Does modern computer simulation (generated from plans) make courses look to plasticky?
Wasn't it Dr. M who said it isn't wise to build an entire course from plasticine models?
Aren't today's computer models simply a version of plasticine and if relied upon too heavily, create courses that are too polished? Too artificial looking? Too clean?

Computer simulation is just another graphic tool, like the pen or pencil. I don't know of anyone who builds a course from a computer simulation, do you?? (generally there are a few steps in between which include heavy machinery)

If you are not happy with the output, either don't use them or just use them as a base for a freehand sketch.

While there is NO substitute for being there on the ground directing and helping the crews as they build the course, I think you're wrong in assuming that 'modern' computer simulation causes new courses to appear sterile.

I see that you qualified your statement in that you say' generated from plans'. I Think any course generated totally from plans is probably doomed to failure regardless of any computer involvement. Is there any good architect that hasn't changed his plans when on site to take advantage of a previously unseen or unthought of opportunity? Having said that, using modern computer techniques allow the architect to actually see his ideas take form before any earth is moved. This ultimately cuts down on costs which has to be a good thing.

Computers very rarely generate anything of any use unless directly guided by a skilled operator. The same could be said of a pencil and paper! bmogg is right in that the computers are just another tool at the architects disposal. Whether they choose to use them or not is entirely down to personal preference.

Here are a couple of pictures which hopefully disprove your theory. They are from plans of a proposed Phelps/Atkinson designed course in Wyoming. Plasticky......too polished? I don't think so.

Jari,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Vierumaki.  Although it's sad you did not like the course, I can assure you that the reason you did not like it had nothing to do with a cumputer software, nor a copy-paste type thing.  This course was not designed using some sort of cumputer software.  

What about the rest of the course?  The strategy, the landforms, the greens?  Anything there that you liked?

Would you, by any chance, have recent pictures of the course?

Thanks

Yannick

Yannick,

I have no pics, sorry.

About the strategy I cannot say much.  When I visited the course it was just seeded so I could only use some walking paths and roads through the course.

The landforms were a bit too extreme in some places.  Especially there were some huge mounds that were not in scale and they looked unnatural.  I visited the site also when only the trees were cut and I noticed that that part of the site was nearly totally flat.  I guess the material for those mounds was dug out when the big lake was done in the middle of the site.

The holes that looked best in my eyes were the last few holes where the natural landform was not flat at all.  The first impression was that you felt like being on a different course on these holes compared to the rest of the course.

Of course it is difficult to create something great on flat land but it seemed to be that maybe a bit too much was created there.

Technically the course looked very well done, the shaping was professionally ok, but I cannot help it that I got a bit sterile impression.  It looked too "American" for my taste.

Maybe I'll have a chance to visit the course this year and play it.  Then I'll be able to give more thorough comments.  And the pictures too.

Jari

Thanks Frank, it's a program called the apcd which was originally used to create the courses for the Microsoft 'Links' golf simulation software.

Generally you import the contour lines etc from the plans that the architect has created and then fine tune the details. Quite often, once the designer has seen how their design will most likely look on the ground, they make adjustments much like they would do on site. You can then export the new grading data back out if needed.
This is not at all the regimented and limited way that many people think of when they imagine computers involved in the design process, on the contrary, it's an intensively creative process.

I started a thread a few weeks ago about Mike Jones work, which is simply magnificent:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=22666

I've also spoken recently with Wayne Hewitt who is also doing fabulous work in APCD. I asked Wayne if he'd mind me posting up some shots of his latest - Crooked Creek. Very nice, Wayne!





THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!

FBD.

Absolutely amazing software

As Ted Robinson as you can get.




Yannick, I will also have you know that my posts were simply to get to you and Jeremy. It was done in a more joking manner. (I'm was almost sure Jeremy would have noticed this. Maybe it will make good watercooler talk tomorrow morning in the office)

Thomas,

Again, curious....  Why, exactly, do you see a need to get to Jeremy and I, joking or not?  Is there a point you are trying to get accross here?

Yannick

Am I missing something here

Ryan,

Don't take it personally.  Thomas seems to think we need help in order to design a decent golf course... Unfortunately, we don't offer internship programs....  But continue to push your way out there, it will work sooner or later...

Thomas,

Finally, some sort of criticism I can relate to, and understand!  Believe me, I agree, some of my firm's courses have been built by moving massive amounts of material....  If that makes you feel better, we have noticed, and I am personnaly working on that matter as we speak.  However, before choking to death by looking at pictures like the stuff you just posted, maybe you should try to come out here and see a few of our later samples, amongst other fine canadian courses by other canadian architects, classical and/or contemporary.  You might even find something you would like! (God forbid!)

As for the Graham 'Cookian' look, you still haven't explained anything!  Containment mounding have nothing to do with computer simulations, as far as I know.  And with guys like Mike Jones around, I have abandoned the idea of trying to figure out apcd a long time ago.  My pen and paper is just too valuable for me to start doing some cut & paste technique some guys in this post refer to.

You're totally entitled to your opinions, I just wish you would explain them instead of making comments like the one in your initial post, especially if they are meant to 'get' us in a way or another.  If you're so knowledgeable about this stuff, maybe it would help us get better.... and you wouldn't have to choke to death anymore....

Cheers!

Yannick

More unbelievable stuff Mike.
When I can afford you an am still going to hire you for a couple of hundered / thousand hours to learn me that shit !
Bravo again.