]

These threads have more spin than a political election campaign, lol.

[JoeF]

2 - A 122% 8 iron to a flat green skips forward a few yards and then checks hard. Males sense. A 122% 8 iron Hutto a very slight up slope checks super hard and backs way up. I understand that once it's rolling a down slop will exacerbate it but not sure I follow why the slight incline causes the ball to check back so much harder than a flat surface.

 

 On hole 12 at Chicago Oaks the green is 10 feet above the spot from where the ball was hit.  So you are hitting into an elevated green that slopes back toward you.  That's a different scenario than a flat green at 3 feet elevation which is what you find on the practice course.  

[Dazmaniac]

Guys... I'm asking for his thoughts. That's it. If I felt it was already answered I wouldn't ask again. Seriously. I'm asking as nicely as I know how and trying to engage in an open conversation. If you don't like it then read another thread.

 

I get that it isn't what TVLX and yourself want to hear/read but I'm not sure what else you want him to say.

 

We are using real world data and equations as to how the ground compresses and affects the speed and spin of the ball so it's not a 'canned' shot and there is no pre-ordained set of circumstances where a ball will spin or not, it's all down to the real time physics.

 

I will agree that the 7 iron 'back bounce' that occurs and was mentioned in the other thread is wrong, but when you look at the videos posted for these 'full out' 8 irons, the greens have slope and a spinning ball will react differently where there is slope to how it does on a flat green IMO.

 

Anyway, enough on the subject for me. I'm done posting on spin. Don't want to go nutting any walls, it hurts, lol.

 

Will be busy playing iRacing over the next few days as the big season build update arrives tomorrow with the new dynamic track surface model, so the only spin I'll be concerned with will be from the wheels.

 

[Vernon520]

It always amazes me how so many threads are started on one topic and end up on another.

[axe360]

Hey, you have to give them credit for being passionate about how they feel..

I also happen to know, they just are trying to help the game and they believe what they are saying..

 

But eventually you have to know that you have tried all you can and leave it up to the Dev's..

Not saying their there yet but they will know, when they have exhausted all avenues.. Like I say, you have to give them credit for trying...

[mebby]

Daz - I'm not looking for a set answer.  I'm looking for someone to share/provide the facts and data that they have so I can understand it.  Just saying - we have all the facts and data and equations in the world... and because Mike Jones said so just doesn't cut it for me.

I've tried to engage in an open and civil debate but you must understand that it's super frustrating to get very shallow responses.

I get that it isn't what TVLX and yourself want to hear/read but I'm not sure what else you want him to say.

 

[mebby]

 On hole 12 at Chicago Oaks the green is 10 feet above the spot from where the ball was hit.  So you are hitting into an elevated green that slopes back toward you.  That's a different scenario than a flat green at 3 feet elevation which is what you find on the practice course.  

OK - maybe.  I agree with you that elevation would have an impact.  I would think that since the ball hadn't completed it's full fight pattern that it would have more forward trajectory and more back spin.  Not sure which of those would outweigh the other but in my personal experience, hitting to an elevated surface typically generates less kick than to a lower surface.  Maybe I'm wrong here but this is precisely the type of open discussion I'm trying to have... 

 

Hey - If I'm wrong and an 8 iron should spin like that then I'm wrong.  I'm just looking for a discussion to help prove it one way or the other.  My intention is not to say that PG physics suck.  Frankly, I think they are phenomenal in 98% of situations.  I just don't understand a few scenarios and all I've gotten in response thus far is "it's right because the devs have said so" and, while that may be the case, I just want to understand WHY it's right.  

[Crow357]

So when Mike says, the game is making the correct calculations, that's not good enough for you, that's a "shallow" response.

 

I'm pretty sure, they're not going to give you their program code.  

[Andrew]

I am going to jump in here and post on the OP question.  We sometimes lock threads, like the spin thread when it is clear the conversation has no longer become a question of ask and repond and has instead degenerated into a this game is crap because.....  At this point it does not matter what we post or how we try to explain what it is doing some times the thread just becomes pointless and is no longer adding any value.  

We do listen to the comments and quite often we consider and make changes.  But it is a giant waste of our time to engage in a pointless debate.  I have tried to engage in a couple of these threads and most of the time we and the game just get attacked so there is not much point.

 

Mebby at this point if you actually want to engage in a discussion about a specific issue I am happy to do so via PM.  

[mebby]

Thanks Andrew.  I'll take you up on that.  But just for public record - I've stated multiple, multiple times that I am a huge fan of this game and I do not think it's crap.  I realize that other people may take that angle but it's not one that I have, or will ever, decide to take.

 

I only post about these topics because I'm passionate about this game and I hope that I can add value in an open forum.  The reason I've asked my same questions repeatedly is because no one has ever attempted to answer other than saying "it's right" and that's not an answer.

[JoeF]

OK - maybe.  I agree with you that elevation would have an impact.  I would think that since the ball hadn't completed it's full fight pattern that it would have more forward trajectory and more back spin.  Not sure which of those would outweigh the other but in my personal experience, hitting to an elevated surface typically generates less kick than to a lower surface.  Maybe I'm wrong here but this is precisely the type of open discussion I'm trying to have... 

 

Hey - If I'm wrong and an 8 iron should spin like that then I'm wrong.  I'm just looking for a discussion to help prove it one way or the other.  My intention is not to say that PG physics suck.  Frankly, I think they are phenomenal in 98% of situations.  I just don't understand a few scenarios and all I've gotten in response thus far is "it's right because the devs have said so" and, while that may be the case, I just want to understand WHY it's right.  

 

Thanks Andrew.  I'll take you up on that.  But just for public record - I've stated multiple, multiple times that I am a huge fan of this game and I do not think it's crap.  I realize that other people may take that angle but it's not one that I have, or will ever, decide to take.

 

I only post about these topics because I'm passionate about this game and I hope that I can add value in an open forum.  The reason I've asked my same questions repeatedly is because no one has ever attempted to answer other than saying "it's right" and that's not an answer.

 

Nothing wrong in trying to better understand what's going on.  Discussions that create a better understanding of how the game plays is good for all.  

 

We know that golf is the single most scientifically studied sports game in the world.  We know that this game uses real-world physics data on the game of golf - calculated in real time - to determine what happens on the course, so it should be close to what actually happens.  

 

Here we have a particular scenario - a shot is being played into an elevated green that slopes back toward you.  The green in question slopes down a little over foot from the back portion of the green to the pin position in question.  The pin is 26 feet from the front edge of the green and is 20 inches above the front of the green.  The shot is hit with a force that will impart the maximum amount of backspin possible.  The question is will that backspin, on that slope, cause the ball to roll back 35 feet from the point where it began its' reverse motion (at the pin - see original video).  I have already shown that hitting a full 8-iron elsewhere into that green causes the ball to spin back 15 feet.  So I ran another little test.  I placed the ball beside the cup, rotated to the front of the green and hit a putt with the power needed to go 15 feet (8:00 at stimp 10).  Guess how far it rolled.  35 feet.  That tells me the original shot did exactly what it should do under the given circumstances.

 

Hope that makes it a little clearer to you.  

[tlvx]

I am going to jump in here and post on the OP question.  We sometimes lock threads, like the spin thread when it is clear the conversation has no longer become a question of ask and repond and has instead degenerated into a this game is crap because.....  At this point it does not matter what we post or how we try to explain what it is doing some times the thread just becomes pointless and is no longer adding any value.

 

There's a huge difference between reporting a crap-shoot result... as opposed to, stating that the game is, "crap."

 

That is a personal misconception, made up to deflect legitimate discussions.

 

The only users that make these topics personal, are the ones that falsely accuse users of calling the game, "crap," and try to take legitimate discussions of physics anomalies out of context.

 

If we would stop taking things so personally, than maybe, just maybe... we could get to a point where we are looking for solutions, instead of excuses... excuses that don't even add up, when checked and tested.

 

Stating that an open discussion of an obvious physics anomaly is, "pointless," is far worse, than feigning the false idea that the same users - reporting such anomalies - have actually accused the game of being a, "crap," game.

[tlvx]

The crux of the bug report, is that the fact that the green has a gradient, that is wholly causing a club, that should roll forward 3 yards, to violently zip back 10 to 15 yards from where the same shot would have normally ended up.

 

Further, it doesn't hardly seem to matter where the ball actually lands on the green. The videos have proven that the ball is basically interacting (& overreacting) with a portion of the green, that it hasn't even come into contact with. (The ball clearly lands on the plateau of the pin)

 

Therefore, a shot that always rolls 3 yards forward on a 0.049% degree gradient, should not end up 10 to 15 yards short, when the gradient that the shot actually lands on, barely increases, to 0.051%.

 

It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever, for such a minute adjustment in conditions, to cause such a massive reversal of result.

[mebby]

Nothing wrong in trying to better understand what's going on.  Discussions that create a better understanding of how the game plays is good for all.  

 

We know that golf is the single most scientifically studied sports game in the world.  We know that this game uses real-world physics data on the game of golf - calculated in real time - to determine what happens on the course, so it should be close to what actually happens.  

 

Here we have a particular scenario - a shot is being played into an elevated green that slopes back toward you.  The green in question slopes down a little over foot from the back portion of the green to the pin position in question.  The pin is 26 feet from the front edge of the green and is 20 inches above the front of the green.  The shot is hit with a force that will impart the maximum amount of backspin possible.  The question is will that backspin, on that slope, cause the ball to roll back 35 feet from the point where it began its' reverse motion (at the pin - see original video).  I have already shown that hitting a full 8-iron elsewhere into that green causes the ball to spin back 15 feet.  So I ran another little test.  I placed the ball beside the cup, rotated to the front of the green and hit a putt with the power needed to go 15 feet (8:00 at stimp 10).  Guess how far it rolled.  35 feet.  That tells me the original shot did exactly what it should do under the given circumstances.

 

Hope that makes it a little clearer to you.  

Joe - this is a very good and very helpful discussion for me.  I appreciate the responses.

 

Can you point me to the video of you hitting into another area of that green?  Is it flat where you hit into?  If I hit a full 8 iron into a flat green that's roughly level with my feet (i.e. - the range) then the ball doesn't back up at all - it skips forward and then stops which is exactly what I think it would do.

 

I think what you're trying to tell me is that since the green is above the players feet (significantly so) that it causing more spin that it normally would if the green weren't elevated.  Is that right?  If so, then I guess that answers my earlier question - that the increased spin would more than offset the forward trajectory of a ball landing before it's normal flight has finished.

[JoeF]

Joe - this is a very good and very helpful discussion for me.  I appreciate the responses.

 

Can you point me to the video of you hitting into another area of that green?  Is it flat where you hit into?  If I hit a full 8 iron into a flat green that's roughly level with my feet (i.e. - the range) then the ball doesn't back up at all - it skips forward and then stops which is exactly what I think it would do.

 

Your are correct.  There is no rollout as some claim.  Here's a full shot at the range:

 

 

I think what you're trying to tell me is that since the green is above the players feet (significantly so) that it causing more spin that it normally would if the green weren't elevated.  Is that right?  If so, then I guess that answers my earlier question - that the increased spin would more than offset the forward trajectory of a ball landing before it's normal flight has finished.

 

That's exactly how I see it, in conjunction with the down slope.

 

I didn't post a video. As I said in an earlier thread I went to the hole and hit further back into the green to see what the reaction would be.  The area of the green behind the pin has the same slope as at the pin.  Over multiple full shots the ball always rolled back 15 feet.  Try it yourself.  Chicago Oaks, hole 12, right side of the fairway, 154 yards from the pin, aim at the pin.  Hit a full swing and perfect snap.  Your results will be pretty much the same - ball will carry 162, take one bounce forward and then spin back 15 feet.

[mebby]

Alright... Really had a very good conversation with Andrew and got the sort of data I've been asking for.

The spin issue on my wedge shot example is as I expected. The reduction in spin from a 100% shot and a 99% had been reduced on purpose in order to give the player more control of how they want to pay the shot. Hit 100% or greater and it will spin enough to kick back. Less than 100% and it won't. There's no gradual step-down as you would expect due to feedback received from the community. Not 100% realistic but purposefully modified as a compromise. I can live with that and makes sense to me.

On the 8 iron shot, while I'm still not sure I feel the result is realistic, I at least understand why it's doing what it's doing based on Andrew's explanation.

They've built divot marks into the game so that the ball reacts based on the angle of the divot. So when a ball lands on an upslope the divot creates a steeper angle causing the ball to bounce more vertically. When coupled with the high rate of spin it cause quite a bit of kick back.

My personal view is that maybe the bounce caused by the divot is a little over done which is causing too much kick back.

But I'm at least thrilled that Andrew took the time to explain to me what's going on.

If we had simply had this type of discussion on the other two threads I don't think they would've gotten locked.

[Golden Bear]

If the poster considers it to be a bug why keep hitting shots at 122% if he knows what the outcome will be? Just accept this is what may happen, adjust your game accordingly and move on!

 

Exactly!  It is called adjusting for the shot type physics.  As an example...whenever I shoot a full 64w I put full low loft on it to negate the backspin, simple.   

[tlvx]

If the poster considers it to be a bug why keep hitting shots at 122% if he knows what the outcome will be? Just accept this is what may happen, adjust your game accordingly and move on!

 

That's specious reasoning... because the shot result changes dramatically, between ending up 3 yards forward from where it lands, to; based on some unknown minute gradient percentage breach - the shot will otherwise zip back up to 12 yards.

 

If users should have to, "foretell," between only two outcomes, separated by a whole 15 yards, purely due to an unknown gradient percentage breach - that, by the way, the ball doesn't even have to actually interact with, upon landing - than, you clearly haven't thought this all the way through.

 

The whole reason for the bug report, is because 9 times out of ten, a max 8-Iron, ends up 3 yards beyond where it lands.

 

Then, 1 time out of 10... it may zip back 12 yards, when the conditions haven't dramatically changed.

 

Try to wrap that concept around your head... before ignorantly claiming that there is a known outcome.

 

Obviously, the result has only two outcomes; but... that they are separated by up to a whole club length, becomes completely incomprehensible.

 

Now, if an 8-Iron behaves like an 8-Iron, nine times out of ten; and yet, on the tenth time, it behaves like a 9-Iron, when it was not at all mishit... than, isn't there something wrong with that?

 

If we're going to believe in that... than, let's ask ourselves some honest questions.

 

Is backspin not created when the club initially impacts the ball?

 

Are backspin and gravity supposed to be interchangeable? Can gravity really be substituted with backspin?

 

Is gravity supposed to create backspin? Are backspin and roll the same thing? Do they look the same?

 

Is the gradient of a green meant to increase the spin rate of a golf ball?

 

Can the gradient of a green cause a ball that has 3 yards of forward momentum to violently spin 12 yards backwards?

[jimbob59]

Try to wrap that concept around your head... before ignorantly claiming that there is a known outcome.

Is there any need to call someone ignorant.  His opinion is every bit as valid as yours