mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 22, 2019 1:00:36 GMT -5
First of all, I'm a little disappointed that the name I wanted is already taken: Sudden Valley. Props to the person who got to the Arrested Development reference, sooner. I guess I could always go with F*#k Mountain. I have a handful of RCRs in the works; but after the positive reception from my first ever course ( Royal Manchester - Lidar), I've decided to start a fictional course. I purposely started with a signature Par 3 to get a feel for the aesthetics and to set the lighting where I want it to stay for good. I know this is backwards, but a flat plot starting point doesn't work for me. I'm not a blank canvas kind of guy. I'd rather see the land, and build from there. Par 3 - 194 yards - Down 24 feet. Hoping to get the beta done over the holidays.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 22, 2019 2:52:13 GMT -5
Two holes down. Par 4 - 425 yards - Up 46 feet
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 22, 2019 12:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 22, 2019 21:52:31 GMT -5
Par 5 - 594 yards - Up 151 feet - Still reachable even with Pro clubs and no tailwind. At this point I know a few things about this design that I'll carry through the rest: overgrowth is a common theme; minimal sand bunkers; and I want to put as much stress on the wedges as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 22:17:47 GMT -5
Looks pretty darn solid for a first fictional course! Sculpting is a touch rough in places but not bad at all! You'll also find that when you go back to LiDAR you feel much more comfortable manipulating the land should you be unfortunate enough to encounter data with significant inaccuracies in it.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 22, 2019 22:25:03 GMT -5
Looks pretty darn solid for a first fictional course! Sculpting is a touch rough in places but not bad at all! You'll also find that when you go back to LiDAR you feel much more comfortable manipulating the land should you be unfortunate enough to encounter data with significant inaccuracies in it. Thanks! Any specific areas where sculpting looks "rough"? I'm finding there's a fine line between natural and unnatural. And if I ever load a Lidar and it has significant inaccuracies, then I'll likely convince myself I never liked that course in the first place and bail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 2:35:22 GMT -5
Around some of the tee boxes it might be flat for too long. Not a huge deal at all but something you'd want to smooth into the rest of terrain a little bit closer into them, unless you want the terrain to be flat well beyond the edge of the tees. Also, one of the bunkers in that second to last photo (the second closest) looks like something is going on with it. Not sure what though, if it's a shape thing or a sculpting thing. But bunkers took me quite a while to get more comfortable with, especially making decent shapes, I just think of it as 'new designer struggles.' I probably averaged 4-6 attempts when I was brand new to get a bunker shape I was happy with. Honestly it's probably no better or worse than I did near the beginning of my current first fictional WIP. Perhaps in some places the terrain drops off to the water a smidge too quickly, but I'm being kinda picky. And if you're making someone move towards nitpicking right out of the gate, you're doing pretty well. It could be something as simple as a big data artifact on one of the greens. Black rock had three that I'd consider 'significant:' for one I had no help and guessed (hole 6), another I had some pictures but nothing too helpful (17) and one I had photos showing just how it was supposed to be (11) and if it were not for being more comfortable with the tools I don't think I would've been able to rebuild almost a quarter of the green on hole 11. Furthermore, the course also had abundant ring imprint artifacts which took forever to (mostly) fix with my (then) lack of experience compared to now. Although I really liked the course, I did consider abandoning it altogether at one point.
On the other hand, if you get something where all the greens or large portions of the terrain are brutally inaccurate, of course the instinct would be to bail. Several people have looked at the heightmap for Eastward Ho and dropped it (same data set as Black Rock btw, so it's just bad data), and Smedley dropped Pasatiempo for similar reasons. It's one more reason to check the data quality after splining out just a few holes (low lighting and check the ground as carefully as you can to look for data artifacts and any other things that look out of place), and when doing so, you might as well check where the rest of them go if you're familiar with the layout as any potential nasty surprises might be visible enough to notice ahead of time.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 23, 2019 13:25:38 GMT -5
Around some of the tee boxes it might be flat for too long. Not a huge deal at all but something you'd want to smooth into the rest of terrain a little bit closer into them, unless you want the terrain to be flat well beyond the edge of the tees. Also, one of the bunkers in that second to last photo (the second closest) looks like something is going on with it. Not sure what though, if it's a shape thing or a sculpting thing. But bunkers took me quite a while to get more comfortable with, especially making decent shapes, I just think of it as 'new designer struggles.' I probably averaged 4-6 attempts when I was brand new to get a bunker shape I was happy with. Honestly it's probably no better or worse than I did near the beginning of my current first fictional WIP. Perhaps in some places the terrain drops off to the water a smidge too quickly, but I'm being kinda picky. And if you're making someone move towards nitpicking right out of the gate, you're doing pretty well. It could be something as simple as a big data artifact on one of the greens. Black rock had three that I'd consider 'significant:' for one I had no help and guessed (hole 6), another I had some pictures but nothing too helpful (17) and one I had photos showing just how it was supposed to be (11) and if it were not for being more comfortable with the tools I don't think I would've been able to rebuild almost a quarter of the green on hole 11. Furthermore, the course also had abundant ring imprint artifacts which took forever to (mostly) fix with my (then) lack of experience compared to now. Although I really liked the course, I did consider abandoning it altogether at one point.
On the other hand, if you get something where all the greens or large portions of the terrain are brutally inaccurate, of course the instinct would be to bail. Several people have looked at the heightmap for Eastward Ho and dropped it (same data set as Black Rock btw, so it's just bad data), and Smedley dropped Pasatiempo for similar reasons. It's one more reason to check the data quality after splining out just a few holes (low lighting and check the ground as carefully as you can to look for data artifacts and any other things that look out of place), and when doing so, you might as well check where the rest of them go if you're familiar with the layout as any potential nasty surprises might be visible enough to notice ahead of time. Thanks! I'll go back and take a look at that bunker. It's sitting on pretty rough ground, so it may just be the angle of that picture. It does look a little crinkled on the edges. The "crunchy" ground off the fairway is a stylistic choice, along with the overgrowth. I wanted that jagged natural look in some areas. Same goes for the steep drops around the water. I also wanted to juxtapose that with super large, clean, manufactured tee boxes. However, you're right, I should at least extend the tee box texture to cover more of it. Overall I'm pretty happy with it so far. My goal when designing is more golf oriented: how can I add unique golf shots into this without compromising options or playability? The little non-golf details (I won't have cart paths, and some areas may seem inaccessible) aren't as important to me. We'll see
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 24, 2019 0:35:11 GMT -5
Par 3 - 169 yards - Down 20 feet The flattest hole by a long shot. I love the symmetry from the tee. The "spectator" palms are becoming a theme around my greens. This may factor into the name of the course.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 24, 2019 0:40:18 GMT -5
Par 5 - 555 yards - Down 60 feet (however, the approach is usually up 15-20 feet). A very reachable Par 5. Will probably end up being the easiest hole on the course. I don't care, I love it. May go down as one of my favorites.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 24, 2019 11:33:07 GMT -5
Par 3 - 147 yards - Down 172 feet Officially a fantasy course, if it wasn't already. Fairly easy green if you stick it close.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 24, 2019 16:31:14 GMT -5
Par 4 - 455 yards - Down 23 feet Still needs a lot of planting and touch-ups, but strategically this is the best hole so far. As each round progresses from 1 to 4, it becomes more and more important to stay to the left side of the fairway to have a clean view of the pin.
|
|
mtkpa
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 112
|
Post by mtkpa on Dec 24, 2019 22:09:21 GMT -5
Par 3 - 165 yards - Down 5 feet The last Par 3. Yes, some of my greens are large. And it's 100% on purpose.
|
|