gerek
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 171
|
Post by gerek on Jan 14, 2020 9:10:49 GMT -5
You are right. Please accept my apologies. I was simply frustrated. Won't let it happen again. You guys do a good job - I've said that before. Thanks for what you do.
Rock on brother. I played your track. You understand the tools well, just need to give your work some breathing room and a little more natural contouring. Keep making and enjoying! Thanks for the encouragement. I'll keep at it. Just submitted another: Landlar City Park G C. It's an upgraded version of one that I submitted a while ago. Thanks again.
|
|
gerek
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 171
|
Post by gerek on Jan 14, 2020 10:08:35 GMT -5
Rock on brother. I played your track. You understand the tools well, just need to give your work some breathing room and a little more natural contouring. Keep making and enjoying! Thanks for the encouragement. I'll keep at it. Just submitted another: Landlar City Park G C. It's an upgraded version of one that I submitted a while ago. Thanks again. Sorry, I just submitted Landlar City Park GC and then found a huge mistake on hole 12 pin 2. Not sure what happened. I fixed the problem and renamed the course Landlar City Park G C 2. Is there any way to delete the Landlar City Park G C submission or change it to Landlar City Park G C 2?
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Jan 14, 2020 10:12:48 GMT -5
I don't think you can delete it. Submit the new one and shoot a message to a reviewer (maybe mattf27)
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 14, 2020 10:13:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll keep at it. Just submitted another: Landlar City Park G C. It's an upgraded version of one that I submitted a while ago. Thanks again. Sorry, I just submitted Landlar City Park GC and then found a huge mistake on hole 12 pin 2. Not sure what happened. I fixed the problem and renamed the course Landlar City Park G C 2. Is there any way to delete the Landlar City Park G C submission or change it to Landlar City Park G C 2? I just went ahead and edited the name in your existing submission. Should be good to go now.
|
|
gerek
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 171
|
Post by gerek on Jan 14, 2020 12:37:44 GMT -5
Sorry, I just submitted Landlar City Park GC and then found a huge mistake on hole 12 pin 2. Not sure what happened. I fixed the problem and renamed the course Landlar City Park G C 2. Is there any way to delete the Landlar City Park G C submission or change it to Landlar City Park G C 2? I just went ahead and edited the name in your existing submission. Should be good to go now. Thanks for this. I looked at it for an hour and thought it was good. Then tried to play it after publishing and found the problem. Unfortunately I guess there is no way to delete courses that you've published. Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 14, 2020 12:43:27 GMT -5
I just went ahead and edited the name in your existing submission. Should be good to go now. Thanks for this. I looked at it for an hour and thought it was good. Then tried to play it after publishing and found the problem. Unfortunately I guess there is no way to delete courses that you've published. Thanks for the help. No worries, we've all been there.
|
|
|
Post by afroshep on Jan 14, 2020 22:26:00 GMT -5
Unfortunately my course Lyon at Fallen Pines didn’t get approved. I am curious to what some of the mistakes I made on the course so I can learn from them and make better courses in the future! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Jan 15, 2020 7:18:23 GMT -5
I just went ahead and edited the name in your existing submission. Should be good to go now. Thanks for this. I looked at it for an hour and thought it was good. Then tried to play it after publishing and found the problem. Unfortunately I guess there is no way to delete courses that you've published. Thanks for the help. I had a similar thing happen with my first ever course Clayton Wood on TGC2. It was rightly criticised for a number of things, in particular sculpting. However on the 11th hole, a tree appeared on the fringe of the green when publishing. It wasn't there when designing, but when one chap kindly reviewed it on Youtube, there it was. Then when I played it myself, it wasn't there. Pain in the arse and couldn't do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 15, 2020 11:42:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately my course Lyon at Fallen Pines didn’t get approved. I am curious to what some of the mistakes I made on the course so I can learn from them and make better courses in the future! Thanks! Notes from the reviewer: "Lyon at Fallen Pines - Most pins illegal - Trees pinch fairways way too narrow - Bunkers awkwardly jab into fairways and greens"
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 15, 2020 11:51:41 GMT -5
Since I'm sure Gerek will be interested in the reviewer's notes, I'll just preemptively post those here:
"landlar city park gc 2
I think the designer is close, he just needs to concentrate more on the golf course itself. His planting, recreation of the city, and external things are very well done - I bet he enjoys that more than doing the course.
The course suffered from the following issues:
1. The traps and the greens appear to be all stock shapes, not even the squiggly ones, but the plain ones.
2. The traps do not appear to be sculpted at all, just default depth on all.
3. The greens are not completely flat, but they hold very little interest.
4. The traps have both light and heavy rough around the same trap. If this was the only problem with the design I would let it go, but with the other stuff, no.
5. No attention to proper fairway/green transitions. It is not that difficult, and it makes a big visual difference (aside from that being the way it is IRL)."
|
|
gerek
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 171
|
Post by gerek on Jan 16, 2020 0:15:06 GMT -5
Since I'm sure Gerek will be interested in the reviewer's notes, I'll just preemptively post those here: "landlar city park gc 2 I think the designer is close, he just needs to concentrate more on the golf course itself. His planting, recreation of the city, and external things are very well done - I bet he enjoys that more than doing the course. The course suffered from the following issues: 1. The traps and the greens appear to be all stock shapes, not even the squiggly ones, but the plain ones. 2. The traps do not appear to be sculpted at all, just default depth on all. 3. The greens are not completely flat, but they hold very little interest. 4. The traps have both light and heavy rough around the same trap. If this was the only problem with the design I would let it go, but with the other stuff, no. 5. No attention to proper fairway/green transitions. It is not that difficult, and it makes a big visual difference (aside from that being the way it is IRL)." Thanks, I guess I still have much to learn about this. I'll keep trying.
|
|
gerek
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 171
|
Post by gerek on Jan 16, 2020 7:22:52 GMT -5
Since I'm sure Gerek will be interested in the reviewer's notes, I'll just preemptively post those here: "landlar city park gc 2 I think the designer is close, he just needs to concentrate more on the golf course itself. His planting, recreation of the city, and external things are very well done - I bet he enjoys that more than doing the course. The course suffered from the following issues: 1. The traps and the greens appear to be all stock shapes, not even the squiggly ones, but the plain ones. 2. The traps do not appear to be sculpted at all, just default depth on all. 3. The greens are not completely flat, but they hold very little interest. 4. The traps have both light and heavy rough around the same trap. If this was the only problem with the design I would let it go, but with the other stuff, no. 5. No attention to proper fairway/green transitions. It is not that difficult, and it makes a big visual difference (aside from that being the way it is IRL)." Thanks, I guess I still have much to learn about this. I'll keep trying. A couple of questions: All of the greens were made with splines but I did use stock shapes for about half of the bunkers - is that bad? Also, I added depth and sculpting to all of the bunkers but do you think they need to be deeper? I felt that most of them were pretty deep. Finally, what exactly do you mean by transition from fairway to green - just not sure what you're looking for there. Any help you all could give would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Jan 16, 2020 7:50:23 GMT -5
Thanks, I guess I still have much to learn about this. I'll keep trying. A couple of questions: All of the greens were made with splines but I did use stock shapes for about half of the bunkers - is that bad? Also, I added depth and sculpting to all of the bunkers but do you think they need to be deeper? I felt that most of them were pretty deep. Finally, what exactly do you mean by transition from fairway to green - just not sure what you're looking for there. Any help you all could give would be appreciated. I am glad you are interested in improving Gerek. All of the things below are my opinions - others may have different ideas. I do not know if you have gone through all the TGC2019 YouTube videos available on course design in the game, or looked through the "Tips and Tricks" subforum on the Course Architecture forum but I recommend doing that if you haven't. With regard to your questions; the greens may have been splines and not shapes, but they were all very simple (round, oval, etc.) It would hold more interest to make some of them irregularly shaped and to give them more variation in slopes and terraces. Doesn't have to be extreme and doesn't have to be on every hole but some. Again it is not the depth of the bunkers per se, but the uniformity of their depth that causes the issue. Fairway bunkers are often shallower IRL, and greenside bunkers tend to be deeper, but there is no hard and fast rule, just shake things up as far as sculpting and bunker shape. That bunker you had in the middle of the fairway on 7 or 8? was most interesting, although it really left you no choices about where to hit the drive. Transitions are where the fairway texture runs into the green texture; these should be smooth and not abrupt. Look at a bunch of courses using Google earth and you will see what I mean. This link from Tips and Tricks shows you a very nice way to do it Transitions made easy. Anyway, keep trying to improve, learn as much as you can, and I think you have potential.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 16, 2020 7:57:08 GMT -5
Thanks, I guess I still have much to learn about this. I'll keep trying. A couple of questions: All of the greens were made with splines but I did use stock shapes for about half of the bunkers - is that bad? Also, I added depth and sculpting to all of the bunkers but do you think they need to be deeper? I felt that most of them were pretty deep. Finally, what exactly do you mean by transition from fairway to green - just not sure what you're looking for there. Any help you all could give would be appreciated. Another tip with the bunkers is to have visible depth. By that I mean if you raise the front edge a foot or two, it will naturally make the bunker look and play deeper. If you don't sculpt that front lip, you end up with pits of sand not visible from the tee or fairway - when on the tee at your course I see very little. Also, try cutting bunkers into natural upslopes. That makes them look naturally deep and all you need to do is sculpt out the bottom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 8:46:05 GMT -5
Thanks, I guess I still have much to learn about this. I'll keep trying. A couple of questions: All of the greens were made with splines but I did use stock shapes for about half of the bunkers - is that bad? Also, I added depth and sculpting to all of the bunkers but do you think they need to be deeper? I felt that most of them were pretty deep. Finally, what exactly do you mean by transition from fairway to green - just not sure what you're looking for there. Any help you all could give would be appreciated. I can comment on the depth of bunkers. You can have all bunkers as deep or shallow as you like. There are however things to consider regarding gameplay for the golfer. Do you want bunkers to be penal for the golfer? How much strategy and options do you want to give the golfer in options on the course? I start on fairway bunkers: To give you an exampel of penal bunkers are deep pot bunkers - usualy small in size - but if you hit one, it is a guaranteed loss of stroke to get out, perhaps to the side, or even back towards tee. The opposite, is very shallow bunkers that you know you can hit any club in the bag - even the lowest loft with no fear of not getting out of the bunker. Strategic bunkers are bunkers that have depth where the golfer must consider if he can clear the bunker-lip with the loft that is desired to for example reach a green. A good bunker in this regard have a depth that makes difference according to where in the bunker you have landed the ball. Is it close to the lip, or do you have distance to the lip? How is the lie, is it down or up? This is risk/reward in practice. The golfer can risk the bunker lip, and be rewarded if he clears it - but it must be a question if that is possible. Too deep bunker - there is no question, the bunker is penal. Too shallow bunker, no question and you can hit whatever you like. For greenside bunkers you can have the same considerations as for fairway bunkers, but since the distance to the flag is short, the bunkers must be deeper to give the golfer any risk/reward option. Another aspect of greenside bunkers is pin position and how much green you can work with and how the green slopes and is contoured. How will the slope and contours effect the roll of the ball when it lands on the green? For example: you can have a downward slope that will make the ball roll longer, and a flag position close to the bunker can make it very challenging to get the ball close to the pin. Another pin placement will make the shot completely different. Just to give you a few pointers to think about when designing bunkers for a golf course
|
|