|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 5, 2021 19:06:54 GMT -5
loupus Just finished playing DAC and really enjoyed it. It's very well done, especially for a first course. Looking forward to your future courses! Also agree. Played last night and thoroughly enjoyed my round. I especially liked the aesthetic of the course. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to the technical aspects of the design tool but I thought you'd done a great job with the LiDAR data. I did notice a couple of bunkers which crossed the light rough and fairway but only very minor stuff. Well done. Looking forward to DAC - Gold and your other courses.
|
|
|
Post by hoosierhoops24 on Jan 5, 2021 19:27:51 GMT -5
Thank you for the input. I haven't really looked at the most recent data, so that's good to know. I'm in Collin County, more specifically McKinney, and the most recent data here is from 2011. It's actually worked very well for what I'm currently working on. That 2011 data set is some of the best quality and resolution available in Texas. edit: so I expect great things from your next course. Thank you, I hope I'm up to the challenge. Right now I've been trying to decide what to do with TPC Craig Ranch. I have about 60% of the course done using the 2011 data and it matches up very well, but they are making significant changes to the course in preparation for hosting the Byron Nelson this year. I may have an opportunity to play the course soon and can't decide if I should finish what I have or wait until I can see what changes have been made and go from there.
|
|
mal
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 214
|
Post by mal on Jan 5, 2021 19:37:10 GMT -5
That 2011 data set is some of the best quality and resolution available in Texas. edit: so I expect great things from your next course. Thank you, I hope I'm up to the challenge. Right now I've been trying to decide what to do with TPC Craig Ranch. I have about 60% of the course done using the 2011 data and it matches up very well, but they are making significant changes to the course in preparation for hosting the Byron Nelson this year. I may have an opportunity to play the course soon and can't decide if I should finish what I have or wait until I can see what changes have been made and go from there. I'd finish it with the data you have and release it as a "member's" version. If you are then able to play the course with the tournament updates and/or get the course data, I'd then release an updated "tour" version.
|
|
|
Post by hoosierhoops24 on Jan 5, 2021 19:54:23 GMT -5
Thank you, I hope I'm up to the challenge. Right now I've been trying to decide what to do with TPC Craig Ranch. I have about 60% of the course done using the 2011 data and it matches up very well, but they are making significant changes to the course in preparation for hosting the Byron Nelson this year. I may have an opportunity to play the course soon and can't decide if I should finish what I have or wait until I can see what changes have been made and go from there. I'd finish it with the data you have and release it as a "member's" version. If you are then able to play the course with the tournament updates and/or get the course data, I'd then release an updated "tour" version. That's what I was leaning towards doing. Thank you for the input. It's greatly appreciated.
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 5, 2021 23:03:36 GMT -5
loupusJust finished playing DAC and really enjoyed it. It's very well done, especially for a first course. Looking forward to your future courses! Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the kind words!
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 5, 2021 23:06:40 GMT -5
loupus Just finished playing DAC and really enjoyed it. It's very well done, especially for a first course. Looking forward to your future courses! Also agree. Played last night and thoroughly enjoyed my round. I especially liked the aesthetic of the course. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to the technical aspects of the design tool but I thought you'd done a great job with the LiDAR data. I did notice a couple of bunkers which crossed the light rough and fairway but only very minor stuff. Well done. Looking forward to DAC - Gold and your other courses. Thanks for the feedback and especially the compliments If you feel like pointing to some of the bunkers that crossed light rough and fairway, I appreciate it so I can avoid similar mistakes in the future.
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 5, 2021 23:20:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I did use Mapbox for that course. I'm glad to see some new LiDAR finally being available for Dallas County and the surrounding areas. I'm hoping to do Dallas National eventually, but right now I have other projects I'm working on. Unfortunately, the 2019 lidar data isn't the best for doing golf courses. If your course hasn't had a lot of earth moved or the green complexes redone since 2009, you are better off with the 2009 data and then manually sculpt what you need. This is especially the case if your course is in the Tarrant, Grand Prairie or Arlington areas. I did a quick tour of the DAC Gold using 2019 LIDAR and almost every green is nearly flat. The only exception is #14 which is a small Biarritz green with a severe valley in the center. Since 2009 there have been substantial changes to these courses so it leaves me in a tough spot. The greens haven’t really changed since 2009, but the rest of the course has (especially when all the bunkers were redone 2015-2016). Do I use 2009 LIDAR and update the bunkers, tee boxes and fairways or use 2019 to get the layout right and shape the greens by hand? I’m getting better at shaping but I’m not sure I’m that good Luckily I have the green heat maps so I have a great reference. Maybe I’ll do a 2009 version and use its greens as a reference when shaping 2019 by hand. Sure would be nice to be able to copy and paste between courses.😏 mal Would you mind pointing out where I can note the level of detail in LIDAR data? There might be a version in between 2009 and 2019 that’s a compromise.
|
|
mal
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 214
|
Post by mal on Jan 6, 2021 8:37:21 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the 2019 lidar data isn't the best for doing golf courses. If your course hasn't had a lot of earth moved or the green complexes redone since 2009, you are better off with the 2009 data and then manually sculpt what you need. This is especially the case if your course is in the Tarrant, Grand Prairie or Arlington areas. I did a quick tour of the DAC Gold using 2019 LIDAR and almost every green is nearly flat. The only exception is #14 which is a small Biarritz green with a severe valley in the center. Since 2009 there have been substantial changes to these courses so it leaves me in a tough spot. The greens haven’t really changed since 2009, but the rest of the course has (especially when all the bunkers were redone 2015-2016). Do I use 2009 LIDAR and update the bunkers, tee boxes and fairways or use 2019 to get the layout right and shape the greens by hand? I’m getting better at shaping but I’m not sure I’m that good Luckily I have the green heat maps so I have a great reference. Maybe I’ll do a 2009 version and use its greens as a reference when shaping 2019 by hand. Sure would be nice to be able to copy and paste between courses.😏 mal Would you mind pointing out where I can note the level of detail in LIDAR data? There might be a version in between 2009 and 2019 that’s a compromise. The only publicly available lidar data for this course are the 2009 and 2019 sets. I use ArcGIS software. However the metadata should have the information you want. Here is a quick breakdown: 2009 - 1m vertical - classification includes ground, low, medium and high vegetation, buildings 2019 - 1m vertical - classification includes ground, low noise Due to the classification difference (which is done from visual surveys) you should have more accurate ground data in the 2009 set. To get visualization without GIS software, something you could try: Process just a very small portion of the lidar data sets (1 or 2 holes that have greens you are very familiar with) at a map scale of 1.0. Create a course file on the Desert theme, delete the green and fairway surface textures, adjust the lighting (no clouds, 4 pm) and look closely at the contours of the terrain. Compare the two data sets this way and determine which set works better. You may even be able to make a full course with a map scale that is finer than the default 2.0, but it will take a huge amount of memory and object resources. You would also need to increase the scale (greater than 16x) of the masked area if you use background terrain, while also masking off everything but the active play surface. Since you have those heat maps (I wish I had that resource for the courses I do) you will probably end up sculpting each of the green complexes anyway. Either way, I'm sure you will knock this project out of the park.
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 6, 2021 9:50:41 GMT -5
I did a quick tour of the DAC Gold using 2019 LIDAR and almost every green is nearly flat. The only exception is #14 which is a small Biarritz green with a severe valley in the center. Since 2009 there have been substantial changes to these courses so it leaves me in a tough spot. The greens haven’t really changed since 2009, but the rest of the course has (especially when all the bunkers were redone 2015-2016). Do I use 2009 LIDAR and update the bunkers, tee boxes and fairways or use 2019 to get the layout right and shape the greens by hand? I’m getting better at shaping but I’m not sure I’m that good Luckily I have the green heat maps so I have a great reference. Maybe I’ll do a 2009 version and use its greens as a reference when shaping 2019 by hand. Sure would be nice to be able to copy and paste between courses.😏 mal Would you mind pointing out where I can note the level of detail in LIDAR data? There might be a version in between 2009 and 2019 that’s a compromise. The only publicly available lidar data for this course are the 2009 and 2019 sets. I use ArcGIS software. However the metadata should have the information you want. Here is a quick breakdown: 2009 - 1m vertical - classification includes ground, low, medium and high vegetation, buildings 2019 - 1m vertical - classification includes ground, low noise Due to the classification difference (which is done from visual surveys) you should have more accurate ground data in the 2009 set. To get visualization without GIS software, something you could try: Process just a very small portion of the lidar data sets (1 or 2 holes that have greens you are very familiar with) at a map scale of 1.0. Create a course file on the Desert theme, delete the green and fairway surface textures, adjust the lighting (no clouds, 4 pm) and look closely at the contours of the terrain. Compare the two data sets this way and determine which set works better. You may even be able to make a full course with a map scale that is finer than the default 2.0, but it will take a huge amount of memory and object resources. You would also need to increase the scale (greater than 16x) of the masked area if you use background terrain, while also masking off everything but the active play surface. Since you have those heat maps (I wish I had that resource for the courses I do) you will probably end up sculpting each of the green complexes anyway. Either way, I'm sure you will knock this project out of the park. Thanks! I’ll give that a try later tonight.
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 25, 2021 16:26:05 GMT -5
Considering the valuable feedback I've received in this thread and DMs, I'm planning to release an updated version of the Blue course. Below are several items blueblood1995 and mal shared and some of my own notes. Would everyone please share any other feedback/mistakes you've noticed? FYI, I'm nine holes into DAC's Gold course and plan to publish and share a beta version I feel 7.5 accurately reflects the real course's bent grass greens, but I welcome other feedback. I do want to balance fun with realism. CORRECTION: Blue is currently 8.0, not 7.5. I’ll adjust to 7.5 and retest. Fixed Fixed Fixed To be corrected Fixed Will review. My goal is to balance naturally blending fairway interaction with accurately representing the real course. Also want mowing patterns to be realistic (i.e. "Could they mow it like this?"). Unfortunately the 25-character limit on course names means I can't add "(L)", etc. to the end of "Dallas Athletic Club-Blue", so it's likely I'll release the new course with the same name and just ask for help getting the play counts up. I'm also considering "Dallas Athletic-Blue (L)" to help differentiate, but I'm not crazy about truncating the name.
|
|
mal
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 214
|
Post by mal on Jan 25, 2021 17:32:05 GMT -5
Maybe Dallas AC Blue (L)?
The 7.5 speed should be good. Official TPC Scottsdale is set to 7.5 and firm, which reflects a supposed "11.5" stimpmeter. Again, certain green contours and elevation changes on lidar courses can make a 7.5 feel completely ridiculous, but I think on this course it should be just about perfect.
Some good changes and edits. Looking forward to playing this and the Gold course.
|
|
loupus
Caddy
Posts: 33
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by loupus on Jan 25, 2021 18:47:19 GMT -5
[mention]mal [/mention] I think it’s important to have “Athletic” in the name since it’s an uncommon club name and should help refine searches. I would guess people are most likely to search for “Dallas Athletic” or “DAC” as it’s commonly called. “DAC” seems like it would return too many unrelated courses. I’ve often heard people confuse DAC with our [MUCH] swankier neighbor, Dallas Country Club (DCC).
FYI...I corrected my note above. The course is actually 8.0 as I believe you noted earlier; not 7.5 as I stated. I’ll give it more testing at 7.5.
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 25, 2021 18:47:48 GMT -5
Maybe Dallas AC Blue (L)? The 7.5 speed should be good. Official TPC Scottsdale is set to 7.5 and firm, which reflects a supposed "11.5" stimpmeter. Again, certain green contours and elevation changes on lidar courses can make a 7.5 feel completely ridiculous, but I think on this course it should be just about perfect. Some good changes and edits. Looking forward to playing this and the Gold course. Like the name change. Is there a correlation between green speed rating no. and a stimp value? Where does this come from? Interesting. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 25, 2021 18:49:30 GMT -5
Hoping some other experienced designers can offer some feedback to loupus . IMO DAC Blue is very well done and a very playable course. Also looking forward to the Gold course!
|
|
mal
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 214
|
Post by mal on Jan 25, 2021 19:14:48 GMT -5
Maybe Dallas AC Blue (L)? The 7.5 speed should be good. Official TPC Scottsdale is set to 7.5 and firm, which reflects a supposed "11.5" stimpmeter. Again, certain green contours and elevation changes on lidar courses can make a 7.5 feel completely ridiculous, but I think on this course it should be just about perfect. Some good changes and edits. Looking forward to playing this and the Gold course. Like the name change. Is there a correlation between green speed rating no. and a stimp value? Where does this come from? Interesting. Cheers There have been numerous stimpmeter in simulator tests over the years using the TCG series games. However, with the way putting strength % (with golfer backswing animation) to distance works in the game it is difficult to completely capture the "feel" of a corresponding real world stimpmeter value. And on lidar courses this can be exacerbated since the green complex data being imported has been interpolated and approximated to a degree where an expected slope and/or break severity may be off by more than 100%, and this anomaly could be on just a single 5x5 area of the green. My rule is to go with a speed that allows for the actual approach shots to behave as they should and the final green speed value is treated as an arbitrary value that should be ignored. Pin placement is probably the most important variable when attempting to target a corresponding real world stimpmeter value.
|
|