has Lidar been good?

  • 62 Replies
  • 2118 Views

jeffield

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2314
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:49:30 AM »
okay, very slow around here so I was just thinking a bit about what ive liked about the game from its inception until now.  of course we could go into many changes , mainly for the better with the progress towards tgc '19 but one things that's been a big game changer is the use of Lidar Mapping. 
    don't get me wrong, I love being able to sit down and play some accurately mapped courses that I would never get a chance to play in the game without Lidar.   my point is,,   we used to have some really meticulously crafted rcr courses such as **** National, Merion and, Congressional, just to name three (there are many more).  the creators took great care into making each hole paint a sort of beautiful picture as the flyby ran off and it could be quite awe inspiring when it was done really well.   and, now with Lidar yes, we get more accuracy but we've lost that immersive feeling and, we've lost that challenge from the designers to get better and better at creating/ painting the picture of each individual hole as best they can.   using lidar you can just tell there isn't enough plant meter leftover to really create the environment for each hole and, we end up with very generic looking, accurate rcr courses and that's all.  that generic look can get boring/stale after a while. 
     I don't know, it just kind of takes the immersion out of the game for me a bit.
   okay im done,feel free to bash me....   :)  I  understand.  Lidar is more realistic and, that's important.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 05:09:51 AM by jeffield »
Created RCR Courses: 
Links at Lighthouse Sound
nicknamed "The Pebble Beach of the East"

Links at Gettysburg
golf digest 4.5/5 stars

War Admiral at GlenRiddle
2017 top 40 places to play in Maryland

Legends- Moorland Course
#37 Toughest Course in U.S.- Golf Digest
Americas top courses '03 & '09

leslie.sangster

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2019, 08:34:59 AM »
okay, very slow around here so I was just thinking a bit about what ive liked about the game from its inception until now.  of course we could go into many changes , mainly for the better with the progress towards tgc '19 but one things that's been a big game changer is the use of Lidar Mapping. 
    don't get me wrong, I love being able to sit down and play some accurately mapped courses that I would never get a chance to play in the game without Lidar.   my point is,,   we used to have some really meticulously crafted rcr courses such as **** National, Merion and, Congressional, just to name three (there are many more).  the creators took great care into making each hole paint a sort of beautiful picture as the flyby ran off and it could be quite awe inspiring when it was done really well.   and, now with Lidar yes, we get more accuracy but we've lost that immersive feeling and, we've lost that challenge from the designers to get better and better at creating/ painting the picture of each individual hole as best they can.   using lidar you can just tell there isn't enough plant meter leftover to really create the environment for each hole and, we end up with very generic looking, accurate rcr courses and that's all.  that generic look can get boring/stale after a while. 
     I don't know, it just kind of takes the immersion out of the game for me a bit.
   okay im done,feel free to bash me....   :)  I  understand.  Lidar is more realistic and, that's important.

For me Lidar has helped me bring local courses I have played but no more than a half dozen others on these forums will have played to the game. It’s the terrain manipulation I have trouble with not the dressing up of courses. To me Lidar’s use in game is great for bringing local courses to the game instead of re-doing the top 100 courses that we’ve all played at one time or another on various other golf games. I’ve said before on another thread some courses by designers look to clean with perfectly smooth rolling fairways and greens. I compare them to a Bob Ross painting, me and my mate used to call them chocolate box paintings they all looked very much the same and usually to perfect, designing on this game with its finite amount of tools is very similar so I call them chocolate box courses. There are of course some stellar designers that can use what they have been given in very inventive ways I’m not going to name them as we all know who they are and I respect their talents immensely. If there is a next version of this game I would love to see them bring more textures into the game so courses can be made to look not so clean and pristine even a little worn round the edges would look good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sandsaver

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • If I had anything better to do I would be doing it
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2019, 10:50:59 AM »
I do not necessarily agree with the OP on this.  I do agree that if the plant meter limits the planting on a Lidar course that will impact it's ability to immerse the player in the course, but I have found that on the course I am almost finished with, Crooked Stick GC 2018 Lidar, the plant meter started out at 29% from the beginning; now I am essentially finished with planting and decorating and the meter is about 90%.  Comparing my TGC2019 version to the Google Earth view, I have been able to replicate essentially all the trees, buildings, plants etc. as close to the real thing as is possible.  If it looks "generic" that is because that is the way it is.

I do not know why some Lidar imports use much more meter than others.  It may have something to do with the terrain- maybe a lot of elevation changes causes a problem, but Crooked Stick is relatively flat. 

RockManDan

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3246
  • Without Great Courses There Can Be No Great Golf
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2019, 12:31:05 PM »
okay, very slow around here so I was just thinking a bit about what ive liked about the game from its inception until now.  of course we could go into many changes , mainly for the better with the progress towards tgc '19 but one things that's been a big game changer is the use of Lidar Mapping. 
    don't get me wrong, I love being able to sit down and play some accurately mapped courses that I would never get a chance to play in the game without Lidar.   my point is,,   we used to have some really meticulously crafted rcr courses such as **** National, Merion and, Congressional, just to name three (there are many more).  the creators took great care into making each hole paint a sort of beautiful picture as the flyby ran off and it could be quite awe inspiring when it was done really well.   and, now with Lidar yes, we get more accuracy but we've lost that immersive feeling and, we've lost that challenge from the designers to get better and better at creating/ painting the picture of each individual hole as best they can.   using lidar you can just tell there isn't enough plant meter leftover to really create the environment for each hole and, we end up with very generic looking, accurate rcr courses and that's all.  that generic look can get boring/stale after a while. 
     I don't know, it just kind of takes the immersion out of the game for me a bit.
   okay im done,feel free to bash me....   :)  I  understand.  Lidar is more realistic and, that's important.

Well said.
i9 9900k 8 Core 5.O GHz. 
Asus ROG STRIX Z390 E Gaming.
64 GB DDR4 3600 RAM
2X Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB m2 RAID level 0
EVGA GTX 1080 SC. Windows 10 64 Bit
Rosewill Hive 1000W PSU

Sandsaver

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • If I had anything better to do I would be doing it
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2019, 01:22:46 PM »
Well said.

You certainly are a one trick pony Dan.  No comment on my post above?

leslie.sangster

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2019, 02:25:57 PM »
I do not necessarily agree with the OP on this.  I do agree that if the plant meter limits the planting on a Lidar course that will impact it's ability to immerse the player in the course, but I have found that on the course I am almost finished with, Crooked Stick GC 2018 Lidar, the plant meter started out at 29% from the beginning; now I am essentially finished with planting and decorating and the meter is about 90%.  Comparing my TGC2019 version to the Google Earth view, I have been able to replicate essentially all the trees, buildings, plants etc. as close to the real thing as is possible.  If it looks "generic" that is because that is the way it is.

I do not know why some Lidar imports use much more meter than others.  It may have something to do with the terrain- maybe a lot of elevation changes causes a problem, but Crooked Stick is relatively flat.
It could also be how tight they crop the mask, I’m doing Hartlepool golf club in the UK it’s a links course there isn’t a lot to it mostly grass with a few trees so it’s pretty hard to make it look nice, it is what it is. What’s important to me is the way it plays, does it play like the real course taking into account the distance master clubs hit the hall in game.
While I’m on it has a railway line bordering the course how do I create railway lines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RockManDan

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3246
  • Without Great Courses There Can Be No Great Golf
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2019, 03:51:49 PM »
Well said.

You certainly are a one trick pony Dan.  No comment on my post above?

Now it’s wrong to agree with someone?  Since you asked......  if Crooked Stick is a “relatively flat course” then what would be the advantage if f using LiDAR in the first place?  I stand by my original statement from months ago.  LiDAR courses are Blah as a whole and lack creativity.
i9 9900k 8 Core 5.O GHz. 
Asus ROG STRIX Z390 E Gaming.
64 GB DDR4 3600 RAM
2X Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB m2 RAID level 0
EVGA GTX 1080 SC. Windows 10 64 Bit
Rosewill Hive 1000W PSU

AndersNM

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2019, 05:22:08 PM »
There is more than enough plant meter to have great detailed courses with lidar data. But it takes time to plant, polish and make the course look the way it is supposed to.
If a course is lacking in this regard, I will bet that it is not because of plant meter, but that the designer has neglected to do what is necessary (for reasons I don't know). I've seen plenty of examples of this while looking up courses for my solo society. (Planting also requires accuracy - placement and scale of trees, bushes etc).
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 05:54:35 PM by AndersNM »

Sandsaver

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • If I had anything better to do I would be doing it
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2019, 05:26:12 PM »
Since you asked......  if Crooked Stick is a “relatively flat course” then what would be the advantage if f using LiDAR in the first place?  I stand by my original statement from months ago.  LiDAR courses are Blah as a whole and lack creativity.

I knew it would be fun to poke the bear!

Just because it doesn't have a lot of elevation changes, hence "flat" doesn't mean it is blah.  There is plenty of contouring, mounding, the greens are very contoured, etc.  The point of Lidar is that you are getting as close as possible to the terrain on the actual course, not what a TGC2019 designer thinks it is, even if they are trying their best to replicate.  If that is blah then Pete Dye and many others better give up designing golf courses.


AndersNM

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2019, 05:37:09 PM »
Well, when you recreate a real course, you are trying to make the course as it is. Without lidar data, you will never get anywhere near accurate elevations, ondulations, etc. With good lidar data, the slopes on greens etc is very accurate. It still makes for good recreations, but there is only so much you can do - and some recreations are just look-a-likes.

Just for fun, I loaded the course that shall not be named (****** N*****) with the lidar data that I found (it is very good) into the game and compared it to the great version made by clv (I had the impression he was doing a lidar version, but that may have been set on hold?).

RockManDan

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3246
  • Without Great Courses There Can Be No Great Golf
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2019, 07:57:37 PM »
Since you asked......  if Crooked Stick is a “relatively flat course” then what would be the advantage if f using LiDAR in the first place?  I stand by my original statement from months ago.  LiDAR courses are Blah as a whole and lack creativity.

I knew it would be fun to poke the bear!

Just because it doesn't have a lot of elevation changes, hence "flat" doesn't mean it is blah.  There is plenty of contouring, mounding, the greens are very contoured, etc.  The point of Lidar is that you are getting as close as possible to the terrain on the actual course, not what a TGC2019 designer thinks it is, even if they are trying their best to replicate.  If that is blah then Pete Dye and many others better give up designing golf courses.


Some like Chevys, Some like Fords.  To me RCR's in general are like Vanilla Ice Cream.  Yes, they are still good.... but they lack variety and imagination.  With LiDAR courses the emphasis is put more on measurements and lumps and bumps in the course rather than the overall experience.  Personally I'm more about creativity and coming up with something original.
I guess the best way to explain my opinion is to compare the game of football to fantasy football.
Football... either playing or watching is all about the game itself. the plays. The moments, the experience.
Fantasy Football breaks it down to the clinical.... the stats.  Much like LiDAR courses sacrifice the beauty a good designer can put into a course for the accuracy of course stats.  Both have their supporters and those who could care less
To those who like them..... that's fine. Enjoy.  I don't.  I personally appreciate the artistry and imagination that go into a lifelike fantasy course.
I would like to thank the LiDAR designers who do have the respect for our community to denote their courses so those of us on either side of this discussion can differentiate those courses.
i9 9900k 8 Core 5.O GHz. 
Asus ROG STRIX Z390 E Gaming.
64 GB DDR4 3600 RAM
2X Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB m2 RAID level 0
EVGA GTX 1080 SC. Windows 10 64 Bit
Rosewill Hive 1000W PSU

mthunt

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2019, 12:46:51 AM »
I spend my time using the simulator version of TGC. Playing RCR’s is amazing. The lidar tool allows you to get super accurate RCR’s and cuts down design time but a whole bunch. My home course Mississaugua took 150 hours between TGC and TGC19. Castle Pines took under 20.   Anyone who’s ever been on this site knows that Dan hates lidar but from my perspective its a huge game changer.
My Courses:
Muirfield Village (liDAR)  RCR
Country Club of Castle Pines (liDAR) RCR
National GC of Canada RCR
Mississaugua G&CC mthunt RCR
mthunt Range
The Meadows 5047 mthunt

AndersNM

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2019, 02:17:50 AM »
So there are no variation in real courses?! They are all the same?

Dan, you would not recognize if a course was made with lidar data unless your told. It would go something like this:
Dan: "This is a great course!"
Someone whispers: "Dan, it is made with lidar data"
Dan: "Ofcourse I could see that with all those lumps and bumps, I hate it!".

jeffield

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2314
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2019, 09:37:30 AM »
I spend my time using the simulator version of TGC. Playing RCR’s is amazing. The lidar tool allows you to get super accurate RCR’s and cuts down design time but a whole bunch. My home course Mississaugua took 150 hours between TGC and TGC19. Castle Pines took under 20.   Anyone who’s ever been on this site knows that Dan hates lidar but from my perspective its a huge game changer.

You can make a quality course in 20 hrs?  Lidar must do just about everything for the designer/ person creating the course.  After this initial 20 hrs is there plant meter leftover to allow for more hole detail?   Its good to have accuracy/ i dont know how to use it but it has to allow for surrounding aesthetics if its going to be great.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 09:46:13 AM by jeffield »
Created RCR Courses: 
Links at Lighthouse Sound
nicknamed "The Pebble Beach of the East"

Links at Gettysburg
golf digest 4.5/5 stars

War Admiral at GlenRiddle
2017 top 40 places to play in Maryland

Legends- Moorland Course
#37 Toughest Course in U.S.- Golf Digest
Americas top courses '03 & '09

Sandsaver

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • If I had anything better to do I would be doing it
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2019, 10:57:46 AM »
I spend my time using the simulator version of TGC. Playing RCR’s is amazing. The lidar tool allows you to get super accurate RCR’s and cuts down design time but a whole bunch. My home course Mississaugua took 150 hours between TGC and TGC19. Castle Pines took under 20.   Anyone who’s ever been on this site knows that Dan hates lidar but from my perspective its a huge game changer.

You can make a quality course in 20 hrs?  Lidar must do just about everything for the designer/ person creating the course.  After this initial 20 hrs is there plant meter leftover to allow for more hole detail?   Its good to have accuracy/ i dont know how to use it but it has to allow for surrounding aesthetics if its going to be great.

mhunt must be a superstar Lidar designer!  Twenty hours!  I already have nearly 100 hours into my RCR of Crooked Stick GC, and am close to but not finished.

 

space-cash