GC2/GCQuad Accuracy-High Launch/Low Spin drives

[pinhigh27]

19 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

 

Well, I hit upwards of 10* up on the ball, I know a lot of people hit with a decending blow still or much less AoA than I but I am not the only one at those numbers.  Doing that with 6.5* loft (which I normally hit before on older clubs) M1 430 seems to create some crazy low spin knucklers that do not stay in the air.  Believe me, I checked the head for cracks, checked impact point, checked the balls I was hitting before teeing up, everything.  They start out at what looks like that 16* window I have always been used to seeing, and then just don't carry.  If you have ever hit a ball into a downdraft or very strong crosswind, the ball flight looked like that only without the wind.  Again, I hope to test out to see what the spin has been at those settings and with my delivery.  I just know these algos are BS at lower spins.  1000 is extreme but it shows even FS doesn't have their algo complete for the range of criteria they allow you to input imo.

Essentially no one else hits 10 degrees up. Maybe professional long drivers. Essentially no one else. 

[clevited]

1 hour ago, pinhigh27 said:

Essentially no one else hits 10 degrees up. Maybe professional long drivers. Essentially no one else. 

Well, to be clear, I am 5 to 10 degrees up.  5 degrees up isn't super uncommon and no matter how much up on it I hit, ball flight sucks.

[A.Princey]

Play the ball more middle in your stance, so its less on the through path of your arc. Tee it lower as well, it will not allow a super severe + AoA without topping it or hitting severely thin. 

[hammersia]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:47 PM, clevited said:

Well, to be clear, I am 5 to 10 degrees up.  5 degrees up isn't super uncommon and no matter how much up on it I hit, ball flight sucks.

You said earlier in the thread that the algos are BS for super low spin - well ok, sort of, but once you start talking of spin in the 1000-1400rpm area, for a start it’s going to be more difficult to measure a slower rotation accurately. Then the error margins go up. 
Also common sense once you get to the limit of launch playability, it becomes a very Finnickity maths problem as to whether the ball flies or not. 

[clevited]

7 hours ago, hammersia said:

You said earlier in the thread that the algos are BS for super low spin - well ok, sort of, but once you start talking of spin in the 1000-1400rpm area, for a start it’s going to be more difficult to measure a slower rotation accurately. Then the error margins go up. 
Also common sense once you get to the limit of launch playability, it becomes a very Finnickity maths problem as to whether the ball flies or not. 

 

Funny you tagged me on this.  I just recently tested my M1 on a launch monitor and had total spin as low as 1071.  I only took a handful of rips in my garage but around 1k spin came up a few times and each time it did, it was off that hot spot (high toe side of center).  So I think I confirmed at least my observations were true that this M1 is a low spin monster compared to my past drivers at the same loft.  

 

The spin axis was also more than expected but I am not surprised.  I had extra trouble with too much hook spin.  So for me, in its lowest spin setting, the ball flight is usually between a duck hook and a dead quail with the occasional heel strike bomb.

 

Hopefully this summer I can test it again outside on the range and laser some carry distances vs what the monitor shows for carry on those low spinners and possibly confirm my suspicions.  

[alexmyx]

bumping up this thread. Does anyone know if foresight fixed the low spin/long carry issue with new firmware updates? I haven't updated since I got it so curious to find out. 

 

In the meantime, I also find my 2016 M1 generating uber low spin sometimes too. sometimes even under 1000 with 140mph+ speed. Is that even possible? Has anyone tried it on the range to see what the ball trajectory is like with such low spin? 

[clevited]

On 1/26/2022 at 1:47 PM, alexmyx said:

bumping up this thread. Does anyone know if foresight fixed the low spin/long carry issue with new firmware updates? I haven't updated since I got it so curious to find out. 

 

In the meantime, I also find my 2016 M1 generating uber low spin sometimes too. sometimes even under 1000 with 140mph+ speed. Is that even possible? Has anyone tried it on the range to see what the ball trajectory is like with such low spin? 

 

-Not that I am aware of.  Same ol problem.

-Yes it is possible

-Depends on spin axis, launch angle and speed but for me, it falls out of the sky like a dying duck.

Edited March 1, 2022 by clevited

[A.Princey]

Spin under 1500 is never good. Wild knuckleball at best, flightless dead duck at worst. Hitting up will only make it even worse.

[alexmyx]

I've found that the taylormade low spin drivers (M1, SIM, Stealth+, etc.) are very prone to generating uber low spins. They carry long on CGQ given the algorithm but is never good on the course. I'm switching back to M2 now. 

 

[clevited]

On 3/25/2022 at 8:57 PM, A.Princey said:

Spin under 1500 is never good. Wild knuckleball at best, flightless dead duck at worst. Hitting up will only make it even worse.

 

In my experience, 1500 spin can work if you have the complimenting launch conditions, much below that absolutely falls out of the sky and just runs.  It doesn't carry as far as something closer to 2000 for me, and it does tend to want to go sideways more so if you ever want to use that on the course, you need to know your shot shape and you need to give it plenty of respect, if there is room for it on the fairway that is.  I game an insanely hard to control driver, it is a lot of fun (still haven't found a higher spinning one I like, they all go way too high for me).  The course I play has holes where I can get away with its rather uncontrollable amount of shape, the rest, I bomb a 3 wood.  

[ScottyGolf]

Hoping to revive this topic with more and more golfers opinions/views as there are more that have home launch monitors.  

 

I wanted to bring this up as when I play on the simulator with TG2019, my carry numbers on a driver are a joke compared to what the launch monitor states.  I recently upgraded from a GC2 to the Quad.  And yes, if you hit a high launch and low spin, you get great better numbers on your carry.  

 

Downside, when playing sim golf this gets me in the face of bunkers off the tee vs. over them.  Irons seem closer in accuracy due to spin. I do know when I am on courses I play in real life, I can fly those bunkers.  

 

Compare to the Flightscope calculator, my Quad says I am 20 yard shorter than what Quad states.  When I plugged in TM numbers from a recent tour pro, his 320 carry is only 290 on Flightscope.  Is Flightscope really the standard of measurement?

 

Is the question, is all of our driver fittings all wrong due to TM and Foresight numbers? 

 

Thanks!

[Stuart_G]

20 hours ago, ScottyGolf said:

Compare to the Flightscope calculator, my Quad says I am 20 yard shorter than what Quad states.  When I plugged in TM numbers from a recent tour pro, his 320 carry is only 290 on Flightscope.  Is Flightscope really the standard of measurement?

 

I wouldn't say it's "the" standard - but it is "a" standard.  One of many.

 

It's only outdoors that the radar units are considered the most accurate - since they can measure the entire ball flight.

 

Real world distance is going to depend on many things that may or may not match values used in the calculations of the LM's or sims.    And yes, the distance calcs in the sims are usually calculated by the sims, not the LM.

 

1) the specific ball used - dimple pattern and aerodynamics

2) ambient temperature

3) Humidity

4) wind

5) altitude and barometric pressure.

6) elevation changes

 

 

20 hours ago, ScottyGolf said:

Is the question, is all of our driver fittings all wrong due to TM and Foresight numbers?

 

Not at all.   Fitting is about relative differences in ball flight and distance between different equipment choices.   The accuracy of the absolute numbers is really are not that important.

[Bubbtubbs]

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I wouldn't say it's "the" standard - but it is "a" standard.  One of many.

 

It's only outdoors that the radar units are considered the most accurate - since they can measure the entire ball flight.

 

Real world distance is going to depend on many things that may or may not match values used in the calculations of the LM's or sims.    And yes, the distance calcs in the sims are usually calculated by the sims, not the LM.

 

1) the specific ball used - dimple pattern and aerodynamics

2) ambient temperature

3) Humidity

4) wind

5) altitude and barometric pressure.

6) elevation changes

 

 

 

Not at all.   Fitting is about relative differences in ball flight and distance between different equipment choices.   The accuracy of the absolute numbers is really are not that important.

People often seem to forget that last point. 

[ScottyGolf]

I guess when I look at numbers from a launch monitor, I want to know the equipment that I am playing is providing me the right fit for my game, and one aspect is I need to know my carry distances off the tee.  When I look at bunkers or such, yes, I calculate the elevation, temp, wind and where am I playing.

 

This was one of the reason for purchasing.  I felt it has very much dialed in my equipment which I am very lucky to have that opportunity to own.  Where it gets tough is when I am told your launch monitor is lying to you.

[Stuart_G]

2 hours ago, ScottyGolf said:

Where it gets tough is when I am told your launch monitor is lying to you.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but it's only tough when your expectations are not realistic.

 

[ScottyGolf]

Not sure I follow.  When I looks at the numbers, one would believe the equipment is accurate in how it displays but apparently that is not the case with Foresight and Trackman.  That is all I am saying.

 

I know my expectations and my game.  This was more brought up regarding the Sim world not registering what the Quad was showing results. 

[Stuart_G]

7 hours ago, ScottyGolf said:

Not sure I follow.  When I looks at the numbers, one would believe the equipment is accurate in how it displays but apparently that is not the case with Foresight and Trackman.  That is all I am saying.

 

The following only applies to the "indoor" mode calculations on the radar units or the distance calculated in the sims or the optical LM's.   It doesn't apply for ball flight data when radar is doing full flight tracking.

 

The accuracy you're paying for is really the launch condition of the ball and maybe impact conditions of the club.  e.g.  ball speed, spin, launch angle, club head speed, AoA, club face orientation, club path, dynamic loft, etc.....

 

Calculated Ball flight numbers are really only estimates based on (usually) fixed conditions and assumptions that may or may not be true when translated to your on course performance.  In addition they generally use simplified models of the aerodynamics to both help with the computational performance and because some of the required information for more advanced calculations is just not available.

 

There are no equations (even complex ones) that will take the initial ball data and then give you distance or any other ball flight numbers.   It's an iterative process that calculates the ball flight in many small steps.   The smaller the steps, the more accurate the results but the longer the computation will take.   So the accuracy and fidelity of the ball flight calculations is always going to be balanced against computational performance.    With the sims, they need to use a large percentage of the computational resources on other things - like graphics and processing of the 3d course model - as well as the added checks to see if the ball hits something at any point during the ball flight.   Or when the LM's themselves do those calculations, they have much more limited computational resources available and need to use most of it to process the raw data to get the initial ball and club data.

 

Each company (sim or LM) has their own version of that calculation process with different decisions on the trade-offs for different parts of the calculations.  That's why you can get different numbers from different LM's or different Sim's.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Stuart_G

[Greanhouse]

FWIW, and not even sure I understand what the bump is about, lol, I have a BLP/GC3 and they recently updated the FW 2x in quick succession.  Since the update, my driver is more realistic to actual hits on the course as in it doesn't seem to report ~20 yds less than my real world drives.  v...18 seemed to change the barometric sensor calibration however the LM display reported more yardage than FSX Pro or FSX Play.  v....19 fixed the display variance.  110mph clubhead and 160mph ballspeed = ~280 yd carry at <2500 rpm total spin as it should now.

[commoditybroker]

probably late to the reply party here, but I have a Quad and after recent(ish) software updates, the spin issues I was having from time to time are gone.

[Krt22]

3 hours ago, commoditybroker said:

probably late to the reply party here, but I have a Quad and after recent(ish) software updates, the spin issues I was having from time to time are gone.

I will need to update mine!