Jump to content

Sandhurst241069

Members
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Sandhurst241069's Achievements

17

Reputation

  1. And yet there are others in the R10 user group saying that 3.60 has taken them materially backwards. Its so hard to get a gauge on this product..
  2. How are the AOA numbers looking at this stage? Good that path has been stabilised (hopefully through genuine refinement) and if AOA is also good they have some chance of estimating spin and spin axis within reasonable tolerances (I do wonder whether they will eventually defer to club entry to assist with the spin calcs)
  3. Well this reads positively.. hopefully involves some genuine refinement and improvement rather than crude hacks and data hedging etc.. (I work in software so I’m cynical ). Still waiting on my unit so will be watching with interest as the user feedback for 3.6 starts to appear online..
  4. Watching some of the reviews closely it appears that outside the unit defers to observed ball flight to calculate curve .. albeit within the limitations of the range of its small doppler. I’ve noted for example a left spin axis when the path and calculated face to path is open. That is all fine but means little to the indoor / sim use case where it is forced to use algorithmic calculations from ball and club path / AOA data to calculate spin. I wonder, if they are unable to tighten those club numbers up, whether Garmin will need to fall back to a club/loft entry model together with hard AOA assumptions.. like the SC300.. coming from someone who has a R10 on the way I certainly hope that they are able to deliver on the intended concept without introducing bandaids and concessions.. but at present there are too many calculations contingent on club head readings that are proving a struggle .. the “Garmin advises…” path/AOA tolerances of 2/1 degrees published by Playbetter.com… which became 4/3 degrees in the Golfstead.com article .. to now where Garmin don’t even acknowledge these as measured values on their site .. is a concern together with the vague support / forum responses that suggest confusion and uncertainty at their end (and likely Legal Team guidance). With the thousands of backed up pre orders it would be timely for Garmin to come out and talk to the R10 in terms of backing the technology / capabilities and its planned trajectory…
  5. Not over invested in those numbers for their own sake .. but as they are being used to calculate spin loft and face angle for the purpose of spin and spin axis calcs they aren’t just window dressing .. particularly given you’re not entering club lofts as a mandatory parameter for that purpose.. so they don’t need to be GC Quad quality by any means but they can’t afford to be complete rubbish either..
  6. Have you had a close look at the path and AOA numbers? How accurate .. and almost more importantly.. stable are these numbers?
  7. Gotta say this whole R10 thing is an exercise in first world anxiety.. lol For starters, my unit was originally due this week (in Aus) but has been delayed due to Garmin supply issues with no firm ETA yet available. In the meantime I’m watching the most eclectic assortment of reviews and early feedback possible.. with very little coming out of Garmin to hang off.. I don’t know whether I’m going to be the guy who loves the features and finds the numbers and rendering decent enough .. or the guy who gets 95 yard 9 irons and counter ballflights!! I do know I’ve spent a bit of money on setting up a low end sim in my garage - including projector and impact screen - in anticipation of / preparation for the R10 .. and that my SC300 is giving me good numbers in that setup (so presumably my space is Doppler friendly). Its killing me .. thing is I’m mentally all in on having the sim now (Melbourne lockdown syndrome) so if the R10 is a bust I will definitely be saving for a Skytrack even though it would not have been a consideration initially.. Rant over!!
  8. Yep seems to be the case .. hence my “hypothetically” .. to the point following yours it does seem that there a vastly different experiences from unit to unit / customer to customer / environment to environment .. you’d hope that QA would tick the box for a company like Garmin though it’s possible the production line is not mature .. either that or its a very sensitive unit..
  9. Still waiting gor the R10 but I’d happily (and hypothetically) trade accuracy in CHS for solid path and AOA numbers .. having said that the youtube reviews haven’t been awful on CHS but perhaps some clubs just read better than others.. certainly my SC300 gives pretty decent CHS numbers
  10. I wonder if the measured club path is at a point a little beyond the impact location..
  11. Yes and I think most of us will be ok with a few teething issues if we know firmware drops are coming .. as long as the hardware is not a lemon..
  12. On the anecdotal sensitivity to alignment, I do get a little stuck on the fact that, in the videos I’ve seen, launch direction seemed to be (consistently) extremely accurate while at the same time the club path numbers were off.. curiouser and curiouser..
  13. OK… … so what were the key tweaks and / or learnings? I’ve just got notice that my stores batch of R10’s has been delayed due to Garmin supply issues .. so I have an extra month to wait anxiously lol .. your posts are helping!
×
×
  • Create New...