|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 21, 2020 19:45:33 GMT -5
... you great country club/park land course designers have to keep inspired. After my last 2 'rugged' courses, I thought I would try again at a more urban/suburban thing, but it is tough for me. Every hole just feels like I am borrowing someone else's work or painting by numbers. Luckily, the 'high' of my first 'approved' layout (Fleming River GC shameless plug) is still with me, but I fear the back nine will be a series of build & destroy cycles.
Is it a format where it's better to think of it as a construction job than an art project, perhaps ?
Anyway, kudos and hopefully I'll create a worthy entry in that style here soon.
|
|
nifty1
Amateur Golfer
Letting me loose on the designer is like giving a gun to a monkey!!
Posts: 206
|
Post by nifty1 on Jul 27, 2020 10:44:22 GMT -5
I feel your pain. I am new to the designer but have tried dozens of times to start a parkland course .. and by the 4th hole I'm bored to tears. I cannot seem to make anything that keeps my interest. Sure I can follow some template ideas but then it all just feels forced and I give up and move to something different. It's clear to me that some people are good at this and that I maybe am not. I might just stick to playing rather than the frustration of designing. I say that .. then as soon as I turn the game on I end up in the designer clicking "New Course" .. yet again
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Jul 27, 2020 11:28:05 GMT -5
As someone who has published a few courses to some success I know I have started and deleted many more courses than I have finished. Trial and error are just part of the process. I'm sure most designers around here have many times started with an idea that just didn't play out the way they hoped. You just have to keep at it until things start coming together they way you envision them and then it will hook you in.
Ask yourself, what are the things you like about parkland courses? Get a list of things and focus on incorporating them.
|
|
nifty1
Amateur Golfer
Letting me loose on the designer is like giving a gun to a monkey!!
Posts: 206
|
Post by nifty1 on Jul 27, 2020 12:11:19 GMT -5
The thing I struggle with really is nice interesting elevation changes. At the moment they are either all way too extreme or the other end of the spectrum...ridiculously flat. I can’t see the correct terrain in my minds eye. I wish there was a feature to load a terrain map from Google Earth. I feel once I have a plot that is interesting then I can get stuck in learning the tools. I’ve actually taken to just designing single holes, scattered about the plots, just to learn what works and what doesn’t. No course intended or in mind, just throw a hole down and then play with the brushes. So far, the results have been pretty poor. Haha. Also, I wish provisualizer was in 3D. It’s a fascinating website and measuring tool and I’m sure I’ll learn from it but wish it could show the rises and falls, especially near the greens. Sorry OP, not trying to hijack your thread, just totally in the same boat as you at the moment. Who’s steering and who’s rowing?
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 27, 2020 16:04:57 GMT -5
The thing I struggle with really is nice interesting elevation changes. At the moment they are either all way too extreme or the other end of the spectrum...ridiculously flat. I can’t see the correct terrain in my minds eye. I wish there was a feature to load a terrain map from Google Earth. I feel once I have a plot that is interesting then I can get stuck in learning the tools. I’ve actually taken to just designing single holes, scattered about the plots, just to learn what works and what doesn’t. No course intended or in mind, just throw a hole down and then play with the brushes. So far, the results have been pretty poor. Haha. Also, I wish provisualizer was in 3D. It’s a fascinating website and measuring tool and I’m sure I’ll learn from it but wish it could show the rises and falls, especially near the greens. Sorry OP, not trying to hijack your thread, just totally in the same boat as you at the moment. Who’s steering and who’s rowing? I wouldn't put a thread or reply out there if I didn;t want to encourage open discussion !
In many ways, design is an art, and not all mediums work for all artists. And not all art that is considered 'classic' appeals to everyone - I found Monet's 'Water Lilies' pretty uninteresting up close, the same with most impressionists - so their brushwork is nice, but it's just a giant picture of blurry water lilies. Give me Dali or DaVinci over Rembrandt or Monet.
The 'LIDAR' designers do use real elevation data, but it sort of sounds like 'tracing' rather than building from scratch. Some folks like building model kits, others like sculpting clay.
|
|
|
Post by agrainger12 on Jul 27, 2020 17:42:26 GMT -5
The thing I struggle with really is nice interesting elevation changes. At the moment they are either all way too extreme or the other end of the spectrum...ridiculously flat. I can’t see the correct terrain in my minds eye. I wish there was a feature to load a terrain map from Google Earth. I feel once I have a plot that is interesting then I can get stuck in learning the tools. I’ve actually taken to just designing single holes, scattered about the plots, just to learn what works and what doesn’t. No course intended or in mind, just throw a hole down and then play with the brushes. So far, the results have been pretty poor. Haha. Also, I wish provisualizer was in 3D. It’s a fascinating website and measuring tool and I’m sure I’ll learn from it but wish it could show the rises and falls, especially near the greens. Sorry OP, not trying to hijack your thread, just totally in the same boat as you at the moment. Who’s steering and who’s rowing? I wouldn't put a thread or reply out there if I didn;t want to encourage open discussion !
In many ways, design is an art, and not all mediums work for all artists. And not all art that is considered 'classic' appeals to everyone - I found Monet's 'Water Lilies' pretty uninteresting up close, the same with most impressionists - so their brushwork is nice, but it's just a giant picture of blurry water lilies. Give me Dali or DaVinci over Rembrandt or Monet.
The 'LIDAR' designers do use real elevation data, but it sort of sounds like 'tracing' rather than building from scratch. Some folks like building model kits, others like sculpting clay.
I couldn't help but sympathize with the sculpting thing and I also want to help you speed up your experimentation process. The key to making well sculpted holes is the fuzzy brush on page 4 (top left corner). That's about all I would use honestly. You can use the flatten circle/square for tee boxes. I honestly learned this through b101's tutorial videos, which has its own thread in the "tips and tricks" section. Check out the sculpting video. Also, big thing with parkland courses (and courses in general): they will look a million times better in low light (dusk or dawn), because high noon lighting is terrible in TGC. Try using the fuzzy brush to make some nice undulations, which will look great in low light. Also, another tip, definitely check out Avery Fields for a really well executed "parkland" course. You'll see there's some subtle planting, with some long grass and some planting near some creeks, which are great things to implement in that type of course. A parkland course also kind of needs some interesting looking bunkers with some designated style to use throughout the course (think about Merion or Bethpage as examples of parkland courses with good bunkering, Merion gets the smooth, clean look down well, and Bethpage has more of the sprawling, fingered bunker look). Basically, your standard, run-of-the-mill golf course will be super painful and super boring to make in a parkland style, so spice it up with the things I just mentioned. That's my two cents. Hope all of this helps!
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 27, 2020 18:18:03 GMT -5
... you great country club/park land course designers have to keep inspired. After my last 2 'rugged' courses, I thought I would try again at a more urban/suburban thing, but it is tough for me. Every hole just feels like I am borrowing someone else's work or painting by numbers. Luckily, the 'high' of my first 'approved' layout (Fleming River GC shameless plug) is still with me, but I fear the back nine will be a series of build & destroy cycles. Is it a format where it's better to think of it as a construction job than an art project, perhaps ? Anyway, kudos and hopefully I'll create a worthy entry in that style here soon. Some people have certain styles. That's not a bad thing. If the course is a bit of a challenge because it's not what you're used too, maybe step back for a second. I'm not saying that you give up all together, but if what's in your mind isn't working, sometimes starting fresh is a good idea. I've deleted courses with 18 playable holes. Have three that have been sitting there since before September that will never see the light of day. My rdc course was my third attempt and my cc course was my second. As far as borrowing ideas, do it. Its how design evolves. I've done it shamelessly. It happens all the time irl. For an example, look at the course guide for Old Macdonald. Every hole has a couple "inspired by" holes listed. Further, if you need a parkland inspiration, there plenty of good ones out there. Play a lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by notaburneracct on Jul 27, 2020 18:30:22 GMT -5
And keep in mind too, that if a bunch of people are giving you sound advice about hole strategy, you should probably listen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 20:12:32 GMT -5
I agree with Justin on this one for sure. Most of the designers we think of as classic golf designers from the Golden Era Architecture years openly talked about inspirations for their design ideas coming from even earlier designs. I also agree that sometimes the best thing for your creative juices to start flowing is deleting a course that has stalled out. It might not seem like a good idea because you have put so much time into it, but my best courses happened very fluidly. When it starts to feel like I am forcing an idea/concept/course, I just delete it and move on. There were four projects that I started and scrapped between Toby's Rock and Lake Lyla. None of them were as good as Lake Lyla, and all of them hit a point where it started to feel forced. Two of them had 18 playable holes with 20-30 hours into each at least. I just feel like those helped me hone skills to make Lake Lyla that much better. Also, notaburnacct has a good point. If one person gives you advice, but they are offering subjective criticism of something aesthetic... take it with a grain of salt. If several people give reasonable advice about strategy and how a hole/course actually plays... you might be better served by swallowing your pride and taking the advice. I know that I have had comments made about the strategy of several holes on my courses over the years, and after the sting of the exposed flaw passed, I agreed with their assessments. Also... notaburneracct is starting to sound like "independent" person... and not a puppet. Which is both funny and worrisome...
|
|
|
Post by SkinniePost on Jul 27, 2020 20:23:19 GMT -5
Architecture and art are the antithesis of each other. One requires function, one does not... One has an end user, one is a personal creation. Sure you can find gray, but if the architecture is lost... No longer a golf course?
Addendum: Architecture requires rigor... Choices are not made on a whim. Design is all about process and understanding how the course can and will be used/interpreted?
|
|
|
Post by notaburneracct on Jul 27, 2020 21:28:04 GMT -5
Also... notaburneracct is starting to sound like "independent" person... and not a puppet. Which is both funny and worrisome... Look the eff out!
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 27, 2020 21:29:27 GMT -5
Architecture and art are the antithesis of each other. One requires function, one does not... One has an end user, one is a personal creation. Sure you can find gray, but if the architecture is lost... No longer a golf course? Addendum: Architecture requires rigor... Choices are not made on a whim. Design is all about process and understanding how the course can and will be used/interpreted? This is well put. Seriously, this is everything.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 28, 2020 2:06:42 GMT -5
The fun of a parkland design is that it is really tough to do well. There’s nowhere to hide as you can’t use a lot of the design crutches (coastline, massive elevation change, wild planting, undulations etc) that you can get away with on other courses to make boring holes look more interesting than they are. I designed Hollingbourne purely to work on all of those aspects and loved it as a result. It simply boils down to ‘can you build good, varied golf holes where the strategy is subtle but effective?’ Limiting yourself to 35 yard wide fairways, few central hazards, no cliffs etc makes you have to really work on routing, hazard location, bunkering, exactly where you cut the fairway and subtlety of angles. By variety, think length of hole, dogleg right/left, whether you are encouraging outside or inside of dogleg, length of approach, type of green shape etc. There is also a real art to minimalist planting. It’s a real challenge to build these types of courses, but well worth it. Of all of my designs, I improved the most building Hollingbourne - even though there's still holes I'm not 100% happy with. Courses I’d recommend giving a play - mattf27 and Energ1ser are the best (IMO) at this style: Raynor Ridge (not the archetypal parkland but a brilliant study for hole ideas) Brookfield Landing Cabernet Club Ranfurly Avery Fields Aotearoa Sevenoake (bit of self-promotion, but I think Matt and I nailed this one) I’m likely forgetting a few obvious ones, but those are the courses that have stuck with me for this style.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Jul 28, 2020 3:12:06 GMT -5
All this talk of parkland golf is very alluring.
|
|
nifty1
Amateur Golfer
Letting me loose on the designer is like giving a gun to a monkey!!
Posts: 206
|
Post by nifty1 on Jul 28, 2020 4:03:21 GMT -5
The fun of a parkland design is that it is really tough to do well. There’s nowhere to hide as you can’t use a lot of the design crutches (coastline, massive elevation change, wild planting, undulations etc) that you can get away with on other courses to make boring holes look more interesting than they are. I designed Hollingbourne purely to work on all of those aspects and loved it as a result. It simply boils down to ‘can you build good, varied golf holes where the strategy is subtle but effective?’ Limiting yourself to 35 yard wide fairways, few central hazards, no cliffs etc makes you have to really work on routing, hazard location, bunkering, exactly where you cut the fairway and subtlety of angles. By variety, think length of hole, dogleg right/left, whether you are encouraging outside or inside of dogleg, length of approach, type of green shape etc. There is also a real art to minimalist planting. It’s a real challenge to build these types of courses, but well worth it. Of all of my designs, I improved the most building Hollingbourne - even though there's still holes I'm not 100% happy with. Courses I’d recommend giving a play - mattf27 and Energ1ser are the best (IMO) at this style: Raynor Ridge (not the archetypal parkland but a brilliant study for hole ideas) Brookfield Landing Cabernet Club Ranfurly Avery Fields Aotearoa Sevenoake (bit of self-promotion, but I think Matt and I nailed this one) I’m likely forgetting a few obvious ones, but those are the courses that have stuck with me for this style. I think Sevenoake was one of the best parklands I have played. It was so realistic. The subtle elevation changes were magnificent. I always start a plot using Mayday's technique to create random movement in the land then drop the camera to ground level and think "nah, that's still flat as a pancake" ... so continue to spam plant terrain and before you know it ... the elevation change is way to much again and it's back to the drawing board. I guess it's just a case of doing it over and over, learning a little each time until one day my eye will be able to spot what is required a little better. In the meantime, I'm filling up my PS4 and now my PC HDD with a graveyard of abandoned courses .... never to be played, tumbleweed gently blowing across the fairways and a mouth organ crying in the distance, like an Ennio Morricone (R.I.P) movie score.
|
|