Page 1 of 1

2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 9th, 2022, 2:25 am
by Stillwater
i never knew. Played side by side and man can you see the difference. :scared:

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 9th, 2022, 3:51 am
by Guitarzan
I've preferred 2001 for the real anis and, for me, it is the more difficult. I never understood why they left shadows out. I wish some software guru could've cracked the exe and found a way to get shadows back in.

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 9th, 2022, 5:07 am
by Stillwater
yeah, the anis are realistic moving. can you convert the 2003 courses to 2001?

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 9th, 2022, 7:28 am
by sagevanni
microsoft has a way of making things worse, then more worse, then total CRAP....................windows is the perfect example of that.

Sage............... :cheers1:

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 9th, 2022, 4:49 pm
by morvio100
Agree 100 % ...on the Sage comment...windows took a serious nose dive after windows 8..(Win 10's networking is horrific, in no rush to upgrade to 11)....regards the 2001 vs 2003...agree the anis's are better modelled, but looks to me the 2003 physics get the nod...2003 is old...2001 older again...reckon push the 2003 version to the limits..the physics still lead the pack against any modern opposition, congrats to all for pushing the 2k3 envelope... :clapping:

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 28th, 2022, 5:29 am
by Patnut
The developer explains here, why they changed the Player animation to a polygonal style:

http://www.linkscountryclub.com/LinksCC ... ry_001.htm

It was necessary for new Realtime Swing. I'm using the RTS since last week and I'm starting to like it, so I think maybe it was worth the decision of the developers to go back to a less appealing animation just for the new Swing. They seem to have known that this was a risky move though.

Re: 2001 is so much better looking than 2003

Posted: July 28th, 2022, 12:19 pm
by pmgolf
Thanks for that link, Patnuk. I've been using RTS with a non-full swing for the past 15 years, and I had never read that write-up. Prior to that time I used 2-click for ten years or so but grew tired of it. I played real-time golf too, and shooting scores in the mid 50's, while making so many birdies was fun at first, grew tiring. My enjoyment of computer golf was re-awakened by RTS. The swing power of most of my full shots fall into the 90 to 95% range, but in the short game I use all kinds of pitches from 50-60 yards in. I watch the animation for all swings, and it makes me feel like I'm hitting the shot.

The shot shown in the screen-print is my golfer playing a 50 yard pitch shot with a LW at Cara Brae. Since it's not a full shot, it won't suck back off the green like a full shot would. The screen image is clear enough for you to see the arm hair on the animation, and the body position is perfect for the partial shot. Resolution is 1650 x 1080 on a hi-def HDTV/Monitor. I don't need the animation image to be any clearer or more realistic-looking.
Cara Brae pitch shot.jpg
Cara Brae pitch shot.jpg (151.3 KiB) Viewed 1892 times
My 2 cents.
Pete