[Jim Colton]

I had a bit of an epiphany last night when flying back to Chicago last night. Since this is a real plot of land, why not use Google Earth to scope out these routings. It was actually relatively easy to overlay these entries on to land and get a better visualization of the routing and flow. Better yet, Google Earth has these pretty cool fly-by tours that you can save and share (with a caveat).
 
Check this out:

http://youtu.be/N13l84hGcKs

I don't have Google Earth Pro, so I get the big fat 'Trial Version' watermark, but I think it's pretty cool.

So a couple questions:

- Is this worth doing for the other 24 entries?

- If yes, does anyone have the paid version of Google Earth Pro and is willing to create the tours (it's $399! per year)?

- If no, can we live with the 'Trial Version' watermark?

I wonder if Google Earth could be a common platform for future AAC's. It's easier to zip around than Sketchup and it looks like you can draw shapes on the ground with the polygon tool (or as I did here, overlay a drawn image file on top of the land)

[Neil White]

I had a bit of an epiphany last night when flying back to Chicago last night. Since this is a real plot of land, why not use Google Earth to scope out these routings. It was actually relatively easy to overlay these entries on to land and get a better visualization of the routing and flow. Better yet, Google Earth has these pretty cool fly-by tours that you can save and share (with a caveat).
 
Check this out:

http://youtu.be/N13l84hGcKs

I don't have Google Earth Pro, so I get the big fat 'Trial Version' watermark, but I think it's pretty cool.

So a couple questions:

- Is this worth doing for the other 24 entries?

- If yes, does anyone have the paid version of Google Earth Pro and is willing to create the tours (it's $399! per year)?

- If no, can we live with the 'Trial Version' watermark?

I wonder if Google Earth could be a common platform for future AAC's. It's easier to zip around than Sketchup and it looks like you can draw shapes on the ground with the polygon tool (or as I did here, overlay a drawn image file on top of the land)

Jim,

One word - wow.

I for one would love to see my entry like this - how long did it take?

Is it possible to have the view slightly higher up?

Well Done!

Neil.

PS - Music is pretty dynamic too.

[Alex Miller]

Neil pretty much nailed it! Amazing work, Jim.

[Thomas Dai]

Jim,

Brilliant.

All the best

[Jim Colton]

It is not much work to construct the tour, but it does take some CPU time to convert to the video (#24 is going on in the background right now). The music is just some default youtube thing that was the first one I saw around the same length. Amazingly, it works well.

If you can answer the questions I proposed, that would be helpful. I don't mind churning the others one out if folks value the effort and don't mind the watermark. I'd even consider fronting the $399 fee if folks thought it was worthwhile enough to help defray some of the cost.

[Neil White]

Hi Jim,

1 - yes

2 - no - if I did I would

3 - yes - I didn't find the trial watermark obtrusive

Neil.

[Alex Miller]

It is not much work to construct the tour, but it does take some CPU time to convert to the video (#24 is going on in the background right now). The music is just some default youtube thing that was the first one I saw around the same length. Amazingly, it works well.

If you can answer the questions I proposed, that would be helpful. I don't mind churning the others one out if folks value the effort and don't mind the watermark. I'd even consider fronting the $399 fee if folks thought it was worthwhile enough to help defray some of the cost.

Neil with the fast reply again! Watermark Shmatermark.

[Jeb Bearer]

I had a bit of an epiphany last night when flying back to Chicago last night. Since this is a real plot of land, why not use Google Earth to scope out these routings. It was actually relatively easy to overlay these entries on to land and get a better visualization of the routing and flow. Better yet, Google Earth has these pretty cool fly-by tours that you can save and share (with a caveat).
 
Check this out:

http://youtu.be/N13l84hGcKs

I don't have Google Earth Pro, so I get the big fat 'Trial Version' watermark, but I think it's pretty cool.

So a couple questions:

- Is this worth doing for the other 24 entries?

- If yes, does anyone have the paid version of Google Earth Pro and is willing to create the tours (it's $399! per year)?

- If no, can we live with the 'Trial Version' watermark?

I wonder if Google Earth could be a common platform for future AAC's. It's easier to zip around than Sketchup and it looks like you can draw shapes on the ground with the polygon tool (or as I did here, overlay a drawn image file on top of the land)

Amazing!

[Jim Colton]

Entry #24 post w/ updated tour video.

http://golfaac.blogspot.com/2013/02/aaciii-entry-24.html

[Matt Bosela]

  Outstanding work Jim!

I don't mind the watermark at all.

[Anders Rytter]

Great idea and work jim!

I agree that that "flying" a little higher would be nice, but i dont mind the watermark.

I assume that the video is the real topography? not the rescaled one we used, but anyway, very nice.

[Jim Colton]

Anders,

 I adjusted the elevation so it's the reduced scale that we worked with.

 The camera is about 7-8 feet off the ground, so as close as I could get to somebody walking the course.

 Jim

[Anders Rytter]

Anders,

 I adjusted the elevation so it's the reduced scale that we worked with.

 The camera is about 7-8 feet off the ground, so as close as I could get to somebody walking the course.

 Jim

Of course you did Jim!

makes sense with the 7-8 feet in regards to how i plays.

[Alex Miller]

Great idea and work jim!

I agree that that "flying" a little higher would be nice, but i dont mind the watermark.

I assume that the video is the real topography? not the rescaled one we used, but anyway, very nice.

Luckily I scaled down both elevation change and distance, so what shows up on this video is not far off from what the course would look like.

It's still only supplemental information though, and if you have studied the topographic map then I think it is still best to vote off of what you see there. The purpose of the video is really to provide a way for those unfamiliar with topos to get an idea of what was made.

[Jim Colton]

Let's talk Par 3's.

One of the things I struggled with was finding and routing interesting and varied par 3's.  Did any one else have a problem with this? What did you look for?

Also, in your opinion what are some of the best par 3's in the contest?

[Alex Miller]

Let's talk Par 3's.

One of the things I struggled with was finding and routing interesting and varied par 3's.  Did any one else have a problem with this? What did you look for?

Also, in your opinion what are some of the best par 3's in the contest? (Spaghetti map coming soon)

I think the nature of the site lent itself to identifying par 4s and 5s a lot easier than par 3s. I think overall contestants did well to vary direction and length, but this might have been too much of a focus as I found very few unique and particularly memorable par 3s.

Course Hole
1         10
2        4
3        3
4        6
5        11
6        12
7        3
8        16
9        4
10       14
11       9
12       2
13       15
14       8
15       5
16       4
17       17
18       3
19       16
20       12
21       5
22       16
23       3
24       16
25       3

[Anders Rytter]

...

[Josh Tarble]

I totally agree that it was tough in finding par 3s.  This is kind of what I meant when struggling with the scale.  For some reason the site seemed to lend itself to massive holes...I really wanted to include a really short 3 but just couldn't find the right spot.

[Alex Miller]

I totally agree that it was tough in finding par 3s.  This is kind of what I meant when struggling with the scale.  For some reason the site seemed to lend itself to massive holes...I really wanted to include a really short 3 but just couldn't find the right spot.

This is why I think people ended up focusing on diversity in length and direction. It's not a bad thing, but it's what I noticed. Heck, some of my par 3s were about getting from one cool greensite to the appropriate tee for the next long hole. 

[Neil White]

On the whole I was fairly pleased with my par 3's - although I agree that the enormity of the property lent itself to dimensions long and wide.

When I routed my course I looked out for small(?) shoulders of land or rises that I could site a green on or bench a green into.  I didn't always look for a downhill aspect but drew the line at playing directly uphill.  One of my par 3's was changed at the last minute as I felt it too similar to another that I had found.

One thing I did find - and didn't mind in small doses - was that a number of entrants were partial to their green being set at a 45 degree angle to their tee with trouble across the front - although there were some who used this style on 3/4 of their par 3's.  A tad too many perhaps is open to debate.

Standout Par 3's for me are:-

entry 1 - hole 2                entry 9 - hole 11                   entry 17 - hole 11                entry 25 - hole 15
entry 2 - hole 6                entry 10 - not sure......!?      entry 18 - hole 8
entry 3 - hole 8                entry 11 - hole 2                   entry 19 - hole 16
entry 4 - hole 14              entry 12 - hole 15                 entry 20 - hole 12
entry 5 - hole 11              entry 13 - hole 4                   entry 21 - hole 7
entry 6 - hole 5                entry 14 - hole 14                 entry 22 - hole 14
entry 7 - hole 17              entry 15 - holes 5 / 16          entry 23 - hole 17
entry 8 - hole 5                entry 16 - 12                         entry 24 - hole 16

Cheers,

Neil.

[Matthew Rose]

So.... Too late to start over? 

[Brian Ross]

I think the nature of the site lent itself to identifying par 4s and 5s a lot easier than par 3s. I think overall contestants did well to vary direction and length, but this might have been too much of a focus as I found very few unique and particularly memorable par 3s.

Interestingly, I'm not sure I feel the same way. One of the things I did early on in the routing process was to explore the site looking solely for potential par 3 holes. Then, when putting together routings, I looked for opportunities to mix some of them in. When all was said and done, 3 of the 4 par 3's in my routing came from that initial exploration. I personally had more trouble with the par 5's. When I first put together what would become my final routing, I measured the par 5's and found that 3 of the 4 were over 650 yards and one was over 700. Obviously, some slight alterations had to be made off of that information.

On the whole, I'm pretty happy with my par 3's, though I look forward to hearing whether or not the judges feel the same way. On the other hand, I really only LOVE one of my 5's, though they all 4 have some fun features, I think.

[Jeb Bearer]

I'm not sure that the site lent itself for finding longer holes. On the whole I ended up happier with my 3s than with my 5s. I did focus on four different distances and directions, but I feel like I was able to find natural holes that fit the routing and were not forced upon the land. My par 5s often ended up becoming connector holes joining up some disparate sections. I wonder if maybe the site was too big, and that finding an interesting par 5 without going extremely long thus became tough.

[Dieter Jones]

Is anybody esle having trouble viewing some of the flyovers? I get a message saying "this video is private" for courses 17, 20 & 22. Also none of these show up in the list of uploaded videos under Jim's profile in you tube. THe others are fine (ie 16,18,19,21,23,24).

Do I need to adjust some setting at my end or is this something others are experiencing.

cheers,

[Steve Lang]

  JIm,

FLYOVERS  - WOW,  Double WOW!   I go away for a day or two and a bunch of stuff breaks out...

I have Google Earth Pro on my work pc.. so I can help if you can get me up the learning curve.  I take things into and out of GEP but haven't gotten into the perspective views much as things are not really 3-d, but its neat to see the flyovers anyway.  

are you already done using the trial version?  where are these files?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()