Two GSPro tests show how Physics 2.0 changes green rollout

Two new creator tests give GSPro players a closer look at how Physics 2.0 changes shots after they reach the green. Hosel Rocket Golf compares firmness settings in a practice-range test, while Friendly Golfer takes the beta through a two-player round at Perry Park Country Club.

The demonstrations follow GSPro’s October 1 public-beta release. Its official notes say the original physics were developed around hard, links-style greens, and explain the move toward more receptive conditions following community feedback. TPL already covered that release; these October 7 videos provide the new testing evidence.

Hosel Rocket Golf aims for roughly 100-yard shots with a 51-degree approach wedge. He uses a flat range green and changes the firmness from soft through links, then repeats the sequence in the beta.

His stable-version summaries range from about three yards of rollout on soft greens to roughly 12 on links. The beta summaries run from about a yard of backward movement on soft to 2.5–3 yards of forward rollout on links. He criticizes how little separation the beta produces between settings.

Those figures describe his demonstrated shots. Strike quality, carry and spin vary, and he repeatedly acknowledges that he cannot deliver identical swings. The footage makes those differences visible instead of isolating firmness with a controlled input. He also shows a different wedge near the end, which changes the spin delivered into the test.

Friendly Golfer approaches the question through play. The hosts try low and high chips, approaches and bunker shots during their scramble. Their reactions are mixed: some shots look acceptable to them, while others appear to stop or spin back more than expected.

That round uses normal firmness and a stimp setting of 11. It also includes sloping greens, rough and elevation, making its shots a different kind of evidence from the range comparison. The hosts encounter connection problems but do not establish whether GSPro, their connections or their equipment caused them.

Both videos are useful for seeing a beta behave in actual sessions. Neither settles how accurately every shot should react outdoors. A viewer can inspect the measured launch data and the chosen conditions alongside the ball’s bounce and final position.

For league or practice comparisons, keep the software version with the result. A round played on the stable build and one played on this beta may produce different stopping distances even when both menus show the same firmness label. The videos support checking that difference before interpreting a new score or a changed wedge result.

D Lud adds a comparison with PurePlay

D Lud Golf’s October 12 video extends the landing-physics question across two platforms. He places beta versions of PurePlay and GSPro side by side, concentrating on the ball’s response after it reaches fairways and greens.

The creator lists medium graphics at 1440p and normal conditions with a stimp setting of 11 in both programs. His description says he uses the same course, hole and distances. Those matched menu settings establish the intended comparison, while the incoming shot data still needs attention.

D Lud explains that the spin figures on the two displays are not directly interchangeable. In his account, PurePlay shows total spin and includes the lie penalty in the displayed number from rough; GSPro displays the raw spin before that adjustment. He also acknowledges individual shots with mismatched spin.

That limits what a viewer can conclude from a difference in rollout. The footage is a creator’s practical comparison of two beta builds, with varying inputs. It does not establish an overall winner or prove that either model reproduces every outdoor shot accurately. Keep the launch data, lie and software version beside the landing result when comparing the examples.