119 replies to this topic

[Crow357]

Mike has already said what is going to happen, yet you refuse to accept that and move on.  I'm out.

[tlvx]

Crow357, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:39 AM, said:

Mike has already said what is going to happen, yet you refuse to accept that and move on.  I'm out.

 

No, he's basically said that by the time the Pro Shop add-ons roll around, we should be able to workaround the issue by buying equipment upgrades that apply some lipstick to a pig.

[jt83]

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:32 AM, said:

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.

 

That might be your problem.  I like seeing the conversation generated by your concerns, but the way you frame them can be obtuse.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar etc.

[AwYea]

One thing i agree with about these "gaps" he's talking about is out of the rough with the 3,4 & 5 irons not going far enough or high enough out of reasonable decent lies. I find my self hitting 6 iron or 2 hybird. I have seen slight improvement and they're not nose diving like before, but i think they could use some more tweaking. 

[Mike Jones]

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:52 AM, said:

No, he's basically said that by the time the Pro Shop add-ons roll around, we should be able to workaround the issue by buying equipment upgrades that apply some lipstick to a pig.

 

What issue are you talking about that I have not already made my points about?

[tlvx]

jt83, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:54 AM, said:

That might be your problem.  I like seeing the conversation generated by your concerns, but the way you frame them can be obtuse.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar etc.

 

Well then we all need to man-up and stop being so sensitive, then.

 

I haven't engaged in any name-calling, or tried to turn this personal. But, some users just cannot detach their video game build opinions from their feelings getting hurt.

 

If the physics progression was fixed to be more consistent with Tour golf... would we really have any further need for these types of discussions?

 

We could then talk about something else, more warm and fuzzy, right?

[tlvx]

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 02:57 AM, said:

What issue are you talking about that I have not already made my points about?

 

First you admit that the stuff doesn't add up... claiming to have some Pro Shop add-ons to make it more right.

 

Now you come in here putting your foot down like you don't give a rip whether it's realistic or not.

 

Which is it?

 

Why can't you just work on making the golf physics better?

[J.H.Buchanan]

 

[tlvx]

I've already posted videos of backspin drawback from the sand, here; on August 01, 2015:

http://www.perfectpa...sand#entry47412

 

What does a guy all but teeing it up in a bunker prove?

[Mike Jones]

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

First you admit that the stuff doesn't add up... claiming to have some Pro Shop add-ons to make it more right.

 

Now you come in here putting your foot down like you don't give a rip whether it's realistic or not.

 

Which is it?

 

Why can't you just work on making the golf physics better?

 

Can you find my post where I say stuff doesn't addup?

 

How am I putting my foot down - I'm completely allowing you to carry on with your ranting.

[tlvx]

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:26 AM, said:

Can you find my post where I say stuff doesn't addup?

 

How am I putting my foot down - I'm completely allowing you to carry on with your ranting.

 

Maybe if you decided to do something, instead of constantly making excuses and deflecting these discussions elsewhere... users wouldn't keep starting threads - of their own volition - about how something looks a bit wonky in the results during their game-play.

 

I'm not forcing guys to bring this stuff up. I'm just chiming in. Because while the physics keep getting pushed one way or another... the fundamentals are starting to look worse and worse.

 

Let's talk some actual numbers.

[Mike Jones]

There is a lull in the thread while tlvx goes back in a failed attempt to find his made up quote...

[tlvx]

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:31 AM, said:

There is a lull in the thread while tlvx goes back in a failed attempt to find his made up quote...

 

Do you really need me to quote you for you to own up to your own admission that you are aware of these issues?

 

The problem is that you make excuses for it, and are almost to a man enabled to do so by a lot of sorry, otherwise *grown-ups*, that somehow think that your feelings are more important than the accuracy of your video game golf physics.

 

Or, if none of the data put forth sticks... you just revert to calling it a, "game decision."

[Mike Jones]

You avoid any awkward answers by completely ignoring them or in a best case scenario misrepresenting them. 

[Mike Jones]

You can't accept that there are gameplay choices to be made and confuse them with what you incorrectly perceive to be unrealistic physics.

[bortimus]

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

 

 

I'm seeing these oddities probably a lot more often, because I play video golf games at their extremes. 

 

 

You sir, are my hero.

[tlvx]

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

You can't accept that there are gameplay choices to be made and confuse them with what you incorrectly perceive to be unrealistic physics.

 

So, then you really think a 3-Wood struck at center mass, at 122 mph, would go 235-240 yards total... but the same 3-Wood, when struck at only 100 mph, at the exact same spot on the club-face... would travel 260 to 265 yards?

 

Really?

[Mike Jones]

tlvx, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

So, then you really think a 3-Wood struck at center mass, at 122 mph, would go 235-240 yards total... but the same 3-Wood, when struck at only 100 mph, at the exact same spot on the club-face... would travel 260 to 265 yards?

 

Really?

 

Where do you get your 122 mph from?  Assuming that it was a mistake on your part and you actually mean 122% what were the spin rates on those shots and what were the launch angles? If the spin rate is too high, you're damn right that the total could be less on the one hit with a faster ball speed.

 

How is it that Justin Thomas can outdrive all those big guys with a slower CHS? Surely the guys creating more CHS would be outdriving him right? 

[tlvx]

Mike Jones, on 25 Feb 2016 - 03:46 AM, said:

Where do you get your 122 mph from?  Assuming that it was a mistake on your part and you actually mean 122% what were the spin rates on those shots and what were the launch angles? If the spin rate is too high, you're damn right that the total could be less on the one hit with a faster ball speed.

 

How is it that Justin Thomas can outdrive all those big guys with a slower CHS? Surely the guys creating more CHS would be outdriving him right? 

 

So then, if 122% is not meant to represent a swing speed of 122 mph (which I could have swore I saw a developer of this game post somewhere several months back) than what is 100% power and 122% power, with each club respectively meant to represent?

 

Or, are we just making the stuff up as we go along, when we start quoting Trackman numbers to justify the accuracy of the game?

 

Regardless, if those numbers meant a swing speed of 95 mph, and 105 mph... would the question of the 3-Wood ball speed physics working in reverse - in this game - have any less merit?

[Mike Jones]

Launch conditions.....

 

The pros spend their lives working on launch conditions and the equipment and techniques that will optimise those launch conditions. When we create a set of unoptimised launch conditions in the game so that people can have fun figuring out what they need to change to get the launch conditions they like so they can play the game in a way that suits them, you consider the physics 'broken'.

 

How are they broken, you surely can't deny that shots hit with the same CHS at different launch conditions IRL do not have completely different ball flight characteristics?