Jump to content


Photo

Locking threads


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:30 AM

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

 

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about;

 

 

Therefore, Stating that the bug report of an anomaly... must somehow be a known outcome, when the whole crux of the bug report is encountering a wildly inconsistent result, that produces a 15 yard distance disparity, when the shot has been struck exactly the same... goes a bit further than just missing the point.

 

That is either; intentionally heckling the discussion, or just... ignorant to the facts.

 

Either way. It is - in point of fact - a falsehood.

 

This discussion is based on a bug report of an overwhelmingly excessive physics variance... it is not a debate on club selection strategy.

 

Obviously, the workaround to any bug, is to try to avoid what may cause the bug from happening. But, stating that has added zero to this discussion.

 

If someone kept getting cut by the space-bar on their keyboard, would the the solution be; to put a bandage on their wound, and-to-start-typing-like-this?



#42 Golden Bear

Golden Bear

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 853 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:40 AM

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about;

 

 

Therefore, Stating that the bug report of an anomaly... must somehow be a known outcome, when the whole crux of the bug report is encountering a wildly inconsistent result, that produces a 15 yard distance disparity, when the shot has been struck exactly the same... goes a bit further than just missing the point.

 

That is either; intentionally heckling the discussion, or just... ignorant to the facts.

 

Either way. It is - in point of fact - a falsehood.

 

This discussion is based on a bug report of an overwhelmingly excessive physics variance... it is not a debate on club selection strategy.

 

Mike and others have tried to explain this to you time and again.  It seems you simply want your way and are unwilling to listen to logic.  The fact that you argue with an ex tour pro about shot physics seems very disrespectful to me.


  • jimbob59 likes this

#43 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 07:48 AM

Mike and others have tried to explain this to you time and again.  It seems you simply want your way and are unwilling to listen to logic.  The fact that you argue with an ex tour pro about shot physics seems very disrespectful to me.

 

Try to make a point that relates to the topic, and not your personal feelings. Nobody cares.

 

I don't need someone to try to make me feel good about what their intentions are.  A legitimate explanation has to check out, on a calculator.

 

"Logic," is exactly what is at issue here.

 

The results of the shots reported are completely illogical.

 

 

Try to follow along:

 

A slope may cause a ball to gradually roll backwards... if the gravity is sufficient.

 

Gravity does Not cause a ball to zip backwards. Zip is something that gets created at impact, when the shot is struck.

 

Therefore, if zip hasn't been created at impact... than, gravity cannot solely cause zip to suddenly occur on landing.

 

If you cannot follow that... than, you cannot follow, "logic."



#44 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:47 AM

If we all just made these physics discussions about, logic, and hard science... instead of just picking sides, and feeling sorry for ourselves; than, perhaps we could actually get on the same page, with what is actually being reported... and why.

#45 jt83

jt83

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:06 AM

Didn't mebby's post explain the devs' approach?  Do you have any response to it?



#46 Mike Jones

Mike Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 6,159 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:06 AM

tlvx -  if a ball spins back and causes the ball to go into a roll state at 5 mph do you think it would roll back further on a flat green or if the ball was on a slope?


  • Golden Bear likes this

#47 frank70

frank70

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,538 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:15 AM

I don't want to go deeply in the spin discussion. But seeing Mike is online:

 

I find it difficult to grasp, that a shot hit with 99 % power reacts totally different spin wise as a ball hit with 100 %.

 

Is there a chance that PP implements a more gradual increase/decrease of spin in the future? As it would be more realistic, right?



#48 IanK

IanK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,589 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:19 AM

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

Thanks Jim.
These comments made by tlvx are exactly the reason why Mike locked the original thread. Tlvx is like a dog with a bone. Try to take it from him and he gets aggressive and unpleasant.
It would be mildly amusing if this thread about locking threads was locked.
  • JoeF, Kablammo11, ✠ davef ✠ and 2 others like this
Steam Name: n.bonaparte
WWG1WGA

#49 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:43 AM

It would be mildly amusing if this thread about locking threads was locked.

 

This. +1


  • JoeF, robbiet71 and Golden Bear like this

>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#50 highfade

highfade

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • LocationSouth Africa

Posted 08 September 2015 - 11:10 AM

The thing is, as long as there obvious physics and other issues these discussions will keep popping up. This exact spin thing and backward bounce was reported and discussed months ago and if I can take a wild guess it will happen again. I've got a list of issues as long as my arm which I hope will get addressed some time in the future but realize that there might be more pressing problems to take care of.
 
I'm just quietly hoping that the dev. team will always have another look and constantly keep trying, tweaking and improving the physics especially seeing that we are still in EA stage. The easy way out is to just call it a game and not a simulation and end the discussion with "that's the best we can do" but I don't think that is the vision of PP. 
 
A mere acknowledgement that a bug or issue might exists rather than endless explanations of why it is what it is will go a long way in curbing some of the frustration levels.
 
I really like this game :)

Intel Core i5-6600 CPU 3.3 GHz       Geforce GTX 1060        16GB  RAM       Windows 10 64 bit

Hazyview  (600m above sea level)    --   Nautilus Bay  (Revamp done)  --  Cape Fear  (TGC  adaptation)  --  Aloe Ridge  --  Nahoon Reef GC  --  Chambers Bay 

Abel's Crossing  --  Solitude Links GC


#51 Andrew

Andrew

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 2,524 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 September 2015 - 12:25 PM

 

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

Yes, and there are a number of different elements that go into determining what this is.  The cleanness of the contact, and how hard you hit it for example.  You could hit 10 8I at 122% and get 10 different results due to the quality of the shot (in 3 click determined by the snap)  So before you even start looking at the physics you are not even sure you are comparing like with like.  The snap goes to 5 decimal places and once you dont hit a perfect snap the rules are changing and the vlaues are different.

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

I have no idea what this means, one is a force that acts in the vertical direction, the other is a state that exists on the ball, the two forces act in completely different ways and are not interchangeable

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

The only thing that creates backspin is the shot impact conditions.  At that point the amount of backspin is set.  During the course of the ball flight spin decay will reduce the amount of backspin and this effect is dependent on the wind too.  During impact with the ground the backspin will be reduced by the contact of the ball with the ground.  The number of bounces, will determine how much spin is lost during bouncing and the relative values of horizontal velocity and backspin will determine how much backwards velocity the ball will have once it transitions into the roll state.

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

No and this question implies you dont understand how it works at all.  The gradient of the green at impact changes the angle at which the ball bounces.  This angle change in turn affects the relative values of vertical velocity and horizontal velocity (Restitution affects the total velocity of the ball).  A ball with significantly less horizontal relative velocity will have, well, less horizontal velocity for the backspin to overcome during the bounce state.  Finally at the point at which the ball transitions from bounce to roll the simple question is.... Is the amount of backspin higher that the remaining forward horizontal velocity of the ball such that the ball will spin backwards.  

In addition to this the steeper the ball impacts with the ground, the less horizontal skidding occurs between the ball and the ground, resulting in the amount of spin taken off the ball being slightly less than when the ball impacts with a higher horizontal velocity component. 

Finally a ball landing into an upslope and spinning backwards will now be running downhill exaggerating the effect of the backspin.

So there are a multitide of different ways small changes in the slope of the green can have on the relative values that go into determining the amount a ball may spin back or forward on any particular shot.

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

Since gradient of a green has no ability to create backspin this is a somewhat specious question.  The question really should be Can the gradient of a green cause the bounce of a ball to be changed such that the resulting effect on the ball yield a change in the relative values of spin, bounce angle, and horizontal and vertical velocity components and the answer to that based on the data is yes.

 

One final thought...  if what you are looking for is a mathematical equation to apply to a shot you will not find it here.  Just like golf I have seen tour pros hit shots that land by a pin and zip off due to backspin 30 feet away.  Can we assume that their plan all along was to spin it back 30 feet away from the hole, I doubt it.  They just either got a lot more spin than they intended or they hit into an upslope or they did not hit the ball as far as they intended.  So why does your 1 in 10 8 iron spin back?  It could be because:

1) you hit a particularly pure shot resulting in higher spin at launch,
2) you were hitting off an upslope which changed the launch angle of the ball causing the impact angle with the green to be steeper and the resulting relative horizontal / vertical velocities to change and or the relative spin loss on imact to change
3) your ball landed on an upslope in the green causing the ball to bounce at a more vertical angle 
resulting in a change in the relative horizontal / vertical velocities meaning the same amount of spin will spin back further as there is less horizintal velocity to overcome.
4) Your shot was into the wind 
5) You adjusted the Launch Angle Center which changes everything

 

Can the physics result in some strange results from time to time, yes sure it can, you are writing a set of code that allows the real world physics to make a determination of what the ball is going to do when there are an infinite number of possible variables.  This is part of what I like about it.  Who has played a round of golf and said how on earth did that happen when looking at a bounce or a result.  Most people I guess.  Our Physics allows these things to happen, it is not pre ordained and not programmed in.  Is it perfect no, and we will continue to tweak it as we have time to look at some of these things.  But your comment that the whole game physics are broken bacause you cant hit a massive overswing 8I and get an identical result everytime is never going to get any traction.

 


  • JoeF, LeazesNDR, ✠ davef ✠ and 5 others like this

#52 remers

remers

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 12:42 PM

Brilliant, more time Andrew can't get back and put into other areas of the game.  Good stuff tlvx, you hammered away long enough both here and over at Steam to get yet another reply.  Something tells me though that even this won't satisfy you but I sincerely hope it does.


  • erwildcat, Dewald Nel, mebby and 1 other like this

System Spec
---------------------
Win10 / Core i7 - 4820k 3.7Ghz / 16GB Ram / GeForce GTX780 / Corsair M95 Wired Mouse / Asus PB287Q 28in 4k Monitor


#53 Golden Bear

Golden Bear

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 853 posts

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:14 PM

If Andrew's excellent post does not quiet down tlvx, nothing will.  The physics are almost there now.  



#54 frank70

frank70

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,538 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:21 PM

If Andrew's excellent post does not quiet down tlvx, nothing will.  The physics are almost there now.  

Almost. I don't go along with the concept that 99 % power produces way less spin effect, than 100 %. It takes away the possibility to give the ball a variety of spin and produce certain shots.

 

For example: a 100 % 64 wedge spins back a lot (not really controllable). A 97 % 64 wedge doesn't spin back. How can i perform a shot that lands, say 10 feet behind the hole and comes back a little bit towards the hole?

 

Maybe i'm nitpicking, but the solution right now takes away some options in the game plan. It isn't a big deal because in the most cases the gameplay passes the eye test. But this is what early access is for, right? To point out some things that could be better. 



#55 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:45 PM

Almost. I don't go along with the concept that 99 % power produces way less spin effect, than 100 %. It takes away the possibility to give the ball a variety of spin and produce certain shots.

 

For example: a 100 % 64 wedge spins back a lot (not really controllable). A 97 % 64 wedge doesn't spin back. How can i perform a shot that lands, say 10 feet behind the hole and comes back a little bit towards the hole?

 

Maybe i'm nitpicking, but the solution right now takes away some options in the game plan. It isn't a big deal because in the most cases the gameplay passes the eye test. But this is what early access is for, right? To point out some things that could be better. 

Frank - I sort of agree with and sort-of do not.  While I'd rather that they kept the physics true to real life in this scenario I do understand why they modified it and at least now I know that it's not just a flaw in the physics model - it was very intentional.

 

I've played around with these shots quite a bit and I've found that you have a multitude of options.  You can either loft it up really high and hit it harder or you can play an overpowered pitch shot.  There are definitely ways to get there.  You can also pitch way down and hit a bitter into the pin - it will hit and check up quite hard with little to no roll-out.  It's a riskier shot because if you don't hit it well then it will release on you and go rolling past the hole but it's an option at least.


Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO


#56 Richard

Richard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,734 posts
  • LocationBismarck, ND

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:46 PM

Almost. I don't go along with the concept that 99 % power produces way less spin effect, than 100 %. It takes away the possibility to give the ball a variety of spin and produce certain shots.

 

For example: a 100 % 64 wedge spins back a lot (not really controllable). A 97 % 64 wedge doesn't spin back. How can i perform a shot that lands, say 10 feet behind the hole and comes back a little bit towards the hole?

 

Maybe i'm nitpicking, but the solution right now takes away some options in the game plan. It isn't a big deal because in the most cases the gameplay passes the eye test. But this is what early access is for, right? To point out some things that could be better. 

 

Yes

 

Yes again, but you obviously either missed or ignored Andrew's comment in his post. "Is it perfect no, and we will continue to tweak it as we have time to look at some of these things."

 

Repetitive posting of the same issue over and over by multiple people, supporting each other, is neither necessary nor courteous.


  • axe360 and jimbob59 like this
Richard

Posted Image

#57 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 08 September 2015 - 02:49 PM

Yes

 

Yes again, but you obviously either missed or ignored Andrew's comment in his post. "Is it perfect no, and we will continue to tweak it as we have time to look at some of these things."

 

Repetitive posting of the same issue over and over by multiple people, supporting each other, is neither necessary nor courteous.

Richard - I think Frank is simply trying to voice his opinions which I believe he is completely entitled to do.  Your last statement is contradictory as you're simply posting on the same issue (your side of it) over and over in support of those who think this whole thread is ridiculous.  Honestly man - if this thread irritates you so much then simply don't come in here.  It's really just that simple.


Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO


#58 axe360

axe360

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • LocationSo Cal U.S.A.

Posted 08 September 2015 - 03:06 PM

I would like to know how some of you can go out and hit these 99% and 100% shots, consistently enough to make these comparisons, I know I can't... To say, that PG has it down  to within a 1% + or -, is saying "that's pretty damn good". IMO...

 

I don't have percentage marks on my meter but I bet you PG has a way of reproducing shot after shot EXACTLY each time...

 

My final thoughts, If PG is to within 1% of Perfection. I'm good...

 

BOOM !!


  • ✠ davef ✠ and Golden Bear like this

Done with designing.

Released Courses: Real

The Golf Club @ Dove Mnt. AZ

Aronimink PA

Amana Colonies Iowa

Fictional:

The Grinder Anytown U.S.A.

 

 

                   


#59 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 08 September 2015 - 03:32 PM

I would like to know how some of you can go out and hit these 99% and 100% shots, consistently enough to make these comparisons, I know I can't... To say, that PG has it down  to within a 1% + or -, is saying "that's pretty damn good". IMO...

 

I don't have percentage marks on my meter but I bet you PG has a way of reproducing shot after shot EXACTLY each time...

 

My final thoughts, If PG is to within 1% of Perfection. I'm good...

 

BOOM !!

I just accidentally bumped into the 99% shot while I was recording a video on the range of me testing out various wedge shots with different lofts.  If you take a look at that video you'll see that I'm nowhere near consistent enough to hit 99% on the head every single time.

 

But all I'm saying is that in my conversation with Andrew I understood him to say that they have certainly drawn a very specific line in the sand on wedge shots.  100% and greater, the ball with check and draw back.  99% and lower it will not.


Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO


#60 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 08 September 2015 - 03:34 PM

I would like to know how some of you can go out and hit these 99% and 100% shots, consistently enough to make these comparisons, I know I can't... To say, that PG has it down  to within a 1% + or -, is saying "that's pretty damn good". IMO...

 

I don't have percentage marks on my meter but I bet you PG has a way of reproducing shot after shot EXACTLY each time...

 

My final thoughts, If PG is to within 1% of Perfection. I'm good...

 

BOOM !!

And for the record - I don't even think PP would say that they've gotten this game to within 1% of perfection!!  They are just saying that a 1% difference in power on a wedge shot will purposefully generate a different shot because they overrode the physics model to force it to do that.


Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users