Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 17:43:50 GMT -5
After playing (or trying to play) the courses for this WCoD contest that are running now; my clear impression is that everyone wants the course to look realistic. There are none that are pure fantasy. The courses are obviously created for the game for the most part - and that means including the aids of scout cam, grid, loft box etc. I do not know if there is a judging criteria on how well the course play sim-style like we play Leon, but I don't think there will be much difference on this contest compared to your idea. I do see that many courses would score low when I play them USE-style in playability, no scout cam comes to mind on some, and how well the greens play are also quite variable - but that would also be the case in your idea. Question is, should only sim players judge in such a contest? We are a minority here  No, I would much rather see RCR contest - With and without lidar data (both should be allowed). Obviously good lidar data is an advantage, but we have seen many good recreations without it. There are so many courses that should be recreated - and a contest could help in bringing over some of the fictional/fantasy designers to RCR's, and it could help improve the overall quality in RCR's. |
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 23, 2020 17:51:15 GMT -5
If "realistic" is a term people are having trouble defining, you can always call it the "Muni contest"  |
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Jan 23, 2020 18:29:05 GMT -5
After playing (or trying to play) the courses for this WCoD contest that are running now; my clear impression is that everyone wants the course to look realistic. There are none that are pure fantasy. The courses are obviously created for the game for the most part - and that means including the aids of scout cam, grid, loft box etc. I do not know if there is a judging criteria on how well the course play sim-style like we play Leon, but I don't think there will be much difference on this contest compared to your idea. I do see that many courses would score low when I play them USE-style in playability, no scout cam comes to mind on some, and how well the greens play are also quite variable - but that would also be the case in your idea. Question is, should only sim players judge in such a contest? We are a minority here No, I would much rather see RCR contest - With and without lidar data (both should be allowed). Obviously good lidar data is an advantage, but we have seen many good recreations without it. There are so many courses that should be recreated - and a contest could help in bringing over some of the fictional/fantasy designers to RCR's, and it could help improve the overall quality in RCR's. Other design contests have been fairly/very close in the type of courses produced. Often just a new tournament because it was time for a new one. I'm just suggesting a shift in focus to inspire people and get their creative juices flowing. Much like the previous post stating uncertainty at the idea, I feel I already addressed your concerns in my first 3 posts. I agree many/most of the wcod courses were fairly realistic, I already said as muxh. But it would still be interesting to see what came out if designers knew minimalism and realism were the MAIN aims. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 19:02:07 GMT -5
Feel like I've already addressed a lot of these questions/issues. But if you don't like the idea, that's cool. (Didn't say it had to be parkland, didn't say it couldn't have some "wow" factor in it...)
I think it has potential as a contest idea. Aside from leaving out massive waterfalls and stuff it might just be more about designing specifically for indoor simulator / true sum / ultra sim play, and considering there hasn't been any contest for that sort of crowd you might get some takers. I don't think I'd be in, but that's mainly because I had my eyes set on the DT contest.
I know you're not the one who brought up this topic, but I think RCR / LiDAR contests would not be a good idea. Yes, such a contest could churn out a bunch of very good real courses but I can't think of a fair way to create a control variable. Maybe someone else has some thoughts as to how this would be done?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 1:04:02 GMT -5
Feel like I've already addressed a lot of these questions/issues. But if you don't like the idea, that's cool. (Didn't say it had to be parkland, didn't say it couldn't have some "wow" factor in it...)
I think it has potential as a contest idea. Aside from leaving out massive waterfalls and stuff it might just be more about designing specifically for indoor simulator / true sum / ultra sim play, and considering there hasn't been any contest for that sort of crowd you might get some takers. I don't think I'd be in, but that's mainly because I had my eyes set on the DT contest.
I know you're not the one who brought up this topic, but I think RCR / LiDAR contests would not be a good idea. Yes, such a contest could churn out a bunch of very good real courses but I can't think of a fair way to create a control variable. Maybe someone else has some thoughts as to how this would be done?
Control variable? You mean judging criteria? Judges will have to judge how well the course is recreated and spend time looking at videos, pictures, etc. There is also possible to judge real courses on how good they are for golf, and perhaps for the game playing it. LKeet6: I applaud all that is done to get more realism to course design. I use to say that a course created for golf that do not focus on the video game will be a better course also for the video game. Even if the unrealistic low scores on the tours will perhaps be a bit even more unrealistic low, I believe the majority who play on those tours will like it more. If they didn't want to have such unrealistic low scores, they would turn off the aids etc. |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 24, 2020 1:21:26 GMT -5
Like the idea (I guess I would). My two cents on the Lidar issue - it shouldn't be in contests. It's not available to all users, it'd depend largely on what section of land you chose rather than created and it definitely takes away the skill of crafting a plot, routing holes etc. Don't misunderstand me, there is a lot of skill in creating a good Lidar course, but it's undeniable that it does a lot of the work for you and it's unfair to put that up against others who don't have that capacity. Creativity is vital in contests and, for me, Lidar takes away a lot of that.
Now, should there be a Lidar only contest? Perhaps - that'd be cool, for sure, particularly if you made people choose plots that aren't real life courses. But then, assuming the designers all have chops, it's more 'which real life course do you prefer?'Now, if that's what you want, cool, but I can see people getting frustrated at the end of it all if they essentially lost on day one when they chose which course they were doing. Same thing kinda true for RCRs as others are alluding to.
I'm aware I'm not really giving you many solutions here, but I think if you do this, you need to really think through the criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 2:02:16 GMT -5
But then, assuming the designers all have chops, it's more 'which real life course do you prefer?'Now, if that's what you want, cool, but I can see people getting frustrated at the end of it all if they essentially lost on day one when they chose which course they were doing. Same thing kinda true for RCRs as others are alluding to. I'm aware I'm not really giving you many solutions here, but I think if you do this, you need to really think through the criteria. That's exactly what I meant but decided to stop short of saying. In the end, it might come down to 'one LiDAR course is just a better course to play than the other' even both are very well made.
There could be some interesting criteria for such a contest, as LiDAR stuff isn't 100% copying what's actually there (it's probably more like 98%). Of course, nailing the environment, shapes, sizes, alignment, bunker depths, fixing artifacts, etc. matters but there's some wiggle room to tailor a course to play well in TGC. The biggest examples would be thinks like adding in fictional tees for pro/master clubs if a short course or if certain holes could benefit from them, choosing default conditions that match how the course is intended to play, and how well the selected hole locations do or don't bring out the best in the course's greens. There are probably a few others that I'm forgetting as well.
Honestly, while I see a LiDAR context purely based on individual courses being hard to pull off, perhaps it could work as a smallish team contest? Kind of like a mini Dream Team contest. That way it makes it more of a 'which collection of courses is better' type of thing, mostly without the 'which is the best' component (as with LiDAR that's even more likely to be purely subjective than it already is with fictional courses).
|
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Jan 24, 2020 4:28:39 GMT -5
Like the idea (I guess I would). My two cents on the Lidar issue - it shouldn't be in contests. It's not available to all users, it'd depend largely on what section of land you chose rather than created and it definitely takes away the skill of crafting a plot, routing holes etc. Don't misunderstand me, there is a lot of skill in creating a good Lidar course, but it's undeniable that it does a lot of the work for you and it's unfair to put that up against others who don't have that capacity. Creativity is vital in contests and, for me, Lidar takes away a lot of that. Now, should there be a Lidar only contest? Perhaps - that'd be cool, for sure, particularly if you made people choose plots that aren't real life courses. But then, assuming the designers all have chops, it's more 'which real life course do you prefer?'Now, if that's what you want, cool, but I can see people getting frustrated at the end of it all if they essentially lost on day one when they chose which course they were doing. Same thing kinda true for RCRs as others are alluding to. I'm aware I'm not really giving you many solutions here, but I think if you do this, you need to really think through the criteria. As someone who has just created a course in the image of what I'm talking about, you'd be a good person to try and nail down the criteria. I guess the best way of describing what I mean is to point out that although some real courses have exaggerated/spectacular things in them, they only have ONE of those things. And often only in a section of the course, a few holes. A lot of the courses I'm referring to, whilst still pretty "realistic," have them on EVERY hole, sometimes 2/3/4 of the eye candy things combined! Does that make more sense? So cabot cliffs has the insane cliff stuff, but the rest of the course, textures, planting etc is actually pretty restrained. The Ryder cup albatros course has the very striking retaining walls towards the end, but most of the course is standard. Augusta, the most manicured course in golf is pretty in your face with the textures and stuff, but the flowers are only on a few holes, and if you think about it, a majority of the holes are fairly "normal" golf holes. And on all of those courses, the special bits might be striking, but they really fit into the scenery and the holes. Those examples just popped into my head. My contest idea would be almost challenging the designer to create ONE striking and unique thing, but not spam it everywhere, keep it really fitting into the environment, and be restrained with the use of other stuff. Mostly regulation (but still interesting) holes. Again, I do realise a lot of courses in other competitions already fill most/all of these criteria, I'm just suggesting that making the FOCUS of the competition on being restrained with planting and sculpting and going for a minimal look would be a new main aim for a competition, and could be fun/different and challenging for the designers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 10:26:34 GMT -5
Like the idea (I guess I would). My two cents on the Lidar issue - it shouldn't be in contests. It's not available to all users, it'd depend largely on what section of land you chose rather than created and it definitely takes away the skill of crafting a plot, routing holes etc. Don't misunderstand me, there is a lot of skill in creating a good Lidar course, but it's undeniable that it does a lot of the work for you and it's unfair to put that up against others who don't have that capacity. Creativity is vital in contests and, for me, Lidar takes away a lot of that. Now, should there be a Lidar only contest? Perhaps - that'd be cool, for sure, particularly if you made people choose plots that aren't real life courses. But then, assuming the designers all have chops, it's more 'which real life course do you prefer?'Now, if that's what you want, cool, but I can see people getting frustrated at the end of it all if they essentially lost on day one when they chose which course they were doing. Same thing kinda true for RCRs as others are alluding to. I'm aware I'm not really giving you many solutions here, but I think if you do this, you need to really think through the criteria. Using lidar data for fictional courses is a no-go at the moment imo. It takes too much plant-meter if you don't mask enough off the plot. And, though I can see that it could be interesting to have the real terrain and be the architect for a real location, it isn't very much different compared to working with a random plot. And, we see some use real life locations in this WCoD contest as well. For RCR, lidar data is superior to get the accurate elevations if the data is good. Good data is extremely accurate on greens etc. Any recreation is quite a lot more than elevation though. And the most time-consuming imo is to look up all videos and photos you can find and get the planting correct with the huge limitations that the designer gives us in objects (this is much more a limitation in RCR's compared to fictional where you want the houses to look like they do irl etc). Water can also be a huge problem in RCR's because of the stupid mechanism in the designer. The point to have a RCR contest would be to have more quality in the RCR's and that perhaps more quality RCR's are done. As LKeet6 should be aware - we are lacking many courses - and there is quite difference in the quality of the courses that has been done, and some courses could do with better versions. There are areas where there is no lidar data available, so any recreations must be done without. And there are some very bad data. So I don't think you should limit the RCR's to either using lidar data or not in a contest - or if there are so many contenders that would compete in two seperate contests. |
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jan 25, 2020 11:10:34 GMT -5
Nailing down a judging criteria that would be fair for an RCR or LIDAR contest would be hard to do. For a contest course you'd expect technical execution to be top notch which is true of any contest except the RDC. So to separate the courses you'd need to deduct pretty harshly for technical errors. Playability and shot variety would be predetermined by the course you select. You could judge based on if it's accurate to how the course would play in real life, but you'd be judging courses no one has ever played. So you'd need some kind of guide (an in depth coverage of a tournament, a super detailed caddy book, a video tour, etc.). And not every course has those things available. And some more than others. Also the game physics would limit which courses you could actually make play true to life without taking liberties with sculpting and yardages. For the aesthetics you could go off pictures, but you'd be limited by the designer itself and the themes' plants/trees. Routing couldn't be judged at all as it's predetermined.
So it seems the winner would most likely be the one who chooses a course that best fits into a theme, has little or no way for us to know how it plays in real life, and has patience and a good knowledge of the tools.
I suppose you could find 15 or so courses that you feel have an equal amount of data available and fit into one of the themes equally as well and have players select which ones. In order to do that you'd also have to have judges willing to familiarize themselves with those courses. It's not perfect but I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Jan 25, 2020 14:40:06 GMT -5
Nailing down a judging criteria that would be fair for an RCR or LIDAR contest would be hard to do. For a contest course you'd expect technical execution to be top notch which is true of any contest except the RDC. So to separate the courses you'd need to deduct pretty harshly for technical errors. Playability and shot variety would be predetermined by the course you select. You could judge based on if it's accurate to how the course would play in real life, but you'd be judging courses no one has ever played. So you'd need some kind of guide (an in depth coverage of a tournament, a super detailed caddy book, a video tour, etc.). And not every course has those things available. And some more than others. Also the game physics would limit which courses you could actually make play true to life without taking liberties with sculpting and yardages. For the aesthetics you could go off pictures, but you'd be limited by the designer itself and the themes' plants/trees. Routing couldn't be judged at all as it's predetermined. So it seems the winner would most likely be the one who chooses a course that best fits into a theme, has little or no way for us to know how it plays in real life, and has patience and a good knowledge of the tools. I suppose you could find 15 or so courses that you feel have an equal amount of data available and fit into one of the themes equally as well and have players select which ones. In order to do that you'd also have to have judges willing to familiarize themselves with those courses. It's not perfect but I'm just throwing suggestions out there. I agree with everything you said here Justin. It is always subjective to judge any kind of design contest that is not solely metrics-based, and I think the things you point out would make it even more difficult to be fair. Ideally the true test would be to have all the entrants make the SAME course, but that would be a giant waste of the designers time. |
|
|
|
Post by DrnkNdKnwThngs on Jan 28, 2020 10:20:56 GMT -5
Like the idea (I guess I would). My two cents on the Lidar issue - it shouldn't be in contests. It's not available to all users, it'd depend largely on what section of land you chose rather than created and it definitely takes away the skill of crafting a plot, routing holes etc. Don't misunderstand me, there is a lot of skill in creating a good Lidar course, but it's undeniable that it does a lot of the work for you and it's unfair to put that up against others who don't have that capacity. Creativity is vital in contests and, for me, Lidar takes away a lot of that. Now, should there be a Lidar only contest? Perhaps - that'd be cool, for sure, particularly if you made people choose plots that aren't real life courses. But then, assuming the designers all have chops, it's more 'which real life course do you prefer?'Now, if that's what you want, cool, but I can see people getting frustrated at the end of it all if they essentially lost on day one when they chose which course they were doing. Same thing kinda true for RCRs as others are alluding to. I'm aware I'm not really giving you many solutions here, but I think if you do this, you need to really think through the criteria. - Something you said there, just triggered an idea...more on that later... I like the OP's idea of this type of contest, and I agree with the others that the judging criteria would need to be clear before starting such a contest. I think mattf27 had a great suggestion of naming it a "Muni[cipal] competition"...and the guidelines could be more along the lines of "course could realistically fit within (or just outside of) town/city/municipality limits..." or something like that... But what do I know...? LoL! ~Drnk (Mike) |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 28, 2020 11:21:03 GMT -5
I was thinking more about this earlier and I might have a way to make it work. How about an 'inspired by X course' contest, but with the caveat that said course should cost a maximum of £50 to play? That would preclude your Tara Iti, Cape Kidnappers, Tobacco Roads etc., but would allow for a rugged, basic Scottish links as well. When publishing, I'd ask designers to post the course they got inspiration from and go from there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 14:30:19 GMT -5
I was thinking more about this earlier and I might have a way to make it work. How about an 'inspired by X course' contest, but with the caveat that said course should cost a maximum of £50 to play? That would preclude your Tara Iti, Cape Kidnappers, Tobacco Roads etc., but would allow for a rugged, basic Scottish links as well. When publishing, I'd ask designers to post the course they got inspiration from and go from there. Calling dibs on George Wright |
|
|
|
Post by yeltzman on Jan 29, 2020 15:01:29 GMT -5
You know what would make a good contest with Lidar is finding a course about 6600 yards and using your design skills and only the plot of the land it is on and make something more playable in game around 7000 yards plus.Trying to do it with Wallasey GC at the moment only 6600 yards but the best i can do with the small plot is get it just under 7000.Great Fun trying to do it without real health and safety issues if you did it real life and not adding any bunkers or moving plot of land to much.So you still got the Real Lidar course there with there Tees but something extra for in game.
|
|
