|
|
Post by mcbogga on Mar 2, 2015 17:49:08 GMT -5
Wind should have (For all intents and purposes) zero effect on ball starting direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 17:54:11 GMT -5
Steve, have a look at my response (above your post) to Taste about the pictures, going through each picture. That might give you a better idea of what I'm seeing and give you a sense of where I'm coming from. Yes, picture 3 seems to be an outlier to pictures 1 and 2. But I don't know if that's definitive proof, as there could be other variables at play... backswing, wind shifting, etc. You guys can't even seem to decide amongst yourselves if the tee box makes a difference or not. As for what I think would prove it? A Hori level perfectly straight swing off a tee box with no wind that shows flight deviation from straight. Or with a side wind that deviates in the opposite direction to the wind. I did but after my post. But you again dismiss. You say "This makes perfect sense to me... there is less wind, but more importantly, there is no left to right push in the wind. The wind difference is minimal, the hit is identical, but the end result from pic 1 to 2 is 30 feet dispersion, 10 yards. That's a ridiculous difference. But that makes perfect sense. I feel like I'm butting my head against a brick wall here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 17:57:58 GMT -5
No one can dispute, offline play is perfect, Designer play is perfect, online play is a random mish mash of randomness. Is that clear enough to tell you clearly, Houston, there's a problem here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pubknight on Mar 2, 2015 18:02:33 GMT -5
I did but after my post. But you again dismiss. You say "This makes perfect sense to me... there is less wind, but more importantly, there is no left to right push in the wind. The wind difference is minimal, the hit is identical, but the end result from pic 1 to 2 is 30 feet dispersion, 10 yards. That's a ridiculous difference. But that makes perfect sense. I feel like I'm butting my head against a brick wall here. I did not dismiss. I also said I agreed that the third picture didn't look right, given the other two. You chose to ignore that for whatever reason. I do think a 10 yard dispersion from picture 1 to picture 2 is reasonable. I think a 3mph difference in wind strength and direction as pictured can account for a 10 yard difference, given what seems like the game's exaggerated side wind affect. And to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that that difference is ridiculous. I'm just saying that with the games side wind affect, the 10 yard difference doesn't surprise me (between pic 1 and 2). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:05:09 GMT -5
Holy chit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:07:43 GMT -5
It's the starting direction that it is affecting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:20:41 GMT -5
I did but after my post. But you again dismiss. You say "This makes perfect sense to me... there is less wind, but more importantly, there is no left to right push in the wind. The wind difference is minimal, the hit is identical, but the end result from pic 1 to 2 is 30 feet dispersion, 10 yards. That's a ridiculous difference. But that makes perfect sense. I feel like I'm butting my head against a brick wall here. I did not dismiss. I also said I agreed that the third picture didn't look right, given the other two. You chose to ignore that for whatever reason. I do think a 10 yard dispersion from picture 1 to picture 2 is reasonable. I think a 3mph difference in wind strength and direction as pictured can account for a 10 yard difference, given what seems like the game's exaggerated side wind affect. Well, then we should be done with this, it's getting crazy, all you see a 3 mph difference, I see 6 MPH at 1 o'clock and the ball going straight with a left push, I see a 3 mph wind at 12 o'clock and the ball jumping left with a left push, (about what I would expect). I see a 6 Mph at 12.30 and the ball jumping right with a left push. You see them all fine and normal. I see the ball has only travelled at most 44 yards, you say yeah because you are immediately seeing the final result. I say each picture showing 10 yards of dispersion is to much with a total dispersion of 20 yards with a 7 iron as being way to much even if you were right and I'm seeing the finished result immediately.
Why does the same not happen in offline mode then. Why would I see the end result immediately online and not see it offline.
Looks it's clear I already stated it, you already stated it, your good with random, I'm good with random as well, just not random random.
You did not answer what would you need to see?
I can answer it, there is nothing, you have blinders on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pubknight on Mar 2, 2015 18:24:20 GMT -5
I did actually answer that.
And I didn't say picture 3 was fine.
And, I know this isn't real golf, but I do think the physics are pretty good.
20 yards of dispersion with a 7 iron (10 +/- from centre line) is actually reasonable for a golfer.
And maybe this is simply a matter of expectations.
I've spent more time than I care to admit looking at launch monitor data of real golf shots.
The kind of dispersion you guys are on about as unacceptable, to me, seems realistic.
So maybe that's why, from my perspective, I don't see it as an issue.
In a golf simulator type of game, I'm not expecting the exact same ball flight and exact same landing spot every time... I'm actually expecting some dispersion.
The dispersion that exists does not seem unrealistic from my perspective (from a real life golf viewpoint).
|
|
|
|
Post by fuzion on Mar 2, 2015 18:24:57 GMT -5
Here is an example. The ball heads left for no reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:41:02 GMT -5
I did actually answer that. And I didn't say picture 3 was fine. Yes you did I apologise, I missed that.
How many minutes do you give me to do it, tell you what, tell me exactly what you want me wearing, I can post the exact same pictures from a level tee lie with hori level zero deviation. But once done are we done then, would you be convinced then? definitely, not likely, I want definitely. Would you like me to do it with me wearing any clothing you decide, to prove the pictures are fresh as well.
Why am I so confident, I did not wish to post in public forums a hori level zero deviation. It would only serve to cause the direction of the discussion to go off in another direction. Is that what you are doing now, deflection, like throwing the equity card on the table to shut the discussion down, deflect the discussion to another discussion.?
Seeing as you just stated your are good with random deviation, it really would be pointless for me to post those pictures though correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pubknight on Mar 2, 2015 18:48:10 GMT -5
Nope.
I'm trying to eliminate as many variables as possible.
That's good science.
I'm not quite sure of your point of the rest of your rant with the whole clothes/time thing.
This isn't personal.
I'm not attacking you.
I'm simply questioning some conclusions.
That's also good science.
I provided my views on dispersion to frame my perspective, as ones expectations can influence analysis of outcome.
Again... good science.
I'm expecting some dispersion. That's my bias.
I admit that.
You seem to expect no dispersion.
I believe that is a bias on your side.
Iron Byron, the golf swing robot, has dispersion in its golf shots.
I'm not sure why you, as a human being, would think that you should not get dispersion in your virtual ones.
And honestly... look at the scores people are posting.
How big an issue can this really be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dennis on Mar 2, 2015 18:51:17 GMT -5
If it is a random programming error, I'm good with it because "that's golf" and people are shooting lights out despite. That's actually what my hypothesis is - No golfer - not even Tiger in his prime - hit 100% of their shots where they wanted. I think this is the programming trying to keep it somewhat random and not let every shot be precise I think you are a hundred percent correct. Example: Playing for wind. I set up for a 5 mph wind on one hole, say R-L, oh wait, he hit the ball so i'll take away the wind. Next hole, same wind so I play a little less. Oh wait, he hit the ball, lets put a gust in there now. I'm glad you said this because it's driving me crazy. It's like the game don't want you to figure anything out. All day , ball too far left, ball too far right. Once and a while it says OK lets let the poor guy get one close. lol But it's really not funny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 19:14:29 GMT -5
I provided my views on dispersion to frame my perspective, as ones expectations can influence analysis of outcome. Again... good science. I'm expecting some dispersion. That's my bias. I admit that. You seem to expect no dispersion. I believe that is a bias on your side. Iron Byron, the golf swing robot, has dispersion in its golf shots. I'm not sure why you, as a human being, would think that you should not get dispersion in your virtual ones. Bingo we getting closer now I think.
Hmmm, I seem to expect no dispersion?, Mind showing me where I said that exactly? What I said I'm not good with random random. The game does not presently provide everyone with random dispersion, me included. Its random. That's the problem. First we have to butt our heads against the wall proving there is dispersion, then we butt against well there should be.
Sorry but there's to much deflection going on, first its, it does not exist, then it exists but it's normal, it's part of the game.
Ok lets assume it is normal and part of the game, then why does it not happen all the time? Why can I play many rounds perfectly clean, and many other rounds not. Why can I as shown in the pictures, login and hit 10 perfectly same shots showing no deviation and then turn around and do the same and see much deviation. But that will just take us back to it does not exist right?
Why does the game play clean with no to little random deviation offline, but change once you go online.? Mind explaining that with a little more than not true.
Reason I suggested clothing is to show you the pictures would be fresh, but you have already prepped your next argument when you see those pictures. It's normal!
Question would you be quite Ok if we were competing against each other, you had a crap load of random dispersion and I had none and everything worked normal.?
|
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Mar 2, 2015 19:30:38 GMT -5
No one can dispute, offline play is perfect, Designer play is perfect, online play is a random mish mash of randomness. Is that clear enough to tell you clearly, Houston, there's a problem here. In a physics based environment, there should never be randomness. Physics is math and math is always right. Everything happens for a logical reason in physics. Now, whether we can figure out the exact math and then execute it is a different story. But i agree, there is no place for randomness in a golf game. They can nerf the available info needed to work a shot but never, ever should there be randomness. |
|
|
|
Post by Dennis on Mar 2, 2015 19:32:15 GMT -5
No one can dispute, offline play is perfect, Designer play is perfect, online play is a random mish mash of randomness. Is that clear enough to tell you clearly, Houston, there's a problem here. How true. |
|
