119 replies to this topic

[slouis]

Since this latest update it is again possible to hit shots with backspin.  When I was playing with a friend the other day his shot on to the green  spun back around 30 feet in a  bunker. 

I started practicing it and have able to spin it back with a club such as the 52W although not as far as the above example.  Today I hit a shot that landed on the fairway and spun back probably somewhere between 10 and 15 feet.  I should have looked at the post shot screen but didn't.  Anyway a question for all you ball physics experts. Is being able to spin it back on the fairway realistic?  I have never seen it done in a PGA telecast so just wondering.

[slouis]

Just to clarify, his shot spun back in to a bunker.

[wim1234]

If you overhit, you get backspin yes. It was always possible to hit shots with backspin tho.

The rts swing makes it easier to overhit.

Whether backspin on fairways is possible depends on many mnay paramaters, but profs wont want backspin there.

Youi need to practice to have about 100% power hits.

[tlvx]

slouis, on 24 Feb 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:

Since this latest update it is again possible to hit shots with backspin. When I was playing with a friend the other day his shot on to the green spun back around 30 feet in a bunker.
I started practicing it and have able to spin it back with a club such as the 52W although not as far as the above example. Today I hit a shot that landed on the fairway and spun back probably somewhere between 10 and 15 feet. I should have looked at the post shot screen but didn't. Anyway a question for all you ball physics experts. Is being able to spin it back on the fairway realistic? I have never seen it done in a PGA telecast so just wondering.

There's something wrong with the way spin is currently being generated in this game, and apparently no one is willing to admit it.

Yes, hitting the ball harder should produce more spin. But, the ratio of additional spin to power, in this game, is - by any standard - far too severe. This is evidenced by these kinds of unrealistic results... like a golf ball zipping backwards in a flat fairway.

I don't think wanting the stuff to be more realistic is an unfair ask, particularly in light off odd things going on in the game... that nobody has come anywhere close to mirroring such odd results - on an actual golf course.

[AwYea]

I don't think some are taking into the RT physics and contours where the ball is landing. I'm not trying to brag but i can spin all my wedges and 9 iron on the driving range when i'm hitting it well. It's not unrealistic at all to spin the ball back on the fairway in the right conditions when hitting a wedge or low iron especially out of a sand trap with a good lie.

 

If anything i think there is a tad too much roll out with the wedges 60 and below and short irons when not over hitting. I'm not complaining though and would not go as far as saying it's broke or needs fixing.

 

I will say the theory of just hitting the ball harder in it's self produces shots that spin back is not the total equation.

 

I know a pro that qualified for the senior US Open that takes the easiest swing you ever saw and is not a long hitter at all and he hits it so low that it almost looks like he hit it thin. He can or could spin it back as good as any pro you've ever seen. He just has a good ratio of ball speed and backspin. Plus, he has an incredible swing that maintains the loft of the club face through the impact area without the club face turning over. 

[IanK]

Personally I think the spin is just about correct at the moment. I've not noticed too much spin but I normally only play only a little overswing.

[BazzaLB]

I got backspin out of rough one time. That was surprising to say the least. (RTS-M)

[mebby]

I'm with Ian. It honestly feels about right to me. But I'm not running around testing the game on the extremes... I'm just playing my rounds and having fun.

I did notice that wedges have a touch more bite when hitting a normal (no overswing) shot but this was needed in my opinion. So it feels pretty good to me.

[Dazmaniac]

Unfortunately I can only imagine what the OP's shot looked like as there is no mention of course, conditions, club, lie etc.

I will agree that excessive backspin on fairway isn't the norm, but for all we know this shot could have pitched in to an up slope, and then with spin loaded on the ball, checked back and then rolled down the slope 15-20 ft. If it was on a flat fairway, then yes questions should be asked.

[tlvx]

mebby, on 24 Feb 2016 - 2:15 PM, said:

I'm with Ian. It honestly feels about right to me. But I'm not running around testing the game on the extremes... I'm just playing my rounds and having fun.

I did notice that wedges have a touch more bite when hitting a normal (no overswing) shot but this was needed in my opinion. So it feels pretty good to me.

 

This is the whole point of *testing* anything. To find the break point.

 

The driver goes a certain distance. Cannot make it go further. The spin goes up to a certain point... cannot make it spin more.

 

The issue in this game currently, is that the over-spin at the break-point is causing unrealistic results, with both long and short clubs, results that are highly unlikely to be produced by even top Tour players.

 

The problem with that, is that the game doesn't even represent the swing speeds of the top players... so, how can these insane results ever take place, unless the swing speeds were much higher?

 

Also, it's been proven that swing speeds in the mid to high 120's and beyond, simply causes the ball to travel further, not necessarily back up more.

[tlvx]

Dazmaniac, on 24 Feb 2016 - 3:05 PM, said:

Unfortunately I can only imagine what the OP's shot looked like as there is no mention of course, conditions, club, lie etc.

I will agree that excessive backspin on fairway isn't the norm, but for all we know this shot could have pitched in to an up slope, and then with spin loaded on the ball, checked back and then rolled down the slope 15-20 ft. If it was on a flat fairway, then yes questions should be asked.

 

Speculation isn't part of the testing paradigm. Do the stuff in the practice facility, to a flat surface, and you will find that the OP's observations are spot on.

 

All this excuse making does is hurt actual progress in realism.

[mebby]

tlvx, on 24 Feb 2016 - 4:55 PM, said:

This is the whole point of *testing* anything. To find the break point.

 

The driver goes a certain distance. Cannot make it go further. The spin goes up to a certain point... cannot make it spin more.

 

The issue in this game currently, is that the over-spin at the break-point is causing unrealistic results, with both long and short clubs, results that are highly unlikely to be produced by even top Tour players.

 

The problem with that, is that the game doesn't even represent the swing speeds of the top players... so, how can these insane results ever take place, unless the swing speeds were much higher?

 

Also, it's been proven that swing speeds in the mid to high 120's and beyond, simply causes the ball to travel further, not necessarily back up more.

OK - fair enough.  Looks like you and I come at things differently that's all.  To me, it's not a huge deal to find anomalies at the extremes because I do not play at the extremes.  That's all I'm saying.  I'll leave it to the development team to do their job in this regard and I'll mention things as find them.  But I'm not going to go hunting for problems in the 1 percentile range of all possible outcomes. 

[robbiet71]

I'm trying to think of an example where a pro would hit a shot with the intention of it back spinning on the fairway?

I can't imagine that is a shot you would ever see. If a pro played a shot into a green and missed the green I would imagine the shot would not have been executed correctly and as such would not spin anyway.

I'm with the majority here, it feels mostly right to me, and I would always trust a pro golfer developing the game would know better than me on such matters.

[wim1234]

it seems there will be always be nitpicky ppl around, sorry, but thats what seems to happen a lot now.

as long as the game is not realy released these observations have not much value.

and i doubt that at the extremes the devs will be able to get it exactly right.

sofar i am pretty impressed with the game, feels good, plays well.

[tlvx]

mebby, on 24 Feb 2016 - 5:04 PM, said:

OK - fair enough.  Looks like you and I come at things differently that's all.  To me, it's not a huge deal to find anomalies at the extremes because I do not play at the extremes.  That's all I'm saying.  I'll leave it to the development team to do their job in this regard and I'll mention things as find them.  But I'm not going to go hunting for problems in the 1 percentile range of all possible outcomes. 

 

Who's "hunting for problems"?

 

Do you think it's invalid to discover bugs when hitting well struck shots?

[tlvx]

wim1234, on 24 Feb 2016 - 5:19 PM, said:

it seems there will be always be nitpicky ppl around, sorry, but thats what seems to happen a lot now.

as long as the game is not realy released these observations have not much value.

and i doubt that at the extremes the devs will be able to get it exactly right.

sofar i am pretty impressed with the game, feels good, plays well.

 

There's always going to be some creative license taken by a golf game. There has to be arbitrary limits, where there exist none in real life.

 

But, when those limits are set forth, then it should make at least a modicum of sense according to the mathematics behind it.

 

If 122% Power equates to 122 mph swing speed, than you can set a Golf Robot to hit balls at that speed with varying equipment to analyze some more realistic numbers being produced.

 

Or, you can take actual Tour players that have a similar swing speed, and take their swing data to have some more realistic numbers to work from.

 

Right now, there are some things that look right... and some things that start to border on silly season... and certain things - namely overspin - is causing far too wonky results in this game, at the moment.

 

It can be improved.

[AwYea]

tlvx is right. I was able to spin the ball back all the way up to an 8 iron about 3 to 5 ft. The million dollar question is there people in real life that can do this and the answer is yes. Now, what percent of golfers including tour pros who can do it or opt to to do it if they can is probably less than 10%. I can buy the argument that it isn't realistic that everyone can do it in the game by just over swinging.

 

What i would LOVE to see is the inclusion of hitting a real suck back shot added into the game based on the D plane mechanics that are already in the game. To get this excessive spin back IRL you have to manipulate the hands and level out your approach when hitting the back of the ball and prevent the natural release of the hands of turning the club over and digging into the ground and maintaining loft or even adding some.

 

If you hit this shot in real life you will actually leave a 2 to 3 inch skid mark after the ball with a extremely thin divot after that no bigger than the club face. You're not taking a huge divot like big hitters do with a natural release of the hands. They are doing it with just ball speed alone. People with slower swings and ball speeds are more than capeable of spinning it back as much as they do and more with the right swing.

 

For example in the game when you hit a controlled push draw you are coming from an inside out angle and hitting the ball with an open club face(not the .25 tempo. something closer to a .30) and maintaining or  adding loft to the club face with a slightly open face which replicates exactly what i'm talking about. The same thing but just the opposite if you play a slight pull fade in game.

 

If they would do this and incorporate this in the game it would absolutely boggle the mind. Still, i'm no programmer and have no idea how easy or hard that would be and what this might mess up. So, if it stays as is i'm fine with it just being based on ball speed which is what you see more than 90% of the time anyway.

[mebby]

tlvx, on 24 Feb 2016 - 5:36 PM, said:

Who's "hunting for problems"?

 

Do you think it's invalid to discover bugs when hitting well struck shots?

I'm done with this conversation because I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.

 

But to answer your question - it would seem that you are hunting for problems because you are finding issues with the physics at the very extreme ends of all available shots.  Who really hits a 122% 3 wood while trying to score well?  I'd be much more apt to just lay up at that point and find a better birdie opportunity.

 

My point is that I really do not care if something is amiss with a 122% 3 wood.  I care if something is wrong with a 95% to 110% 3 wood but could care less about 122% because I'm never going there anyway.  

[tlvx]

mebby, on 24 Feb 2016 - 5:55 PM, said:

I'm done with this conversation because I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.

 

But to answer your question - it would seem that you are hunting for problems because you are finding issues with the physics at the very extreme ends of all available shots.  Who really hits a 122% 3 wood while trying to score well?  I'd be much more apt to just lay up at that point and find a better birdie opportunity.

 

My point is that I really do not care if something is amiss with a 122% 3 wood.  I care if something is wrong with a 95% to 110% 3 wood but could care less about 122% because I'm never going there anyway.  

 

If you don't care if the physics are right with well struck shots, than why are you weighing in on the discussion, that you don't care whether the physics are right or not?

 

Obviously, you don't need to hunt for something if you know how to hit well struck shots. Everyone playing the game has the same physics.

 

Stop making excuses for the inaccuracies, and then trying to blame the messenger for having some kind of agenda for merely reporting these results.

 

Absolutely I have an agenda. And it's to improve the game. Not to sit here and be ridiculed for reporting bugs.

 

Trying to qualify bug reports to be within your personal play zone of "95% to 110%," while everyone else must have to be exactly like you... is just selfish and shortsighted.

 

No one cares that someone doesn't care that something isn't working, just because they personally don't even use it.

 

That doesn't give them the right to ridicule those that do utilize those features of the game, and in the course of using them, discover bugs.

[frank70]

wim1234, on 24 Feb 2016 - 5:19 PM, said:

it seems there will be always be nitpicky ppl around, sorry, but thats what seems to happen a lot now.

as long as the game is not realy released these observations have not much value.

and i doubt that at the extremes the devs will be able to get it exactly right.

sofar i am pretty impressed with the game, feels good, plays well.

I agree, the game feels good and plays good for the most part. And Mike gave an answer to the spin question in another thread.

 

Were i differ is the timing: Now is the time to discuss these things. We are in early access. We don't have to be on the same page on everything and opinions are always subjective. But i would say, that we all want PG to be released in an as realistic as possible state. That's the bread and butter of the game.

 

That we should all try to keep these discussions calm and without getting personal is without a question. I am not perfectly happy with the physics either (spin short game). But that doesn't mean that i am criticizing the devs by any means. We have already a great game in hand. But why shouldn't we try to make it even better?