|
The New Forest Golf Club
by Philippe Bonfanti
| Links Corner Course Database ID Number - 1115 |
Release Date |
CRZ Filesize |
Par |
Course Length |
| 2002-10-08 |
16,545,253 bytes |
72 |
7621 yards |
| Type |
Style |
CRZ Filename |
|
FICTIONAL |
PARKLAND |
The New Forest Golf Club_2003.crz |
| Course ID |
Course Key |
| d5590c75b50c4343a0780e9d520536d0 |
2253b6feb4de848a05e324c93e58addf |
|
LINKS CORNER REVIEW |
Reviewed by Mike Nifong
November 2002
Course type: 'This is a fictional course based in the New Forest which is located between Bournemouth and Southampton on the South coast of England.' From that description, one might reasonably conclude that this is a woodland course, but it is in fact much more of a parkland-style course, with large open areas separated by patches of what appears to be primarily young (hence, not very tall) evergreens. [While this is in keeping with the name 'new forest' in a generic sense, the actual New Forest is a 144 square mile preserve in the southeast of England that exhibits a remarkable biological diversity, from the old-growth forests pictured in the jpg file included in the package to rolling pastureland not dissimilar from that on which this fictional venue is sited.]
Historical perspective: New Forest is the first course submitted to the Links Corner by Philippe, and only the fourth APCD course overall that was designed specifically for Links 2003. Prior to its October 8, 2002, release, the course went through two beta incarnations (both of which, at 8.5MB and at 27.7MB, respectively, differed substantially in size from this final version) under the name Serendipity Golf Club - Honours Course. It also went through a transformation in character. Of the first version, he wrote 'I've used the Oxfordshire and Wentworth as my models, so hopefully the course should have a woodland secluded feel to it whilst also playing like an [A]merican style course.' Subsequently, he stated 'I've changed the whole theme of it so it looks very different. It's now got a New Forest look to it (as in the one between Bournemouth and Southampton).'
What is included: Before we get into that, some mention needs to be made of the file size here: this course is less than one-third as large as the next smallest APCD course yet created for Links 2003 (which weighs in at 49.2MB). So, even with the larger than usual shadow file (which, at 11.9MB, is a whopping 76% as big as the crz file), this course is about the same size as the average links 2001 course. It is not surprising, then, that inclusions are minimal: a short read-me file, a not very attractive cameo (which looks like it might fit more comfortably on television's The X Files), and a couple of splash screens (the less-pixelated of the two bearing a strong resemblance to the New Forest Golf Club terrain). There is also the previously mentioned jpg file with another photograph (quite attractive, but of little relevance to the course) from the real New Forest. There are no hole previews, an omission I always find lamentable, and there is intentionally no tournament option, as Philippe 'want[ed] the course to look as wild and natural as possible.'
Technical merit score: 71
The APCD work here is about average. There are no major flaws, but the mesh shadows in and around the bunkers and in some of the texture boundaries near the greens are indicative of the course having been rushed a bit. There are also frequent sharp edges, especially where the relatively flat fringe textures meet significantly sloped fairway textures around the greens - something I have often referred to as the 'tablecloth effect.' This, more than any other feature, detracts from the naturalness, and hence the sense of reality, of the course; it also leads to some unusual bounces.
All this is especially unfortunate considering that Philippe posted New Forest (still called Serendipity then) as an open beta, and at least two respondents identified these sharp edges as a flaw that needed to be addressed prior to final release.
Visual appeal score: 75
New Forest, like many other things in this world, is best viewed from a distance. In the panoramic views, it often is quite lovely, and the Gleneagles pano (which I like very much, but which I also seem to be seeing with troublesome frequency - I hope that it does not become the new Whistler) integrates very nicely and provides a good stylistic fit. But things look a bit coarse in the closer views. The edging of the bunkers, as well as that of the water hazards, is on the primitive side - just a straight drop down to the sand or water; some texture blending might have served well here, especially if the goal, as stated, was a 'wild and natural' look. And while the absence of paved cart paths is no liability, the lack of any hint that any human has ever trod the sod here certainly detracts from any sense that this could be a real venue.
Planting is also a little on the nondescript side - not bad, but hardly distinguished either. As you might suspect from the small file size, there is not tremendous variety in the plants used. If you look really closely, you can see the same tree shapes used repeatedly. But because the trees selected tend to be somewhat anonymous in appearance anyway, and because they are generally placed in forest groupings rather than set out individually, the more cursory examination that they will more likely receive during the play of your round will not call attention to any repetitiveness.
Overall, I would have to say that there are more positives than negatives in this category, but New Forest falls short of achieving that sort of distinctiveness that seems to be the hallmark of the best APCD courses.
Playability score: 72
In general terms, it could be said that New Forest is quite easy off the tee, of moderate challenge on the approach, and easy again once you reach the green. The lack of challenge off the tee is a function of both the hole layouts - eleven of the eighteen holes play essentially straight ahead, and only a couple of the doglegs require you to club down from the back tees - and the design of the fairways - not only are they comfortably wide, but they are surrounded by swaths of first cut that average twenty feet or more in width. In other words, these fairways are hard to miss. To give you an idea of how hard to miss, the computer foursome found 96% of them (92-100%) in b/m/m/m conditions and 98% of them (92-100%) in w/f/f/d conditions. Fairway bunkers should not be much of a concern.
The factors that make the approach shots more challenging are the length of the course, which means that you will often be hitting your approach shot with a medium-to-long iron or fairway wood, and the design of the greens: not only are they usually elevated and protected by bunkers, but also the steep slopes away from them make it next to impossible to run a shot up on to them. (They can also lead to some funny bounces. One of my approach shots on #1 hit the slope just right of the green-front bunker and, rather than bouncing in, shot around the edge like a race car in a banked turn before coming to rest in the fairway to the left of the bunker.) The percentage play, then, is to aim for the center of the green, thereby maximizing your chances of both clearing the front edge and holding your ball on the putting surface. And while that can lead to some rather long putts, the vast majority of these greens are quite flat, and any perturbations in this flatness that you may find will be easily read, with the consequence that your line is easy to judge.
Most of the risk/reward opportunities here will come in the form of shooting directly at difficult pin placements, which will often result in your ending up in a bunker or facing a difficult chip shot up a steep bank. None of the four par-5's, the shortest of which is 620 yards, is reachable in two, but all of them offer good birdie opportunities. Water is in play on three holes on each side (#3, #4, and #8 on the front; and the three finishing holes on the back), but since they include three of those unreachable par-5's and two par-3's, you are not likely to get wet unless you just mishit the ball.
The computer foursome was -47 (-11 to -12) in b/m/m/m conditions and -42 (-7 to -15) in w/f/f/d conditions, reaching 73% (61-83%) and 69% (55-83%), respectively, of the greens in regulation. Of course the flip side of this lack of challenge is that New Forest can provide an excellent practice venue for those of the RTS or PS persuasion (I am in the process of moving up from RTS Pro to RTS Champ, and I need all the help I can get).
Difficulty rating: Easy
The bottom line: As an unfortunate result of what appears to have been a rush to release this course before all the issues raised in brief beta testing were addressed, New Forest has a bit of an unfinished feel to it, especially with respect to the bunkers and the sharp edges in the texture transitions around the greens. Still, there is enough promise here to justify the effort that would be involved in reworking those areas and releasing a version 2. If such a project is undertaken, thought should also be given to reducing the width of the first cut or assigning it rough properties, at least in the holes that play more or less straight ahead, to increase the challenge.
As it stands, this is a course that is worth giving a try - the download is quite modest - but will probably not be a keeper for those who are seeking either state-of-the-art appearance or challenging play.
Course Statistics :
Course statistics: Par 72; 3 sets of tees (7621/7303/7114 yards); holes are handicapped.
SHA Size : 12mb |
This course is available as a FREE download.
|
|
Download course
|
Please support Links Corner
|
|
|
