tlvx, agree with most of your post. However, I never was, nor am I now asking for a as irl fade or draw to be incorporated...however nice that would be. All I ever wanted for Christmas was just a simple "Yes, it's too hard to accurately program in a true fade or draw" or "No, it's not a matter of programming, it's whatever...".
And I'm willing to accept whatever I'm given as an explanation and let it go...if I can get it.
If we've learned anything from this game's development; it's that the development team is not going to come out and admit that they don't know what they are doing, or that, they can't quite figure out true golf shot physics.
They've been claiming from day one to be, "within 2% of actual golf physics," whatever that means.
Even if those claims were true, than a two percent failure has proven to be significant, in terms of the eye test.
The issue with the video game version, however, is a subjective one. I think one of the reasons they don't provide more specific setup options, is precisely because it would be easier to challenge their version of golf physics... based on the math.
As it is, it's a lot more subjective than that, with varying control methods, that oftentimes provide varying degrees of control.
So, it's difficult to set a primer, for a discussion regarding how to achieve a correct non-straight golf shot result.
As it stands, they can always just fall back on; "well the user is just not doing it right." Or, "perhaps try a different control method."
We know for a fact that certain swing methods cannot produce the same types of shots as other methods.
But, this just means that the setup options are not specific or detailed enough.
Which brings the discussion right back to square one: the developers motivations, philosophy, and intent; for whether or not they want players to have that kind of control; and, whether or not they want their setup options to be specific enough, so as to be subject to fact-checking scrutiny.
As this discussion has aptly alluded to; the eye test is indicative of some deficiencies in the game physics.
There are some greater in-game physics issues, though: like the ball penetrating underneath the turf; and the ball at times seemingly rolling uphill with the mass of bowling ball... particularly when those two things occur simultaneously.
There is far too much deviation between a shot that sits or zips, versus a shot that rolls on seemingly forever... when struck with the same club, the only difference being the power of the shot.
Some shots get hung up on severe down slopes, for no apparent reason. It's like gravity is not always active in certain areas.
As always, we can blame a lot of this on the Unity engine. But, of course, the ultimate responsibility for choosing an engine, and figuring out how to apply that source code to aerodynamic physics, falls squarely at the feet of the game makers.
