Forums

Help › Forums

Wind: The Answer

Mon, Oct 15 2012 3:45 AM (56 replies)
  • Tightrope
    1,072 Posts
    Sun, Oct 14 2012 5:17 AM

    bubbadork:

    I don't use MAX balls and I make 95% of my shots in 30 seconds.  It takes a couple seconds to calc the wind but I do that when someone else is shooting.  Really difficult putts take longer because I'm really bad at them.

    Deena, the dimples reduce drag, even without spin, but yes, they increase the coefficient of lift, also.

    I guess that was a response to my post. No, you might not do it, but anyone can. A spreadsheet made in ten minutes easily beats 3 years of experience.

  • bubbadork
    984 Posts
    Sun, Oct 14 2012 6:21 AM

    No, it was in response to Kilbraur, who said now they see why some people take 90 seconds to make their shot.  I probably would use a spreadsheet, but I wrote my own calculator in Python, part of my swing ruler.  I put the wind in a box and click one of 12 positions around a circle. The answers pop up. A few seconds, and usually done during someone else's turn.

    As for ball trajectory, mentioned by the poster above, I would be very surprised if WGT's didn't approximate the previous figure.  The formulae for successive approximation are well known and widely used in many golf simulators.  I even have my own version.  Wedge shots are very high and very short, but most look like the above figure.  For really strong hits the ball will even "blow up," a phenomenon one sees with the real game's really long drivers.

  • mulfreak
    25 Posts
    Sun, Oct 14 2012 8:11 AM

    Great math.  I suppose I could plug these into my supercomputer except there is one variable missing.  That being x=x(+/-1.0/y*z)  Z being an unknown human eye hand coordination factor for each mouse click(y) they factor.  I do make adjustments for the wind however shots are either made or not at the meter.  You can spend all day making these calculations.  Anything on either side of the DING over a 1/4" off your shot is not going where you were hoping.  I did take some advice about taking some time between shots and that helps.  I do thank you for taking the time to post and share your love of math. 

  • bubbadork
    984 Posts
    Sun, Oct 14 2012 12:59 PM

    You gotta hit the ding, or be close.  Further, any calculation you make may be overridden by the deviation.  The fact remains that if you are are closer to right, then you will be closer to right in the long term, after deviations and ding misses have averaged out.

  • DrinksBreak
    163 Posts
    Mon, Oct 15 2012 1:19 AM

    bubbadork:
    As for ball trajectory, mentioned by the poster above, I would be very surprised if WGT's didn't approximate the previous figure.  The formulae for successive approximation are well known and widely used in many golf simulators.  I even have my own version.  Wedge shots are very high and very short, but most look like the above figure.  For really strong hits the ball will even "blow up," a phenomenon one sees with the real game's really long drivers

    That is exactly the reason I raised it.  Shooting to elevated greens would not lose so much distance if WGT used realistic ball flights, simple as that really.

  • bubbadork
    984 Posts
    Mon, Oct 15 2012 3:45 AM

    That same site (which is where I got my formula) shows a number of different trajectories. Some of them would be compatible with the yard-per-yard rule of thumb and some would not.

    Frankly, I have no idea what WGT's trajectories look like from the side.  Be an interesting thing to try to figure out.  Maybe a stop watch running alongside the game window, with a video capture of a drive. See where the peak is, in terms of time into the shot.  Hmmmm.

RSS