Flightscope x3 vs Trackman 4

Living in Sweden have meant no golf for me nov-mar, but now with a couple of new simulators in town I can play even in winter. I have played and trained a lot in Flighscope x3 this winter and some conclusion:

Wedges and Irons shows to low spin rate. Meaning longer distance then normal. PW on course 130m in simulator 145m and spin rate low as 5000. Iron 7 on course 155m in simulator 170m an low spin.

Driver showing to much spin and short distance. In Simulator 230m and spin 3500. On course I hit my drive perfect 250-260m in neutral condition can reach 275m par4 with good role.

On the other hand my slower swinging friends seems to get there normal distance with driver. I outdrove them on course 50-100m, but only 30-50m i Flightscope.

Now with a couple of sessions in Trackman 4 and got the following conclusion:

Irons spin rate more correct with PW spining 7000 and 130m in distance more like I hit it out on the course.

Driver about 260-270m, but to low spin rate showing 2000.

Hitting my driver good and it says 103 clubhead speed in both devices with smash factor around 1.48.

How can it be these new expensive ball tracking devices showing a lot of difference in spin rate and distance?

The mats you hit on can have a huge affect on spin.

you don’t hit the driver off a mat. It is off a tee

For irons, the type of mat can make a huge difference - up to 2k. And that doesn't matter if you're indoors or outdoors

For drivers indoors, the amount of distance between the ball and the screen can make a big difference in how accurate the spin measurements will be - especially for faster ball speeds like the OP's. Also, that's assuming that the reflective dot was used on the balls in both locations and the dot was positioned correctly on the tee before hitting. It also assumes the radar was positioned correctly, and the software settings were done correctly. Not all simulator establishments properly instruct their customers or even set-up the hardware and/or software the best way.

So the differences can certainly be attributed as much to the different set-ups and locations and usage (and not just be a reflection of the capabilities of the radar units). Just too many variables to know exactly what was causing the differences. But (for any radar unit indoors) when faster ball speed players seem to be having problems and slower ball speed players are not it's more commonly either 1) not quite enough distance between ball and the net or screen or 2) not using the reflective dots on the balls.

Also, mostly for drivers and woods indoors, there can be differences in spin axis between the two units because of the way they try and compensate for gear effect (or not). That is something that can be much more likely attributed to the different algorithms used by the two companies.

I would also add, make sure there are metal dots on the ball with both units. Radar units, when used indoors, need a little helps with spin measurement. Poor setup of the units indoors is the #1 reason for strange readings.

Som allerede nevnt er det måtten som er problemet for JERN og WEDGE, spin falder og launch angle går opp, og t.eks Trackman har lavet en test her som viser 2.8* i differanse på launch angle og 1920 rpm spin for en spiller som deg, men selve måtten varierer en hel del, så man vet aldri riktig før man tester side om side fra måtten og turf, da kan man lage en korreksjons faktor.

Jeg vet ikke om jeg forstår deg rett med hensyn til Smashfaktor, men 1.48 kan vi oppnå selv om vi ikke rammer godt, og en høy spin verdi vitner om impact for lavt på face, så vi kan ikke riktig forstå noen av disse tall før vi vet hvor på face du har impact, men som Stuart sier, det kan også være set up eller mangel på reflector dots på bolden av det hele som spiller deg et puss, men følg ALLTID hvor du har impact på face før du bedømmer de andre data.

Som et snitt, 3 millimeter opp eller ned på face endrer spin med 240 rpm, så om du nå rammer ca 13 millimeter eller kun en halv tomme lavere på face end normalt, kan det alene forklare 1000 rpm spin mer enn normalt.

Med hensyn til hva som er gode eller dårlige spin værdier, kommer det helt an på din launch angle, og generelt, jo højere launch jo mindre spin ønsker vi. Din ball speed fra 103 med en smash på 1.48 gir 152.5 mph ball speed, så du kan benytte dette chart for 150 mph ball speed for å se om kombinasjon av spin og launch er der du ønsker den skal være. Du kan legge til 5 meter på alle tall med 152.5 ball speed.

Da jeg idag for det meste skriver for ett Engelsktalende publikum her på WRX, er alle distanser YARDS, men bare bruk 0.91 som omregningsfaktor til meter, de data du skal fokusere på at SPIN ift din aktuelle Launch angle, bare da kan vi se om spin er for høy eller for lav, så spin verdien alene sier ingenting, men som du vil se av tabellene nedenfor, har du 12* eller mer som launch angle, har vi ingen nytte av spin over 2000.

Tillot meg å svare på Norsk da det er så langt i mellom Scandinaver som spør om hjelp her, mulig brudd på reglene, men jeg har ikke sett noe sted at man SKAL skrive på Engelsk, og med over 10.000 post her har jeg nok lidt goodwill å trekke på fra moderatorene. .-)

in case you are scratching your head over my reply, the OP is from Sweden and all 3 Scandinavian countries, Norway, Denmark and Sweden have large similarities in our language so we understand each other and it such a long distance between members from Scandinavia, i took me the liberty to reply in Norwegian to the OP.

No news for most of you, im just adding a few details to Stuarts reply about hitting off mats vs turf as the reason for strange return numbers, and for his driver, either the set up, missing reflector dots on the ball or simply a impact on the face lower than he normally has, and a comment about his spin value of 2000 who tells noting without launch angle, since any launch angle above 12* from his ball speed dont "need" more than 2000 rpms of spin.

So no "secrets" really, he just got a reply in a language i know he understands just as good as English.

I have been using Flightscope Xi Tour for few months now and have also noticed longer carry numbers with short irons and shorter carry on longer clubs. Especially with the driver. I have noticed Flightscope Vx app shows spin reading in two different looking numbers. One is used when it actually read the spin and other one when spin is estimated.

I have also been using range balls while practising indoors and range balls spin significantly less than real ball with short irons. I will get some metallic dots and I am confident numbers will be close to real life.

If return values is ITALIC, then its a ESTIMATED value (Trackman) and it seems like Flightscope does the same, Stuart owns a Flightscope so he would know.

Another thing to mention is that both Trackman and Flightscope has adjusted their algorithm, and that means depending on when the LM itself was updated, numbers might have changed. i do not have the full picture or details, but Flightscope used to be a tad "longer" and Trackman "conservative" on return numbers like carry and total, now its opposite. The chart i posted above is based on FLIGHTSCOPE and their latest algorithm, and those numbers are very close to where Trackman used to be, or 7-11 yards shorter than earlier versions of Flighstcopes algorithm.

Simple answer: Trackman is more accurate than Flightscope

We like to think so, but do we know for sure?...the differences the OP talks about is NOT due to that, because Trackman and Flightscope is very close to each other, and down to a level where it really dont matter who is the most correct of them, and this is not in that area, not at all, so its the type of math, ball, set up, ball reflectors and for the driver impact, not the accuracy of the LM itself.

Agreed. That said, even with perfect setups and calibration I'd trust the Trackman numbers over Flightscope every time.

But the big question is whether that's based on an actual scientifically solid data based study - or the TM marketing machine ;-)

Since ive been living in Denmark where Trackman comes from the latest 20 years, and have been one of their most demanding customers ever, i agree with that, but we are down at the "decimals" really, but i payed the difference to get them as good as possible, but lately ive been thinking...what happen here, both Flightscope and Trackman has changed their algorithm where Trcamnan now returns longer carry and total vs before, and Flightscope shorter than they did before. I know there has been some legal stuff behind the scenes between them, but since both have done adjustments who is to be noticed, it makes me wonder....

Trackman is not as generous as Flight-scope who has their optimizer online, and over the years ive been running tons of numbers i always store in my DB for reference, but all of a sudden they became worthless and i had to start all over, and im surpriced to see the development there has been here, thats why i mention that above (when was the LM updated the last time, if the LM is part of the answer, "new vs old version of software" could be part of it since numbers has moved "a lot" and for Flightscope down with 7-11 yards on those numbers ive compared, while Trackman seems to have become 5-7 yards longer than before, so now Trackman return the longest numbers of the two.

Did the golf ball have a metallic dot on it? Trackman and FlightScope require the dot to measure spin indoors. If the spin is calculated it is displayed in italics.

Did the golf ball have a metallic dot on it? Trackman and FlightScope require the dot to measure spin indoors. If the spin is calculated it is displayed in italics.

i own (2) FlightScope X2’s and have been on TM3e and 4 many times. My numbers are very close. FS measures at first touch of the ball, TM measures at full compression. These are the differences I see, mostly effecting head speed. Higher on FS. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, 99% of problems with reading on radar units are due to improper setup of the unit. The environment you are operating in makes a big difference. Reflections of the radar signal, improper alignment, not enough Ball-flight distance, and fluorescent lighting are all issues I see in set up errors. You can’t just turn it on and hit. Read the manual!

The balls have not had a metallic dot on it. This may be a big part of the problem? Where can I buy these dots (in Sweden/Europe)?

Launch angel is over 12 most of the time. I would then increase distance if i get lower and lower spin until I go under 2000 in spin?

It makes a big difference and is well documented. You can order the dots directly from FlightScope, Trackman, or a 3rd party that lists them on eBay. Alternatively, you can create your own a using a paper hole punch and aluminum duct tape purchased from your local hardware store.

Look over those numbers. Launch is what gives us carry, Spin is what sets the limit for roll, but from 12* launch and higher, carry goes down if spin levels is above 2000

Use 2250 as example - with a launch of 12* you are maximized on carry for that launch angle with 239.5 yards carry and 268 potential total. if you get launch as high as 16*, still with 2250 as spin, you get another about 5 yards on carry, total is only 1 yard longer. The higher launch we have, the less spin we want or need.

My indoor flightscope numbers are pretty spot on (spin included) on pure shots for full wedges through hybrid. (I dont hit longer clubs indoors), I trust them fully on the course.

If you see weird numbers, a few factors at play here, key ones being

-Set up (total distance, environment, potential interference factors, etc)

-Mat type (so far, best to date for spin is Fiberbuilt)

-Stickers (I now use 2 per ball, side by side, make sure they are properly aligned for each shot)

My hitting area is far from ideal (pretty much at the min 16' total from radar unit to net, lots of metal in view of the radar, over head lights, etc.)

Long story short, unless you hit the two units side by side in the same exact environment, its hard to say which is better. If set up in a similar fashion, results will likely be within a yard or two. I did an indoor driver fitting on a TM4 and not a single shot was accurately measured spin wise, half the iron spin numbers were off, CHS was way off (1.49 SF with a 6i?). For whatever reason this locations policy was NOT to use stickers which just doesnt make sense. You can render a 25k unit largely useless if setup incorrectly, as just a few simple things can throw off readings. If the flightscope spin numbers were italicized spin was not measured and thus cannot be trusted. If you hit one stinky or thin one, you can get some weird readings as well since so little of the ball flight is measured.

So I found that I could order from shop-eu.trackmangolf.com. How often do you have to switch the metal dot on the balls?

One dot will survive hundreds of shots