New Software At Golf-O-Max

[jimrobin]

Played tonight at the Golf-O-Max on simulator #2. Man what a difference. Graphics way better, sensing big difference, putting more realistic, whole game more realistic.
Both friends & myself say at the Golf-O-Max, you shoot roughly 10 shots better there then outside.
Well Boys, not anymore. This new software is great.
It is a Links1999 upgrade version (really 2001) vs. Links 386 software.

(I'm not saying this to brag I'm saying this to point out the difference.)
- Last time at the max, I shot a 63. Tonight I was (-3) after nine. We switched over to the screen with the new software. I shot an 82. I'm a 9 handicap; my scores outside are usually high 70's to low 80's.

Everyone should try this out and get on Dru's case to upgrade more of the units, (depending on the price, I don't want Dru to hate me.)

Steve & Dan, you guys better stop at 36 for the cleaners game on the 18th, cause who ever gets simulator #2, will be at a big disadvantage.

[NoBack]

Just got off the phone with Golf-O-Max and all is set. You are right about the new softwear jimrobin BUT they also have the OLD softwear on that machine and can be set up with old softwear as well. So we can play as before but we have to let them know before hand.

[Kilroy]

I am looking forward to trying the new software. You are absolutely right about scores on the current software being about 10 shots better than outside, but I always figured it was the 12 foot gimmies!

[jimrobin]

Yes Dan the putting is the big difference. This one you can set-up for 6, 9, & 12 foot gimmies. We played 12, and that was hard enough. It is really hard to make a putt. If you're 12.2 feet the hole isn't down at the bottom of the screen, it still in the middle and the hole is smaller then the other ones. I think, 4 times I was between 12 & 13 feet and I only made 1 putt (just like outside).

I also found that it picked up our bad shots better. If you hit a bad shot the sensors never missed it.

Graphics are way better, and you can set-up for the camera angles that you like, also with or without crowds, etc.

I don't want to go back to the old ones again.

[NoBack]

Sounds like it's just gotten better and I cant wait to try the new softwear. The problem is that we rarely show up there anywmore with less than 8 guys and we have to play same settings as we like to have games inside the games.

Maybe in few weeks we will only be four and we can try it out

jimrobin.......ahhhhhh the woes of a putting stroke!!!

[Colby]

jimrobin,

With the new software, if it is the same as the Windows-based software that Full Swing Golf has released, it is set to be a 6 foot putt at the bottom of the screen. It also takes into account the distance across the sensors, which from just in front of the fairway mat, is about six feet. Which is why a 12 foot putt still shows the hole up on the screen.

You should try it with the touch screens and no keyboard! Very slick.

GolfOMax has actually had that software for a couple of years now. Dru had tried it, and didn't get good reviews, I didn't try it, he just mentioned it. What people didn't like is that there is no more reverse view as your ball flies to the green. Also, it is harder, so people weren't scoring as well. If it's anything like the new software I tried out in San Diego, it is much more realistic, especially the short game.

[jimrobin]

From what I gathered from Dru, this is a revised edition from what they had a few years ago. I guess he tried Links99, this is supposed to be Links2001. When it booted up it said 1999, but according to Dru its 2001 sotfware. I certainly liked it alot better and so did my cousin that I was playing with.

Yes, it is harder. If you hit a bad shot you see it. Even what was a great shot on the other software, may only be an avg. one on this. But it seems true. What I mean is, "You know when you hit a ball WELL, but not GREAT (I didn't quite catch it)", the old software you still did get a great shot. This one seems to catch that and you ball flies well but not great, much more realistic.

As for the putting I'm not sure, I'd have to try it at different settings (6,9,12) to see the difference. It is definitely harder.

As for the other software, like most people in Ottawa, the only ones I have played are the 2 (new & old) at Golf-O-Max (Full Swing), and what they had at Taylored Fairways (Dead Solid Golf). I've been told the one on Canotek Rd is the same that Taylored Fairways had.

This new software is my favorite by far.

[Colby]

The Full Swing guys have done a lot of work on bll flight and how to get the spins right. The sensors actually measure the ball as it comes off of the screen, and they've done a lot of work in calculating that a ball spinning a certain way will come off the screen in such a manner. For example if you hit a slice, the ball will react differently off of the screen than a draw. Now it comes down to keeping the screens adjusted to allow the ball to bounce off properly. A screen that is too loose or too tight on one side will cause the ball to bounce inaccurately.

The software I played with in San Diego reacted almost exactly the same as if I was playing outside. On #3 at Mauna Kea I had a 30 yard chip. I played it as if I was 30 yards outside, instead of the little throw the ball at the chip at GolfOMax, and it reacted just like it would outside. If I swing like it's 30 yards at GolfOMax, I go anywhere between 50-100 yards it seems.

Bring on the new!

[Kilroy]

A screen that is too loose or too tight on one side will cause the ball to bounce inaccurately.

It may be challenging to maintain a consistant tension over time.

If I swing like it's 30 yards at GolfOMax, I go anywhere between 50-100 yards it seems.

Yes that's true, I too chip more softly at G-O-M

[mr shank]

Before anyone gets too excited about new software be prepared for an ego beating.

Golf-O-Max was always a good place to feel good about your game with the extra distance & lower scores.
Not any more!

Three weeks ago I played at Golf-O-Max & shot a 62 on the old software.
Played last Saturday morning on the new software & shot 101 !!! OUCH.

Graphics, chipping & putting are much better, but to me, the thing seemed a little too sensitive.
Or maybe it's me who's too sensitive.

[jimrobin]

Mr. Shank

Yes, it is more difficult, but I find it alot more realistic.
As stated earlier, I shot an 82 (at Pebble Beach), which is a lot closer to what I shoot outdoors. That 62 you shot, and my 63, when are we going to do that outside?
I guess everyone will have his or her own opinion; myself I’d rather have it more realistic then help my ego.

After all, isn't that what the manufacturer is trying to do, be realistic and make you feel like you're playing outdoors.

[mr shank]

When will I shoot 62 outisde? - when I pack it in after 15 holes!!

I agree, the new software is more realistic, but I hit some severe hooks with every club in my bag when I played. Outside I rarely hook my driver, in fact I play a Litzke-like fade on most tee shots. I don't shoot 62's outdoors, but I don't shoot 102's either!

I believe there may have been a problem with screen as we also noticed almost every putt broke right.

I'll give the new software another try, but this time I'll start drinking Mooseheads on the first rather than the 9th hole.

[Colby]

I know the new software, newer than the new software at GolfOMax reads the ball as it bounces of off the screen, calculating the angle and speed of the ball coming off of the screen to determine the spin that was on the ball. As mentioned earlier, if the screen is not tensioned properly, the ball may bounce off at an incorrect angle. This incorrect angle may be read by the software as a hook. I'm not sure if the new software at GolfOMax uses this, but this was explained to me by the technician at Full Swing Golf, who make the hardware and software used at GolfOMax.

[jimrobin]

I was just thinking, I could be wrong but from what I have seen at the GOM the screen just hangs there. The only tension is at the top where it is secure and gravity holding its weight down.
I know there isn't anything holding it at the bottom because I have lifted it there to get my ball. On the sides, I don't think there anything either except the wall.

In San Diego was the screen secured in more places then just the top, do you recall?

[Colby]

Even at GOM, the screen is bungied at the bottom to some degree, but the bungees will wear out. The screen in San Diego was really crisp, but it was a show screen, so it was probably kept tuned.

[Colby]

For those that want to try the new software, I played out at the Canadian last night and they have the Windows version of the simulator software. Very nice. You can play with 6,9 or 12 foot gimmies. I shot an 89 from the blues at Bountiful and the software managed to read a draw when I wanted it to. Chipping is also more realistic as I actually had to hit the ball decently to get it to go 50 yards, and punches out from under the trees worked like I felt they should.

They have three screens, and they have all of the courses on all of them. Well worth a visit, the graphic quality is top notch, plus all kinds of shot statistics.

[el tigre]

Dan:

If the new software is in fact based on Links 2001, I wonder if it would be possible to adapt your Ottawa Golf Great 18 course to run at Golf-O-Max?

It would be a blast to play, and make for an awesome cleaners event!

Hmmm, do we have the technology?

[Kilroy]

Actually, it's Links LS99 but we're getting closer. This is something both Dru (Golf-O-Max owner) and I have been hoping for for ome time now.

[el tigre]

Finally got a chance to play it at the Canadian G&CC, and I have to say I was disappointed with both the software and especially the setup at Canadian G&CC.

First of all, at CGCC you are very rushed. At Merivale you are given 1/hr per golfer + 1/2 hour - at CGCC you are only allotted 1/hr per golfer (even though the software is more difficult), and they are very strict about it. It might be possible with a foursome, but 2 hours is not enough time for a round for 2. We got 14 holes in - but were still asked to pay full price.

Secondly, they did not seem to have adjustable tees. At Merivale you can insert a wooden tee into their plastic ones to get the right height - at CGCC we had a choice of very high or very low.

They DO have thicker sand/heavy rough at CG&CC, which would seem to be more realistic than Merivale. However, before we started we were told to play all shots from the fairway regardless in order to speed up play.

I've played the old software a lot, and would say that overall I would give the new software a thumbs-down. I would agree that chipping and putting are much better - still softer than outside but not as much as before. It also does not correct shots directionally as much as before (which is more realistic), although like mr shank I found it a bit TOO sensitive.

Aim and setup are much more difficult, though. The top view a yellow line that is supposed to show where you are aiming - but that's only if you are shooting at dead centre of the screen. But this is rarely the case with indoor golf - RH golfers are typically shooting at the right side of the screen, and the reverse for lefties - so you are better off completely ignoring this "aid". Also, the aiming pole is not calibrated like the old software, so alignment on tee shots (which are never at dead centre of the screen) is more difficult. We found ourselves hitting a lot of straight shots that did not end up where we thought they would go. The old software was much more intuitive.

But my big problem was with the trajectory readings with the new software. Unlike many golfers, at Merivale I normally hit my irons about 10 yards shorter there than outside because I hit a high ball. I was hoping the new software would correct this and be more accurate, but it is even worse - in my case about 15-20 yards shorter with irons and 20-30 yards shorter with woods. Medium trajectories were fine, but if you hit low or high then you need to add at one or two clubs for every shot. How is that more realistic?

I was looking forward to a nice, challenging round of golf and instead I was disappointed and frustrated. I might give the new software another try - but at Merivale this time.

[cruxradio]

I've only played this once ever, at Merivale Rd last month.
I couldn't understand how they can charge $20+ using the oldest technology in golf simulation graphics.
I haven't tried the new one, if infact it is new and better at Merivale Rd, I'll go try again - hopefully I'll have a better experience!

[Colby]

I was out again at the Canadian last night and I was happy with the simulators.

At GolfOMax, I actually find my clubs a bit longer, I don't hit many 230 yard 7wds or 150 yard sand wedges in real life, but they are generally a bit more accurate than that.

Once you get used to the tracking setup, when you view the top view, you see a yellow line that points where the screen is pointing at with yardages marked off which I found very helpful for my wife who cannot hit long. After viewing the top view, you can then rotate the aim marker, and view the top view again to make sure you are pointing the right way.

I do agree that the tees are not the best, I had to use a shorter one for my driver because my wife uses a three wood off the tee, and I'm too lazy to keep switching. I wish they had the ones that you can put the tee in. Any other club I hit off the "fairway" anyways, so that didn't matter. I tried using a tee off of the ground, but the sensors are very sensative, and they were picking it up and I was losing too much distance from my drives.

I found that the club distances were pretty close considering that I was playing breezy. My drive distance, as shown on the final screen, was much closer than the booming drives that I get at GolfOMax, maybe because the software picks up a bit more of my hook/fade than the GolfOMax software picks up. I was having an issue early that my distance was short by 10 or so yards, but I found that I was stabbing at the ball, and once I actually followed through, my distances were back to normal.

What I really like is that you can actually play your short game. Like a pitch with my 60 degree wedge from 30 yards, or with my sand wedge from 40 yards. What a treat that is.

As for the time frame, I don't know about the hour a golfer, My wife and I got there just after 6 last night and finished up around 8:30 with no complaints. We were the last group, but no rushing to get us out. My wife is just learning, and so the round is a bit slower. When I'm with a buddy, we play a round at GolfOMax in less than 90 miuntes including warmup, so two hours should be more than adequate.

cruxradio,

Sorry that your experience was bad. The software does have it's limitations, especially with the short game and putting. It takes some getting used to. I find the software better than the Dead Solid software that is in use in other simulators. I had a terrible time with horrible hooks even though I was a rabid slicer and couldn't hit a hook to save my life. Also the way the Dead Solid software handles hitting trees and such left me disappointed. Is the Full Swing stuff perfect, no, but where else can you go for 20-30 bucks and spend a few hours with your buddies when there is 3 feet of snow on the ground, and 7 feet of frost underneath You can always go hit balls into a net for 20/hour, but this seems more fun

[Kilroy]

Well said Colby.It aint real golf... Pops does not shoot -8 outside... but it's winter and it is fun.
As to the difference between the 2 software releases, I feel that the newer software is more reralistic, I have played it 2 times now and shot 92 both times. I am an 18 hcp, and 92 is my current average over the last 20 rounds. My shots on the new system behave largely as expected, but I am not really consistent enough to be an authority on what to expect
Others in my group were noticing odd results. On the old software I would shoot 78 and be upset that I could not break par.
The graphics are certainly better, and I just cannot wait until the upgrades catch up to the course designer

[el tigre]

I believe most of the distance variations at Golf-O-Max (better or worse) have to do with trajectory. If you high it high or low, distances are less. If you hit it medium, distances are more. It is only a simulator, so it can't be perfect and I was content with theses tendencies in the old software. I was simply disappointed that the new software made these variations much worse.

I'm sure you can get used to the new aiming system. But again, I think they took something that basically worked and made it worse.

The graphics, short game and putting are definetely better. No question about that.

Colby: You said you and your wife started just after 6 and finished around 8:30. That's 2 and half hours - you were only alloted 2 hours. You were lucky to be the last group - if there was another group behind you, you would have been kicked out at 8 (regardless of how many holes you had played), and still asked to pay full price. I tnink you would not be very happy about it. At Merivale you would not have had this problem.