Microsoft Links 2003

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

I got this game the other day. I also got Tiger Woods 2003 at the same
time. I couldn't decide what to get. I got them on eBay so they were
pretty cheap.

I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
to use as a CAD/CAM package. There doesn't seem to be any way of
having anything like the same camera choices as in Tiger Woods. The
best I can get is multiple windows, but they slow the action down from
an already slow start. And when I saw slow..... there's actually a FPS
counter in the corner of the screen, which on my PC (2.1 ghz athlon,
512mb ram, 128MB graphics card, directx 9.0b, latest graphics drivers
for my card) shows numbers in the range 5-12 FPS. This is simply
laughable. If I want to rotate the golfer to look in a different
direction I have to use this little tedious control at the bottom of
the screen, then click `ok` and it says `rendering - please wait` and
takes 5 secs or so to redraw the screen.

I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

>
> I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
> I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> to use as a CAD/CAM package.

Links does not pretend to be anything pretty. If you're looking for looks
over gameplay, then TW is the way to go. It's not any secret around these
parts that I prefer Links. Try playing Powerstroke: it's the most realistic
mode.

> And when I saw slow..... there's actually a FPS
> counter in the corner of the screen, which on my PC (2.1 ghz athlon,
> 512mb ram, 128MB graphics card, directx 9.0b, latest graphics drivers
> for my card) shows numbers in the range 5-12 FPS. This is simply
> laughable. If I want to rotate the golfer to look in a different
> direction I have to use this little tedious control at the bottom of
> the screen, then click `ok` and it says `rendering - please wait` and
> takes 5 secs or so to redraw the screen.
>

You haven't indicated what graphic's card you're using. If you're using
nVidia, make sure you are using the latest drivers. My guess is that you're
using an ATI card. Still, you shouldn't have those kinds of frames. I have
a 2.3 Ghz Intel processor and a nVidia T4200 card and my frames are maxed at
30 or so (I think there's a cap on the frames, and sometimes I wonder the
counter works at all.).

> I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
> makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.

I don't think the graphic's engine is underpowered. My screen draws are
typically between 1-2 seconds, depending on the course.

The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing more.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message news:<cyizc.50873$Sw.13209@attbi_s51>...
> >
> > I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
> > I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> > attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> > comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> > around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> > to use as a CAD/CAM package.
>
> Links does not pretend to be anything pretty. If you're looking for looks
> over gameplay, then TW is the way to go. It's not any secret around these
> parts that I prefer Links. Try playing Powerstroke: it's the most realistic
> mode.

I'll check it out.

> You haven't indicated what graphic's card you're using. If you're using
> nVidia, make sure you are using the latest drivers. My guess is that you're
> using an ATI card. Still, you shouldn't have those kinds of frames. I have
> a 2.3 Ghz Intel processor and a nVidia T4200 card and my frames are maxed at
> 30 or so (I think there's a cap on the frames, and sometimes I wonder the
> counter works at all.).

You're right - it's a Radeon 9200, on a board by by Connect3d. I have
the latest drivers (wxp-w2k-8-02-040515a-015958c.exe). I have the
patch from Microsoft for the game. Actually, the latest drivers have
made the graphics a little flaky. Perhaps I should try reinstalling
it, or play with various graphics related options in both the game and
the graphics card. Tiger Woods 2003 is still stable and solid (in
fact the driver update has fixed a minor graphics glitch on one of the
courses).

> > I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> > days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> > accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> > graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
> > makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> > rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.
>
> I don't think the graphic's engine is underpowered. My screen draws are
> typically between 1-2 seconds, depending on the course.

Depends on the scene, yes.

> The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
> exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing more.

How is it flawed? Is there an area where Links is accurate where Tiger
Woods gets it wrong? As a non-golf player - and only occasional
computer golf player - I'd be interested to know.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

If you have an ATI Radeon the reason for it beeing slow is that the graphics
card does not recognize it. Make sure you have latest drivers because ATI
corrected this problem several months ago. The problem can also be corrected
manually. You should get 25-30 FPS easily.

REL
"Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa2f473d.0406140135.216424e3@posting.google.com...
> I got this game the other day. I also got Tiger Woods 2003 at the same
> time. I couldn't decide what to get. I got them on eBay so they were
> pretty cheap.
>
> I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
> I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> to use as a CAD/CAM package. There doesn't seem to be any way of
> having anything like the same camera choices as in Tiger Woods. The
> best I can get is multiple windows, but they slow the action down from
> an already slow start. And when I saw slow..... there's actually a FPS
> counter in the corner of the screen, which on my PC (2.1 ghz athlon,
> 512mb ram, 128MB graphics card, directx 9.0b, latest graphics drivers
> for my card) shows numbers in the range 5-12 FPS. This is simply
> laughable. If I want to rotate the golfer to look in a different
> direction I have to use this little tedious control at the bottom of
> the screen, then click `ok` and it says `rendering - please wait` and
> takes 5 secs or so to redraw the screen.
>
> I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
> makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual fix
below which is from Links Corner:

This procedure involves adding your video card manually to the Videocard.txt
file for Links 2003:

Determine the DeviceID for your video adapter in the Dxdiag.txt file:
- Click Start, and then click Run.
- In the Open box, type dxdiag and then click OK. The Microsoft DirectX
Diagnostic Tool starts.
- Click Save All Information.
- In the Save As dialog box, click Desktop, verify that the file name that
appears in the File name box is Dxdiag.txt, and then click Save.
- Click Exit to quit the DirectX Diagnostic Tool.
- On your desktop, double-click the Dxdiag.txt file that you saved in step
1d.
- Under the Display Devices section, locate and note or copy the Device ID
value. For example, 0x0177.
- On the File menu, click Exit to quit Notepad.

Add the DeviceID entry for your video adapter to the Videocard.txt file:
Open the Videocard.txt file. The Videocard.txt file is located in the
following folder, where drive is the drive where Links 2003 is installed:
drive:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Links 2003

Locate the following line: "Vendor = 0x1002 "ATI". This line identifies the
beginning of the ATI device listing section.
Scroll to the end of the ATI device listing section. The last entry in this
section should be the following:
0x5656 = "Mach 64"
BrokenAlphaTest
TextureOffset

Create an entry for your video adapter at the end of the ATI device listing
section that begins with the Device ID value that you determined in step 1g
from the Dxdiag.txt file. Something like this, however, replace 0x5654 with
your Device ID and "Mach 64" with your Card Name. Both of those items were
stored in the DXDiag.txt file.

0x5654 = "Mach 64"
NoCopyZinVidMem

On the File menu, click Save, and then quit Notepad
If you get stuck mail me your Dxdiag.txt and your Videocard.txt and ill edit
for you

"Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa2f473d.0406141443.3f866db4@posting.google.com...
> "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
news:<cyizc.50873$Sw.13209@attbi_s51>...
> > >
> > > I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
> > > I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> > > attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> > > comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> > > around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> > > to use as a CAD/CAM package.
> >
> > Links does not pretend to be anything pretty. If you're looking for
looks
> > over gameplay, then TW is the way to go. It's not any secret around
these
> > parts that I prefer Links. Try playing Powerstroke: it's the most
realistic
> > mode.
>
> I'll check it out.
>
> > You haven't indicated what graphic's card you're using. If you're using
> > nVidia, make sure you are using the latest drivers. My guess is that
you're
> > using an ATI card. Still, you shouldn't have those kinds of frames. I
have
> > a 2.3 Ghz Intel processor and a nVidia T4200 card and my frames are
maxed at
> > 30 or so (I think there's a cap on the frames, and sometimes I wonder
the
> > counter works at all.).
>
> You're right - it's a Radeon 9200, on a board by by Connect3d. I have
> the latest drivers (wxp-w2k-8-02-040515a-015958c.exe). I have the
> patch from Microsoft for the game. Actually, the latest drivers have
> made the graphics a little flaky. Perhaps I should try reinstalling
> it, or play with various graphics related options in both the game and
> the graphics card. Tiger Woods 2003 is still stable and solid (in
> fact the driver update has fixed a minor graphics glitch on one of the
> courses).
>
> > > I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> > > days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> > > accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> > > graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
> > > makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> > > rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.
> >
> > I don't think the graphic's engine is underpowered. My screen draws are
> > typically between 1-2 seconds, depending on the course.
>
> Depends on the scene, yes.
>
> > The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
> > exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing
more.
>
> How is it flawed? Is there an area where Links is accurate where Tiger
> Woods gets it wrong? As a non-golf player - and only occasional
> computer golf player - I'd be interested to know.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> > The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
> > exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing
more.
>
> How is it flawed? Is there an area where Links is accurate where Tiger
> Woods gets it wrong? As a non-golf player - and only occasional
> computer golf player - I'd be interested to know.

A couple of things bother me about TW 2004. First, lie almost has no affect
on the ball. Some will disagree with this, saying that not only does the
lie in TW have an influence on ball flight but that Links' is exaggerated.
I don't think this is true. In the times I have played TW-- on the top
difficulty level-- a could hit the ball on an extreme sidehill and there'd
be no change in ball flight whatever. To concede, I'd have to say that on
some lies in Links, ball flight is a bit exaggerated. But I'd rather have
this than no affect at all.

Second, wind does little if anything to ball flight. It just doesn't.

Third, in TW hitting out of the rough does not change ball roll. Typically,
the ball will roll farther on the green when hit from the rough. With TW,
the ball rolls the same, either way.

Fourth, the putting model in TW is pretty poor. (Nothing further to say on
this issue.)

The only thing TW has on Links, in my estimation, is that the former has a
much better career mode (Links' is non-existent, you might say) and has the
option to dress up the golfer.

And I might mention a third thing: TW has smoother online play. Over the
years, Links' online play has gotten more and more cumbersome. Without
resorting to hyperbole, you can finish a TW online game in the third of the
time that it takes to finish a Links online game.

But if you go for Links, which I think is the better game, drop me a line.
My ICQ is 4046944, and I'm always looking for some PowerStrokers.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Phrzc.100337$Ol3.1496@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual fix
> below which is from Links Corner:
>
> This procedure involves adding your video card manually to the Videocard.txt
> file for Links 2003:

> If you get stuck mail me your Dxdiag.txt and your Videocard.txt and ill edit
> for you

No, those instructions worked just fine, thanks. Now I have FPS up in
the 30's. Unfortunately, the ATI drivers I downloaded the other day
are VERY flaky and now Links is unplayable. The player is entirely
missing, and some of the overlaid icons/graphics in the lower left
corner of the screen are corrupted. I'll have to have a play around
with some of the display driver settings. I'll also keep an eye out
for yet newer drivers. There's even a little glitch on the mouse icon
in Tiger Woods 2003 now! I'm glad it's not just me who's noticed
problems with the ATI drivers, and hopefully there'll be another
version soon?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message news:<nUszc.36409$eu.31025@attbi_s02>...
> > > The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
> > > exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing
> more.
> >
> > How is it flawed? Is there an area where Links is accurate where Tiger
> > Woods gets it wrong? As a non-golf player - and only occasional
> > computer golf player - I'd be interested to know.
>
> A couple of things bother me about TW 2004. First, lie almost has no affect
> on the ball. Some will disagree with this, saying that not only does the
> lie in TW have an influence on ball flight but that Links' is exaggerated.
> I don't think this is true. In the times I have played TW-- on the top
> difficulty level-- a could hit the ball on an extreme sidehill and there'd
> be no change in ball flight whatever. To concede, I'd have to say that on
> some lies in Links, ball flight is a bit exaggerated. But I'd rather have
> this than no affect at all.

I have no way of determining which of the two games is the more
accurate regarding lie, as I have no experience of playing real golf.
What happens when I hit the ball in Tiger Woods is currently close
enough to what I would have expected to happen that this isn't a
problem. Perhaps as I play Links 2003 more any differences will become
more noticeable.

> Second, wind does little if anything to ball flight. It just doesn't.

Wind does have an effect on the ball in Tiger Woods 2003. Hit the ball
high into the air on a windy course and you'll see what I mean. As to
whether or not the wind is modelled accurately - see my previous
reply.

> Third, in TW hitting out of the rough does not change ball roll. Typically,
> the ball will roll farther on the green when hit from the rough. With TW,
> the ball rolls the same, either way.

I'll see if I notice this as I play both games.

> Fourth, the putting model in TW is pretty poor. (Nothing further to say on
> this issue.)

I find putting hard, but then i've always found putting hard! The
greens are much less flat in TW 2003 than on any other golf game I've
played before.

> The only thing TW has on Links, in my estimation, is that the former has a
> much better career mode (Links' is non-existent, you might say) and has the
> option to dress up the golfer.

Yeah, I've got my guy wearing a tie-dye shirt and a stupid pair of
trousers! Another improvement in TW is the ability to manipulate the
camera, zoom around the course to work out where to hit the ball etc.

> And I might mention a third thing: TW has smoother online play. Over the
> years, Links' online play has gotten more and more cumbersome. Without
> resorting to hyperbole, you can finish a TW online game in the third of the
> time that it takes to finish a Links online game.

I'm not paying £whatever a month to play online, though. I like the
idea of the email tournament in Links. Shame that's missing from TW.

> But if you go for Links, which I think is the better game, drop me a line.
> My ICQ is 4046944, and I'm always looking for some PowerStrokers.

If I ever get off the ground in Links I'll consider it!

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:21:03 GMT, "Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

>You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual fix
>below which is from Links Corner:

<tortuous fix snipped>

Its funny how all other games work just fine ATI cards. Why are you
blaming ATI and not MS?
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:<5t2tc09rhrervma7oh4uicvjksfqor717n@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:21:03 GMT, "Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual fix
> >below which is from Links Corner:
>
> <tortuous fix snipped>
>
> Its funny how all other games work just fine ATI cards. Why are you
> blaming ATI and not MS?

If the game works ok on other cards, but not specific ATI cards, then
the problem is probably caused by the implementation of DirectX on
that card. If it were Microsoft's fault you'd expect the problem to
exist on other cards.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk (Fred Bloggs) wrote in message news:<fa2f473d.0406150219.79938c0e@posting.google.com>...
> Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:<5t2tc09rhrervma7oh4uicvjksfqor717n@4ax.com>...
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:21:03 GMT, "Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual fix
> > >below which is from Links Corner:
> >
> > <tortuous fix snipped>
> >
> > Its funny how all other games work just fine ATI cards. Why are you
> > blaming ATI and not MS?
>
> If the game works ok on other cards, but not specific ATI cards, then
> the problem is probably caused by the implementation of DirectX on
> that card. If it were Microsoft's fault you'd expect the problem to
> exist on other cards.

Note - I'm talking about the glitchiness here. You may be right that
the problem with the file that needs to be edited is probably
Microsofts fault. Can't they just read the Caps info from the card's
Direct X implementation and work out what modes are/are not supported
themselves?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

My Links 2003 works fine with Cat 4.4 drivers
"Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
newshrzc.100337$Ol3.1496@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> You are right, the latest ATI Radeon drivers are a bit flaky. See manual
fix
> below which is from Links Corner:
>
> This procedure involves adding your video card manually to the
Videocard.txt
> file for Links 2003:
>
> Determine the DeviceID for your video adapter in the Dxdiag.txt file:
> - Click Start, and then click Run.
> - In the Open box, type dxdiag and then click OK. The Microsoft DirectX
> Diagnostic Tool starts.
> - Click Save All Information.
> - In the Save As dialog box, click Desktop, verify that the file name that
> appears in the File name box is Dxdiag.txt, and then click Save.
> - Click Exit to quit the DirectX Diagnostic Tool.
> - On your desktop, double-click the Dxdiag.txt file that you saved in step
> 1d.
> - Under the Display Devices section, locate and note or copy the Device ID
> value. For example, 0x0177.
> - On the File menu, click Exit to quit Notepad.
>
> Add the DeviceID entry for your video adapter to the Videocard.txt file:
> Open the Videocard.txt file. The Videocard.txt file is located in the
> following folder, where drive is the drive where Links 2003 is installed:
> drive:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Links 2003
>
> Locate the following line: "Vendor = 0x1002 "ATI". This line identifies
the
> beginning of the ATI device listing section.
> Scroll to the end of the ATI device listing section. The last entry in
this
> section should be the following:
> 0x5656 = "Mach 64"
> BrokenAlphaTest
> TextureOffset
>
> Create an entry for your video adapter at the end of the ATI device
listing
> section that begins with the Device ID value that you determined in step
1g
> from the Dxdiag.txt file. Something like this, however, replace 0x5654
with
> your Device ID and "Mach 64" with your Card Name. Both of those items were
> stored in the DXDiag.txt file.
>
> 0x5654 = "Mach 64"
> NoCopyZinVidMem
>
> On the File menu, click Save, and then quit Notepad
> If you get stuck mail me your Dxdiag.txt and your Videocard.txt and ill
edit
> for you
>
> "Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fa2f473d.0406141443.3f866db4@posting.google.com...
> > "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> news:<cyizc.50873$Sw.13209@attbi_s51>...
> > > >
> > > > I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews.
But
> > > > I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> > > > attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> > > > comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> > > > around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> > > > to use as a CAD/CAM package.
> > >
> > > Links does not pretend to be anything pretty. If you're looking for
> looks
> > > over gameplay, then TW is the way to go. It's not any secret around
> these
> > > parts that I prefer Links. Try playing Powerstroke: it's the most
> realistic
> > > mode.
> >
> > I'll check it out.
> >
> > > You haven't indicated what graphic's card you're using. If you're
using
> > > nVidia, make sure you are using the latest drivers. My guess is that
> you're
> > > using an ATI card. Still, you shouldn't have those kinds of frames.
I
> have
> > > a 2.3 Ghz Intel processor and a nVidia T4200 card and my frames are
> maxed at
> > > 30 or so (I think there's a cap on the frames, and sometimes I wonder
> the
> > > counter works at all.).
> >
> > You're right - it's a Radeon 9200, on a board by by Connect3d. I have
> > the latest drivers (wxp-w2k-8-02-040515a-015958c.exe). I have the
> > patch from Microsoft for the game. Actually, the latest drivers have
> > made the graphics a little flaky. Perhaps I should try reinstalling
> > it, or play with various graphics related options in both the game and
> > the graphics card. Tiger Woods 2003 is still stable and solid (in
> > fact the driver update has fixed a minor graphics glitch on one of the
> > courses).
> >
> > > > I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> > > > days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> > > > accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> > > > graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface
that
> > > > makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> > > > rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.
> > >
> > > I don't think the graphic's engine is underpowered. My screen draws
are
> > > typically between 1-2 seconds, depending on the course.
> >
> > Depends on the scene, yes.
> >
> > > The way I see it, TW is a flawed golf game trying to cover itself by
> > > exquisite graphics. Links is what it is, and pretends to be nothing
> more.
> >
> > How is it flawed? Is there an area where Links is accurate where Tiger
> > Woods gets it wrong? As a non-golf player - and only occasional
> > computer golf player - I'd be interested to know.
> >
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> I'm not paying £whatever a month to play online, though. I like the
> idea of the email tournament in Links. Shame that's missing from TW.
>

Tiger Woods 2004 has a direct, IP-to-IP connection, so you don't need to
pay, necessarily, to play online. And it's very smooth. The game is pure
arcade but fun. I played it for a while and then tired of it, returning to
my first love.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message news:<rZBzc.35529$2i5.13402@attbi_s52>...
> > I'm not paying £whatever a month to play online, though. I like the
> > idea of the email tournament in Links. Shame that's missing from TW.
> >
>
> Tiger Woods 2004 has a direct, IP-to-IP connection, so you don't need to
> pay, necessarily, to play online. And it's very smooth. The game is pure
> arcade but fun. I played it for a while and then tired of it, returning to
> my first love.

I noticed the manual to TW 2003 saying a similar thing. Perhaps the
feature is identical. I'll have to check it out! I'm on a dialup ISP
in the UK which disconnects every 2 hours. Do you think this is
likely to abort the game, or will it allow me to reconnect? Never done
any online gaming on the PC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

I'm in a similar spot, although I bought Tiger Woods 2003, then Tiger
Woods 2004. I'm a long time player of PC golf games/sims, being a fan of
the Jack Nicklaus series (now defunct but people are still playing it, and
it's not bad, but a bit old skool). I bought TW 2003 in 2003, and the
first Links game I bought was Links 2003.

Links 2003 is just slow in every way, and it detracts from the game. It
takes forever to play an 18 hole round of golf, especially with AI players.
The computer has to "think" for a couple seconds, then it swings. Then,
when you are done with the shot, it pops up a window asking if you want to
accept the shot. Also, manipulating the direction of the golfer is tedious-
everything is tedious about it. The only thing you can say nice is the
graphics have a certain "old skool" realism or beauty, being made mostly of
2D graphics. Up close, though, this looks really "flat" and wierd.

Tiger Woods on the other hand is just a better all around game in every
way. The game is fast. You hit the ball, and move on (you can even skip
all the little extra animations). The computer takes very little time to
think. There's no annoying confirmations on shots (but you can still take
mulligans, etc). Tiger woods also permits a horizontal mouse swing, which I
find to be alot more convenient than the vertical swing. And the career
mode is great, being inspired perhaps by games such as Tony Hawk Pro Skater,
or perhaps EA's other games, such as Need for Speed. the ability to create
a golfer that looks very close to just about any face or body type you can
imagine is also likewise impressive, as you can really put yourself in the
game then (put some sunglasses on your character, that always makes them
look better).

Now, difficulty wise I believe Tiger Woods is a little easier, especially
the 2003 version. Career mode in the 2004 version can be made somewhat
tougher. It's easy to hit straight shots, but at least they ramped up the
difficulty a bit and you can screw up shots, especially draws and fades.
Hitting from rough does take some power off the shot, and also you can see
some things like hitting woods in rough being quite challenging indeed (ie,
it usually leads to a very short shot). Ball physics seems fairly
realistic, and putting is a bit hard vs. Links. The mouse sensitivity
sometimes seems a bit too much as it is very easy to overhit a put, and the
ability to adjust it is something TW lacks and Links 2003 has. But still,
you can get used to it. The feel of TW career mode is more like a
high-level golfer with a nonexistant handicap, whereas if you cranked up
some of the older golf games you could often get scores of 10-30 over par,
which would be far more similar to most peoples real playing abilities. If
you crank up the non-career settings for difficulty, though, you can get
some extremely challenging swinging in there.

The only downside I see to both games is that the course editor is not
very "user friendly". Gone are the days of Jack Nicklaus 4 where just about
anybody could create a course. OK, it's not a big deal and there are alot
of user made courses for TW 2003 and 2004, and the bulk of the game is the
career mode which cannot have user-made courses, but still it would be nice
to have a "simpler" course editor with a more intuitive feel (JN 4 had a
style that was similar to using a paint program- poor for making exact
replicas of real courses but very good for making fantasy courses).

The worst thing about Links 2003 is there is no Links 2004 on the PC.
Microsoft just isn't interested in improving on the game at all at the
moment. Maybe there will be a Links 2005 and Microsoft can address the very
big flaws.

So, do yourself a favor and buy Tiger Woods 2004. It should be less than
20 dollars. It's too bad there isn't more competition in PC golf than Links
2003 at the moment, though (no Jack Nicklaus series, which could have been a
contender had Activision not killed it).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> I'm on a dialup ISP in the UK which disconnects every 2 hours. Do you
think this is
> likely to abort the game, or will it allow me to reconnect? Never done
> any online gaming on the PC.

Two hours is more than enough time to finish an 18-hole round, depending on
the number of people, of course. Even so, the game does have a resume
feature, which allows a round to be continued from where it let off.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message news:<nUszc.36409$eu.31025@attbi_s02>...

> But if you go for Links, which I think is the better game, drop me a line.
> My ICQ is 4046944, and I'm always looking for some PowerStrokers.

Is there a site or forum or something which helps people to find other
players for online games? I'm looking now, but there doesn't seem to
be too much, or that is too obvious to me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

Hi--

Can someone be so kind as to send me either the .crx or .crz files of
Phoenix and Congressional? They were lost in the move! Thanks!!

dnorden@bellsouth.net





"Ron Lane" <rlane8@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Yvkzc.68517$w34.3457789@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> If you have an ATI Radeon the reason for it beeing slow is that the graphics
> card does not recognize it. Make sure you have latest drivers because ATI
> corrected this problem several months ago. The problem can also be corrected
> manually. You should get 25-30 FPS easily.
>
> REL
> "Fred Bloggs" <mrfredbloggs@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fa2f473d.0406140135.216424e3@posting.google.com...
> > I got this game the other day. I also got Tiger Woods 2003 at the same
> > time. I couldn't decide what to get. I got them on eBay so they were
> > pretty cheap.
> >
> > I read reviews of both, and it seemed that both got good reviews. But
> > I really don't understand Links at all. Tiger woods is a fast,
> > attractive game where the camera follows the ball as it lands and
> > comes to a stop. You can quickly just from camera to camera, move it
> > around in real time etc. MS Links, on the other hand, is as awkward
> > to use as a CAD/CAM package. There doesn't seem to be any way of
> > having anything like the same camera choices as in Tiger Woods. The
> > best I can get is multiple windows, but they slow the action down from
> > an already slow start. And when I saw slow..... there's actually a FPS
> > counter in the corner of the screen, which on my PC (2.1 ghz athlon,
> > 512mb ram, 128MB graphics card, directx 9.0b, latest graphics drivers
> > for my card) shows numbers in the range 5-12 FPS. This is simply
> > laughable. If I want to rotate the golfer to look in a different
> > direction I have to use this little tedious control at the bottom of
> > the screen, then click `ok` and it says `rendering - please wait` and
> > takes 5 secs or so to redraw the screen.
> >
> > I'd like to give Links a chance. I have only had it for a couple of
> > days - there are lots of courses for it, and I'm sure the physics is
> > accurate. But unless I'm missing something it's been crippled by a
> > graphics engine which is seriously underpowered, and an interface that
> > makes me think it was grudgingly put together by someone who'd much
> > rather have driven the whole thing from a command line.
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Nordie" <dnorden@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:92d3f519.0406172032.5f669695@posting.google.com...
> Hi--
>
> Can someone be so kind as to send me either the .crx or .crz files of
> Phoenix and Congressional? They were lost in the move! Thanks!!
>
> dnorden@bellsouth.net
>

First off, these courses are copyrighted, so to transfer them would be
illegal. Second, most ISPs would not accept such large email attachments.

But if you need further assistance, ICQ me at 4046944.

Alanb