18 replies to this topic

[RobV]

I can understand why the PP team would want to release CF with the retail release of PG, but let's think about this for a minute.   How great would it be if the course designers got their hands on CF earlier, rather than later, to give them a head start and learn CF.    By the time the FULL version of PG is released, course designers will already be knee deep in creating their courses and possibly available for download in the near future.   Heck, there could be courses that designers create certain courses, ie Augusta Natl, St. Andrews, etc., which may give MORE incentive for golf game enthusiast to download and purchase PG! 

 

I also think by doing this, there will be more leagues, ladders, tournaments, course review sites,  all kinds of great "communities" popping up because the players are able to play more variety of courses.   People need a reason to continue to be excited and so far, we know the players are excited about PG, so why not get designers to get excited as well!    Stuff like this would be a huge boost in the community.   

 

I don't know all the details behind not releasing CF at this time, all the decisions made by the team and certainly not telling the devs on how to run their company, but it is of my opinion that by releasing CF earlier will allow the overall community to continue grow now, rather than later.  

 

Thoughts? 

[Brucey Mc]

Totally agree with you Rob but I get the feeling I am in the minority.

[IanK]

Yes, it would be a good thing for PP to release CF before the retail version. I don't think that it will be as popular to the casual designer as GNCD because of its complexity but I'm sure the results will be better in the main.

[Kablammo11]

It's not a question of choice, guys. Yes, this suggestion makes sense. But reality won't let this happen; CF indie is currently not able to export viable builds for PG, this entire functionality has to be built from scratch. That's why there is such a delay, not because of some weird strategic muddleheadedness of PP. And now with U5, that will mean yet more delay to appraise the new version and throughly check if some things still work.

And now we are in the middle of a catch 22: Would you rather have the PG EA stop for a few weeks to gain time for CF or not? PP has not enough staff to deal with both at the same time.

I happen to agree: CF should happen asap, for the benefit of the game. It's just not as easy as waving a wand and poof! it's there.

[JoeF]

While CF won't be released to the masses until final release of the game (for reasons K11 has outlined above) it is currently in the hands of a number of the top computer golf course designers, a veritable "who's who" from  Links, TW, WGC, TGC and more.  Their input in this beta phase can only help make the CF better and the fact that they are learning how to use it now means there will be top quality courses ready to go sooner, rather than later, upon final release.  

[mcthommo]

Although I am itching to get my hands on it, I will be more than happy to wait a while longer just as long as it gives the option to create... what are those small, deep bunkers normally found on links courses called again?

[NoPutt]

I personally don't want CF until Mike is completely satisfied

with his Baby. Andrew has stated that 50+ courses are ready to go,

and those mentioned may be already completed. Mike knows his

baby better than anyone, let him change the diapers and teach it

to walk, I don't want to meet it till it's grown and ready for the real world.

[Stephen Sullivan]

Totally agree with you Rob but I get the feeling I am in the minority.

You aren't, but I have come to think we will get it when it's properly ready. I still don't think it will be as friendly as APCD, with its reliance on Unity. Therefore I think there will be far less user designed courses than there were for Links (If I was being cynical, I would say this was by design  )

[flogster]

NoPutt,

I stand with you.

[IanD]

You aren't, but I have come to think we will get it when it's properly ready. I still don't think it will be as friendly as APCD, with its reliance on Unity. Therefore I think there will be far less user designed courses than there were for Links (If I was being cynical, I would say this was by design  )

I have to 100% disagree with you Stephen...

 

Not only do i think it will become easier, but I think it will surpass the user designed courses for Links. Granted, it will not do this overnight and if I had some old data I used to keep regarding the released Links courses, from Links Corner, I'd be able to back that up at a given time.

 

What i do also think, is we are likely to see the same users create more, easily. You may find several users initial attempts are unpolished, but once the learning curve is attained, the time taken to achieve results will be far quicker than the APCD.

[Dazmaniac]

You aren't, but I have come to think we will get it when it's properly ready. I still don't think it will be as friendly as APCD, with its reliance on Unity. Therefore I think there will be far less user designed courses than there were for Links (If I was being cynical, I would say this was by design  )

 

Reading comments from Dr Rob in a private CF testing thread here at PP forums, I think he would disagree with the highlighted comment above.

 

Yes, you need an understanding of Unity to get the course as you want it, but I personally think without Unity, we wouldn't have had a course designer to wait for. The work that would have been needed to create one from scratch would have been huge IMO. Like HBS and their TGC game, Without the link to Unity for the GNCD their game probably wouldn't have had a course designer, as I doubt very much HBS would have spent time tying to create one themselves separate from Unity.

 

I reckon there will be less courses made for PG than for Links, but will be nothing to do with some secret agenda PP have, but to do with the fact folks will not be prepared to learn and understand the required elements of Unity 3D to get he best out of their designs.

 

[Acrilix]

Ultimately the success of Course Forge will be down to how good PP can make the game, not the designer. If the game is good enough then people will take the time to learn to design for it. If the game fails to deliver then designers will move on regardless.

[RobV]

Ultimately the success of Course Forge will be down to how good PP can make the game, not the designer. If the game is good enough then people will take the time to learn to design for it. If the game fails to deliver then designers will move on regardless.

I think many people think the game is good already.... and see the potential that it will only get better.   The incentive is there already and the community is only getting bigger.     

[Joe Habiger]

 

 

I still don't think it will be as friendly as APCD

 

APCD was hard as heck, Unity is easy compared to that Architect.

[dedBuNNy]

Well even more so than the game it's important that it works seamlessly and properly, has good work flow etc.... I'd love to have it now but don't it buggy so by all means, when it's ready it's ready.

[J.H.Buchanan]

If they release it early and even if they wait until releasing it later peoples attitudes - most of them anyway are going to be more about bitching and moaning about something they find in it that rubs them the wrong way that must get fixed immediately rather than appreciating how well it actually is and the things it can do. And then so many will also compare it to something else that has been out there for years and they will bitch and moan how it is not exactly like the other thing they are talking about they will have zero regard about how wonderful it is to have something different that works and is only limited by their pathetic imaginations. 

[mjhamilton113]

APCD was hard as heck, Unity is easy compared to that Architect.[/quote]

You're right. It can't be any harder. It took me years of watching tutorials, reading, and hard work to even make seam blends. CF does that step automatically.

I happen to think once the game is released, designers will be able to create golf courses very quickly allowing the community to grow rapidly. TGC, where I have designed four courses, shows the potential of speed in that department. I've created courses for that game in hours not days. CF will require more detail I assume, but imagine being about to pump out a course in 20 hours or so? The courses available to the community will be extraordinary.

[Ninja_Prime]

I for one am happy to wait, but like so many others it would have been great if CF was released sooner rather than later, so that budding course designers could familiarise themselves with it. I have watched one or two of the videos uploaded on Youtube, and it looks more customisable than the TGC course designer. 

All I really want to be able to do is re-create some of the actual courses I play on, I tried that with the TGC one, but it somehow didn't feel authentic and I had to fudge a few areas to just get the general look.

CF like I said looks more able to cope with what I want to do.

[Ninja_Prime]

I can't see how CF can be difficult to use. Its not like designing a SP map for a first person shooter, where you have to set up flow graphs and script AI to do things. All you really need to do is create/design a golf course. How you do this is entirely up to you, it can be based on your own imagination or based on real-life.

I wonder if you can import height maps from Google earth or Photoshop? I guess we will find out soon.