|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 18, 2023 11:11:57 GMT -5
Hi. Mont Chervac Golf Club is now open but was rejected. I would really appreciate some constructive feedback if possible. Thanks Played a few holes here - black tees, pin 2, default conditions. Usual disclaimer - I'm a TGCT ranger, not a course reviewer, so while I see all the tour courses come thru, I do not actually give courses Approved/Not Approved/Tour Worthy designations. Hole 1 - right off the bat, there's unintentional/unnecessary blindness off the tee, as the tee boxes are sculpted in such a way that the entire fairway and hole is not visible. Sculpting in general is OK, but could use some smoothing in spots all over the course and in non-playable areas, too. Hole 2 - this one's OK...green seems a bit large for a par-3 of this distance. Hole 3 - this one actually has a nice view off the tee. I will say, it looks to me like you may have used all the same pine tree when planting? There's little to no variation in tree types I can see. The bunkers along the water here need more attention in terms of sculpting and placement...the way they are sitting is a bit odd. Hole 4 - design/look of this hole is an issue. It's a par-5, 90-degree, dogleg-right hole that forces you to carry your second shot all the way over an extremely deep ravine (that's not marked as OB, by the way). I found the rough off the tee, and couldn't make it across the ravine at all, so I'd have to lay up to in front of the ravine with a wedge, leaving me still 215 yards away on my third. This is overly penal and seems to be designed to protect par. And that ravine not being labeled as OB, when it's more than 60 feet below the playable surfaces, is going to be a problem. Hit in there, and you'll have to take an unplayable. And in terms of realism, no one could ever go down there and come back up. Lastly, the ravine is planted with the same tree used over and over again, making it look a little weird. Stopped playing after that one...that hole alone, combined with the unnecessary blindness on Hole 1 tee, was probably enough to get this one put into the Not Approved bin, unfortunately. I'd recommend checking out the b101 video that's been shared here on this thread for more info on how to get your course approved. |
|
|
|
Post by bubbs o'toole on Jul 18, 2023 15:51:40 GMT -5
Hi all! Recently submitted my course Barron's Bluffs and it wasn't approved. As a "newish" designer I was looking for feedback as to why it wasn't and how to improve on the areas that disallowed it. All critiques are welcome and greatly appreciated. Knowledge is King! Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
Post by metatropic on Jul 18, 2023 16:49:10 GMT -5
There's a pinned thread above for these sorts of requests; more likely you'll get replies from reviewers (I'm only a ranger) (and designer). Maybe an admin can bump it into the right forum or you could repost?
Had a quick round, don't have much time to write detailed feedback, but broad strokes as follows:
1) Do look at b101/canuck's video (it's on the first page of the courses not approved thread)
2) I think you've got a good eye for visuals; lots of really nice sightlines, and your planting is pretty good (are you a visual artist?)
3) Your up close sculpting is lacking; the greens are just drawn onto fairways, no real green sculpting to speak of. Bunker sculpting needs a lot of work too, some are unsculpted, some are very unevenly sculpted. Bunker sculpting is really hard....
4) Lots of your fairways are really narrow; I know there are some IRL golf courses with fairways like this (Torrey pines etc) but they don't work well in this game.
5) A lot of default bunker shapes in play; try to hide which bunker shapes you used!
6) The hedges on all the tees are distracting (I am guilty of over cluttering tees myself....) and not necessary.
7) Turn you mow intensity down of off on the greens!
8) There are some reasonably solid golf ideas
I think you've got potential! Play some of the top guys' courses, pay special attention to up close sculpting. Practice and watch videos. You'll get there...
|
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 18, 2023 16:59:49 GMT -5
Hi all! Recently submitted my course Barron's Bluffs and it wasn't approved. As a "newish" designer I was looking for feedback as to why it wasn't and how to improve on the areas that disallowed it. All critiques are welcome and greatly appreciated. Knowledge is King! Thanks in advance! Just played a few holes here...pin 4, gold tees, default conditions. Hole 1 - mow lines on the green are really bold. Not a major issue, but I'd take those out. Some quirky sculpting around the fairway. The fairway itself is very narrow in most parts. Green has some odd sloping, and there's borderline yellow in the 9-box grid even on default speeds. The green speeds on default are 141, so they likely could not be made any faster for play on tour. This would limit the flexibility for schedulers, as speeds could only be slowed down from their default setting. Hole 2 - the hedge straight in the line of play is a bit in the way. Hit a tee shot to the right side of the fairway, and there are trees blocking my second shot. Ended up in the nasty area along the right side near the water, 82 feet below the green. This area should probably be marked as OB, as it's almost impossible to get out of. Green sloping is really aggressive, as most of it is covered in yellow-to-red slopes. Greenside bunker needs some more work in terms of sculpting it. Hole 3 - trees are really in the line of play here off the tee, and don't really need to be. Pin is on a borderline yellow slope again. Hole 4 - trees in the sightline again here that could just be cleared out. Green is really small. The hedges around the tees make the view really claustrophobic here. Hole 5 - there's just too much "stuff" in the views off the tees here. There's a restroom building, a clock, more hedges, some really massive buried trees off to the right, and not very much of the hole visible. I couldn't see the pond off to the left while standing on the tee. Hole 6 - the green shape here isn't really the best, as it's "C" shape means that anyone who find the front part of it when there's a back pin will have to chip. Also, the sculpting around the greensite is unnatural, and it flows both away from and toward the water. The greenside bunker basically has it's high side toward the front, making it totally invisible from anywhere in the fairway. I think after these holes, it seems the areas to work on are sightlines and opening up the view your course, as well as sculpting (specifically greens and bunkers). Some neat environment ideas are here, but there are a few basics that might need some attention. Good luck on your future courses, and I hope this helps! |
|
|
|
Post by rickmanchester on Jul 18, 2023 17:23:28 GMT -5
Hi. Mont Chervac Golf Club is now open but was rejected. I would really appreciate some constructive feedback if possible. Thanks Played a few holes here - black tees, pin 2, default conditions. Usual disclaimer - I'm a TGCT ranger, not a course reviewer, so while I see all the tour courses come thru, I do not actually give courses Approved/Not Approved/Tour Worthy designations. Hole 1 - right off the bat, there's unintentional/unnecessary blindness off the tee, as the tee boxes are sculpted in such a way that the entire fairway and hole is not visible. Sculpting in general is OK, but could use some smoothing in spots all over the course and in non-playable areas, too. Hole 2 - this one's OK...green seems a bit large for a par-3 of this distance. Hole 3 - this one actually has a nice view off the tee. I will say, it looks to me like you may have used all the same pine tree when planting? There's little to no variation in tree types I can see. The bunkers along the water here need more attention in terms of sculpting and placement...the way they are sitting is a bit odd. Hole 4 - design/look of this hole is an issue. It's a par-5, 90-degree, dogleg-right hole that forces you to carry your second shot all the way over an extremely deep ravine (that's not marked as OB, by the way). I found the rough off the tee, and couldn't make it across the ravine at all, so I'd have to lay up to in front of the ravine with a wedge, leaving me still 215 yards away on my third. This is overly penal and seems to be designed to protect par. And that ravine not being labeled as OB, when it's more than 60 feet below the playable surfaces, is going to be a problem. Hit in there, and you'll have to take an unplayable. And in terms of realism, no one could ever go down there and come back up. Lastly, the ravine is planted with the same tree used over and over again, making it look a little weird. Stopped playing after that one...that hole alone, combined with the unnecessary blindness on Hole 1 tee, was probably enough to get this one put into the Not Approved bin, unfortunately. I'd recommend checking out the b101 video that's been shared here on this thread for more info on how to get your course approved. Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the first hole, the majority of the hole is visible, right down the fairway, granted the green is obscured slightly to the right hand side by a few trees, but that’s golf, you can’t always see the green when you play. Hole 4 is certainly a challenge, and if played correctly is easily achievable to be on green for 2 or three. Like any hole in golf, if you are in the rough from a tee shot, your second is obviously not going to go as far and in this case, you’ll need to lay up for a better third onto the green. I’ve made a few courses now which have been approved, personally I thought this was the best one yet and so did others who have tested the course for me so I was surprised it was rejected. Back to the drawing board for my next attempt. Thank you for the feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jul 18, 2023 17:46:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the first hole, the majority of the hole is visible, right down the fairway, granted the green is obscured slightly to the right hand side by a few trees, but that’s golf, you can’t always see the green when you play. Hole 4 is certainly a challenge, and if played correctly is easily achievable to be on green for 2 or three. Like any hole in golf, if you are in the rough from a tee shot, your second is obviously not going to go as far and in this case, you’ll need to lay up for a better third onto the green. I’ve made a few courses now which have been approved, personally I thought this was the best one yet and so did others who have tested the course for me so I was surprised it was rejected. Back to the drawing board for my next attempt. Thank you for the feedback. The first hole is not at all visible from the tee, and it's because of sculpting. This is a textbook example of "unintentional blindness":  The idea on Hole 4 is not that you can't reach in in 2 or 3, but that if you don't absolutely find the fairway off the tee, you're dead. That was the case I was in, and I hit a reasonably good tee shot that was taken by the wind a bit more than I expected and found the rough. Fine, totally an error on my part. But by that happening, I was now in no way able to get the ball over the massive ravine, so I had to hit a 90-100 yard wedge shot out of heavy rough to the end of the first section of fairway, leaving me with 215 in to reach in regulation. That's overly penal, IMO. I think you have some good ideas, and am not at all surprised you have had approved courses before. But some things here, in the few holes I played, did put this course the "not approved" side of things, based on the standards that the reviewers have put into play. |
|
|
|
Post by bubbs o'toole on Jul 18, 2023 20:15:28 GMT -5
Thank you guys for taking the time to play the course and offer these insights. This help is greatly appreciated and I will take this advice to heart and work on these weaknesses. I'm glad to hear I have potential...makes me inspired to create really good courses. Once again thank you very much!!
|
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 19, 2023 1:58:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aero5k on Jul 22, 2023 12:16:11 GMT -5
Hi, I would like some feedback as to why Little Doe River Club was rejected. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by HoneyBadgerHacker on Jul 22, 2023 12:38:36 GMT -5
Hi, I would like some feedback as to why Little Doe River Club was rejected. Thank you! This one was close but there were several holes that had unintentional blindness. Hole 1 right off the bat had a little steam that cut through the fairway that wasn't visible.The stream also was elevated on a higher part of the hole. I would have moved it much lower and cut it at a diagonal so you could at least know it was there and offer some strategy to it. A few other holes where hazzards were in play that could not be seen. Lot of the bunkers were very flat and seemed out of place in some areas. The surfacing transitions could be a little better as well. |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Aug 2, 2023 11:06:20 GMT -5
ViolentGent - The Hand & Captain Doyley sent your PM over to me regarding the Not Approved. It's the major sculpting and surfacing that's the issue - if you watch the video below, that'll explain it in more detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatchaz15 on Aug 17, 2023 18:53:45 GMT -5
Hello,
Looking for some information as to why Skyline Golf Club was not approved. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Aug 17, 2023 19:19:53 GMT -5
Hello, Looking for some information as to why Skyline Golf Club was not approved. Thanks. Hi there! Just played a few holes here...black tees, pin 4, default conditions. I am not a reviewer, but do ranger courses here for TGCT, so know that I did not do the review of this course. This is just some feedback as to why it might not have been approved. Hole 1 - right off the bat, the left fairway bunker is not visible from the tee due to sculpting. There should be a high side of that bunker...as it is, it's just dropped straight down into the ground and is actually higher in the front toward the tees than it is at the back. The bunkers also are all single shapes here, and are dropped down into other surfaces including fairway. This leaves a bit of rough around the bunkers that looks a bit odd, and does not show up if you spline them. The green on Hole 1 is very large, and even at 161 green speeds has very little sloping or undulation. Hole 2 - there are tall grasses planted on the fairway here, where the fairway runs into the stream. Surfacing and transitions around the green are a bit off...the fairway around the front left greenside bunker is strange. Hole 3 - a lot of the same things are basically repeating...bunkers, sculpting, surfacing, etc. Hole 4 - this one's a bit too much...I get the idea of wanting to have an island green par-3, but the retaining walls are super tall, the light rough texture around the tee boxes and up to the water looks kind of strange, and the surfacing up on the island is kind of random, too - the green has some wavy edges to them that looks odd. Hole 5 - more of the same issues repeat, with the bunkers being single shapes just dropped down, cutting thru three texture types (fairway, light rough, heavy rough). Since many of these issues seemed to be repeating, I ended my round there. Looked like Hole 6, a par-3, had more surfacing and bunker issues as well. There looked to be some nice work done on the off-course environment, and there were some cool sightlines here as well. Just a few technical areas to work on for your next one. I'd also recommend watching the b101 video that's linked here in this thread for more details, and check out other YouTube tutorials if you haven't. Good luck on future builds! |
|
|
|
Post by lowonbeers on Aug 31, 2023 0:09:29 GMT -5
I recently submitted Palm lake golf club. Can I please have some feed back on what need to correct along with what was done correct. Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Aug 31, 2023 4:09:52 GMT -5
and what looks like autogen planting left in place. This is a bit of a reach back question but I was reading this thread to get some ideas about what to avoid. I have a LIDAR course that is currently very close to the object limit, and one of the mitigating things I have is leaving a good amount of auto-gen planting between holes. If I filled in every space with spline planting I would have no chance at being under the limit. I'm choosing to only use spline fill in locations were it specifically calls for thicker or sparser trees than the 100% auto-gen. I guess my question is: will having a number of fairways lined with auto-gen trees disqualify my courses or is it only if is is excessive? This is on a 36 hole golf course, with 2 18-hole routings I plan to release at the same time, though I am still undecided if I will submit either for official review. Probably a bit late but the issue here is spline planting, uses way too much meter. Try individually planting things, yes it takes time but if you want your worthy courses you’re looking at 100+ hours |
|
