|
|
Post by odogg37 on Jun 18, 2024 8:04:10 GMT -5
Appreciate some feedback on this.
As a TGC Tours supporter for many years, and as someone who has donated and then got their debt card hacked from doing so, I have to say this one has really taken the wind out of my sails.
I spent 80+ hours on this course and I know with absolute certainty that there are many courses that don't even come close to this course that have been approved. I do not claim to be a master designer, I am not but after 4 years of doing this I feel I have gotten above average for sure.
After reading your response the light bulb is fully on and it is evident that this process is more subjective than I originally thought. It is really interesting to see how others view your work when it comes to designing on this game.
So as someone like myself who just put a ton of work into a course, it gets denied, and the potential explanations are:
That you felt the designs of some hole's were "odd".... One hole was too easy, some greens are too easy, some are too difficult. "If there is a lot of wind the shadows might be too difficult" ??! Really? That is just mind boggling to me as an explanation on why a course isn't good enough.
On hole 5 that hole design was bad because you hit a 366 yard drive?? Who hits a 366 yard drive that's not Bryson DeChambeau? Had you hit a realistic tee shot your 2nd shot would probably not have been blind either... I have also had blind shots on holes get approved in the past.
Your critique of hole 15 is interesting to say the least that hole is almost a mirror of the great Pete Dye's design at Big Fish Golf Club in Hayward, WI. So it's good enough for Pete Dye but it's a "strange design" for TGC... it just doesn't make sense. You say the fairway landing spots are too narrow... my last course has a hole with far more narrow landing spots but was approved... again subjectivity shines though
It's an "extremely flat terrain" my last course is flat as a pancake compared to this one that was approved.... not all courses have extreme up and downs? This course has many elevated tee boxes as well, granted not 50+ foot but elevated none the less.
I am simply replying for you to see what it feels like on this end as TGC is considered the measuring stick to many and affords your course many more plays and appreciating, which is of course what feels good when you work so hard on a course for others to enjoy.
I think I need to accept the fact that TGC doesn't approve the best looking, the most realistic and the better designs in general, that it is extremely subjective and some things need to fit what they want for the video game play of the course, after all it is a game.... my design is based on realism and to be considered for TGC maybe my thinking needs to be strictly towards gameplay.
I do appreciate your time in playing the course and providing some feedback as always.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jun 18, 2024 8:20:10 GMT -5
Appreciate some feedback on this. As a TGC Tours supporter for many years, and as someone who has donated and then got their debt card hacked from doing so, I have to say this one has really taken the wind out of my sails. I spent 80+ hours on this course and I know with absolute certainty that there are many courses that don't even come close to this course that have been approved. I do not claim to be a master designer, I am not but after 4 years of doing this I feel I have gotten above average for sure. After reading your response the light bulb is fully on and it is evident that this process is more subjective than I originally thought. It is really interesting to see how others view your work when it comes to designing on this game. So as someone like myself who just put a ton of work into a course, it gets denied, and the potential explanations are: That you felt the designs of some hole's were "odd".... One hole was too easy, some greens are too easy, some are too difficult. "If there is a lot of wind the shadows might be too difficult" ??! Really? That is just mind boggling to me as an explanation on why a course isn't good enough. On hole 5 that hole design was bad because you hit a 366 yard drive?? Who hits a 366 yard drive that's not Bryson DeChambeau? Had you hit a realistic tee shot your 2nd shot would probably not have been blind either... I have also had blind shots on holes get approved in the past. Your critique of hole 15 is interesting to say the least that hole is almost a mirror of the great Pete Dye's design at Big Fish Golf Club in Hayward, WI. So it's good enough for Pete Dye but it's a "strange design" for TGC... it just doesn't make sense. You say the fairway landing spots are too narrow... my last course has a hole with far more narrow landing spots but was approved... again subjectivity shines though It's an "extremely flat terrain" my last course is flat as a pancake compared to this one that was approved.... not all courses have extreme up and downs? This course has many elevated tee boxes as well, granted not 50+ foot but elevated none the less. I am simply replying for you to see what it feels like on this end as TGC is considered the measuring stick to many and affords your course many more plays and appreciating, which is of course what feels good when you work so hard on a course for others to enjoy. I think I need to accept the fact that TGC doesn't approve the best looking, the most realistic and the better designs in general, that it is extremely subjective and some things need to fit what they want for the video game play of the course, after all it is a game.... my design is based on realism and to be considered for TGC maybe my thinking needs to be strictly towards gameplay. I do appreciate your time in playing the course and providing some feedback as always. Thank you So, this is why I always advise reviewers not to go into depth. People argue the toss on every minor detail and focus on irrelevant points. Sroel gave you loads of feedback - not all of that is about Approve/Not Approve, but rather to help you. The issues with your course are: major sculpting and surfacing (I can tell that even from the pictures you've posted in your thread). You can find all this information in the video which I specifically recorded to avoid having to type out responses like this. Because those are always the issues. If you haven't watched it (or digested it fully), then yeah, you'll get some Approved, some Not. Because you don't really know what you're doing or why you're doing it. Of course, it also depends whether you really want feedback or just want to be told that what you're doing is good. There's a big difference. Sroel knows what he's on about. If he's played your course and given you a write-up, I'd suggest re-reading it, taking off the rose-tinted glasses we all have with our own publishes and looking back over your course with a critical eye. Up to you how you go from here. But arguing the toss against reviewers who do all review to the same guidelines (which we have put out there for you) will only end one way. And that's not because it's a clique or we dislike you. Those are the basic requirements and it's up to all of us designers to meet them. |
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jun 18, 2024 8:35:13 GMT -5
I am simply replying for you to see what it feels like on this end as TGC is considered the measuring stick to many and affords your course many more plays and appreciating, which is of course what feels good when you work so hard on a course for others to enjoy. Not gonna go too much more into detail on this, but I DO know what it's like. I've been in your spot, made courses as far back as The Golf Club, and gotten some very firm (but fair) feedback. Hence the reason I try to repay the favor with posts like the one I provided to you. The only difference is that I took a hard look at what I did, compared it to other people's work and what TGCT asks of courses it uses on tour, and accepted the feedback, putting it into future designs. I practiced, watched tutorials, got better, and somehow eventually ended up with 6 Tour Worthy courses over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by odogg37 on Jun 18, 2024 9:12:58 GMT -5
I am simply replying for you to see what it feels like on this end as TGC is considered the measuring stick to many and affords your course many more plays and appreciating, which is of course what feels good when you work so hard on a course for others to enjoy. Not gonna go too much more into detail on this, but I DO know what it's like. I've been in your spot, made courses as far back as The Golf Club, and gotten some very firm (but fair) feedback. Hence the reason I try to repay the favor with posts like the one I provided to you. The only difference is that I took a hard look at what I did, compared it to other people's work and what TGCT asks of courses it uses on tour, and accepted the feedback, putting it into future designs. I practiced, watched tutorials, got better, and somehow eventually ended up with 6 Tour Worthy courses over the years. I truly do appreciate the feedback. You gave me fair firm feedback on a course a few years ago and I used that and got my next course approved. It is nice to have something to go off of. It just seems like it depends on the day and the reviewer, because if your opinion is such on this course on a few topics, my last that was approved would not meet your approval either I would imagine. I know you didn’t make the decision on this course but nonetheless you see my point. Thank you for doing what you do. I’ll head back to the designer and work on my next project. |
|
|
|
Post by odogg37 on Jun 18, 2024 9:16:56 GMT -5
[/quote]So, this is why I always advise reviewers not to go into depth. People argue the toss on every minor detail and focus on irrelevant points. Sroel gave you loads of feedback - not all of that is about Approve/Not Approve, but rather to help you. The issues with your course are: major sculpting and surfacing (I can tell that even from the pictures you've posted in your thread). You can find all this information in the video which I specifically recorded to avoid having to type out responses like this. Because those are always the issues.
If you haven't watched it (or digested it fully), then yeah, you'll get some Approved, some Not. Because you don't really know what you're doing or why you're doing it.
Of course, it also depends whether you really want feedback or just want to be told that what you're doing is good. There's a big difference. Sroel knows what he's on about. If he's played your course and given you a write-up, I'd suggest re-reading it, taking off the rose-tinted glasses we all have with our own publishes and looking back over your course with a critical eye.
Up to you how you go from here. But arguing the toss against reviewers who do all review to the same guidelines (which we have put out there for you) will only end one way. And that's not because it's a clique or we dislike you. Those are the basic requirements and it's up to all of us designers to meet them.[/quote]
The ability to get feedback here is imperative for designers I believe do I disagree with that statement that reviewers shouldn’t give feedback.
Also I am interested on the sculpting comment…. Sculpting issues is one I did not expect to hear… which photo shows sculpting problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jun 18, 2024 9:24:25 GMT -5
Also I am interested on the sculpting comment…. Sculpting issues is one I did not expect to hear… which photo shows sculpting problems? There were multiple instances of "unintentional blindness" on the course - areas where odd humps and mounds blocked views of things simply because they were not sculpted the way they should have been. This is opposed to "intentional blindness", where the land movement is actually part of the hole's strategy. There were issues of hazards not being visible off the tee because they weren't sculpted properly, greens being completely blind from less than 100 yards in because fairways weren't sculpted well, and some bunker sculpting that wasn't really great. There were also some fairway edges that needed more refined sculpting as they just dropped off into the rough awkwardly, and some green sculpting that fought the land or didn't work well (look at where the Pin 2 cup is placed on Hole 10, or how the green doesn't work for a 275-yard par-3 on Hole 12). I don't know specifically what images b101 is referring to, but the sculpting issues were fairly prevalent when on-course. |
|
|
|
Post by bubbadave on Jun 18, 2024 11:33:00 GMT -5
From my personal experience I have submitted two courses. I made the first course without watching the 1st video in this thread, nor any other video. It got the nod, but wasn't tour worthy. My second course, I had watched the video and quite a few of b101's and matty's design videos. It didn't get accepted. I don't know why, but I didn't ask and I moved on. I had toyed with the idea of presenting a beta, but I was all too cocky and thinking it was a shoe-in since my first was accepted. That said, my current course will be presented as a beta and I hope a few of our members take the time to review it and I can tweak changes and fix things before submitting it.
So that's my advice as a ranger: Make a beta and have others help you correct likely mistakes before submitting it for approval.
|
|
|
|
Post by odogg37 on Jun 18, 2024 11:44:43 GMT -5
From my personal experience I have submitted two courses. I made the first course without watching the 1st video in this thread, nor any other video. It got the nod, but wasn't tour worthy. My second course, I had watched the video and quite a few of b101's and matty's design videos. It didn't get accepted. I don't know why, but I didn't ask and I moved on. I had toyed with the idea of presenting a beta, but I was all too cocky and thinking it was a shoe-in since my first was accepted. That said, my current course will be presented as a beta and I hope a few of our members take the time to review it and I can tweak changes and fix things before submitting it. So that's my advice as a ranger: Make a beta and have others help you correct likely mistakes before submitting it for approval. After digesting everything here, I think you described my situation perfectly. I think I was a bit too cocky. Sometimes we need to be humbled and I went through his whole by hole summary and I can see where he is coming from in some respects. I think I had been working on it for so long that another set of eyes would have helped for sure. Appreciate the advice I know these conversations will help me in the long run! |
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jun 18, 2024 12:28:27 GMT -5
The ability to get feedback here is imperative for designers I believe do I disagree with that statement that reviewers shouldn’t give feedback. Also I am interested on the sculpting comment…. Sculpting issues is one I did not expect to hear… which photo shows sculpting problems? Reviewers do give feedback - if it’s not approved, it’s in the thread title, because it is literally all in that video (I can recall fewer than five courses in the last four years that were for other reasons, all because they were inaccurate or bad ripoffs of ANGC). If people still don’t understand, that’s why this thread exists. In this case, though, you got extra feedback but just didn’t like it - hence my post. Seems you’re in a better place with it now though. As for the sculpting issues, I’d look at your bunkers. I won’t give specifics (you need to learn to spot this for yourself or we will just have the same situation play out every course). It’s all in the video, but primarily check for the low side and that you can see them from key areas (unless it’s the rare bunker - and then, mostly on links courses - that you intend to be blind). That said, whilst sculpting issues are predominantly linked to sightlines and bunkers, improving your understanding of sculpting and surfacing overall is the single biggest thing any designer should work on if they aren’t consistently hitting Tour Worthy (and often, even then). |
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jun 18, 2024 13:40:52 GMT -5
After digesting everything here, I think you described my situation perfectly. I think I was a bit too cocky. Sometimes we need to be humbled and I went through his whole by hole summary and I can see where he is coming from in some respects. I think I had been working on it for so long that another set of eyes would have helped for sure. Appreciate the advice I know these conversations will help me in the long run! Just wanted to add...again, as someone who is not a reviewer... I could totally see this course being given "Approved" status. But, to be honest, I think that would have been a disservice to you in terms of your growth as a designer, especially if you're aiming for a Tour Worthy course someday. I can clearly see you have a grasp of the designer, how it works, and how to build a functional golf course. But this getting "Approved" would have perhaps made it so some of the tweaks and fixes that would really improve it would not have been focused on like they were here. Instead, your future courses would have had the same potential issues or concerns, and if those future courses would have been Approved, the cycle would have continued and you wouldn't have grown as a designer. You've gotten some pretty valuable feedback now, and given that you have a foundation of working in the designer and getting an Approved course, you're only going to get better...that is, if you take the feedback into consideration and really analyze your work. It seems like you will, and I think that will lead to a pretty solid course in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorcurbschool on Jun 20, 2024 17:53:34 GMT -5
Hello,
I recently submitted Sugar Creek Country Club (Par 72, longest tees are 7,268 yards however the "Course details" say 7,948 yards for some reason) and it was denied. I feel the course is very detailed and carefully constructed, so I'm guessing the rejection had to do with something regarding playability. I know there are some holes that present as very "risk-reward", but I tried to always leave the option to layup or go for it in every scenario. Some of the greens have multiple tiers or severe slopes, but I tried to keep pin placements at least 3 squares away from any severe break on shorter holes, and 5+ squares away on longer holes. If it was something to do with playability, is there any way that someone could tell me which holes specifically are to blame? I do believe this is a great course and while challenging, should be very fun to play.
Thank you in advance
|
|
|
|
Post by sandgroper on Jun 20, 2024 21:40:57 GMT -5
Not a reviewer, but comments in video...
|
|
|
|
Post by patlouvar on Jun 20, 2024 21:55:27 GMT -5
Hello, I recently submitted Sugar Creek Country Club (Par 72, longest tees are 7,268 yards however the "Course details" say 7,948 yards for some reason) and it was denied. I feel the course is very detailed and carefully constructed, so I'm guessing the rejection had to do with something regarding playability. I know there are some holes that present as very "risk-reward", but I tried to always leave the option to layup or go for it in every scenario. Some of the greens have multiple tiers or severe slopes, but I tried to keep pin placements at least 3 squares away from any severe break on shorter holes, and 5+ squares away on longer holes. If it was something to do with playability, is there any way that someone could tell me which holes specifically are to blame? I do believe this is a great course and while challenging, should be very fun to play. Thank you in advance Hello Dr. Curbschool, The main reason for the course being not-approved was sculpting issues on many holes. I would suggest reviewing Ben's video in the OP of this thread and then play through your course without the use of scout cam and take careful consideration of the visibility of playing surfaces and hazards from your tees and approach areas. Sandgroper also provides good feedback in his video above. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by bauer1993 on Jun 21, 2024 7:36:47 GMT -5
Okay I'm back... I just published Rosedale National Toronto (for the Stadium Design Contest), it got approved within an hour, but no Tour Worthy best I can tell. I wanted to do a second submission to this contest, so I'm just wondering if anyone would be willing to take a look for me to find any gaps I missed. I feel like I can't be too far off honestly. A few possible issues I've flagged: 1) Too many highly visible bare spots under trees. I ran out of meter otherwise i wouldve used more grass, so on the next course I'll try even harder to bury more trees and maybe use a less blunt heavy rough texture. 2) The bridges on 7, 11 & 14 are too close to the forward tee deck and partially block the ravine view. 3) Lighting could be better (I blame the trees) -- the greens are clear but some of the fairways are pretty dark. 4) 1 and 5 could've been long par 4s rather than short par 5s, making it a par 70. If I did a "Tour" version I'd do this I think. 5) Bunkering might be too simplistic. I was going for the highly manicured Augusta look, but I could understand it if the reviewer may have wanted more there. Any ideas? I want to do a Dye inspired, more open meadow look next, so maybe some of this will fix itself, but another set of eyes would be great! Thank you! Course thread: tgctours.proboards.com/thread/35339/rosedale-national-toronto-stadium-challenge?page=1#post-810036More photos: www.facebook.com/share/p/RG3mCq6p9NDcJ1aR/?mibextid=oFDknk |
|
|
|
Post by doctorcurbschool on Jun 21, 2024 7:46:35 GMT -5
Hello, I recently submitted Sugar Creek Country Club (Par 72, longest tees are 7,268 yards however the "Course details" say 7,948 yards for some reason) and it was denied. I feel the course is very detailed and carefully constructed, so I'm guessing the rejection had to do with something regarding playability. I know there are some holes that present as very "risk-reward", but I tried to always leave the option to layup or go for it in every scenario. Some of the greens have multiple tiers or severe slopes, but I tried to keep pin placements at least 3 squares away from any severe break on shorter holes, and 5+ squares away on longer holes. If it was something to do with playability, is there any way that someone could tell me which holes specifically are to blame? I do believe this is a great course and while challenging, should be very fun to play. Thank you in advance Hello Dr. Curbschool, The main reason for the course being not-approved was sculpting issues on many holes. I would suggest reviewing Ben's video in the OP of this thread and then play through your course without the use of scout cam and take careful consideration of the visibility of playing surfaces and hazards from your tees and approach areas. Sandgroper also provides good feedback in his video above. Cheers! Appreciate the feedback all. I agree with the sculpting/tee box blindness issues, I guess I never consider it because I always look ahead with the flyover, but just seeing hazards from the tee box definitely needs improvement. The 5th hole was meant as a choice, risk driver over the water or layup and have a long iron to the green. 10th hole was designed with thought of driver not being an option at all, but after Sandgroper’s comments I agree long and left can be opened up with fairway. 16th hole par 5 could use a better bailout option to the left side, it was meant to be a very narrow fairway to the right of the trees that would put you close enough to make the green in two, and the left was meant as the safe bailout but takes reaching in two out of play. For the 18th hole, the green is visible from the fairway and the right rough. If you miss left, it’s often going to be a layup around the trees. Other than the 2nd hole and the 18th hole where the trees were intended as obstacles, I’ll be backing some overhanging trees away from the fairways, they are a bit too close on a few holes, thanks to Sandgroper for pointing that out. Thanks patlouvar and sandgroper for the feedback. I’ll make some necessary changes and be back with a beta version, I’m proud of this course and think it deserves to be played. Any feedback is always welcomed, I love hearing different perspectives. |
|
