Trackman to have face contact location soon?

[nevets88]

I passed by this tweet earlier and didn't think much of it, then saw it again and wait, what? If they do have it, Flightscope I would guess would follow. And if Trackman does have contact location, maybe they'll have other data related to gear effect? Would the M3/M4 throw it off, lol?

 

[dennyjones]

sweet

[iacas]

FWIW, it's calculated, not measured.

Still an improvement but not quite as groundbreaking as, maybe, actually measuring it. Not that you couldn't do that: with a combo camera/radar system you'd have the best of both.

[inthecup]

I would find that very suspect.  They are trying to overcome the shortfall of a radar based system which it the strength of a photography based system.

Calculating the impact point accurately is difficult if not impossible.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, inthecup said:

I would find that very suspect.  They are trying to overcome the shortfall of a radar based system which it the strength of a photography based system.

Calculating the impact point accurately is difficult if not impossible.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm not anywhere near as down on it as you are: the "blob" of the clubhead and the location from which the ball originates on that can get pretty close to giving the horizontal location. Vertical may be possible as well.

[billchao]

It's interesting to see the technology progressing, but what can it tell me that a dry erase marker can't?

[iacas]

Just now, billchao said:

It's interesting to see the technology progressing, but what can it tell me that a dry erase marker can't?

Nothing, really. But you have to use the dry erase marker every time, and this you'd get "free." (If by "free" you mean spending $25k or so.)

[Moxley]

17 hours ago, billchao said:

It's interesting to see the technology progressing, but what can it tell me that a dry erase marker can't?

Everything else it also tells you, other than this :) 

[inthecup]

I would like to see exactly what is calculated vs what is read with Trackman.  I own a GC2 with HMT which reads both the ball and the clubhead.  I am a fan of the photography based systems for a few reasons:

They are superior indoors.  My main use is indoors so perhaps specific to me.

The one I have reads the head and ball very well giving every bit of data you could want.

Knowing a specific read distance is less important to me than knowing what happened at impact.  The distances that are estimated with the Foresight monitor are very close.  Clubhead speed and ball speed are very accurate.

 

Trackman is in the enviable position of  having name recognition.  Like Scotch tape, it is now a generic term for launch monitor.  If I were being fitted I think I would prefer the fitter have a Foresight devise with head reading.

Eric I am sure you have more experience than me.  What are your thoughts on the different types of monitors?

 

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, inthecup said:

I would like to see exactly what is calculated vs what is read with Trackman.

That list is easy to find. And pretty common-sense-ish.

9 minutes ago, inthecup said:

They are superior indoors.  My main use is indoors so perhaps specific to me.

I've seen no proof of that. Every time I've tested the GC2 it's been less accurate than a FlightScope or Trackman.

9 minutes ago, inthecup said:

The one I have reads the head and ball very well giving every bit of data you could want.

The others give a bunch of data too. And better data, in many cases.

9 minutes ago, inthecup said:

Eric I am sure you have more experience than me.  What are your thoughts on the different types of monitors?

I think the best ultimate one is one that does both, but good luck selling that.

I think that the GC2 still comes in third. They've simply not been able to get enough accuracy out of the thing. Whether they need more frames or what, I don't know, but I haven't ever seen a situation where the GC2 beats out either the Trackman or the FlightScope.

And nearly all tests I've seen have been done indoors.

Others disagree, but I still think the majority polled would side with TM/FS over GC2/HMT.

---

All that said a camera-based system has advantages, but they don't seem to be taking advantage of them quite as well as they could. Maybe it's just the R&D budget, and TM/FS are doing a bit more work with slightly "worse" technology (for certain things happening in front of the ball) - for measuring the ball, radar is better, IMO. Maybe it's just that the camera is positioned so close to impact that it's not really looking from a "great" angle. I don't know. But then again I'm not employed by a launch monitor company, either.

[inthecup]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

All that said a camera-based system has advantages, but they don't seem to be taking advantage of them quite as well as they could. Maybe it's just the R&D budget, and TM/FS are doing a bit more work with slightly "worse" technology (for certain things happening in front of the ball) - for measuring the ball, radar is better, IMO. Maybe it's just that the camera is positioned so close to impact that it's not really looking from a "great" angle. I don't know. But then again I'm not employed by a launch monitor company, either.

GC2 with HMT is old now technology wise.  The new GC quad is supposed to be more accurate vs trackman.

I watched this a while back.  These appear to be trackman guys saying good things about GC Quad.Tackman vs GC quad

In any case GC2 and HMT are over the top for me.  The radar stuff indoors needs to much room to read which would be harder for me.  It requires a bigger area and a bigger dedicated net.

I am very blessed to have the equipment I have.  I "play" all winter.

 

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, inthecup said:

GC2 with HMT is old now technology wise.  The new GC quad is supposed to be more accurate vs trackman.

Yes, the Quad wasn’t quite up to the level when I saw it last either.

Small indoors, absolutely, GCQ.

[inthecup]

Just now, iacas said:

Yes, the Quad wasn’t quite up to the level when I saw it last either.

Small indoors, absolutely, GCQ.

How do you know if quad was accurate or not?  By assuming trackman is accurate and if Quad does not match it is not?  I like the club numbers GC2 gives me.  Angle of attack and delivered loft,  club path , face to path.....are very helpful in dialing in your swing.  Even if it is not 100% accurate as long as it reads consistently you can make and verify adjustments.  For example if it says my angle of attack is 4 and its really 3 I am still ahead.

[Lihu]

13 minutes ago, inthecup said:

How do you know if quad was accurate or not?  By assuming trackman is accurate and if Quad does not match it is not?  I like the club numbers GC2 gives me.  Angle of attack and delivered loft,  club path , face to path.....are very helpful in dialing in your swing.  Even if it is not 100% accurate as long as it reads consistently you can make and verify adjustments.  For example if it says my angle of attack is 4 and its really 3 I am still ahead.

I think GCQ is more accurate for initial ball speed and club head speed now. The Trackman and Flightscope are much more accurate for ball flight for the full up expensive units with the longer radar range.

[inthecup]

Just now, Lihu said:

I think GCQ is more accurate for initial ball speed and club head speed now. The Trackman and Flightscope are much more accurate for ball flight for the full up expensive units with the longer radar range.

It should be taking wind and things into account but into I net probably not.

[Lihu]

I think Mevo is only 10 to 20 dBm while the full up ones are much higher output power for a lot more range.

2 minutes ago, inthecup said:

It should be taking wind and things into account but into I net probably not.

The full up Trackman and Flightscope measure the flight for a long distance.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Lihu

[inthecup]

Just now, Lihu said:

I think Mevo is only 10 to 20 dBm while the full up ones are much higher output power for a lot more range.

The full up Trackman and Flightscope measure the flight for a long time.

Yes they do but if the net is 10 or 20 feet away it estimates the rest of the flight.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, inthecup said:

Yes they do but if the net is 10 or 20 feet away it estimates the rest of the flight.

I think Mevo can only really measure up to 30 to 40 feet depending upon the ADC converter and noise filtering they do in the electronics and firmware. I actually have prototypes of the sensor they use and am starting to experiment some with it. Cool stuff. Even though I know how cheap the actual sensor is, Flightscope did a great job integrating everything. Loving mine.

Full up Flightscope and Trackman are much better off with outdoor measurements. Otherwise, you would waste their capabilities.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Lihu