|
|
Post by Doyley on Mar 13, 2019 20:51:20 GMT -5
This is a little off topic, but I really want to encourage you guys to NOT put lidar in the course name, but instead put your username so it survives the transfer across consoles/servers/to simulator. I know that if I search for any of your names, I'm going to have a good course. I'm almost NEVER interested in searching for Autogenned courses and I know lidar courses are going to have a minimum level of quality, but when I want a fantastic course, I want to search for you. I know that clv makes my favorite courses, "Protee" might be simulator length, mthunt courses are extremely simulator playable, Terry's courses are Commodes, Eric's courses are usually fun, etc. There's going to be tons of minimal effort courses just because of how much skill good course design requires. I don't think having multiple versions of a course will be bad, they'll all bring something unique. And if someone puts in the minimal effort and it's an important course, I know one of you is going to get ticked off, take their end point (lidar + OSM), and then blow their course out of the water. I can see if we can get Tim to add a "Lidar" check box to the course submission so guys can check that off when submitting a course - which would make it searchable in our database. |
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Mar 13, 2019 21:35:26 GMT -5
These aren’t original works. Why should there be bickering and fighting over who does what when this tool perfectly allows the design community to use the technical aspects of designing to get a huge input of RCRs to the TGC community as a unit. You would think people would be thanking Doyley and Craig for getting multiple files out with what seems to be fairly difficult work instead of being upset they didn’t get to use that part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 22:08:59 GMT -5
It’s all good man, I’m not “bickering” about it, nor am I saying that they’re doing anything wrong. I can totally see the benefit it would provide. But I also feel like there’s a flip side to that coin, too. However, I’m not here to step on the toes of the RCR gods, so I’m okay if my point is not being understood as a valid concern. I plan to finish Dauphin Highlands and Aronimink to get experience with the LiDAR technology and then head back to the fantasy land I normally design in.
|
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Mar 13, 2019 22:13:01 GMT -5
These aren’t original works. Why should there be bickering and fighting over who does what when this tool perfectly allows the design community to use the technical aspects of designing to get a huge input of RCRs to the TGC community as a unit. You would think people would be thanking Doyley and Craig for getting multiple files out with what seems to be fairly difficult work instead of being upset they didn’t get to use that part. I can't speak for everyone, but I would actually prefer it NOT be traced super detailed with hundreds of points per fairway because it makes it harder for me to adjust once it's in the designer. So if I'm having to delete 75% of the spline points on each surface in order to get it to how I like to work on it, then it's creating double the work for me, and also wasting the guy that traced it in OTM's effort too. I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating that someone is willing to pick up slack, just that it may make more sense for me to dedicate my time to a course if I trace it how I want it to import. For example, my next one, I don't think I'm going to trace bunkers, I'll just brush them into the LIDAR depressions once I'm in the designer, because they hardly ever import in perfectly anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Mar 13, 2019 22:15:26 GMT -5
I 100% get the point you're making and it's a valid one overall. At the same time I just hope we treat this particular tool and these files as a community effort to deliver as many awesome RCRs as possible into TGC. If we have a group who is able to do awesome tracing and develop a bunch of files for people to send out RCRs, it's a huge advantage.
Now if these were original works, no way in hell would I want to take control of something someone else started and do the tidy work, so I get what you're saying. Basically I'm just super excited about all of this and ideally I hope the design community can take it all in as a group effort and worry less about who does what and who gets credit for what.
Sorry if I came across combative at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Mar 13, 2019 22:18:29 GMT -5
These aren’t original works. Why should there be bickering and fighting over who does what when this tool perfectly allows the design community to use the technical aspects of designing to get a huge input of RCRs to the TGC community as a unit. You would think people would be thanking Doyley and Craig for getting multiple files out with what seems to be fairly difficult work instead of being upset they didn’t get to use that part. I can't speak for everyone, but I would actually prefer it NOT be traced super detailed with hundreds of points per fairway because it makes it harder for me to adjust once it's in the designer. So if I'm having to delete 75% of the spline points on each surface in order to get it to how I like to work on it, then it's creating double the work for me, and also wasting the guy that traced it in OTM's effort too. I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating that someone is willing to pick up slack, just that it may make more sense for me to dedicate my time to a course if I trace it how I want it to import. For example, my next one, I don't think I'm going to trace bunkers, I'll just brush them into the LIDAR depressions once I'm in the designer, because they hardly ever import in perfectly anyways. This is fair. It's probably better if the tracers keep it fairly basic so the person who finishes can use it how they like. And also to Craig's point, nobody has to take on these files he's putting out there for availability. Anyone can start it new if they'd like. I just see it more as a head start for anyone who's fine with taking one and probably a huge help overall to get more and more RCRs out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 22:49:50 GMT -5
I hope the design community can take it all in as a group effort and worry less about who does what and who gets credit for what. See, you’re assigning motives to my argument that simply don’t exist, reflecting that you actually don’t understand my point at all. I HAVE embraced the LiDAR concept and I DON’T care who gets the credit. I simply stated that in my opinion, it takes the fun out of LiDAR projects for some designers if that stuff is done on a bunch of famous courses. Either way, this isn’t the hill I’m willing to die on, but please don’t imply selfishness where none exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Mar 13, 2019 23:05:54 GMT -5
These aren’t original works. Why should there be bickering and fighting over who does what when this tool perfectly allows the design community to use the technical aspects of designing to get a huge input of RCRs to the TGC community as a unit. You would think people would be thanking Doyley and Craig for getting multiple files out with what seems to be fairly difficult work instead of being upset they didn’t get to use that part. I can't speak for everyone, but I would actually prefer it NOT be traced super detailed with hundreds of points per fairway because it makes it harder for me to adjust once it's in the designer. So if I'm having to delete 75% of the spline points on each surface in order to get it to how I like to work on it, then it's creating double the work for me, and also wasting the guy that traced it in OTM's effort too. I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating that someone is willing to pick up slack, just that it may make more sense for me to dedicate my time to a course if I trace it how I want it to import. For example, my next one, I don't think I'm going to trace bunkers, I'll just brush them into the LIDAR depressions once I'm in the designer, because they hardly ever import in perfectly anyways. Going to go have a look at your OSM traces to see how detailed you go - definitely don't want to create a headache for designers so the better we know what an ideal trace looks like, easier it is for those who pick them up will have. |
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Mar 13, 2019 23:21:22 GMT -5
I can't speak for everyone, but I would actually prefer it NOT be traced super detailed with hundreds of points per fairway because it makes it harder for me to adjust once it's in the designer. So if I'm having to delete 75% of the spline points on each surface in order to get it to how I like to work on it, then it's creating double the work for me, and also wasting the guy that traced it in OTM's effort too. I don't think it's a matter of not appreciating that someone is willing to pick up slack, just that it may make more sense for me to dedicate my time to a course if I trace it how I want it to import. For example, my next one, I don't think I'm going to trace bunkers, I'll just brush them into the LIDAR depressions once I'm in the designer, because they hardly ever import in perfectly anyways. Going to go have a look at your OSM traces to see how detailed you go - definitely don't want to create a headache for designers so the better we know what an ideal trace looks like, easier it is for those who pick them up will have. I don't know if there is an ideal trace though, I think I'm probably in the minority in that I don't like a lot of spline points and prefer to let the auto smooth do a lot of the work for me. I know SkinniePost is the same way, but I see Eric and Reeb stream design and they have TONS of spline points, so a Terry-esque 10 hour work of art trace may work perfectly for them. May just come down to personal preference in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Mar 13, 2019 23:39:17 GMT -5
looking at your traces are similar to what I'm doing - so I think I fall on the safe side of things. Just finished up a course that someone requested - so I'm a free agent again if someone wants one done.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadgolf on Mar 13, 2019 23:48:44 GMT -5
Doyley I could use some help in Vegas. Angel Park Palm and Mountain. Both TPCs (I have to make a Summerlin for the simulator communities, they aren’t giving us the official one) Or even sprucing up Wynn downtown could be interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Mar 13, 2019 23:51:09 GMT -5
Doyley I could use some help in Vegas. Angel Park Palm and Mountain. Both TPCs (I have to make a Summerlin for the simulator communities, they aren’t giving us the official one) Or even sprucing up Wynn downtown could be interesting Sounds good - I'm not back to work until Sunday and can pick it up then. |
|
|
|
Post by B.Smooth13 on Mar 14, 2019 7:41:13 GMT -5
Going to go have a look at your OSM traces to see how detailed you go - definitely don't want to create a headache for designers so the better we know what an ideal trace looks like, easier it is for those who pick them up will have. I don't know if there is an ideal trace though, I think I'm probably in the minority in that I don't like a lot of spline points and prefer to let the auto smooth do a lot of the work for me. I know SkinniePost is the same way, but I see Eric and Reeb stream design and they have TONS of spline points, so a Terry-esque 10 hour work of art trace may work perfectly for them. May just come down to personal preference in the end. I'm with you here. I've found placing less points in mapping fairways, tee boxes, and greens, then smoothing the splines in-game to be the easier way for me personally. I've been click-dragging "free form" bunker shapes in OSM as I've had those come across really well on the 1 course that I've tried it on, but for more standard shapes, I would probably lean back on less points, too. |
|
|
|
Post by theclv24 on Mar 14, 2019 9:48:07 GMT -5
Even though I would would be happy for anyone to complete the OSM work for any of the projects I have listed, I concede the point that some people like to control the process from start to finish. However, in an open-sourced environment, the only thing we can control is the communication within the TGCT community, so our only actionable point still needs to be addressed. Is the OpenStreetMaps Requests thread sufficient for declaring intent in a project to prevent overlap? Or does another method need to be developed, perhaps through a tab in the Google sheet? Keep in mind, I am not saying that declaring intent in a project means it's automatically yours. It's simply a way for each user to see each other's intentions, and engage in negotiations should there be overlap. I would interpret lack of feedback into this process as lack of interest, so if you are worried about potential projects being prematurely taken by someone within our community, please don't sit this one out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 22:30:06 GMT -5
I personally like doing the grunt work on my projects. Reason being is that not all LIDAR is the same, even when it falls into 3DEP quality. Some files are a perfect size and others are ridiculous (3 GB for Cassique, although it had to process four tiles and my masking would have eliminated that). So I went hunting for courses that were well-respected, not household names but in Golf Digest's top 200, good data, good photos or flyovers, and not overly complicated. I ended up with Shooting Star in Wyoming and Piping Rock on Long Island.
As for OSM, I have to agree that high accurate tracing is a waste as it does not interpret well, though I have had some holes I barely touched. You basically just need enough points to figure out where things are, however, the whole exterior of the course needs to be traced so it doesn't get cut off. I would think a big box of fairway around the course should do it and then you can just delete it in the designer.
|
|
International Record: 7-0-0