Jump to content


Photo

Backspin


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#41 Vernon520

Vernon520

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • LocationWestcliff-on-Sea, Essex. U.K

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:17 PM

IMO the whole argument is flawed anyway what ever your leaning is.

The fact remains, that no matter how many times you hit a ball using the same club, there will always be variants in the final result.

There are so many factors involved when hitting a golf ball that to believe that any results would be absolutely consistent is beyond the realms of probability.

Yes, you can have balls behaving similarly, within a tight range but you will also get the odd outlier now and then.

Personally I find the physics very acceptable and enjoy the odd, unexpected ball or two.


  • mebby likes this

#42 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:55 PM

AwYea, on 24 Feb 2016 - 9:55 PM, said:

I swore i was going to let this go but it has to be said because tlvx is misleading people. tlvx you can spout trackman numbers till your blue in the face but a trackman or any other device out there only records the launch RPM spin rate.

 

In order for it to truly track bite or suck back it would have to track the RPM spin rate for the total flight of the ball and record the landing RPM spin rate and factor time in air.

 

Please drop this. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Whatever you say. Real numbers don't lie.

 

Stating that there are other elements at play, without being able to articulate those data, as it relates to the discussion at hand... does not make someone else, "know what they're talking about," either.

 

I never stated that there was only one element to launch data. If I did, than where's the quote?

 

But, clearly you are trying to make a separate point. But, until you state that point, and the facts to back it up, than we cannot really discern if you know what you're talking about, or are even on the same train of thought as the discussion at hand.



#43 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:57 PM

Vernon520, on 24 Feb 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

IMO the whole argument is flawed anyway what ever your leaning is.

The fact remains, that no matter how many times you hit a ball using the same club, there will always be variants in the final result.

There are so many factors involved when hitting a golf ball that to believe that any results would be absolutely consistent is beyond the realms of probability.

Yes, you can have balls behaving similarly, within a tight range but you will also get the odd outlier now and then.

Personally I find the physics very acceptable and enjoy the odd, unexpected ball or two.

 

The video game has absolutes... it's not like real life. Hit a good snap at a certain power percentage, within the flat practice facility, and anyone can absolutely hit the same shot over and over again, within a yard.

 

But, for sake of the discussion. If we assume we cannot extrapolate the relevant ball-flight trends from the vast amount of launch data from actual Tour players, than that's what a Golf Robot is for.



#44 Crow357

Crow357

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 4,670 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:37 PM

As I said in the other tlvx thread, I'm pretty sure that there is no game on the planet that could ever possibly hope to meet tlvx's exacting standards.


Win 10, i7-7700 @4.2 ghz, 16GB DDR4, EVGA GTX 1080
Swing Type: Tour Pro Wireless XBox 360 Controller.

#45 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:49 PM

Crow357, on 24 Feb 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

As I said in the other tlvx thread, I'm pretty sure that there is no game on the planet that could ever possibly hope to meet tlvx's exacting standards.

 

Doesn't mean anything.

 

You're willing to accept some well-defined fundamental errors as it relates to golf physics, so long as you can play within your lane.

 

I'm not willing to just accept that we can break the game by hitting the ball within the scope of the game's own limits.

 

-- And all this excuse making and pandering to the development team, and ridiculing anyone that reports fundamental flaws within the game - does not make the game better.



#46 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:53 PM

tlvx, on 24 Feb 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

Doesn't mean anything.

You're willing to accept some well-defined fundamental errors as it relates to golf physics, so long as you can play within your lane.

I'm not willing to just accept that we can break the game by hitting the ball within the scope of the game's own limits.


So perhaps you should go develop you're on game.

You seem to have a lot of good ideas.

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


#47 jt83

jt83

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:55 PM

Crow357, on 24 Feb 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

As I said in the other tlvx thread, I'm pretty sure that there is no game on the planet that could ever possibly hope to meet tlvx's exacting standards.

 

Seems like Perfect Golf is getting close though...



#48 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:58 PM

mebby, on 24 Feb 2016 - 11:53 PM, said:

So perhaps you should go develop you're on game.

You seem to have a lot of good ideas.

 

Reporting a bug - regarding a fundamental flaw in ball flight in a golf game - does not mean the entire game needs to be binned.

 

But, glitches in the fundamentals of golf, should be addressed with a bit more priority - in a golf simulation - shouldn't they?

 

Are you saying that the developers do not have the wherewithal to improve the physics in this game, as it relates to real golf physics... nor should they, simply because you personally don't mind, because you are willing to just always layup as a workaround?

 

It may seem like I'm making a big deal of it, and not giving the developers a break... but, I honestly don't think that it's that difficult of a fix, in light of the variable ball-flight physics already being employed within the same golf bag.

 

A few factors just need to be tweaked to have more or less impact on the shot... that's it.

 

But, it's like - after a year of messing around with different bounces and what not - they haven't even begun to more accurately address the fundamentals of ball-flight. In many respects, the ball-flight physics have actually regressed, over the last 6 months or so.

 

Anyone that has been keeping track of the specific changes can see that the results are not quite there yet.

 

Are we all going to just be okay with some broken golf physics, in a golf game, when they can be tweaked and improved at any time?
 



#49 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:16 AM

mebby, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

No. I'm saying you're an asshole.

 

Okay. So, you cannot accept that someone else would like the game to improve, so you resort to name-calling.

 

Real slick. Real mature.



#50 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:18 AM

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

Okay. So, you cannot accept that someone else would like the game to improve, so you resort to name-calling.

Real slick. Real mature.


Thanks. Glad you enjoyed my assessment.

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


#51 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:22 AM

mebby, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed my assessment.

 

Being able to agree to disagree without childish name-calling, throwing vulgarities around... is what separates a legitimate debate from an argument.

 

Let's try to keep it above board. I can't make you change your willingness to placate the flaws within the game... nor can you force me to accept certain flaws within the game.

 

But, let's keep it there.



#52 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:45 AM

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:22 AM, said:

Being able to agree to disagree without childish name-calling, throwing vulgarities around... is what separates a legitimate debate from an argument.

 

Let's try to keep it above board. I can't make you change your willingness to placate the flaws within the game... nor can you force me to accept certain flaws within the game.

 

But, let's keep it there.

Fair enough.  I think things can always be improved.  No doubt.  I just honestly don't agree with finding fault in the very far fringes of the game.  If those faults highlight issues that affect gameplay to the point that it makes us wonder if the core physics are properly built then I'd completely agree with your points.  But I don't agree so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.


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


#53 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:51 AM

mebby, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

Fair enough.  I think things can always be improved.  No doubt.  I just honestly don't agree with finding fault in the very far fringes of the game.  If those faults highlight issues that affect gameplay to the point that it makes us wonder if the core physics are properly built then I'd completely agree with your points.  But I don't agree so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

But, you've already laid out your strategic bias towards playing within a more modest ball striking speed.

 

I'm seeing these oddities probably a lot more often, because I play video golf games at their extremes. -- And trust me, there are guys that go for broke way more than I do, out there.

 

So, you have to put yourself in someone else's shoes... if they tend to have more utilization within certain features of a game, that happen to break down for them.

 

I cannot accept these kind of flaws within the scope of a golf game, because when I see a green light special, I want to be able to have a club that checks up, rather than zips back too much, or bounds forward. - And, I can absolutely figure out the in-between shots, if playable shots exist.

 

The golf game doesn't have to let us hit the ball 400 yards,either. But, if the golf game lets us hit the ball 315, and when reaching that point, the game physics crash the game, or start subtracting yards instead of adding... than, I'm not willing to just accept the workaround of playing at 290. In that example, the game should simply have a limit of 290, instead.



#54 Mike Jones

Mike Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 6,159 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:01 AM

tlvx, on 24 Feb 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

Doesn't mean anything.

 

You're willing to accept some well-defined fundamental errors as it relates to golf physics, so long as you can play within your lane.

 

I'm not willing to just accept that we can break the game by hitting the ball within the scope of the game's own limits.

 

-- And all this excuse making and pandering to the development team, and ridiculing anyone that reports fundamental flaws within the game - does not make the game better.

 

Seems you're confusing physics with gameplay. If we define our swing interface to put more spin on the ball at higher balls speeds that is not a physics error that is all other things being equal a fact.

 

It's also a fact that once the spin rate is high enough it will overcome any extra ball speed and you will start to lose carry and roll distance. You may disagree with our gameplay decision to increase spin on more than a linear curve but again that has nothing to do with physics as it's entirely possible for that to happen in the real world depending on equipment.

 

What you're really saying is that you don't agree with our gameplay decision to do this and you're entitled to your own opinion but the reasons for doing it are very relevant to the fun of playing the game and gives us leeway for people to customise their game style in the future.


  • JoeF, cajuncapgun and AwYea like this

#55 AwYea

AwYea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationWest Virginia

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:08 AM

tlvx, on 24 Feb 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

Whatever you say. Real numbers don't lie.

 

Stating that there are other elements at play, without being able to articulate those data, as it relates to the discussion at hand... does not make someone else, "know what they're talking about," either.

 

I never stated that there was only one element to launch data. If I did, than where's the quote?

 

But, clearly you are trying to make a separate point. But, until you state that point, and the facts to back it up, than we cannot really discern if you know what you're talking about, or are even on the same train of thought as the discussion at hand.

 

I don't know if you're trolling or being serious. I have practically wrote a dissertation in this thread on this topic. I can't comprehend how you can say i haven't stated my point and backed it up with facts.

 

There is a dichotomy when it comes to creating spin and suck back.

 

-A guy like Phil Mickelson can probably spin the ball back better than anybody in the world  under perfect conditions(soft greens) with his club and ball speed who are swinging the club at 125 mph+.

 

-There are guys who can spin the ball back better than P Mickelson under tougher conditions(hard greens) with lesser club head speed who actually pinch the ball at a shallower angle and leave a skid mark and slight divot. They are maintaining the loft of the clubface through impact longer, rather than taking a deep divot of a power player who is releasing their hands more through impact and closing the clubface. The ball comes off the face quicker and doesn't stick to the club face as long as people with slower swings who maintain the the loft through the impact area longer.

 

That's why i said earlier it would be great if they gave you a spin bonus for hitting a slight push draw or pull fade at 100% without having to hit the ball at 122% to generate the spin and suck back as it is now. The D plane physics and numbers are already there.

 

That's another thing...you're basing all of this hitting everything at 122%. Have you even tried Tour Pro in this game?

 

I'm honestly doing by best to relate with you but it seems you only listen to yourself. Making statements the game is fundamentally flawed and Devs are ignoring is ridiculous. I would really like to see the Golf Channel use their simulator with the Perfect Golf software and ask the pros which is more accurate concerning spin and suck back. I bet PG would win hands down compared to the software they're using now to display the shots.


PG + OGT & MP = Golfing Bliss! 

Steam-ahhyeaa


#56 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:11 AM

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

Seems you're confusing physics with gameplay. If we define our swing interface to put more spin on the ball at higher balls speeds that is not a physics error that is all other things being equal a fact.

 

It's also a fact that once the spin rate is high enough it will overcome any extra ball speed and you will start to lose carry and roll distance. You may disagree with our gameplay decision to increase spin on more than a linear curve but again that has nothing to do with physics as it's entirely possible for that to happen in the real world depending on equipment.

 

What you're really saying is that you don't agree with our gameplay decision to do this and you're entitled to your own opinion but the reasons for doing it are very relevant to the fun of playing the game and gives us leeway for people to customise their game style in the future.

 

So, your game is Arcade then. Am I hearing that right?  "Creative License."

 

Or, was it ever meant to simulate ball-flight as it relates to what actual players record in real Tour golf?

 

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it belongs in a golf game; otherwise, increase the possible swing speed to 150 mph. - No? -- Didn't think so.

 

But, it's preposturous, to have excessive over-spin, to have more of an impact on ball flight, than requisite ball speed and launch angle... in light of the fact that no player on any top golf Tour has the problems that exist in the game.



#57 Mike Jones

Mike Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 6,159 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:19 AM

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 01:11 AM, said:

So, your game is Arcade then. Am I hearing that right?  "Creative License."

 

Or, was it ever meant to simulate ball-flight as it relates to what actual players record in real Tour golf.

 

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it belongs in a golf game. But, it's preposturous, to have excessive spin, to have more of an impact on ball flight, than requisite ball speed and launch angle... in light of the fact that no player on any top golf Tour has the problems that exist in the game.

 

It's a game, it will always be a game unless you're hitting with real balls and real equipment and when you do that with the PG physics engine it stacks up very nicely with Trackman which is the industry standard for ball tracking. Don't take my word for it, ask the guys who play it in the sims. 


  • zmax - sim likes this

#58 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:26 AM

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 01:19 AM, said:

It's a game, it will always be a game unless you're hitting with real balls and real equipment and when you do that with the PG physics engine it stacks up very nicely with Trackman which is the industry standard for ball tracking. Don't take my word for it, ask the guys who play it in the sims. 

 

How many Tour players are playing this game, "in the sims"?

 

Why do you always try to deflect and change the subject?

 

Take any Tour players trackman numbers, that has a swing-speed within the scope of this game, and extrapolate their actual distance statistics with the results that they would otherwise get in this game. Does it add up?

 

Also, I don't know anyone on Tour that has a 3-Wood, that plays like a 7-Wood, or a 6-Iron, when they decide to muscle up and strike it harder. I know some amateurs that might do that... But, that's not what's going on here, now is it?

 

I don't see anyone on Tour that has a first bounce like the low skip that this video game produces on every single approach. (You should know... because there was a time that this game has had the opposite - excessive bouncing effect.)

 

And, the drawback with the wedges should probably exist somewhere between the last build and this one.

 

What's so hard about making the game pass the eye test... without getting your feelings hurt in the process of discussing the actual state of this game?

 

You don't seem to understand the problem with having glaring ball-flight issues in a video golf game. Well, let me lay it out for you.

 

It messes up the ability to employ realistic golf strategy, when players are in-between clubs moreso than they should be, with the same equipment that a Tour player could simply muscle up, or trap, or vice versa... by choking down, and moving forward in their stance, etc.

 

Further, being in-between clubs is not the half of it... there are several areas where there exist distance gaps - black-holes - which otherwise would be green-light distances at any level - that simply cannot be attained, not at any percentage with any club, in this game.

 

I've tried all of the clubs, at all of the percentages, and far too many gaps go unabridged, due to excessive over-spin facors, or the lack of launch angle factors being applied in this game, which should be far more in line with what occurs on Tour.

 

You want numbers? I can give you numbers. There are several black-holes within this equipment, and no amount of Pro Shop upgrades would fix the fundamental issues. Nor should users be subject to such a system, to have their equipment progress correctly... or at least, have the requisite factors to ball-flight be weighted in a more realistic way.



#59 Crow357

Crow357

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 4,670 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 02:22 AM

Gimmie your address.  I'll send you your $19.99 back.


Win 10, i7-7700 @4.2 ghz, 16GB DDR4, EVGA GTX 1080
Swing Type: Tour Pro Wireless XBox 360 Controller.

#60 tlvx

tlvx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 02:32 AM

Crow357, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:22 AM, said:

Gimmie your address.  I'll send you your $19.99 back.

 

You can say that I'm not as gracious as the main crowd is here in the forums, over a game that's worth every bit of twenty dollars.

 

But you cannot say that this stuff has no merit. You can dismiss it, simply because you don't care about the accuracy of a golf game that claims that it produces results "within 2%" of actual Tour numbers.

 

Everyone here knows for a fact that no one on any Professional Golf Tour with a swing speed at or near 122 mph, has a 3-Wood that only goes a grand total of 230 to 240 yards, at their hardest possible strike... but, simultaneously has a driver that can go all the way to 315 yards, on a flat surface.... when hit with the exact same swing speed.

 

That just doesn't add up... any way we try to justify it... unless there is an actual mishit involved, on top of some serious stance adjustments made.

 

In this game, it's also impossible not to lose any distance with almost all of the other clubs, including the wedges, by hitting the ball harder into the overswing area... at any trajectory, even with a perfect strike.  That just doesn't jibe.

 

Why can't we hit punch shots in this game? Do we need another "canned" shot type to be able to do something that simple club/stance/ball manipulation should be able to produce?

 

In Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2014, you can make the ball skip over some water, on Augusta, and land on the green... just like the pros do every year... without switching to any canned shot types.

 

But, that game is supposed to be old news.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users