Discussion: Course Setting Software Recommendation?

Our club is considering the purchase of specialized course setting software. We just reviewed Purple Pen and will be comparing that to Condes and OCAD 9 CS.

Which course setting application would you recommend?

condes....only one I have ever used but I think it is great!

Condes licensing looks a bit less restrictive than OCAD 9 CS.

Condes is great for managing the technical aspects of an event. It is a step beyond just course setting.

I'll toss in my recommendation too for CONDES. I have been using it for many years and have used it at tiny little events (for four people) to huge events (such as APOC 2002 Canada - about 1000 competitors and 11 days of competitions). It is a tool designed specifically to support Course Planners, it has great features, good support, a very responsive developer, a history of adding useful new features regularly, and a wide user-base (so is well tested and reliable and there are lots of people that you can ask for help/advice/recommendations ;-).

Some of my favorite features
? multiple canvases per race ? allows for multiple scales of map for the same race (eg: 1:15 for the elite, 1:5 for the juniors, 1:10 for everyone else)
? control cutting ? a very simple dialog for cutting control circles which supports multiple map scales.
? control descriptions ? for each course you simply tick a box to specify text or symbolic descriptions. You can even add both (like we did for the Barebones juniors, and like we should have done at the COC champs for the non-English speaking juniors)
? tape measure - you can simply drag a line to see how far between any two points on the map
? hovering the mouse - hold the mouse over a control to see which courses go to it, hold the mouse over a line to see how long between the two controls and to see which courses have that leg
? printing - it is so simple to print (with Print Preview), and you can even do the course layout using the graphical features inside Condes. It is also possible to export courses to OCAD if you need more control over final printing and layouts (eg: for championship events), or to PDF format if you need to send the maps away for printing.
? different race formats - supports Score-O events with a click of a button. Also support MTBO and SKIO.
? support - the online manual is good and there are even online videos to help you learn Condes 8. Also, the online support forum is monitored by the author and any issues or questions are resolved within one or two days at the longest

Compared to OCAD I find CONDES much simpler and more useful for course planning. OCAD is a great mapping tool, but the course planning component is not up to CONDES.

Some of the advantages of CONDES include:
* when laying out the master map it is important to place the control numbers to ensure no ambiguity about which control is which. This is straight-forward with Condes, difficult with OCAD when the controls are close together because you can't tell which control belongs to which text very easily.
* adding text control descriptions in OCAD is a pain - you get either text or symbols, and you have to type in the text. In Condes it is a snap
* to find out which courses a control is used on in Condes you simply 'hover' the mouse over the control. In OCAD you must print a report I believe.
* removing a control from a course in OCAD is scary - if you press the "delete" key you could delete the control entirely (from all courses).

Sorry for the long response. These are some of the reasons I recommend CONDES.

OCAD: dunno the licensing is extremely restrictive, I'd avoid it at all costs
CONDES: Good tool, it's what I use.
Purple Pen: have heard it's awesome for BASIC STUFF but if you want to do 'crazy' things it can sometimes not support them. It's free though.

I say CONDES too. I once tried to print with OCAD and it was such a pain I never tried it again.
CONDES is the way!
mind you I haven't tried Purple Pen so I can't speak for that one

I love Condes, but it sounds like AZ is much more a power user than I am. I've never heard of canvasses or used the layout features (other than moving the clue sheet around and selecting a print window.

OCIN tends to print from OCAD by importing the Condes courses, primarily so we can print 2-up on 11x17 paper, which (for us) is cheaper than printing 2 sheets of 8.5x11 paper.

I've played with the OCAD course setting features, but we've got a license with Condes, and I'm just so used to that. I'll probably give Purple Pen a try this summer. I've seen Purple Pen used at Course Setting workshops because it's free and there are no licensing issues. For an OCIN only workshop, we might just use demo versions of Condes and work within those limitations.

No matter which software product you use, try to get someone to show you how to use it. You'll save yourself a lot of hassle.

The biggest benefit of course setting software is the "process control": For example, not having to worry about changing all the clue sheets when you make a change to a control common to multiple courses.

One of my personal quality processes is to always print a new master when you've made changes, and *quarantine your old masters* so you absolutely cannot pick one up and carry it into the woods.

CONDES canvases are really useful, especially when you are using multiple scales during an event (eg: 1:15,000 for elite, 1:10,000 for others) or when you are using the same map for multiple races (eg: sprint races often do this). The two big advantages are:

1. One master map for all events (reduces chance of screw ups)
2. Control circles can be 'cut' differently for each scale you are using
3. Different map layout available on each canvas

In Condes 8 you have five canvasses and by default you are using Canvas #1. If you look in the top left of the screen you will see the drop-down that allows you to change to a different canvas. And of course there is the "Canvas" menu item that allows you to set the map & scale for the current canvas.

Basically condes for the simpler person, OCAD for people who can work stuff out after more than 1 min of looking at it. All Australians and Americans should not even consider OCAD

Does anyone (else) use Corpse? We use it pretty extensively in WA, except for the diehards who insist on using OCAD.

I'll put my vote for Condes.
1. It can satisfy the needs of the novice ocurse setter on a simple event through its wizard system, or satisfy complex course setting logistics.
2. A sensible licensing system. One license per club and multiple course setters.
3. The designer is really responsive to suggestions. (Are butterflies implemented yet?)

license issues aside, OCAD can't be beaten. like Fly'n suggested you need more than 1minute to work out how to use it, but learning how is time well spent.

don't bother with Corpse, it's crap. (and the guy that wrote it is a knob.)

I have found Corpse works for my needs but certainly does have some frustrating aspects, what software doesn't! I have used it from National events to local and training runs.

I had a play with Purple Pen and whilst limited does have some nice features and it is free. I have tried to get my head into OCAD for setting but never spent the time to work through the options.

Just had a look at the Condes web site and it does appear to have similar license restrictions to OCAD in terms of restrictions to a club use and at USD$310 is not cheap when Corpse is AUD$100 (USD$65) and with most clubs having a license of OCAD then there is no additional cost id OCAD is preferred

An excellent summary of Corpse's shortcomings there, Dave - thanks.

I totally agree with Shep re Corpse. and the difference in licence fees is going to be small compared to the cost of replacing the computer you launched out of the window in frustration after trying to get corpse to work.

I like Ocad8, although there are things that could be improved. don't have ocad9 yet. Condes sounds ok.

What kind of things do you have trouble doing in Corpse? I haven't found Corpse's interface to be worse than other orienteering software written by highly intelligent engineering types who never studied interface design. *straight face*

just as a hexample, i know JLA was controller for a race a couple of weeks ago and the course setter used corpse. JLA went to check the courses and thought the map was a bit funny in places. "don't worry about that, the map's fine", said the setter, "corpse just distorts the map a bit". thats awesome.

so often i've seen courses that aren't perfectly aligned with the map. that can't happen if you set your courses using OCAD. why introduce another link in the chain? there's enough weak links as it is...

several years, (and probably versions) ago I was using Corpse for a reasonably big event (before ocad did course setting), and was having heaps of problems with really basic stuff that obviously wouldn't work. endless phone calls and emails (for months) to the guy who wrote it who continually refused to acknowledge any problem, and that I must be a total idiot... and then randomly one day says 'oh, why didn't you tell me it was that - we fixed that bug ages ago. download this an it'll fix it'

never going near corpse again.

CORPSE sounds like an appropriate name then.

LOST RICHARD.. do you have the same OCAD license that the rest of us use? Our club has a license for both OCAD and for Condes.
The OCAD licenses allows us to install OCAD on one computer at a time.
The Condes license allows the software to be used on any computer working on one of our club events. With 30+ bush events each season and perhaps 20 course setters, that is a very important difference. If a club only organises a few events each year, it mightn't matter that much.

Purple Pen has the simplest interface, and is the best option for events using a single map with standard courses, but lacks features often required for major competitions (e.g. multiple map scales, relay/butterfly courses). Condes interface is less intuitive, but supports multiple map scales and has good relay support (but a less than intuitive interface for this feature). OCAD CS is OK, but if you haven't used OCAD, it can be a bit confusing. Corpse has the least intuitive interface, and offers no features that aren't available in Condes. In my opinion, none of the software mentioned is a complete solution in itself for major competitions where sponsor acknowledgement is required. Orienteering Tasmania (Australia) uses Condes because we find the licensing arrangements to be quite reasonable, but for final map production for major events, we use Adobe's InDesign (in conjunction with Condes and OCAD), which allows us to bring in event sponsor logos, scale and place them to achieve the best layout, and manipulate course files so that paper size is optimised. As an aside, we have our own printer (Fuji-Xerox Docuprint C4350), and for major competitions, print maps on Teslin synthetic paper.

I thought importing graphics was now possible in Condes. I suppose I'll find out before September....

Yes, you can now import graphics into Condes and so it is possible to add sponsor logos, map scale bars, and so on. I *think* at last years Canadian Champs the layouts were done mainly using these Condes features. However even I, for the very big events, tend to do final map layout either with a mix of OCAD/Condes or in a separate graphics program.

And Shep, Fly'n - it ain't that I can't figure out how to use OCAD for course planning, it is just that I don't want to use OCAD. OCAD is great for drawing lines & circles, but the task of course setting includes a whole pile of additional planning and management tasks and those are far better supported by CONDES, so I choose the more useful tool.

c'mon AZ, admit that you just can't figure it out ;-)

Agreed, Condes' ability to decorate maps is OK - guess it's a case of using a better tool if it's available. If you don't want to bother with yet another software package, Condes is probably fine. From the point of view of the competitor, the map and the course are really all that matter.

Do OCAD9 or Condes have an eps viewer? Corpse does, and I find this a very useful feature. One way it could be used is to create the eps files and then print these via the eps viewer for checking by the controller. The controller would get to use the map as it would appear after digital printing, and any mapping issues can then be addressed.

Depending on the magnification used, in Corpse the map may sometimes appear to be slightly distorted on a monitor screen, but its the output that counts, and the eps viewer is a major advantage.

I use Corpse because OAWA has a license, and because I haven't bothered to use OCAD9 until recently (OCAD8 had all the functionality that I needed for mapping, never used it for course setting after a couple of goes, because it was crap). Possibly Juffy (our mapping and techno-geek) may have a look at course setting in OCAD9, work it out, then give the rest of us in OAWA lessons. Some of our setters (those who don't do any mapping) will continue to use Corpse however, because of the license restrictions on OCAD.

Whatever course setting software you use is still an extra 'link in the chain', Shep. You can't really set courses efficiently in the mapping version of OCAD9, so you have to create a new file in course setting mode. This can create problems if you use the wrong version of the background map, eg you make a mapping correction on the original file, then forget to reload the new version as your background map.

I gave up on OCAD some time ago. I tried Corpse for the WMOC 2002 carnival and quickly migrated to Condes because of the need to be compatible with other course setters. So I admit my experience with both is limited compared to condes. I get the impression most other correspondents in this thread have similar experiential limitations. From my experience of setting in the WMOC carnival, I am sure I pushed the then version of Condes to its limits and beyond. I let Finn know about the limitations of Condes in dealing the the complexities I faced. The next release, Condes 8, addressed all those limitations. I was impressed.

What would be really useful is a comparative summary of all the features of each of the 4 packages and an assessment of the most important limitations of each program. I doubt such a summary would convince me to change from Condes, but I suspect it might catalyse further improvements in next versions. That would be a worthwhile outcome.

I have prepared a summary of the software for the next edition of Orienteering Australia's Tech News, due out sometime in the near future. It concentrates mainly on the course setting aspects of the software rather than print production, and doesn't compare each product point-by-point (and is definitely not a user guide for each package). Email me if you want a copy (or wait for Tech News).

why not publish it in the australian orienteer?