chiefranja
Caddy
Posts: 40
TGCT Name: Nathan Verma
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by chiefranja on Apr 14, 2020 19:02:52 GMT -5
Torn on putting paths in or not. I’ve seen it done extremely well, particularly by Dario, but I’m wondering what other people prefer
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Apr 15, 2020 1:09:04 GMT -5
A good-looking cart path adds a lot to the course. I say 'yea' on them, but only if you're willing to put in the time to make them look good. And that will take time.
|
|
laladiesman
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 267
TGCT Name: David Paul
Tour: Platinum
|
Post by laladiesman on Apr 15, 2020 1:47:03 GMT -5
No because it is what I am literally doing at the moment. I am splining the front 9 for now the third time. I may get away with the back 9. Love the look which is why I measured them in as I went along but they are a sob to get right from every angle on every pin or tee box on every hole. But I’m committed to all the amenities on my first design. I don’t want to start a new thread but where do you stand on stuff like ranges, concessions, parking, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Apr 15, 2020 3:57:33 GMT -5
Generally no, but used in the right situation it wouldn't put me off.
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Apr 15, 2020 4:38:03 GMT -5
I'd say that cart paths are ok to put on a course, but it would be dependent on what type of course you are designing. I don't think it would look right on a links or highland style course as they tend to be more rugged terrain. I think parkland and steppe themed courses benefit from a cart path as it can be used to frame a hole and add a spine to the course. On a steppe course it can connect your tee boxes to the fairway which will free up the space in between for planting.
If you are going to use a cart path, remember to smooth the path and make sure it's flattened.
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Apr 15, 2020 7:02:49 GMT -5
As a Lidar RCR creator I have the advantage of being able to trace the actual cart paths in OSM, although one still has to do some flattening. The major problem with splining them is that they are always too wide to be real. If you use Google Earth to measure most cart paths they range from 1.8 to 2 yards wide in most instances, but even splining set at the 1.7 setting makes them 3.7 yards wide, which looks more like a road. I have tried several solutions, none of which are entirely satisfactory. On Bandon Dunes which has gravel paths I shrunk the round brush down to give the correct width and scrolled along. This gives wobbly looking paths which are not great, but OK for gravel. On Milwaukee CC which has asphalt I am using the "stick" brush (middle of page two) again shrunken to the correct width. Unfortunately where you join the ends of each brush there will be a little wobble, and you can't make real smooth corners, but it looks as good as I can do.
|
|
|
Post by Royce on Apr 15, 2020 8:43:47 GMT -5
As a Lidar RCR creator I have the advantage of being able to trace the actual cart paths in OSM, although one still has to do some flattening. The major problem with splining them is that they are always too wide to be real. If you use Google Earth to measure most cart paths they range from 1.8 to 2 yards wide in most instances, but even splining set at the 1.7 setting makes them 3.7 yards wide, which looks more like a road. I have tried several solutions, none of which are entirely satisfactory. On Bandon Dunes which has gravel paths I shrunk the round brush down to give the correct width and scrolled along. This gives wobbly looking paths which are not great, but OK for gravel. On Milwaukee CC which has asphalt I am using the "stick" brush (middle of page two) again shrunken to the correct width. Unfortunately where you join the ends of each brush there will be a little wobble, and you can't make real smooth corners, but it looks as good as I can do.
I never understood what HB was thinking with their path widths. On the other Augusta course it looks like an 8 lane expressway runs short of 2 tee. Even the most narrow path is too wide, and they get wiggly even with splines if you go below 2.0 in my experience. To compensate for the width I just move the path a bit further away where necessary to create the correct "look"..... shame on hb for never sorting out something so seemingly simple.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Apr 15, 2020 11:13:12 GMT -5
A REALLY well done cart path is nice, but I would stay away from doing them if you can't get it just right. I've never done a cart path and don't plan to. It needs to be visible when it makes sense and also be out of view when it makes sense, perfectly smooth elevation changes and curves, without little bumps. Just a very tedious process that I appreciate when done well.
For me as a designer, I don't see the benefit of trying it. Risk vs reward just isn't there for me but kudos to those that pull it off
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Apr 15, 2020 13:15:33 GMT -5
I really like them on a certain type of course. If they fit and it’s a parkland style, go for it. If you’re forcing it, don’t. What I love about the way csugolfer60 does them is that they frame the hole and define the playable area vs non playable. It can really help your planting (both complementing it and avoiding having to do too much - a cart path nicely fills empty space) and trying to work on that single skill was the main reason behind me designing Hollingbourne. Other guys that do it really well are mattf27 (see Brookfield and Katagawa) and VctryLnSprts (pretty much every course). Yes, they can be a real pain, but can be so worth it if you pull it off. I think the skill in sculpting and framing that doing one properly develops is well worth working on. But don’t expect it to be quick and simple - you may move the exact position of the path a number of times to get the hole looking just the way you want it.
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Apr 15, 2020 13:22:55 GMT -5
I don’t want to start a new thread but where do you stand on stuff like ranges, concessions, parking, etc.? I am one who always tries to put all those amenities in, even back when I did non-RCRs. To me they increase the immersion factor. A lot of designers do not care about that stuff, and that is fine by me. What chaps my hide a bit is when designers half-a$$ it - houses with no way to get to them just scattered about, etc. Better to just put the course down and that is that. Anyway, just my opinion.
|
|
laladiesman
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 267
TGCT Name: David Paul
Tour: Platinum
|
Post by laladiesman on Apr 15, 2020 14:55:16 GMT -5
I don’t want to start a new thread but where do you stand on stuff like ranges, concessions, parking, etc.? I am one who always tries to put all those amenities in, even back when I did non-RCRs. To me they increase the immersion factor. A lot of designers do not care about that stuff, and that is fine by me. What chaps my hide a bit is when designers half-a$$ it - houses with no way to get to them just scattered about, etc. Better to just put the course down and that is that. Anyway, just my opinion. Agree. I went all out and a lot of it is either out of sight or out of scale. And with all the junk they throw in there I was unable to find a starters hut. I just used a shelter. I love the Shrek outhouse though. Still working on the sob cart paths. Sorta regretting auto generating all the hills. Anything nearing my greens and tee boxes is a nightmare.
|
|