|
Post by sandsaver01 on Feb 4, 2020 9:02:00 GMT -5
I am now looking for a new Lidar RCR to build. I am going through "Top 100 Courses" website for the USA and working my way down the list. I eliminate any that already are in the game, are being worked on, or do not have good Lidar. There are quite a few courses on this list that are under 6800 yards, which I feel is the minimum distance useable for TGC2019 play. Some of those would have no room on the plot to put in new tees, but some do (Camargo is one). What do you fellow designers feel about this question?
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Feb 4, 2020 9:39:56 GMT -5
I think it's good to throw in a longer tee so master club players can still play RCRs how they're intended off the tee. Although it is kind of cool to play off the real tees as well to see how guys like Rory, DJ, and Brooks can dominate when they're on their game.
|
|
pkr
Caddy
Posts: 22
|
Post by pkr on Feb 4, 2020 10:41:58 GMT -5
I feel it would be far better for the game to have more realistic distances (compared to the average golfer) for its computer players. The Lidar courses tend to lend themselves more to the simulator golfer who wouldn't stand a chance against a computer counterpart. Having said that I wouldn't be totally against the idea... and I'm a purist at heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 11:46:01 GMT -5
I voted "no" - but; there is nothing wrong to add tees in a new published version that will no longer be a pure RCR, as long as the first version is a true recreation. I would think it is easier to first create the true recreation, and then later add tees, than adding tees and then later remove them again - or any other alterations one might want that would no longer work as a true recreation of a real course - and thus, no RCR. And yes, the title should indicate that it is an altered course compared to the real course.
|
|
|
Post by hoosierhoops24 on Feb 4, 2020 20:18:38 GMT -5
I voted "no" - but; there is nothing wrong to add tees in a new published version that will no longer be a pure RCR, as long as the first version is a true recreation. I would think it is easier to first create the true recreation, and then later add tees, than adding tees and then later remove them again - or any other alterations one might want that would no longer work as a true recreation of a real course - and thus, no RCR. And yes, the title should indicate that it is an altered course compared to the real course. Agree 100 percent with andersnm.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Feb 4, 2020 21:19:29 GMT -5
The only issue is that sometimes adding even as little as 15-20 yards to a hole can eliminate strategic interest. Take the 6th and 7th at Maidstone, for example. On 6, where you have a bunker directly in the middle of the landing area and 2 distinct options, bringing the tee back creates a one-dimensional hole with a pointless centerline bunker. 7 is a more obvious example: a Cape that becomes option less if just 20 yards are added to the tee ball. Now I know these are not possible because of Maidstone's land restrictions, but it's just an example. I would hate to see classic, genius designs like play like Firestone: boring, parallel, and predictable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 22:12:56 GMT -5
I voted "no" - but; there is nothing wrong to add tees in a new published version that will no longer be a pure RCR, as long as the first version is a true recreation. I would think it is easier to first create the true recreation, and then later add tees, than adding tees and then later remove them again - or any other alterations one might want that would no longer work as a true recreation of a real course - and thus, no RCR. And yes, the title should indicate that it is an altered course compared to the real course. If this also refers to leaving horribly artifact-ridden greens from lower quality data unaltered, I 100% disagree. First time I ever 'altered' anything on a golf course was smoothing out the greens on Canyata with the minimum size fuzzy flatten brush. It was very tedious but it smoothed out greens that had a ton if little tiny artifact-lumps while preserving their proper large scale contours.
I voted for 'depends' on the tees for a couple reasons, and I think longer tees should only be added if doing so satisfies the following criteria:
- Any fictional back tee is not necessary if the hole plays strategically as intended. In most instances, adding distance should improve how the hole plays by 'restoring' strategic options that may otherwise be lost thanks to our very long 270/285yd driver carry distances. If adding a fictional back tee on a certain hole or at a particular length makes the hole less interesting to play, or it extends the hole length so that the approach shot beyond whatever length shot the green complex was designed to accept, don't add it.
- There should be sufficient land behind the current back tee to work it naturally into the existing terrain.
In some instances, I think not adding fictional back tees does the course a disservice. On Black Rock I added a couple just to make par 4s that aren't driver + flip wedge into hopefully more than driver + flip wedge, but I also added one to hole 16. That one added a mere 13 yards and also moved the tee farther right (land dictated that) but that little bit of distance makes the tee shot far more interesting than it was originally for both pro and master clubs.
@snadsaver01 if you want to do Camargo, I recommend you examine the hole strategies very carefully and make a list of which are worth adding distance too (and how much), so long as there's land available to work it in naturally. If you do that, the best way is probably to have the fictional back tees double up with the real back tees where applicable, and on holes that have the room for and stand to benefit from the extra length, they have their own tee box on those.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 0:57:39 GMT -5
I voted "no" - but; there is nothing wrong to add tees in a new published version that will no longer be a pure RCR, as long as the first version is a true recreation. I would think it is easier to first create the true recreation, and then later add tees, than adding tees and then later remove them again - or any other alterations one might want that would no longer work as a true recreation of a real course - and thus, no RCR. And yes, the title should indicate that it is an altered course compared to the real course. If this also refers to leaving horribly artifact-ridden greens from lower quality data unaltered, I 100% disagree. First time I ever 'altered' anything on a golf course was smoothing out the greens on Canyata with the minimum size fuzzy flatten brush. It was very tedious but it smoothed out greens that had a ton if little tiny artifact-lumps while preserving their proper large scale contours.
Have I said anything about not correcting artifacts?! RCR is an attempt to recreate a course to the real course as best we can. And that means also the correct tees. I can see no reason not to do so, and then later add any fictional addition that you want in a different version of the course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 1:09:24 GMT -5
I know that. Just wanted to make sure to point that out, as especially with LiDAR people tend to assume the greens will be 'perfect,' and much of the time they're anything but. I wasn't trying to pull a bait and switch on you.
Yeah, I could go either way on that. Keeping the back tees to what is really there makes a lot of sense as well, since it is a Real course after all. Publishing two versions can get a little bit odd though, then we have people playing what is almost the same course but in two different places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 9:49:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I could go either way on that. Keeping the back tees to what is really there makes a lot of sense as well, since it is a Real course after all. Publishing two versions can get a little bit odd though, then we have people playing what is almost the same course but in two different places. What is odd with more versions of the course? Players of this game are different - some want to have a RCR as it is in real life, others want fictional stuff like fictional tee boxes etc. Some like to have tournament objects, and others want a clean course ("member version"). When you do a RCR, I can see no reason not to make it as accurate as possible as best we can - also with accurate tees. Then, if you want fictional tees, a different version solves that perfectly. This is doing no harm, and if one wants to play one version or the other, you have that option - and all are happy. Who cares if we play different version of the course?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 9:58:31 GMT -5
I had two versions for Black Rock, thanks to some planting oversights. I just seems a bit more tidy to me to try to keep all the plays on one course and also not erm...clutter up our beloved HCP Rated filter. But maybe I'm too nice Regarding the course itself, there's no great reason against publishing multiple versions.If anything, it's preferred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 10:14:50 GMT -5
I had two versions for Black Rock, thanks to some planting oversights. I just seems a bit more tidy to me to try to keep all the plays on one course and also not erm...clutter up our beloved HCP Rated filter. But maybe I'm too nice Regarding the course itself, there's no great reason against publishing multiple versions.If anything, it's preferred. The hcp system in the game is full of flaws, so I don't care one bit about it. That means the solo play is suffering, but it is suffering regardless of hcp or no hcp. However, it is totaly stupid that we can't delete our own courses (in case of mistakes - pin placements, planting etc). And then be able to publish again without having the server full of courses with mistakes - which also would make it easier when you want to play one. That is though a different case than different versions that serves different wants (no one want courses with mistakes, so if one can correct the mistakes and publish again without having the one with mistakes remain in the game it would be much better). Any reset of the play count is of no concern - who cares about play count anyway?
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Feb 5, 2020 10:15:15 GMT -5
As long as the RCR is there is all it's glory, I see nothing wrong with adding extra tees to help gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by yeltzman on Feb 5, 2020 15:22:44 GMT -5
Well i am doing wallasey GC for a member there and i have added some extra tees for the game,but i have set the waypoints to the white tees so it plays how it should and not added anything what could not fit on the course.Hopefully i have blended them in well that nobody knows the difference (lets be honest who does know the course).its a real shame the 1st,5th,6th,8th,9th,10th,13th,15th there could not have any extra distance because if you could have extended to around 7200 yards it would be an amazing course to play instead of the 6920 had to settle for an extra 300 or so yards.For the amount of plays Lidar courses get don't see the point of making more than 1 version if you do the first version with the correct tees in the first place. An example no room for extra tees left it 8th and 15th... For the bunkers to come into play on the 7th added a back tee just on premises so bunkers come into play.
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Feb 6, 2020 2:47:08 GMT -5
When you release this, it will be the second time I will have played Wallasey, so I don't think I'll spot the difference in tees. Plus it was chucking it down with rain and blowing a gale when I played, so where the tees were in the layout of the course was the least of my concerns. One think I know you won't get on the course is the plaque on the second hole to commemorate Dr Frank Stableford's invention of the Stableford scoring system. Unless you can somehow get a photo of it into the game if you design on PC.
|
|