I think funkypool is verry real in most part of the game.
What really is anoin me is that the strength, of the shots usin spin, is turned down. Dont think that is real behaviour.

Mike

Without commenting on the FP implemention vs real life as such, it's completely correct that more spin = less of the power from the cue transfered to ball speed...

The physics are very simple... when comparing two identical power shots, one with lots of spin, one without:

Without spin, the entire power from the cue is transfered into cueball velocity.

With spin, some of the energy from the cue is transferred to cueball rotation, and the remaining energy to velocity.

In short you have the same amount of available energy used toward two purposes rather than one...

Edited at 15:08 Mon 05/04/10 (BST)

Couldn't of said it better myself

well spoken - but for example:

In real life u use for a break a different cue which is much harder than the playin cue. And also is the break usually the hardest shot of the game - with spin or without. So if i use in funkypool spin in a break i cant play the hardest shot.

Mike

True, then again, the entire concept of a limit to how hard you can play is simply a necessary, but artificial thing for computer systems...

And in real life, all players have a physical maximum to how fast you can move the cue - with speed or without. If trying to make a spin shot, that maximum goes down, both because of increased precision requirements, as well as getting a clean contact on the cue ball (the friction has a limit, meaning at some point you get bad hits and bad reactions instead of the shot you want)

I don't think the maximum ball motion we have in FP is too bad - if you look at how much / how little you can make happen on a break here, that translates quite well into real life too imo

I do think being able to generate a little more pace into the break in 9 ball would be an improvement.

There was a rule brought in - I think by whoever governs the game in Europe(?) - that on the break at least three of the balls must be pocketed or come up the table and cross the headstring line for it to be a legal break. I am fairly sure that would be impossible for the vast majority of breaks on here.

I am not saying that is a rule to bring in here - but I do think you ought to be able to generate enough power in the break to be able to play such a shot.

The amount of power available during the break is probably the one and only thing i would change about funkypool if i were up to me.

Infact the breaking power was reduced considerably a couple of years back, not totally sure why but im sure there is good logic behind it somewhere :D

I believe it was introduced for this year's Mosconi Cup, can't remember whether the rule was 2 or 3 balls though.

Personally I like the speed it's at, if we introduced more power there would be runouts all over the pace...due to the balls being so widely spread, It's not extremely difficult to manouvre (spellcheck) the cueball around with only 9 balls on the table.

SPELLCHECKER: Maneuver (apparently)

I dont mind either way tbh, Bit more power would be a bit of a boost for me, but i don't have much trouble getting runouts with the current power

People just have to find a better break i guess

In my opinion its a game. Games will never be the same as real life.

I agree with robdut, how it is now is fine. The last thing we need in my opinion is "different strength cues" and the sorts of things like that; its a social pool site not world championship play offs.

I see no problem with how it is now.

I see no great 'problem' with it either, however it is not as realistic as it could be. And the fact is that, despite what anyone posts, Nick has stated many times, both on here and snooker, that he aims to make these games as realistic as possible within the confines of the two-dimensional gameplay.

If he considers that means increasing the ability to spread the balls off the break then I am sure he will do it - if he doesn't then he won't.

If that makes 9 ball run outs easier, or at least as common as in the real game, then so be it - although I suspect in reality it would not make as much difference as has been suggested.

If your talking about making it realistic then when the white ball is on the cushion, it is impossible to screw the white back to the other side of the table

......hence why it says 'within the confines of the two-dimensional gameplay.'

In real 9 ball the most powerful break is to strike the cue ball right in the middle and aim to hit the 1 ball full on. If you do that on here it is pretty much the least effective break you can do.

The power of the white does not seem to be the main issue, rather the way that power spreads amongst the racked balls.

Anyway, not a problem but certainly something that has the potential to improve the game.

I remember a game a few years back that I played where the spin was disabled depending where you were on the table.

For example, if you were on the cushion or chinese snookered, the bottom half of the ball on the spin indicator was greyed out so you couldn't put spin on in that particular area. so if you were on the cushion, the bottom half of the ball was greayed out so you couldnt hit low on the cueball, henceforth, being unable to apply backspin.

Can't remember the game, but I know 2flashme2 was on there too so I'll try and find it out.

Good idea to implement, but hard to do I reckon.

Difficult to do because if you were playing along the cushion you would be able to hit the white and get full back spin.

Has been discussed on here before. It would need the game to know the direction you were playing before deciding how much spin you could use. I am sure it can be done but is that the direction most would want it to go in? I doubt it to be honest.

yeah thats what this other game did, greyed out different parts of the ball depending on the shot you wanted to play, but yeah, the bit about the game needing to know where you wanted to play is a good point, that'd be the hardest bit.

but tbh I wouldn't want it to be implemented, I was more just commenting on nufc's post saying there was a game that had done it before

it would mean lining the shot up then applying spin (if any) before going back to the shot, breaks it up too much for my liking

Not necessarily.

Such suggestions tend to get shot down by arguments about this requiring the transformation into a 3D game. That's essentially wrong - you could easily go for a simple emulation of spin cutoff based on ball/cushion proximity.

The main hurdle is the sequence in which you control your shots. Since the cutoff would be very much based on which direction you are shooting, you would need to rework the controls to select aiming point first, then choose spin, then execute the shot. I'm sure most people, Nick particularly, would not want to completely change the interface like that.

Or in so many words: What Chris just said. (sorry, read that one too late)

Yep.

A different approach might have been doing both at the same time though - for example using mouse for your aim/execution, and controlling spin with the arrow keys. The aiming point (shot direction) would clearly take precedence and real-time limit your spin selection. Not as complexe as it may sound, but I don't really like it myself either. Just a technically sound way to go about it if you somehow wanted to do it in the first place.

this is all good but would have to agree that game has got all aspects required to make it enjoyable to play.

would indeed become very complex with addition of spin availability and even something that many of us real players would use would be the swerve shot (or jump shot!!!!) but to be honest i think it would most definitely over-complicate the whole thing and turn it into a game playable only to those that knew a lot about the game. granted it is only pool and really there aren't too many other add ons u could have, but, this is universal to all who participate and enables everyone to enjoy it.

am i going on a bit?.......let me know and i'll shut up