210 replies to this topic

[Greensboronclion]

Ok I was wrong and will now eat my helping of Crow as those of you who said RTSM was unbelievable were right. I can't believe how much fun that was playing a round of video golf and now I might be hooked. I can see a lot of range time coming up and my caddie Leonard is going to need a lot of beer but there is no turning back now.

[sirputterman]

___ buck ___, on 07 Mar 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

Clearly we will need leaderboards for absolutely every single possible thing…

…to be fair   

 

Should be about 4 people in each group at the end of the day...  LOL

 

 

Hacker 3C w/ wired keyboard

Hacker 3C w/ wireless keyboard

Hacker MS w/ wired mouse

Hacker MS w/ wireless mouse

Hacker RTS-M w/ wired mouse

Hacker RTS-M w/ wireless mouse

Hacker RTS-C w/ XBOX 360

Hacker RTS-C w XBOX One wired

Hacker RTS-C w XBOX One wireless

Hacker RTS-C w DS4 wired

Hacker RTS-C w DS4 wireless

Hacker RTS-C w "other" controllers

 

 

Amateur 3C w/ wired keyboard

Amateur 3C w/ wireless keyboard

Amateur MS w/ wired mouse

Amateur MS w/ wireless mouse

Amateur RTS-M w/ wired mouse

Amateur RTS-M w/ wireless mouse

Amateur RTS-C w/ XBOX 360

Amateur RTS-C w XBOX One wired

Amateur RTS-C w XBOX One wireless

Amateur RTS-C w DS4 wired

Amateur RTS-C w DS4 wireless

Amateur RTS-C w "other" controllers

 

 

Pro 3C w/ wired keyboard

Pro 3C w/ wireless keyboard

Pro MS w/ wired mouse

Pro MS w/ wireless mouse

Pro RTS-M w/ wired mouse

Pro RTS-M w/ wireless mouse

Pro RTS-C w/ XBOX 360

Pro RTS-C w XBOX One wired

Pro RTS-C w XBOX One wireless

Pro RTS-C w DS4 wired

Pro RTS-C w DS4 wireless

Pro RTS-C w "other" controllers

 

 

Tour Pro 3C w/ wired keyboard

Tour Pro 3C w/ wireless keyboard

Tour Pro MS w/ wired mouse

Tour Pro MS w/ wireless mouse

Tour Pro RTS-M w/ wired mouse

Tour Pro RTS-M w/ wireless mouse

Tour Pro RTS-C w/ XBOX 360

Tour Pro RTS-C w XBOX One wired

Tour Pro RTS-C w XBOX One wireless

Tour Pro RTS-C w DS4 wired

Tour Pro RTS-C w DS4 wireless

Tour Pro RTS-C w "other" controllers

 

umm you forgot to factor in age too. I mean a teen has far better reflexes and eyesight over an old fart like me so now take each of your  groupings and break that down to no more then a 5 year age difference bracket each. Have fun with that.  

[Richard]

sirputterman, on 08 Mar 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

umm you forgot to factor in age too. I mean a teen has far better reflexes and eyesight over an old fart like me so now take each of your  groupings and break that down to no more then a 5 year age difference bracket each. Have fun with that.

 

Don't forget 'right' vs 'left' handed. And male vs. female. We could divide the pie into almost infinite divisions.

[Buck]

Sounds like every single different person needs their own "leaderboard"

 

....and thus everyone is a "winner" and we now have the explanation for the American "Every kid gets a blue ribbon" situation.. 

 

(I'm American...making fun of my own here..)

[Richard]

___ buck ___, on 08 Mar 2016 - 01:16 AM, said:

Sounds like every single different person needs their own "leaderboard"

 

....and thus everyone is a "winner" and we now have the explanation for the American "Every kid gets a blue ribbon" situation.. 

 

(I'm American...making fun of my own here..)

 

Hit the nail on the head, you did, LOL

[AwYea]

Alright, i'm the jack azz.

 

I assumed a lot(old enough to know better) based on past experience with gamepad controllers and 3C. I also had a bias against both of these every since TW 04 and Links mouse swings.

 

I just tried on RTS-C AM and it's every bit as hard as RTSM or MS-M @ Am, it's just different. It's very good and much better than any gamepad control system i've used. I just couldn't force myself to use 3C, like i said it's honestly been 20 yrs, but i will assume, one last time...lol ,there are things about 3 click in PG i know nothing about.

 

Sorry once again, for misleading anyone and blowing up.

[Buck]

@AwYea:

 

MEGA kudos for owning it and coming back and correcting...

Post of the night!

[mebby]

AwYea, on 08 Mar 2016 - 01:50 AM, said:

Alright, i',m the jack azz.

 

I assumed a lot(old enough to know better) based on past experience with gamepad controllers and 3C. I also had a bias against both of these every since TW 04 and Links mouse swings.

 

I just tried on RTS-C AM and it's every bit as hard as RTSM or MS-M @ Am, it's just different. It's very good and much better than any gamepad control system i've used. I just couldn't force myself to use 3C, like i said it's honestly been 20 yrs, but i will assume, one last time...lol ,there are things about 3 click in PG i know nothing about.

 

Sorry once again, for misleading anyone and blowing up.

Hey buddy... welcome back!  Great post!  I tried to lack it but apparently there's a quota and it won't let me like any more posts today!  LOL

[Brendan]

Greensboronclion, on 08 Mar 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

Ok I was wrong and will now eat my helping of Crow as those of you who said RTSM was unbelievable were right. I can't believe how much fun that was playing a round of video golf and now I might be hooked. I can see a lot of range time coming up and my caddie Leonard is going to need a lot of beer but there is no turning back now.

welcome to many more late nights

[sirputterman]

And on that note I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. I think it really should be locked as anything else will pretty much be rehashing the same thing only worded differently.

 

I will sum up my feelings that I can understand wanting to play tournaments especially on "level field" so with that in mind if to keep peace for all if tournaments were set to be "exclusive" to a swing type then so be it. I will be honest and say that I think though for the moment it may make for some pretty small events. The same goes for general games, while in the future when there are many that play online I think having "specific lobbies " may be limiting amount of players available to join games. That doesn't mean in the future this feature may not  be in great demand and again if that happens then so be it. I guess the beauty of playing against different players of different swings you also get a different view of the game and those that play it. That in my opinion is never a bad thing. This is after all a social event as well as being a competitive one so I would ask please everyone keep an open mind when looking for a game in the lobby. You never know  but joining a game that may not be swing or difficulty restricted you might just meet some of the nicest people. No it isn't always going to be that way but when it happens it is a nice way to spend an hour or so.    

[Richard]

Great Post. Definitely worth framing.

 

[tlvx]

JoeF, on 07 Mar 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

Percent power and distance are not a 1:1 relationship. HIt your driver at 50% and it doesn't go 150 yards, more like 100-105. The same idea holds true as you hit with more power. At 122% on the range the total distance was 315 yards. So that 22% increase in power only yields an extra 15 yards. You create some additional distance (up to a point) but you create a lot more backspin. Once you get beyond this you start getting into the territory where you will really balloon your shot (PG toned down the balloon effect with the driver but it is still there for the other woods and long irons) and start losing distance as the excessive backspin causes the ball to climb steeply and the additional power is eaten up as the ball climbs rather than moving forward on a more linear path. One of the reasons for PG introducing different shaft and ball types down the road is to allow players to use shafts/balls that will allow them to get better trajectory control on their woods/long irons which cuts down on the ballooning effect when you overhit, much like the real pros do to keep their drives from ballooning.

While this is how this game works in principle, it does Not affect the Driver club specifically... which is why I reported it as a bug, starting with the 3-Wood. http://www.perfectpa...istance-broken/

It's not, "toned down," with the driver. The Driver simply doesn't do it. -- Nor should any of the other clubs, certainly not to that extreme extent, if the spin RPM is being calculated correctly... based on the correct launch angle and the correct swing speed.

The Driver - and all of the other clubs - for that matter, should probably increase their spin RPM at least a bit, when struck harder than a normal full swing. But, nowhere near the almost doubling of spin numbers that this game is doing with 3-Wood, within only 22% of extra power.

The ratio of over-spin should be similar to the high water mark for spin numbers that Tour professionals have been able to achieve, based on actual launch statistics. -- And, that's assuming that the game intends to mirror the best of a Tour professional's abilities.

Naturally, if we're talking about *averages* when we talk about game distances... than we should be talking about averages as it relates to spin generation, as well.

-- I know; less spin equates to more distance. But, if we're going to arbitrarily pick maximums, than - for realism's sake - we must be picking based on the same theoretic principles, that led to choosing the other maximum variables, based on the same primer within that Tour data.

http://www.pgatour.c...02402.2015.html
http://www.pgatour.c...02404.2015.html
http://www.pgatour.c...02405.2015.html

I digress...

Nevertheless, I'm curious as to what yardage you achieved with 135% power; because if it was the same yardage as 122% power, than clearly it's just a power percentage readout bug.

However, if the yardage actually does improve, above 122%, and only on a certain swing type... than, that's a huge game imbalance bug, that needs to be fixed.

[JoeF]

tlvx, on 08 Mar 2016 - 06:39 AM, said:

While this is how this game works in principle, it does Not affect the Driver club specifically... which is why I reported it as a bug, starting with the 3-Wood. http://www.perfectpa...istance-broken/

It's not, "toned down," with the driver. The Driver simply doesn't do it. -- Nor should any of the other clubs, certainly not to that extreme extent, if the spin RPM is being calculated correctly... based on the correct launch angle and the correct swing speed.

 

Within PG you are correct in that the driver doesn't balloon - because the spin rate has been "capped" so that it does not increase on shots hit beyond 100%.  MIke explained why in your initial thread on this topic.  In the real world the spin rate does increase and the driver will balloon, just like the rest of the woods and long irons do within the game and in real life.

The Driver - and all of the other clubs - for that matter, should probably increase their spin RPM at least a bit, when struck harder than a normal full swing. But, nowhere near the almost doubling of spin numbers that this game is doing with 3-Wood, within only 22% of extra power.

 

I'm not privy to the specific physics data PG is using but based on their use of real world data throughout the game I am skeptical that they would simply ignore it in this particular situation.  Can you provide data that shows that spin rates should behave as you believe they should?

The ratio of over-spin should be similar to the high water mark for spin numbers that Tour professionals have been able to achieve, based on actual launch statistics. -- And, that's assuming that the game intends to mirror the best of a Tour professional's abilities.

 

Tour professionals choose their equipment and hone their swings to reduce the amount of backspin they get on their drives and long clubs - to prevent ballooning.  In the future you will be able to do the same within PG by choosing appropriate shaft & ball combos and setting the proper ball trajectory, just as the pros do.  I think that the spin numbers we see within the game reflect the reality of the average golfer, not just pros.  It will be up to us to learn how to compensate accordingly using the tools at hand.

 

Many golfers fail to get maximum distance with their drivers. Amateur golfers commonly hit down with their drivers, like an iron shot. This causes the ball to come off the driver with too much backspin. Hitting a driver with too much backspin will cause the ball to balloon up in the air and land with no roll, resulting in lost distance. A good drive will come off the driver with a low amount of backspin, allowing the ball to roll forward when it hits the fairway. A proper setup, weight shift and swing will help you hit your driver with reduced backspin.

Naturally, if we're talking about *averages* when we talk about game distances... than we should be talking about averages as it relates to spin generation, as well.

 

Who says they aren't?

-- I know; less spin equates to more distance. But, if we're going to arbitrarily pick maximums, than - for realism's sake - we must be picking based on the same theoretic principles, that led to choosing the other maximum variables, based on the same primer within that Tour data.

http://www.pgatour.c...02402.2015.html
http://www.pgatour.c...02404.2015.html
http://www.pgatour.c...02405.2015.html

I digress...

Nevertheless, I'm curious as to what yardage you achieved with 135% power; because if it was the same yardage as 122% power, than clearly it's just a power percentage readout bug.

 

Total distance was in the upper 320's.

However, if the yardage actually does improve, above 122%, and only on a certain swing type... than, that's a huge game imbalance bug, that needs to be fixed.

 

Does the PGA try and fix the difference in driving length between Bubba Watson and Justin Leonard?  Does Justin Leonard complain that the difference needs to be fixed?  

 

If you can pull off the shot you reap the reward, but the risk you take becomes exponentially greater if you don't.

[tlvx]

JoeF, on 08 Mar 2016 - 3:25 PM, said:

Within PG you are correct in that the driver doesn't balloon - because the spin rate has been "capped" so that it does not increase on shots hit beyond 100%.  MIke explained why in your initial thread on this topic.  In the real world the spin rate does increase and the driver will balloon, just like the rest of the woods and long irons do within the game and in real life.

 

This game is based on Tour golf metrics. Name a single Tour golfer that has his drives - or any other shots - that, suffer catastrophic distance loss effects from, "ballooning."

 

I'm not privy to the specific physics data PG is using but based on their use of real world data throughout the game I am skeptical that they would simply ignore it in this particular situation.  Can you provide data that shows that spin rates should behave as you believe they should?

 

Than, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that what we see is correct... if it's not what we see Tour players doing on Tour.

 

Placing arbitrary Spin numbers into a calculator, without respect to the correct launch trajectory... is just not supported according to science, nor mathematics.

 

Tour professionals choose their equipment and hone their swings to reduce the amount of backspin they get on their drives and long clubs - to prevent ballooning.  In the future you will be able to do the same within PG by choosing appropriate shaft & ball combos and setting the proper ball trajectory, just as the pros do.  I think that the spin numbers we see within the game reflect the reality of the average golfer, not just pros.  It will be up to us to learn how to compensate accordingly using the tools at hand.

 

So, than... since the game physics have always been based on Tour metrics; such inconsistencies with the game's stock equipment should never have existed.

 

Many golfers fail to get maximum distance with their drivers. Amateur golfers commonly hit down with their drivers, like an iron shot. This causes the ball to come off the driver with too much backspin. Hitting a driver with too much backspin will cause the ball to balloon up in the air and land with no roll, resulting in lost distance. A good drive will come off the driver with a low amount of backspin, allowing the ball to roll forward when it hits the fairway. A proper setup, weight shift and swing will help you hit your driver with reduced backspin.

 

Again, This game is based on Tour metrics... not Amateur golf. So, the stock equipment should have the same consistencies that a Tour player would have.

Total distance was in the upper 320's.

 

I'd like to see a screen-shot of that.

 

Does the PGA try and fix the difference in driving length between Bubba Watson and Justin Leonard?  Does Justin Leonard complain that the difference needs to be fixed?  

 

So, 3-Clickers get to be Bubba Watson, while all other swing types are forced to be Justin Leonard?

 

Did you not really just hear yourself say that?

 

If you can pull off the shot you reap the reward, but the risk you take becomes exponentially greater if you don't.

 

A bug is a bug. If the game power is not designed to exceed 122%... than, there's no "reward" for exceeding the maximum power the game provides. It's nothing more than a game bug.

 

I'm skeptical as to the actual distance achieved with said bug... because, without the video to prove it, it all seems much more of a ruse than anything else.

 

I mean, if you really were weird enough to believe that game imbalances should exist for no other reason than a single user's delusions of being entitled to become a virtual Bubba Watson... than, why would you let such an advantageous exploit out of the bag?

[JoeF]

tlvx, on 08 Mar 2016 - 5:12 PM, said:

 

JoeF, on 08 Mar 2016 - 3:25 PM, said:

Within PG you are correct in that the driver doesn't balloon - because the spin rate has been "capped" so that it does not increase on shots hit beyond 100%.  MIke explained why in your initial thread on this topic.  In the real world the spin rate does increase and the driver will balloon, just like the rest of the woods and long irons do within the game and in real life.

 

This game is based on Tour golf metrics. Name a single Tour golfer that has his drives - or any other shots - that, suffer catastrophic distance loss effects from, "ballooning."

 

 

Oh, really?  I was under the understanding that the game was based on the real world physics that affect a golf ball, not just Tour data.  Tour players don't suffer "catastrophic" distance loss from ballooning because they have learned how to avoid it.  You will have to learn that too.

 

I'm not privy to the specific physics data PG is using but based on their use of real world data throughout the game I am skeptical that they would simply ignore it in this particular situation.  Can you provide data that shows that spin rates should behave as you believe they should?

 

Than, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that what we see is correct... if it's not what we see Tour players doing on Tour.

 

Nor should we assume that the game is based solely on what tour players can do.  By the way, the word is "then" not "than".

 

Tour professionals choose their equipment and hone their swings to reduce the amount of backspin they get on their drives and long clubs - to prevent ballooning.  In the future you will be able to do the same within PG by choosing appropriate shaft & ball combos and setting the proper ball trajectory, just as the pros do.  I think that the spin numbers we see within the game reflect the reality of the average golfer, not just pros.  It will be up to us to learn how to compensate accordingly using the tools at hand.

 

So, than... since the game physics have always been based on Tour metrics, such inconsistencies with the game's stock equipment should never have existed.

 

I can't assert, unequivocally, that the game physics are based solely on tour metrics.  Like I said it has always been my understanding that they are based on real world physics - which would apply to all golfers of all skills.

 

Many golfers fail to get maximum distance with their drivers. Amateur golfers commonly hit down with their drivers, like an iron shot. This causes the ball to come off the driver with too much backspin. Hitting a driver with too much backspin will cause the ball to balloon up in the air and land with no roll, resulting in lost distance. A good drive will come off the driver with a low amount of backspin, allowing the ball to roll forward when it hits the fairway. A proper setup, weight shift and swing will help you hit your driver with reduced backspin.

 

Again, This game is based on Tour metrics... not Amateur golf. So, the equipment should have the same consistencies that a Tour player would have.

 

See above.    

Total distance was in the upper 320's.

 

I'd like to see a screen-shot of that.

 

Sorry, didn't take one.

 

Does the PGA try and fix the difference in driving length between Bubba Watson and Justin Leonard?  Does Justin Leonard complain that the difference needs to be fixed?  

 

So, 3-Clickers get to be Bubba Watson, and all other swing types get to be Justin Leonard? Did you not really just hear yourself say that?

 

I seem to remember you play 3C, so lucky you! - if you can pull the shot off.  I have no idea if other shot types can do it as well or not and don't really care.  Since I play RTS-M or RTS-C I don't go there, the reward is not worth the risk.

 

If you can pull off the shot you reap the reward, but the risk you take becomes exponentially greater if you don't.

 

A bug is a bug. If the game power is not designed to exceed 122%... than, there's no "reward" for breaking the game. It's just a game bug.

 

Who says the game was designed not to exceed 122% since, as we see, it does?  You're making an assumption.  Again.

 

I'm skeptical as to the actual distance... because, without the video to prove it, it all seems much more of a ruse than anything else.

 

Why would you think it's all a ruse?  

 

I mean, if you really were weird enough to believe that game imbalances should exist for no other reason than a single user's delusions of being entitled to become a virtual Bubba Watson... than, why would you let such an advantageous exploit out of the bag?

 

Because my world does not revolve around trying to beat everybody else.  Everyone is entitled to the information.

 

[tlvx]

JoeF, on 08 Mar 2016 - 5:56 PM, said:

 

 

JoeF, on 08 Mar 2016 - 3:25 PM, said:

 

By the way, the word is "then" not "than".

 

Your entire argument is a fail when you try to play the word police, and ignorantly get it wrong.

 

Try to learn the difference between then and than, before you put your foot in your mouth again.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...sage/than-then/

 

Example: After you examine the references alluded to in this post, you should then have a better understanding of the aforementioned grammar. Other than that, I cannot make you understand the difference between the two words.

[JoeF]

tlvx, on 08 Mar 2016 - 6:04 PM, said:

Your entire argument is a fail when you try to play the word police, and ignorantly get it wrong.

 

Try to learn the difference between then and than, before you put your foot in your mouth again.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...sage/than-then/

 

Hoisted on your own petard once again.  

 

To help distinguish between the two words, remember that than has no one-word synonyms. It is a one-of-a-kind word. To illustrate, try thinking of a single word to replace than in “My breakfast is better than yours.” There isn’t one. Then, in contrast, has many synonyms and often bears replacement with an equivalent word or phrase.

 

"Than, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that what we see is correct"

 

At this point, we shouldn't be so quick to assume....

Now, we shouldn't be so quick to assume....

[tlvx]

JoeF, on 08 Mar 2016 - 6:16 PM, said:

Hoisted on your own petard once again.  

 

To help distinguish between the two words, remember that than has no one-word synonyms. It is a one-of-a-kind word. To illustrate, try thinking of a single word to replace than in “My breakfast is better than yours.” There isn’t one. Then, in contrast, has many synonyms and often bears replacement with an equivalent word or phrase.

 

"Than, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that what we see is correct"

 

At this point, we shouldn't be so quick to assume....

Now, we shouldn't be so quick to assume....

 

So, now you are trying to change what I've said. You are not the writer. So, you don't get to decide whether the writer is referencing a time, or an alternate idea. But, you should be smart enough to know how to tell the difference when it's written as such.

 

Try to keep up;

 

Then is in regards to a specific time. First I brush my teeth, and then I depart home for work.

 

Than is in regards to an alternate idea. If I haven't brushed my teeth, than why did I depart home for work?

 

If the statement is not in regards to time, than the correct usage is than.

 

 

Not there yet? Here is another example.

 

Back then, we used to have wired headphones.

 

If we still prefer wired headphones, than why would we purchase wireless ones?

 

I see how it can be confusing. But you can actually have both words in one sentence to drive home the difference.

 

If we still prefer wired headphones, than why would we go to the store and then purchase wireless ones?

 

Than, describes the alternate idea. Then references the point in time that this occurs.

[mebby]

Um... wow.

[Golden Bear]

Giggity giggity, that is not all folks.