News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


jglenn

Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« on: December 05, 2001, 03:41:54 PM »
I had completely forgotten about this "In my Opinion" that was, as bad timing would have it, probably posted the day before GCA went down into a black hole from which no topic will ever re-emerge...  :-/

Anyway, as I think it could be an interesting topic for a thread - and because, damn it, it took a long time to write  :)  - I have taken the liberty of starting this thread anew.

As such, feel free to share any comments or questions you have.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2001, 07:52:03 PM »
Jeremy,

That was a very interesting and well written piece ;) Amazing what can be done with technology.

Does it take considerable effort to produce 3D images for a client, ie. a photo or animation of what a completed work will look like?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2001, 08:29:13 PM »
Jeremy,

If the finished product is good, does the method employed to achieve that result matter ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2001, 09:10:36 PM »
Pat

No, i don't think the level of documentation/graphic aids will effect the end result.
Actually, let me re-phrase that...just put a designer on site with his construction crew and begin work. I'm sure if they all know what they're doing they will produce a quality product on the ground.
However, surely thats not how it works these days.
Won't the client want to know costs for production, earthworks etc ? I can't see how this can be done without decent documentation. Sure the 3D graphics are a bonus from the input of design data but particularly with re-modelling work I think they are an invaluable assistance to committees and members to let them see what is planned.

Jeremy
Nice article. Thanks for taking the time.

Incidentally, how many designers out there actually produce 3D imagery, particularly for re-modelling work ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2001, 10:27:09 PM »
Jeremy,
Liked the article, brings more to light what is capable.  
Plus that was one of the articles I had a chance to read while the forum was down.  I would only suggest using another vector based adobe product coupled with a wacom pen tablet instead of trying to manipulate those bunker shapes in autocad or trimble.  You can import and export to ACAD.

Chris,
I wouldn't call it considerable effort to create a simple animation, it just depends on if you want the trees moving or not.  I have some sample animations on my site.

Pat,
The method only matters when trying to maintain a budget.  With cad an effective artist can get a better visualization before moving dirt back and forth.

Dr.,
I would say that cad can and does work just as effectively with remodels as new work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2001, 02:43:19 AM »
Jeremy
Very interesting report. It seems there are many practical advantages. I know it can produce extraordinary detail, but is it able to capture the unique design flair of a given architect? I'd be concerned that it would produce drawings that looked identical to every other drawing - producing a certain homogenius result. In the past everyone seemed to have their own style of drawing which usually translated on to the ground, and I wonder if that gets lost with CAD.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bill_Coggins

Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2001, 10:14:29 AM »
Tom,

I think your fear of one CAD drawing looking like another is relavent within a single design house, but not across designers.  If you use drafters, then you probably also have a drafting standard.  This tends to take the uniqueness out of the drawing.  But each design firm tends to have different standards, making them look different from the next firm.

There is a real danger of Computer Generated Images (CGI) tending to look the same, as one tends to pick up habits.  This can be offset by designers using creative views and requiring less perfection (which means more work) in the final image.  

It is also possible for the designer to create "personal" linestyles that are more reflective of their own hand writing.  These can be used to "mess up" the over-perfection in the drawings.

In summary, yes lots of regularity will occurr if CAD is used for efficiency and optimization.  If there is a desire to display the unique flair of a designer, this can be done through experimentation and a knowledgable CAD guy.

I doubt you can beat the beauty of some of the hand designs though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2001, 12:31:05 PM »
A few have suggested that the 3D cad imagery looks a little fake/plastic/lacking character, even though they are a very accurate representation of the contours digitised into the cad system.

I have had success with producing a very quick 3D image without the fine-tuning of textures and stuff, then using this as a type of skeleton for an hand artist to sketch. This way the final product has the artists "touch" with the Cad accuracy.

I also just started playing with some software that can take a "plastic" looking cad image and very quickly convert it to a variety of artist brush types. eg watercolours, pencil type sketch, charcoal, and a bunch of others. I'm still learning how to drive it properly but i'll try and post some examples on a web site soon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jglenn

Re: Computer Assisted Golf Course Design
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2001, 06:03:36 PM »
To tell we the truth, we haven't started to do 3D simulations or "fly-by"s of our designs yet.  We just don't feel it to be a necessary marketing tool (which is all it is, really), and have yet to see a product that, in our opinion anyway, offers us a good quality simulation for a reasonable effort, and at a reasonable cost, knowing that it wouldn't be used all that much anyway.  As was stated, they still look a little "plastic", although they look better and better as new software comes out.  It's just a question of when, I guess...

For ambiance or simulation presentations, we often rely on pictures, basically showing the client pictures of golf courses that we believe capture the look and feel of the finished product we hope to create.  Of course, sometimes we would do a hand-drawn perspective sketch of a hole of the proposed design.  This is pretty rare, though.  To do so, like Dr. Kildare mentions, we print out a "3D view" from AutoCAD, which basically just gives us a squeleton of the sketch, from which we can add some human "artistic touch", putting a trace on that skeleton and drawing from there, with this jumble of line that only we would understand giving us a rough guide to give the sketch a realistic perspective.

In fact, for re-modelling work, instead of using the squeleton CAD print out as a base, we use a picture of the existing course.  Say, for example, we want to add a bunker to the left of the third green.  We'd just take a picture of the third green, putting a trace on that to draw the sketch.

So to make a long story short, we're really not into 3D simulations all that much.  Not the ones worth showing to a client anyway.  It's a bit of a catch-22, though.  We don't use it 'cause we don't know much about it, and we don't know much about it 'cause we don't use it.  Maybe someone else here would be able to provide some info.  Bill Coggins?
______

Does the method employed to achieve that (same) result matter?

The answer to that question, in my mind, would be a definite yes.  Ask any Research & Development department, I suppose.
CAD allows us to build an equal or even better golf course cheaper and faster, by giving us a very powerful tool to help us, and the contractor, understand as much as possible the task at hand when the construction process begins.

For example, earthmoving quantities.  Before CAD, the was obviously a certain amount of estimation or even guess-work involved in calculating those quantities.  Human nature being what it is, this involved some padding of those numbers, sub-consciously or not, both by us and then by the contractor who, quite fairly, charges more to protect himmself from any uncertainties.  Reducing those uncertainties reduces those padding, and reduces the overall costs as well as extra worries.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back