|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 8:20:03 GMT -5
Well..months ago I realized I'm a golf junkhead enough to start to create courses. I always rejected the idea mainly cause i know that considering how much precise i want/need to be in what I do, I could spent an insane amount of time on this, before of being satisfied a little by the result. And time is something I miss often, sadly. But in these last months this insane desire is growning in such a way that is silly to fight. But, no counting the fact that I know absolutely nothing about the editor tool, I realized also that my knowledge about architecture was simply not existent. Then I started to study. A lot. Reading all i can find, appreciating nuances, doing comparison, looking at every course, every hole I play in a different way. I must admit that the strongest input for me to work in this direction before to do anything else has been joegolferg cause his Raynor Ridge showed me exactly what architecture can do for a course in terms of playability. This means that whatever will happens, is Joe the one to blame. But to learn some principle about architecture is not enough. The most important thing is to find/create a personal philosophy. And is what I did (trying to do) in these months. Here I wish to share my conclusions and thoughts, ideas and everything could be related with this insane project. I already know that probably the first results of all this work will be visible..who knows..maybe in the next game? I don't know. Anyway..
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 9:49:19 GMT -5
After reading and studying all I can, I developed the embryo of a philosophy about architecture. These are my main points : 1) about the total par of a course, personally I'm not a fan of the main par 72 (4-10-4). I prefer a par 71-70 with 4/5 par 3s and 2/4 par 5s. 2) I learned that the main philosophies could be resumed in : Penal, strategic and heroic. I don't like penal golf, so my desire would be to offer a mix between a mainly strategic course, with often (everytime is possible)the chance for an heroic, very riskful/rewarding shot, that became very penal if the heroic shot is missed. For this reason, I don't like the idea to offer tight fairways or to eliminate a strip of light rough. I want to offer always a longer, easier way for the green. And a tougher way using only distances, hazards, shape of the fairways and contouring. 3) about par 3s, my main rules are to have always and only visually stunning holes, cause I consider par 3s as the little gems of a course. And to never have 2 par 3s with the same distance. One of them should be always a short wedge (lob, max gap), one always a wood/long iron. 4) about par 5s, my idea is that also the longest par 5s, should always offer a chance for an eagle. But in such a way that if you miss your riskful tee shot, your third for approach must be a tough/long one. 5) about par 4s, I wish to offer at least 1/2 riskful driveable par 4s, then 2 that requires a very riskful driver/pitch or a less riskful wood/wedge or an easy wood-long iron/short iron (or to create greens such that greater is the distance for the approach, lower are the chances to reach properly the pin) and at least 2 really long par 4s, then in all the rest try to offer a very riskful chance for an eagle, beside the "normal" way to play. 6) I like water and elevation changes, I wish to use both of them in at least half the course. About elevation changes, I agree with Nicklaus when he says that the ideal is to offer to the players the chance to see where to aim from the tee and then to decide accordingly. This means to avoid/limit uphill holes and blind shots. To obtain this, the easiest way is to use elevated tees. At least 2 holes with a huge elevation change to deal with. 7) easy/not too tough par 4 opening hole and stretch of 4-5 holes (in the second nine, mainly) very tough, with something like a "bear trap", with a par 4, a par 3 and a par 5 really tough or riskful/rewarding. Hole 18 should be a par 4 or 5 extremely riskful/rewarding, with huge penalty if the riskful shot doesn't work as expected. 8) to place greens (pin positions) mainly not in line with fairways. Using tiers/slopes to create pin zones, but using false fronts and severe contouring only when it can be needed. And never to penalize good shots. The difficulty of a green should be the slight but constant pendency on two sides (left/bottom or right/top, just for example), making imperative to reach the right side of every pin to have an easy putt. 9) I wish to create, where is possible, some kind of natural amphitheater for the crowds on the hole 18. And a shared green for 9 and 18 hole. In this way, I could use the amphitheater for the conclusion of these holes AND for the tee shots of holes 1 and 10. 10) The tee shot of hole 1 and hole 18, should be visually stunning. Hole 1 should offer a visual of a great portion of the course, hole 18 of the clubhouse (just above the amphitheater). 11) I wish to create simple but good and very clear visual referring points for who plays with no aids. If is possible, avoiding all the tournament stuff. 12) To create two loops of nine holes in some way visually different, with a different use of trees, waters, elevation changes of the course, topography. 13) I like template holes. Especially on par 3s, they can create great holes. The idea would be to offer a pair of template holes on every course. 14) a more or less equal number of holes that requires a draw and a fade shot. Probably I forgot something..and something i consider as granted, probably, but is a good base I think. And..in every case, it means not so much cause in theory everything is possible. The challenge is to realize it. In these days I'll be not at home and with no PC, so i started by yesterday to design on paper some idea for some hole. And to insert them in a routing. I created already 3 holes. I'm pretty satisfied. The funny thing is that I still must learn how to use the course editor. I'll start to work on this when I'll be at home again. It will require months. A lot of months
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Nov 8, 2019 10:38:44 GMT -5
Get it Ezzino! You have some great ideas here. I encourage you to simply start an empty plot where you can just mess around before trying to start building your actual course. Go through the different sculpting tools and see what they all do. Resize/reshape, raise/lower. See the difference between using "landscape raise" and "landscape flatten". Sculpting is the number 1 most important aspect of designing, especially if you're looking at doing elevation changes. You want them to look as natural as possible.
For water, not sure if you're looking to do ponds/lakes or streams/rivers. One thing I see with water that many new designers do is they just drop the land straight down and add the water body. So their entire lake/river is surrounded by a cliff. Does not look very realistic. Make sure you sculpt a nice shallow shoreline around water. Looks much more neat and natural.
The circular fuzzy brush on page 4 is your best friend. Use it early and often. That brush gives you the most control over the landscape.
Obviously there is much more to designing than just sculpting but it's a huge one that can make or break a course. Check out Andre's youtube channel for amazing beginner tips on the other aspects of designing.
Good luck! Can't wait to see some pictures and follow your progress
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 13:44:58 GMT -5
Thank you But i'm not so sure that they are actually good ideas, they are just the things I like the most on a course to play. Anyway..I'm pretty sure that before to create something just near to an actual course, I'll need to spend at least a pair of months on the editor. At least. Is clear to me. It will be hard. But I know (hope) that if I'll follow the footsteps and the advices of the great number of guys who created videos and guides, I could learn tons of stuff that I could never learn by myself. Then I will see if I actually can create a good course or not. It will be a matter or try and fail, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 14:45:26 GMT -5
While I'm drawing on papers, I already see what is the main problem. I have good ideas for interesting and challenging holes, but the majority works well only with a prevailing wind. Some of them (mainly the longest) can't work with a different wind. The greatest difficulty seems to create holes and/or a course that works in the proper way in every condition. The wind direction change everything. So, THIS will be the final real challenge, I think.
Anyway..I decided to proceed gradually. In these days I'll draw on paper just considering only three wind directions (for example SW,S,SE) for my course, drawing various holes until I'll obtain 18 holes routed in the proper direction and satisfying enough to create a course, that will be my first project.
When I'll be at home again, next week, then I'll start to learn how to use the course editor. I'll start with a 9 hole course made by par 3s, to work on greens.. then I'll create a 9 hole course, basic par 36, trying various themes and to work on fairways, bunkers, everything. Working on it until I'll understand how to design.
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Nov 8, 2019 15:39:31 GMT -5
Good luck, Ezzino. I think you are off to a good start with all your research, and your course principals seem well thought out. The designer can have a steep learning curve to get your ideas translated into terrain, so I agree with Joe Myself about playing around without actually building a course until you feel comfortable using the designer. It seems like you have the imagination to make some good courses from scratch, which is something I am not that good at. I think my skills are better used for RCRs.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Nov 8, 2019 15:44:16 GMT -5
Well..months ago I realized I'm a golf junkhead enough to start to create courses. I always rejected the idea mainly cause i know that considering how much precise i want/need to be in what I do, I could spent an insane amount of time on this, before of being satisfied a little by the result. And time is something I miss often, sadly. But in these last months this insane desire is growning in such a way that is silly to fight. But, no counting the fact that I know absolutely nothing about the editor tool, I realized also that my knowledge about architecture was simply not existent. Then I started to study. A lot. Reading all i can find, appreciating nuances, doing comparison, looking at every course, every hole I play in a different way. I must admit that the strongest input for me to work in this direction before to do anything else has been joegolferg cause his Raynor Ridge showed me exactly what architecture can do for a course in terms of playability. This means that whatever will happens, is Joe the one to blame. But to learn some principle about architecture is not enough. The most important thing is to find/create a personal philosophy. And is what I did (trying to do) in these months. Here I wish to share my conclusions and thoughts, ideas and everything could be related with this insane project. I already know that probably the first results of all this work will be visible..who knows..maybe in the next game? I don't know. Anyway.. I suppose you're my Frankenstein then? I think it's a bout time you took up the pyshical act of designing courses for the TGC community as you clearly have a good grasp course architecture and you have enthusiasm to do it which is ridiculously important. Committing to a design is key to it turning out to be a quality product of your making. I would suggest that before you start to build your actual course you should load up a blank canvass for somewhere to practice your routing, sculpting, texture placement and implementation of angles and elevation because it really is something that comes with hours of experience in the designer. It took me the entirety of TGC1 to get to a good enough level to design courses that not only became recognized but to also host tour events, a lot of trial and error went on. You make a very important point about finding your own formula and working from that. It's important that you find the techniques in the designer that best suit you and stick to them. By doing this your courses will have consistent characteristics and you will navigate the tools fluently every time. I have a good number conversations open in with many designers on here in private messaging and you're more than welcome to ask me any questions or for a hand with something if you need to. Good luck this the designing 👍
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 15:51:43 GMT -5
Beside this project for my first course, I'll wait to be at home again, with my PC, to think about the 9 hole courses I'll use to learn and to do experiments. And this cause I want to recreate variations of real holes, to start. To have referring points to follow and to understand what is in fact, strategically, that make certain holes so good to play. I think it will be a good way to put in practice what I'm learning only in theory.
So, I'll start a list of great real holes, creating some kind of database (with pics and..everything, in short), dividing them for par, distance, kind of course in which every hole is created and inserted. And I'll use these holes to learn how to create a course, sculpt terrains, select the best environment etc.. before to create a "my" course.
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 16:27:10 GMT -5
joegolferg sandsaver01 thank you for the support and the advices guys I'm ready to spend weeks..if not months, just to learn how to use properly the editor. And as I said, I'm pretty sure that to have a semi-satisfying first course I'll need months. I'm not so sure It is a joke if i say that it will happens when a new game will be on sale. But..i have the patience and the wish to start this enterprise. Is enough. At least to start. And..about my skills on design..actually the graphic arts are never been my strong point. I'm absolutely not so sure I can actually create what I imagine. But, at worst, If I learn how to use the editor, I could always to do RCRs. (I'll do RCRs in every case..i have an infinite list of courses in Asia, Africa, Center/South America and Europe of courses to do that no one would never create..is one of the reasons why I want to learn ) In every case, is something good. There is nothing to lose. I must just be humble and patient enough to study and to learn all what I'll need to learn. And yes..i'll definitely ask often for some help. Bunkers are probably the thing that scares and/or makes me curious the most..in every aspect. I can't wait to be at home again and to start this study.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 17:26:14 GMT -5
While I'm drawing on papers, I already see what is the main problem. I have good ideas for interesting and challenging holes, but the majority works well only with a prevailing wind. Some of them (mainly the longest) can't work with a different wind. The greatest difficulty seems to create holes and/or a course that works in the proper way in every condition. The wind direction change everything. So, THIS will be the final real challenge, I think. There is a reason I have long since lost any interest in fantasy courses for golf games, and I thought I would share it with you since your a nice guy with an awesome enthusiasm My problem with fantasy courses - even those that try to be realistic, is that they all are "gamey". With this, I mean they are designed for the video game, not golf. Any landing area are thought to be the landing area for the game (like 285 yard carry with the master club driver in this game) - not the average golfer who hits an average of 150 yard carry and roll out to 200 yard. Or anything in between. So, I find that the designers are trying to create stuff that only fits for the current game (you see this in all games with different distances and physics provided by the game) (bunkers are placed at this location, the strategy are all based on the distances that the game provides, all the fairways are narrowing at these distances etc). This has been the case since the old days of APCD. Different games, different distances etc. I play golf games to have a simulation of real golf, and this "gamey" design kills simulation for me - and imho deeper consideration for all kind of players gives better courses for golf.
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 8, 2019 18:19:07 GMT -5
This is great that you’re getting into design, being the deep thinker you are I can see you’re going to be a master craftsmen BUT I will say now - just go make a pile of crap as your first course and fail.
That’s not as bad as it sounds! My first attempt was just awful but I actually came up with some interesting concepts I still use today, I just didn’t know about the fuzzy blue brush on my first attempt so had lots of sharp cliffs haha!
You will get better every time you release a course so don’t let the pressure of excellence hold you back. Just get some holes laid out and get learning, your 5th course will be when you really come into your own on this so build the first 4 quickly!
I’ll be looking out if I can help in any way bud!
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 19:21:14 GMT -5
@andersnm you definitely, totally, centered the point. And, just like you, I definitely prefer real courses for your same reason. Maybe the only difference between us, is that I don't think the real problem is the exaggerated distance we can cover in this game. I think is the aim marker, what kills any realism. With the aim marker, almost every risk in your idea about a shot disappears. At that point, your only concern as a player must be to have a clear idea of the shot you need, a straight line on your swing and to read properly the wind. Then is done. And you can easily choose landing points that, without the aim marker, 99 times on 100 you would never consider as good or even playable, cause it would be required a simply insane risk. We are all Seve Ballesteros, with the aim marker. Is all about this, for me. Knowing this..if a designer wants to create a tough and challenging course for the best players of tgus game..obviously the easier solution is to create a course simply "unfair", if not totally unreal, compared to a real course. And of course, at that point the easier philosophy to embrace is the penal one : super tight fairways, no light rough, outrageous contouring and sloping on greens..stuff like this. I understand why it happens. And I can't blame who creates this kind of courses. Otherwise is really, really hard to obtain this kind of result. What I'm realizing drawing courses just on paper, is that if I want to offer an hole really challenging embracing the strategic philosophy, I have not so many options. Exactly cause the aim marker turns a theorically very tough shot/decision in an easy one. Then the only solution I'm finding (after 5 holes designed, not including par 3s) is to create holes that yes, can offers strategy and requires choices, but I can obtain it only if I work considering a single wind direction. Just to say..i created a long par 5. Is a par 5 really long, playable just for birdie. But there is a way to play for the eagle. With a riskful shot. And if you miss that shot, your third will require probably a long iron to the green. I'm quite satisfied of the result, to be honest. But it works as expected, strategically, only with a definite wind direction. Drawing other holes, I see that is incredibly hard to offer challenging and various kind of holes, being no repetitive. If I could create courses just for the TST, or for who plays with no aids, would be incredibly easier. And I would have lot of options more. A LOT. Anyway..i like the challenge. And I'm also sure that looking the work of other designers, I'll find always more and better solutions. I just need to study a lot. About everything. And is what I'm going to do
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Nov 8, 2019 19:46:56 GMT -5
This is great that you’re getting into design, being the deep thinker you are I can see you’re going to be a master craftsmen BUT I will say now - just go make a pile of crap as your first course and fail. That’s not as bad as it sounds! My first attempt was just awful but I actually came up with some interesting concepts I still use today, I just didn’t know about the fuzzy blue brush on my first attempt so had lots of sharp cliffs haha! You will get better every time you release a course so don’t let the pressure of excellence hold you back. Just get some holes laid out and get learning, your 5th course will be when you really come into your own on this so build the first 4 quickly! I’ll be looking out if I can help in any way bud! I don't know if "deep thinker" is a good definition of what I do/am 👀 But thank you Anyway..i'm not too concerned about the reception of my future works. And not only cause I'm probably the most severe judge I could ever find (but I suspect is exactly what any designer says just before to go crazy for a bad reception of his work ), i'm very quiet about this mainly cause I know really well, after these months spent in this community, that the great majority of the guys who spend their times to check/evaluate/judge courses, are guys that are always sincerely constructive with their critics. Even when those critics could sound too harsh or even unfair. I believe is just about to leave my ego at home and to don't pretend for some reason to be considered as a genius or some like this..to be a bit humble, in short..and I'm sure everything will be fine. In any case, this thing will requires time and a lot of failures, before to find my way and, above all, I must consider also the chance that it can be absolutely possible that all my efforts could be not enough to create enjoyable courses. Cause above the knowledge, the passion, the patience and..everything, I mean, there is the talent. And the talent is something that you have..or you have not. Everything must be tested..but to try..and to try with all I can, is the only way to know what I can or i can't do. And, if after all the hard study and work I will learn at least enough about sculpting, planting and, in short, about how to realize pretty looking courses, but I should also realize that I have not enough talent to create enjoyable courses, at worst I'll create only RCRs in the best way I can. And I love RCRs, so...I would win in every case. Is just something that for me deserves every drop of the strong effort I'm going to put in this thing. And is exactly this thought that convinced me, to be honest..not the fact that I'm sure I can be a good designer, cause I'm not sure at all, about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 20:41:11 GMT -5
@andersnm you definitely, totally, centered the point. And, just like you, I definitely prefer real courses for your same reason. Maybe the only difference between us, is that I don't think the real problem is the exaggerated distance we can cover in this game. I think is the aim marker, what kills any realism. With the aim marker, almost every risk in your idea about a shot disappears. At that point, your only concern as a player must be to have a clear idea of the shot you need, a straight line on your swing and to read properly the wind. Then is done. And you can easily choose landing points that, without the aim marker, 99 times on 100 you would never consider as good or even playable, cause it would be required a simply insane risk. We are all Seve Ballesteros, with the aim marker. Is all about this, for me. I do not think 285 yard carry is wrong at all in a game that is simulating top level golf. This is total in line with average driving distance seen on tour from the best players, so I think this is perfect. The aids are, and will always be unrealistic - but for many (most) players needed to simulate top level golf. Though, the scores you see on tour here is just totaly unrealistic low - so all these players could actually turn off all aids - but some like unrealistic play and scores. If you like simulation, I would sincerly recommend that you join us at Ultra Sim Experience - no aids: no scout cam, no follow cam, no grid, no putting marker, no ghost balls out of turn, no chipping from bunkers, no use of the loft box - only real courses. My problem with fantasy courses is there regardless of aids or no aids. There might be exemptions, but I have yet to see fantasy courses that are not "gamey", and I think it is hard for designers to avoid this and actually design courses for golf - and not the video game. Ofcourse, there are players that like fantasy golf - or both. (which is perfectly fine).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2019 0:31:38 GMT -5
@andersnm Funny how you mention that. I feel there will always be an element of 'making courses tough enough to prove suitable for video game play.' I am trying to walk a tightrope with a fictional project that will hopefully be tough enough to be challenging for a typical TGCT player but also with options easy enough that it isn't way too hard to play on simulator. The key to that idea is to make the green surfaces extremely pitched, that way they don't have as many micro-sections as a lot of fictional courses do but so that, when slowed down to IRL speeds in the 8-11 stimp range, are perfectly playable. On 187 it won't be 'believable' as a real course, but drop the green speed to 144 and it would. Every aspect of this course has 'is this viable on simulator' asked about it, right down to the 5 sets of tees to accommodate drive distances as low as 200-220yds including roll. ezzinomilonga You may want to check out crazycanuck1985's TGC19 designer tutorial series, as it covers a lot of the basics. It's also worth considering LiDAR courses, both because you can put out a half-decent product on your first go (and not feel too bad about it) and because it can be an easier way to ease into learning the designer tools. Add that if you pick a thoughtfully designed course it can turn into a valuable design 'lesson' and it's hard to go wrong with it. That said, the vast majority of what I have learned about sculpting in particular came from working on my fictional WIP. As a whole I have probably spent 650-700hrs using the designer and I'm almost starting to feel like I could make a course look however I want to (but I'm still not all the way 'there').
This is a hole that I recently put some of the finishing touches on, probably a couple more hours until all the planting and detail work is done on it. But I'm using it as an example to show how there doesn't have to be a clear 'fictional' element to a golf hole, even if it's not one from a real course. i.imgur.com/8tOFymk.jpgInspirations for this hole are pretty clear. The bunker style is mostly Brian Silva, which means it's a combination of what the various Golden Age architects' bunker styles. The green is an original although the shape is a fusion of the angled green at Augusta National #12 with a typical MacRaynor 'Short' template hole. It's 149yds in length from the back (master club) tees, scaling down to around 115yds from the front tees. The bunkering was inspired by the land where the green site was found (it was a little spit of land that fell off on all but the left side) and is also similar in style to a typical MacRaynor Short template: deep and menacing with hidden hazards for those who go long. The green contours, while sort of an original, bear some resemblance to the low/high/low found on the 17th at TPC Sawgrass despite the terrain hinting at a Redan-style complex. It's a melting pot of various different ideas that all came from real courses, but since this hole is not on a real course it's still a fictional golf hole. Even though it is a short golf hole, it should be playable in sim if you aim for the center of the green, and that's not to mention that due to putting inconsistencies on a lot of simulators many players don't putt at all. So if they hit the green at all it's a par. As soon as they go pin-hunting and mishit one, they're in trouble. For anyone who mishits one looking for an easy birdie, they could've had a pretty safe par. It's not as diabolical as 14 at Engineers Country Club (or 8 at Royal Troon, 11 at Applebrook, 15 at Los Angeles CC North) which would all be downright terrifying on sim. There's still a plethora of in-game courses that, with some very minor tweaks, could easily be real courses. Necedah Pines quickly comes to mind there, as do some of Joe's courses. Necedah and Raynor Ridge are both courses I'd happily pay money to play if they were real.
P.S. Forgot to wish you a lot of fun times as a designer! You might find it's better to take it slow at first, but just do whatever you feel like doing. And if you don't feel like working on your course at a given time, don't be afraid to step away. Burnout is a real thing with how much time and effort people put into their courses.
|
|