TPC Twin Cities

[pmgolf]

Because it takes time to put houses there. The effort to do a course is pretty darn extreme. For me, it's something like 6 months to a year, and even when it's almost finished, you still see things you'd like to do to improve it. Ask me to take even more time to put useless crap like houses in it, and I'll think: (**** stuff your houses!**** I'm too polite to say it - but if you're so anxious to see houses, then YOU do the all the APCD work and see how anxious you are to waste your time!) Course designers get paid NOTHING! For at least some of us, it's the love of golf and Links that drives us to produce the works of art that are being produced now. How about you guys show some appreciation for all the work that's being done, and not look for crap like houses, swimming pools and tennis courts? RANT over!

Do you really want to make some course designers quit doing it?

Pete

[Jimbo]

Glenn, please don't demolish the houses just yet until I nitpick (you know how I feel) . Houses (especially good clubhouses) and other "special effects" aren't "crap"-they're what make a great course "really great" and:
1. This course appears to wander through neighbourhoods in Blaine (sort of like St. Georges, Silvertip & many others) and,
2. You guys are "really great" designers!
Please do the nitpicker a favour?
MerciI

BTW, the course website doesn't feature hole-by-hole flyovers so it may take a little longer, but your yardages are pretty much spot on...how's that for a start?

[braden1308]

I don't like the 2d houses, I've only been able to plant them well on one course. The 3D options are very limited, so if used on every course, you have to hear....... "nice course but they are all starting to look the same" ......... I will probably go back to the 3D houses to break up the pano.

I also really mean provisualizer is crap, it very seldom is updated, so many of the satellite views are outdated, elevations are wrong. The site is useless to a desighner that wants to create a current course.

If you all want something to complain about, wait until I upload the Southern Hills beta for this years PGA. Ross Makenzie gave it to me years ago when I updated Baltusrol for him, and I have just gotten around to it. It plays as tough if not tougher than Augusta. The greens are a real bear

[Weeler]

Guess my comment brought up some lively discussion, anyhow. BTW, I'm not suggesting the houses be removed altogether, I just thought that they seemed to be "planted" in a random way, and perhaps not the styles that may be on the real course. Since I'm not a designer, I'm a bit confused about
2D and 3D buildings. It's usually easy enough to notice the difference in them as far as detail and clarity are concerned, but how are they different
to install on a course ? Is one type a bit more difficult than the other ?
I want to mention a few courses that I think have outstanding homes and buildings in them. ( Let's focus on houses, though ). Not only do they look
great, but they are SO integrated into the surrounding landscape as well. BUT, I assume these are all 3D planted ones too. ( just guessing )

Ian Wells: Wade Hampton, Pasatiempo
Dan DeShaney: Kansas National, Wakonda
Eddie Schmidt" Harbour Town HD ( my favorite example )

I'm sure there are several others also, but these come to mind. Some of the courses that have 2D houses look nice as well. ( but it seems like it might
be hard to actually "place" these houses at the correct angle, or make them level, is that true ? ) Anyhow....I know that the "look" of the course has nothing to do with the playability or challenge of it, but it can clearly enhance or detract from it's overall presentation and realism. Just sayin' .

[sagevanni]

For me..............I like to design and build a GOLF COURSES. I'm NOT an architect.

I don't usually have any houses on my courses and seldom a 3D clubhouse of any real huge detailed thing.

It's a shame microsoft chose not to have a more extensive library of 3D objects. They had more before the 2003 version and it is beyond me why they took a lot of them away.

I applaud those designers that take the time to do 3D work. For me though it's about the course not the house. I wanna play golf, not sightsee.......

Sage......

[shagboy]

I new I should have quit, 4 under after 7 holes and finished 2 over. Tough back nine. Great course, I liked the colors, made it pay easier in my mind. I never noticed the houses although I noted there were some, as is the wont of several courses. Never could figure why you would want to live along a golf course.
Keep up the good work!

[Weeler]

After reading pmgolf's rant, may I assume that it was primarily directed at my comments ? If so, I just want to remind people that we're ALL entitled to our varied opinions on LC. However....you seem to think your opinions are the only ones that really count. I've noticed that 'tude in some of your replies to other Linkster's posts as well. Hey, I've tried the APCD several times, and am familiar with a lot of it's functions. Unfortunately I'll have to admit that it has definitely got the "best" of me. I can't get things to work the way I want them to in order to create a respectable course. So, I have nothing but respect for the designers out there. Especially those who can work with 19-20 year old course design software, and come up with the absolutely beautiful courses they've released. That takes a lot of work and talent. Just because I'm not able to do it, doesn't mean I can't make observations or suggestions. I certainly don't mean to step on anyone's toes. I LOVE this game and have been playing it since the Access Software days
with Links LS, etc......and have watched progress to where it is now, and I kind of resent being "addressed" as a smart-mouthed newbie who may not
have a clue.

Ron

[Jimbo]

Hi Glenn-trust me, nobody who loves this game should make that comment about ANYTHING one of you guys does (especially me). The same holds true if any new designer uploads a first effort based on a real course and anybody who does obviously doesn't appreciate your work. Minnesota happens to be a course that winds through different neighbourhoods" (like Silvertip does). If planting 3D houses is easier than 2D then please go for it (I know that there's an inventory of houses in the APCD bank and this course has plenty of room for them and folks who live in "golf course neighbourhoods will be much more inclined to live in houses that can be found within that inventory (if you know what I mean-and I think you do)-but please don't undo what you have now.
I'd really love to help but my skills are nil...as they say "Those than can, do and those that can't, nitpick!"
Just take another look at my last post on this thread...it's called respect for the work that you guys do. I've said it many times that the designers are the reason that this golf program has managed to stay relevant for twenty years and was recently still ranked among the top golf sims available.
Please keep that in mind.
Anyway I'll get off my soapbox and get back to what I can do best for APCD...
...but before I go... a long, long time ago on a different thread I made a reference to "Sage, Inc." I think I've figured it out!

[braden1308]

Since I'm not a designer, I'm a bit confused about
2D and 3D buildings. It's usually easy enough to notice the difference in them as far as detail and clarity are concerned, but how are they different
to install on a course ? Is one type a bit more difficult than the other ?

Weeler, the difference is that the 2D houses are just that, 2 dimension, so they spin. They don't stay in one place, there is an anchor point but that just acts as a pivot. All the 2D objects pivot like that you just don't notice. If I decide to make dirt or maybe pine straw at the base of a tree at times they may seem a lot larger than they should but that's because the tree will spin off them when viewed from different angles.

3D objects are jut that, they are solid and stay in one place.....hope that explains why it is hard to plant 2D houses

[MrT]

This was the first serious course I have ever played in real life shortly after they opened it in 2000. My bosses were members there and so we had even a company's tournaments on those premises.

I reckon that Blaine (north of Minneapolis) these days is a bit more populated than that and there are definitely more houses around the course, but I will concentrate on the course. For sure the designers have caught the essence of Minnesota courses. They all look more or less like that (some have more water, some have less).

The real course in tournament setting has a stimp of 12. When I played it, it was a tournament for the "poor golf players" and I am sure it was not in PGA conditions. So, i tested this course as close as possible to the real speed. I always set the pins to difficult in my first try to get a sense of how hard the course can be. The thing that I found is that I plade it in Moderate/Fast(CH) = stimp 11.3 according to the revised table that was circulating on this forum and difficult pins means that the pins are close to the perimeter mostly. The challenge was that nothing I tried could stop the ball on the greens, even when I tried to flop it so that it has less horizontal speed. I do not recall the ball traveling that fast on the real thing. I seldom have this issue in the game.

Other than that a fun course. I like the tricky par 5 at 18. It tempts you to go over the water and it requires a long shot with a W3. In the game as in real life I sacrificed a few balls to the gods of the "lakes" It is the land of 10,000 lakes after all.

I like the colors too.. Minnesota like (except in late fall, winter and early spring, that is). I will probably have to play it mixing up the holes. All difficult settings is not particularly pleasant as most holes end up near the fringe. I liked the green on 17, had to chip from 20 yards and missed the hole by less than 1 foot... it was fun reading the green. Very fast greens (my setting was fast), but they really play fast even at a lower setting.

Will definitely play here often. It reminds me of my "home". I am also somewhat in agreement with Weeler. As someone who no longer plays fictional courses, I enjoy as much realism as possible, but I understand that the requirement #1 is the course itself.

Thank you