51 replies to this topic

[Dazmaniac]

My uncle and I joke about this every time we play.....hard fairways and one of us will gently roll 2" into the rough and somehow it will often be a 20%+ penalty...
 
Umm... Seems a bit hard to believe...  
Does make us laugh at least I guess?  

B,

Your experience sounds like what they will encounter at Oakmont in a few weeks, lol.

Miss the fairway by 6 inches..... pass the LW, lol.

[Buck]

B,

Your experience sounds like what they will encounter at Oakmont in a few weeks, lol.

Miss the fairway by 6 inches..... pass the LW, lol.

 

Brutal!

[Harvester]

IMHO, The wind is really close to real life.

 

Other games have always seemed WAY over baked in the wind department.  In real life the ball flight is changed more as the speed lowers and if you are protected by trees also when it is higher.  To my eye (with full tracer on) the ball flight looks like what I see in real life.

 

If there is a problem I would think it's how the penalty is applied for missed snaps/missed tempo/bad swing alignment....

[spy88]

Back to the rough and I understand what Andrew was saying and agree BUT.....where a 4I may have a 20% loss in power a 7w has only a 10% so where I can not get to the green with the 4i I can with the wood.  In real golf would they use a wood out of a 3 or 4" rough?  Also how does the wind affect the flight of the ball on a course with no trees? Hope that's not a stupid question. 

 

The 3W, 5W and 7W will work out of rough but may not travel very far, and this is because the face angle increases from the driver down. This causes less resistance thru the rough.  Hybrids (1H or 2H) are by far, even better yet.  These clubs were designed in part, to help slide thru rough with less resistance.  Their face angle helps lift the ball out of the rough much  better than any mid-iron or fairway wood.

 

The use of a 3, 5 or 7W all depends on factors such as lie and distance to green.  Pros...If the lie in the rough has little to no grass/weed/rocks between the ball and where the club would hit it, then they might consider using one.  If there is considerable grass/weed/rocks or any other obstacle where the club impacts, they'll consider the best club for that.  Remember...as Johnny Miller once said "When you get in trouble, get the hell out of it."  Meaning, even if you only hit it 50' to get it back in play, do it.  Don't try heroics!  It'll most likely worsen your position.  JNPG is a sim but course management still applies.

 

The wind on a course without trees will always have an effect.  Not a stupid Q at all. 

[spy88]

Early in the Sim BETA days I did begin to look into the rough penalties, but other things took precedence unfortunately.

 

Were working from a couple of interesting articles regarding both ball speed reduction, and also spin reduction, when hitting from the rough

 

http://shortgamesecr...-created-equall

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...tpc-scottsdale/

Thank you for your input John but both links go to the same page.  Also, he's discussing different depth, grass type and direction of the grass.  I'm not positive, but can one seriously program the nuances of this in the programming (not to mention different course locations and lies)?  If so, then why can't flight physics also be programmable?  All I'm looking for is can it be done or not?  Thank you.

[spy88]

I dont really understand 1) so I will skip that... Are you saying that a ball starts off fading and then starts to draw? 

Andrew, these are perfect examples of what I am trying to say...

 

 

The ball does NOT continue working right to left from tee to ground.  All I'm asking...is incorporating this into JNPG possible from a programming standpoint? 

[frank70]

I remember one of the earlier builts where it was possible to get an sidespin effect on the green when playing the shot with a curve. This is gone. And i miss it. I see pros using that a lot to get to certain pin positions.

[johnmeyer]

Wierd how those links are the same,  the first article was this one

 

http://shortgamesecr...-created-equall

 

We were just using them as reference as to whether the panalties were correct. From the previously linked articles, (annoyingly the images arent opening correclty, but you can right click them and open them) in thick rough his ball speed dropped from 121mph to 87mph, so in game we'd see that as a 28% distance penalty

 

Spin wise it was dramatic, with it dropping from 7200 down to 1300, so would be a 78% spin penalty.

 

However is the "better"  rough lie. the "distance" penalty in PG would be 6%, but with spin dropping from 7200 to 3200, a 56% penalty, this actually caused the carry numbers to be the same.

 

Having some Sim Pass issues, but will plug the numbers back into GC2 later and see how PG compares, but in recollect the effect of the above did hold true in PG as it did in real life.

 

My thinking at the time was that generally the "distance" penalties were at times too severe, and the spin penalties not remotely severe enough. Whether this balances out in game or not Im not so sure.  

 

The article that ive now linked above also backs up that in 2" rough the spin penalties can be up to 70%

[robbiet71]

I don't think the ball continues to work right to left from tee to ground. What I see is the ball turning to a point beyond the apex and then as it loses its spin it continues on a straighter path and that is when the wind will sometimes push it back a little. I play RTS M. Don't know about other swing methods, but I must say the ball does swing more when I tried 3C. But I generally find that an unrealistic mode anyway.

[frank70]

Wierd how those links are the same,  the first article was this one

 

http://shortgamesecr...-created-equall

 

We were just using them as reference as to whether the panalties were correct. From the previously linked articles, (annoyingly the images arent opening correclty, but you can right click them and open them) in thick rough his ball speed dropped from 121mph to 87mph, so in game we'd see that as a 28% distance penalty

 

Spin wise it was dramatic, with it dropping from 7200 down to 1300, so would be a 78% spin penalty.

 

However is the "better"  rough lie. the "distance" penalty in PG would be 6%, but with spin dropping from 7200 to 3200, a 56% penalty, this actually caused the carry numbers to be the same.

 

Having some Sim Pass issues, but will plug the numbers back into GC2 later and see how PG compares, but in recollect the effect of the above did hold true in PG as it did in real life.

 

My thinking at the time was that generally the "distance" penalties were at times too severe, and the spin penalties not remotely severe enough. Whether this balances out in game or not Im not so sure.  

 

The article that ive now linked above also backs up that in 2" rough the spin penalties can be up to 70%

Spin penalty isn't severe enough. It's a big problem at scrambling as well. Chips and pitches and flops back up way too much/fast. Makes getting up and down way easier than it should be. Scrambling stats in the tournaments show this.

[tlvx]

Spin penalty isn't severe enough. It's a big problem at scrambling as well. Chips and pitches and flops back up way too much/fast. Makes getting up and down way easier than it should be. Scrambling stats in the tournaments show this.

I agree with Flops appearing to have more bite than they would on Tour.

But, if you Flop on Tour Pro level, at stimp 14, with anything other than a 64 degree wedge... the ball will roll out.

So, some of it is just that Tour players are choosing to hit Flop shots from arguably worse situations; with the green sloping away, short-sided, using wedges with less loft.

As far as spin out of the rough, for approaches... it seems to depend on how far away from the green you are.

So, longer clubs don't tend to bite out of the rough. But, wedges are able to bite, just like they do in real golf.

Certain shots that have been hit out of the rough simply cannot be duplicated in this game. Like the Y.E. Yang approach in the 2014 PGA Championship, on the 72nd hole.

I don't think they can add any more penalty out of the rough, and have it play any more realistically. It's already really tricky to find clubs to hit with over 20% rough penalties, because the penalty keeps increasing, until you have way too much club, anyway.

[johnmeyer]

The test for me would be though, if you had a severe spin penalty, ie, 70% ish, would that reduction in spin give you the increased yardage to negate some of the distance penalty, as in the "better" rough lie in real life.  Personally I think if anything the "distance" penalty for the most part could come down, and the spin penalty increase substantially across the board

[Chughes82]

I agree. A little more of the "flyer" effect may play more realistically.

[worrybirdie]

B,

Your experience sounds like what they will encounter at Oakmont in a few weeks, lol.

Miss the fairway by 6 inches..... pass the LW, lol.

Actually they are using graduated rough at Oakmont. So, just don't miss it by more than 2 feet!

[johnmeyer]

Checked the numbers using GC2, and the game physics do indeed behave as per the real life results, ie, you hit a shot with minimal reduced ball speed, but massively less spin and the carry does in fact  equate or even increase, so the physics are in place.

 

As this is the case I would say you could quite easily make the change to reduce the distance % penalties and increase spin % penalties in game to increase the realism 

[tlvx]

I think they just need a rough setting.

Light, Medium, Heavy, and Major.

Where Major is basically like pitch-out type of rough. Take your medicine and just get back into the fairway.

[JOHNDALY91]

Yes, the current would be medium with more spin penalty.

[OnyxCarp]

And it seems to me that the suggested rough graduation (with related dist% and spin% penalties) is easier to implement than pondering how to translate down-the-grain versus against-the-grain (effects) of rough into the game.

Question remains if the current courses have this differentiation in rough types. If the program can make the distinction so to calculate the next shot variables.

[Sinewiz]

I think they just need a rough setting.

Light, Medium, Heavy, and Major.

Where Major is basically like pitch-out type of rough. Take your medicine and just get back into the fairway.

There are instances where I'm in an area where the designer has placed deep wild grass yet the penalty might be 7% and other times your 2 inches off the fairway and your penalty is 15%. Yes I know the wild grass currently has no colliders but the grass could be placed on textures that have properties that say would have a 50% penalty which would force you to simply punch out. Just can't get used to being in deep grass practically over my head and yet I'm still able play the shot with very little penalty. It would seem if the designer took the time to place deep wild grass in an area their intent was for that area to be a massive penalty.

[OnyxCarp]

Yes, that is what I mean by my second sentence. If this rough differentiation can be made the next shot variables could be computed accordingly.