[Tony Ristola]

Planning by the means of CAD (Computer Aided Design) is the modern way of design. CAD provides the ability to complete projects in a shorter period of time than by traditional means of construction. Furthermore, all calculations (earthwork calculations, cut & fill, drainages, square measure calculations etc. can be presented very exactly.

This is why, construction firms find precise data. Consequently, calculations should be set up more accurately. Therefore it is also possible to keep reserves for investment on a lower level. Moreover, the modern way of presentation does not only serve presentation purposes (e.g. virtual 3-D tour) but also helps the architect himself. So we can look at our construction in a way which is comparatively only possible after completion of the golf facility. Consequently, we are able to guaranty very high quality of the future golf course.

Thoughts?

.
 

[Anthony Gray]

  I would think that for a business plan it would be necessary if preconstruction costs need to be predicted.

  Anthony

[Adam Clayman]

Apparently, the designer needs more help than that.

Spending more time would seem prudent if one is trying to build something that will last and evolve with nature.

[Philippe Binette]

You have the choice... spend hours behind a computer to create a nice virtual model


OR


Spend the same amount of time on the dozer to create great golf architecture.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tony

A very useful tool, but like most things has its limitations in specific applications.

We have used CAD in the past to design our projects (not Golf courses) and found that for the average design it more than hold its own. The real advantage for us was the provision of services (which were generally repetitive i.e. waste, water, electric, gas and air movements systems).
The totally bespoke projects we did for the likes of Harrods, House of Lords,
National Gallery, Warwick Castle etc., certainly in the early design stages we reverted back to the pre CAD operational methods. Once the design concept was agreed, we completed on CAD producing the design & services drawings & schedules. The real magic was the speed of modifications right through to the service drawings adjustments due to site conditions/problems.

One point , although it is great and convenient working on the screen, for site work there is only one option and that is a full set of drawings (CAD or traditionally produced) IMHO.

Melvyn

PS Philippe Being a Hands On guy I would take your Or option. If nothing else the pure satisfaction of being there actually producing something.

[Jeff_Brauer]

You have the choice... spend hours behind a computer to create a nice virtual model


OR


Spend the same amount of time on the dozer to create great golf architecture.

Or you do both.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think the basic 'fault' with Cad is a golf course does tend to evolve as it goes I do green plans and fairway movements but I don't stick to them rigidly. It makes things hard to price exactly and causes headaches between Architect-Constructor-Client, in some ways its nice to merge the Architect/Constructor to a 1 package deal or at least supply the shaped course to the constructor whose job is downgraded to irrigator, greens installer, drainage, soil putterbacker.
I think the best I have done is 14 greens as per original drawings and my worst is 2.
Re actually using Cad, I like to use a pencil are draw at 0.25m VI's I feel i  can get more intimate with moundings and get a feel for the slopes I am designing with the pencil. I guess after I have done that someone could input my inked up work to Cad, although even when thats been done the lines look a bit symetric and not quite jagged enough.
Big bulky soil digs and puts its a must though.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I learned CAD working for an ASGCA member! If nothing else, its a really good skill to have if you are trying to get a design job.

As far as designing by it...It made estimates a lot easier. Personally I love the aesthetic of hand drawn plans and renderings. To me there is definitely a connection between the thought and creativity involved in composing beautiful plans and the creativity in building beautiful natural looking golf holes.... A lot of that creativity and skill gets lost in the dashed and dotted lines of CAD, hence the term "CAD MONKEY".

[Philippe Binette]

Seriously,

CAD can be a useful planning and organisation tool, but it seems like the courses built with a full out 3-D model tends to look like...
a 3-D Model, overly precise and lacking the nuances and variation that only nature or on-site imagination can produce.

Another thing, if you give a too precise image of what is going to be built to the client, you're stuck with it

It's like any tool, it's only as good as what you do with it...

[James Boon]

I use CAD on pretty much a daily basis as an architect, of buildings not golf courses, but I'm sure to some extent its pretty much the same.

Some people really build CAD up to be something really special but it is essentially just another tool that allows you to draw something. Yes, you can use it to produce all sorts of data, its really usefull for repetitive elements, and if you have the right package you can produce some fancy 3D stuff, but the vast majority of the time you are still going to need to produce a paper copy and lots of people have just got so used to staring at a computer screen that their paper output from CAD is almost unreadable.

The key misconception is that is Compter Aided Design? Rubbish is what I say. You still need a whole range of skills to be a designer, that the computer can't help you with. Computer Aided Draughting more like, or even Compter Aided Calculating or Visualisation, but design? Not for me.  

Cheers,

James

[Lester George]

I have done it all three ways:

Drafted and hand designed and drawn

Built it in the field

CAD Drawn (after hand drawn)

There is a balance that needs to be reached.  CAD definitely helps with corrections, changes, estimates and record drawings.  GPS aids as well in as-builts.  My two associates run the CAD operation as I am to old and antiquated.  The time savings are the most valuable contribution of CAD.  The old way used to take hours, now minutes.

Lester

[Davis Wildman]

Planning by the means of CAD (Computer Aided Design) is the modern way of design. CAD provides the ability to complete projects in a shorter period of time than by traditional means of construction. Furthermore, all calculations (earthwork calculations, cut & fill, drainages, square measure calculations etc. can be presented very exactly.

This is why, construction firms find precise data. Consequently, calculations should be set up more accurately. Therefore it is also possible to keep reserves for investment on a lower level. Moreover, the modern way of presentation does not only serve presentation purposes (e.g. virtual 3-D tour) but also helps the architect himself. So we can look at our construction in a way which is comparatively only possible after completion of the golf facility. Consequently, we are able to guaranty very high quality of the future golf course.

Thoughts?

Curious where/who the quote came from??  What context or article? 
 

[Tony Ristola]

I can see CAD being useful for complex sites, but as noted it's merely a tool.

It can make wargaming faster, but like all computer programs it's "garbage-in, garbage-out", and there is no substitute for having an architect with authority in the field.

I also agree with Philippe that a course built from CAD/GPS can produce courses that look plastiky... lacking the aura of Nature.

Then there is the following, which I disagree with:

CAD provides the ability to complete projects in a shorter period of time than by traditional means of construction.

Dave,
It's from a Euro archie's site.
You can find it if you dig

.

[Don_Mahaffey]

CAD is what you have to do to get the permitting and the loans and all the other BS you need to get done before you get to throw the plans in the back of the construction office and go build a golf course. 

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I know a lot of our clients now ask for stuff on CAD, and we do it where we have to.

However, it's not always necessary.  Among the courses we've built without one second of CAD time are Pacific Dunes, Old Macdonald, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle Dunes, and Ballyneal.  Perhaps it is just coincidence that is almost all of our best work.

All of which came in on budget, incidentally.  I think sometimes the budgets produced from CAD plans are misleading -- because the third green probably won't come out exactly to 5,165 square feet, and because even if it does, they don't put the greens mix in with zero waste.  So if you do your budgets off the CAD dimensions, you are probably rounding everything up to say, 5500 square foot average green size -- the same way I do it all in my head, without the plans.

[Carl Rogers]

I am  an Architect as in buildings and over 55 so I have had to learn and adapt to the computer and CAD.  It does not automatically do better work but in the world of buildings, the ability to transmit electronically your work is a necessity today.

My perception of GCA is that with contour surveys at 2 feet intervals, some amount of topographic detail is lost.  As well as shapers (I saw Brian Schneider and Brian Slawnik at the Bay of Dreams) do their work, they are clearly not or should be pre-occupied with trying to memorize every detail of a design contour of a green complex at the early stages of shaping.  I am not sure that working every thing out to the nth degree on the computer is a good use of time in the world of GCA.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

As you note, there are huge differences between building architecture and golf architecture.  For starters, a building's got to stand up, which requires a lot of math and calculation.  And then, most buildings are in straight lines, which are easier to illustrate on a computer than free-form 3-D earthforms.

Most importantly, as you say, golf courses are built by shapers and it is not so easy to translate those plans (if anyone could draw them perfectly in CAD) to the ground ... some interpretation by the shaper is always in play.  The true CAD fanatics are now talking about computer-guided equipment which will build everything perfectly with minimum waste.

I tell them to get back to me when one of those courses breaks into the top 100 in the world.  So far, no candidates have emerged.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is possible now to shape to 50mm (2 inches) from drawings > computer activated D6. Currently you still need an experienced operator although it may be that in time you could just pop a disc in and go away and sunbathe.
Building a course to 0.05 VIs is probably too elaborate but probably you could shape up a pretty good course to quarter metre intervals, from there you could manually overide things that perhaps don't quite feel or look right.
In theory TOC could be recreated almost exactly, if you had holes you particularly like provided you had a contoured drawing with the cords you could copy exactly or to some of the principles.

[James Boon]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it as a draughting tool rather than a design tool, though as Carl points out on the building front it can be useful for distributing information. But, to me its still like discussing whether a HB propelling pencil and a sketchpad is best or if there are more advantages to using a Rotring pen and a T-square.

However, as far as actual golf course output is concerned I think Tom Doak sums it up nicely:

However, it's not always necessary.  Among the courses we've built without one second of CAD time are Pacific Dunes, Old Macdonald, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle Dunes, and Ballyneal.  Perhaps it is just coincidence that is almost all of our best work.

I for one, don't think its a coincidence Tom!

Cheers,

James

[Ian Larson]

Is it a standard for architects and the design associates to know CAD? Does everyone in the business have extensive CAD experience?

[Davis Wildman]

Ian,

Are you asking this in regard to the structural AEC industry or the softscapes, landscape design firms and/or golf course design specifically?

[Ian Larson]

Specifically I'm referring to golf course design. I know CAD is the whole backbone to AEC, but is it recommended or just the status quo in the golf course design industry for the architect to be CAD proficient? whether he relies heavily on it or not for his projects.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ian I think just read the previous 20 points..its kinda 50-50

[Ben Stephens]

Based on my experience - CAD is best at drawing up a golf course layout to help to work out hole distances, indicative green sizes, gap in between holes BUT during construction use stakes, paint spray and a digger to construct the course that fits the landscape from the eye.

I have a question for you guys - can you work out whether a golf course has been done by CAD or by hand?

By hand - obviously Tom Doak's best course as mentioned and on the other side the Celtic Manor's 2010 course looks 'manufactured' by CAD. Why? the mounds look like they have the same heights and the greens dont look like that they fit in with the surrounding landscape naturally.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

There were plenty of golf courses built with bad, regular-height mounds and artificial-looking curves long before CAD was prevalent.  It's just laziness on the part of the guy drawing the plan, and laziness on the part of the construction team to build it the way it was lazily drawn.

Likewise, we have done some courses where we had to do plans in CAD for the engineering and permitting -- Stone Eagle is one of them, and I don't think any part of it looks like a course designed in CAD -- but it wasn't, we shaped all the features in the field and didn't look at those plans.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()