To Berto,
I actually considered doing it that way, but didn't for the following reasons:
(1) I wanted something simple to use, without getting into the differences of all the aspects of ball performance. As was recently stated in another thread, WGT balls accept a greater number of hits for the same durability factor compared to name brand balls.
(2) I didn't want to try and "weigh" the various aspects of the balls as to which was most important, as that is very subjective. A dinosaur like me may feel that meter speed is more important than distance, for example. At least on those "bad" days.
(3) Doing it this way worked well with the "KISS" system.
My system works OK in that it shows that the Nike balls offer much better performance for around the same cost as a Hex Chrome Cally. Once you select a meter speed you want to use, that can be dropped from the equation, making it much simplier to compare balls of different brands, like Nike's and Volviks.
To adaputter,
Your point is well taken, and if I were making a formal report I would refer to that type of condition as "sunk costs", i.e. "unrecoverable." It could probably be turned into a research paper worth a big Government Grant looking into why bodies of water have such a high attraction for golf balls.
YJ was absolutely correct in his remarks about buying balls IRL. But those factors aren't the same for a video game. For example club head speed varies widely from player to player IRL. Not so here. But there are similarities also. Do you play a bump and run game, or do you want total spin control on all shots?
As a side note, I found Nike RZN Tour Blacks online for $29.99 per dozen. Same price we are paying for a virtual version of that ball.
To CEverett12,
Dot is the nickname of that young girl who had that obnoxious little dog. The one who kept harassing those old ladies in black dresses with the conical hats. I think she moved to California to get away from the cops.
Thanks to all who responded,
phred952