212 replies to this topic

[Harald]

Just an idear. Before we make a shot with gusty Wind we used a bumerang to see how the wind works = sarcasm

[Greensboronclion]

At this point we should have Calm and Breezy for tournaments and that's it as that will be more than enough to handle.  I hate to say it but if I see Windy or Gusty I will just pass as its not even close to real and no fun at all.

[RobV]

Greensboronclion, on 03 Jan 2018 - 12:15 PM, said:

At this point we should have Calm and Breezy for tournaments and that's it as that will be more than enough to handle.  I hate to say it but if I see Windy or Gusty I will just pass as its not even close to real and no fun at all.

I don't play in tournaments, but rather play solo or with AI.   I have already made the decision to not play using those wind conditions any longer... heck, I would rather use thunder and lightning over those current wind options.   I am going to stick to calm and breezy as I agree, windy and gusty are way over the top. 

As for POV, I have already gotten used to it, so this does not bother me...   

[Crow357]

I prefer Strong Breeze or Variable.

[DennisHarris]

OMG!  Crow357 and I agree on something.   I see no problem with strong Breeze.  I have not played Variable so can not speak to that.  

[JCat04]

The range of reactions to the new wider FOV Player camera just goes to show how widely people's perception varies.  You've got some who didn't even know it had been changed until it was called to their attention, others who've grown accustomed to it and accepted after a few plays, and others like me, for whom it's a gamebreaker.  If I could just find a way to make a "34" g_fov persistent in the Console, you'd never hear another peep out of me about it 

[Buck]

JCat04, on 03 Jan 2018 - 5:18 PM, said:

If I could just find a way to make a "XX" g_fov persistent in the Console, you'd never hear another peep out of me about it 

 

Same for me.  In the settings would probably be best so it is user friendly/facing, but perhaps that could be a PG2 thing.

A console tweak that could be tucked into my Autoexec file would be a dream come true..

[RobV]

Buck, on 03 Jan 2018 - 5:21 PM, said:

Same for me.  In the settings would probably be best so it is user friendly/facing, but perhaps that could be a PG2 thing.

A console tweak that could be tucked into my Autoexec file would be a dream come true..

Or just let the community mod the heck out of this game!!  

[Greensboronclion]

Well lets see I am playing the OGT event at Royal Melbourne and on #12 have a 12mph wind going right to left and play it in the right ruff and hit it perfectly and its going and then all of a sudden its like a boomerang and going way left into a bush and leads to a triple bogey.  This game does so much right like the lipout I had on #18 that was so dang real I actually didn't mind the miss of a birdie just to see that lipout again on replay yet this wind thing has just killed this game.  Its almost like JNPG1 is now the guinea pig for JNPG2 and we who play the game are stuck with that mode till the new game comes out.  I wanted a  tough game and still do but this wind is not tough its plain stupid and the only wind that makes any sense is Calm and for those who want Windy or 40 plus winds that is not real as even the Pro tour wont play in those conditions as the ball will oscillate on the greens and the normal guy will be in the clubhouse drinking a beer.  Very frustrating to see a great game become arcade at best.

[Acrilix]

Greensboronclion, on 03 Jan 2018 - 7:00 PM, said:

Well lets see I am playing the OGT event at Royal Melbourne and on #12 have a 12mph wind going right to left and play it in the right ruff and hit it perfectly and its going and then all of a sudden its like a boomerang and going way left into a bush and leads to a triple bogey.  This game does so much right like the lipout I had on #18 that was so dang real I actually didn't mind the miss of a birdie just to see that lipout again on replay yet this wind thing has just killed this game.  Its almost like JNPG1 is now the guinea pig for JNPG2 and we who play the game are stuck with that mode till the new game comes out.  I wanted a  tough game and still do but this wind is not tough its plain stupid and the only wind that makes any sense is Calm and for those who want Windy or 40 plus winds that is not real as even the Pro tour wont play in those conditions as the ball will oscillate on the greens and the normal guy will be in the clubhouse drinking a beer.  Very frustrating to see a great game become arcade at best.

 

Sounds like there is something wrong at the OGT end because I've not seen a well hit ball boomerang off with a 12mph wind using the new update.

[clubcaptain]

I wouldn't say boomerang but the degree of swerve is now really strong even well below 40mph. 12mph shouldn't be doing a lot with the ball.

[Greensboronclion]

Yeah my bad as not really a boomerang but a swerve that as clubcaptain said shouldn't do at 12 mph.  Aiming right or left is part of the game but not to that degree.

[Mike Jones]

JCat04, on 03 Jan 2018 - 5:18 PM, said:

The range of reactions to the new wider FOV Player camera just goes to show how widely people's perception varies.  You've got some who didn't even know it had been changed until it was called to their attention, others who've grown accustomed to it and accepted after a few plays, and others like me, for whom it's a gamebreaker.  If I could just find a way to make a "34" g_fov persistent in the Console, you'd never hear another peep out of me about it 

FOV 34 is really 'zoomed' in compared to the human eye and even a normal 35mm camera lens. Typically games that use one screen have a FOV of between 60 and 90. We try and replicate the scale of things as closely as possible to the Human eye which is why we choose a narrower FOV for the normal view but if you're using an FOV of 34 you're really not seeing it the way it 'is' if you were really there on the course.

[Buck]

Mike Jones, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:00 PM, said:

FOV 34 is really 'zoomed' in compared to the human eye and even a normal 35mm camera lens. Typically games that use one screen have a FOV of between 60 and 90. We try and replicate the scale of things as closely as possible to the Human eye which is why we choose a narrower FOV for the normal view but if you're using an FOV of 34 you're really not seeing it the way it 'is' if you were really there on the course.

 

That all makes total sense.  

 

That said, we of course aren't actually out on a real golf course when enjoying PG, or using a first person view, or standing behind ourselves when swinging the club (as in the game view) and preferences vary so widely on what is enjoyable on your screen, your distance from it, its size, your particular eyes and seating context..

 

It seems like it would be best to have the user be able to choose what view and FOV works for them or that they simply enjoy (or perhaps choose from a range of preset options).

[Mike Jones]

Mike Jones, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:00 PM, said:

FOV 34 is really 'zoomed' in compared to the human eye and even a normal 35mm camera lens. Typically games that use one screen have a FOV of between 60 and 90. We try and replicate the scale of things as closely as possible to the Human eye which is why we choose a narrower FOV for the normal view but if you're using an FOV of 34 you're really not seeing it the way it 'is' if you were really there on the course.

 

Just to add to that, we have to choose our settings in the game so that they fulfil a few criteria ie it has to:

 

a ) Look good

b ) Perform well

c ) Be realistic

 

There are quite a few settings in PG that can actually 'break' all of these criteria which is the danger of trying to cater to a wide user base with massively varying hardware. This is the downside of developing for PC and why many companies have simply abandoned it. 

[Buck]

Mike Jones, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:07 PM, said:

Just to add to that, we have to choose our settings in the game so that they fulfil a few criteria ie it has to:
 
a ) Look good
b ) Perform well
c ) Be realistic
 
There are quite a few settings in PG that can actually 'break' all of these criteria which is the danger of trying to cater to a wide user base with massively varying hardware. This is the downside of developing for PC and why many companies have simply abandoned it.

 
Very fair and understandable.
 
Could we at least have the option to have the previous FOV setting if we preferred that?
Clearly that wouldn't break the game, as it was used for a couple years as the main option, right?

 

Mike Jones, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:07 PM, said:

...cater to a wide user base with massively varying hardware.

Isn't that an argument for having some FOV options for the user since their hardware/screen/contexts can be so different?

[Mike Jones]

Buck - well there are already 3 view options in the game as well as the free cam so it's really more a question of getting them right and I can't see us adding any more options for an FOV slider in game settings - it's just too complex to setup with all the moving around the camera has to do. 

[Buck]

Mike Jones, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:19 PM, said:

Buck - well there are already 3 view options in the game as well as the free cam so it's really more a question of getting that right and I can't see us adding any more options for an FOV slider in game settings - it's just too complex to setup with all the moving around the camera has to do. 

 

 

You suggested the console tweak for FOV, but that resets every time.

 

Could we perhaps have that setting stick for those of us that use console tweaks in our Autoexec files already for other things (like the FreeCam settings you gave us the ability to set how we like)?

 

That would solve the grousing about this I think...for those of us who really are struggling with this change.

[Mike Jones]

Buck, on 03 Jan 2018 - 8:20 PM, said:

You suggested the console tweak for FOV, but that resets every time.

 

Could we perhaps have that setting stick for those of us that use console tweaks in our Autoexec files already for other things (like the FreeCam settings you gave us the ability to set how we like)?

 

That would solve the grousing about this I think...for those of us who really are struggling with this change.

 

That's no different really than us adding an FOV slider and for the reasons explained it's not a good idea for us. It's pretty much impossible to cater to people's every preference and we would be foolish to try and do that. If we do our job right the vast majority will be happy with the choices we make. 

[Dazmaniac]

As we can move the free cam (F5) to any location and then lock that position for each shot, is it at all possible to add an available camera slot for user preference, or is this as complicated as the FOV slider scenario so also becomes a no-no?